825 replies to this topic

[speedengineer]

Ooh, 23 drivers signed up for Pitt Majors now.  Suddenly that "top 15" finish previously discussed doesn't sound so bad!!

[Brandon]

Thanks for the dismissive response Mike...appreciate the consideration.

 

Brandon, in this case you really don't know what you're talking about...

 

 

Any radiator (and mounting brackets) may be used, provided it is mounted in the original location, maintains the same plane as the original core, and requires no body or structure modifications to install. Any openings created by fitting an alternate radiator must be blocked to prevent air from entering the engine compartment. At least one functional stock OEM cooling fan must be maintained and mounted in the stock location. The fan shroud may be modified for installation. 

 

The factory air conditioning systems may be removed. Items that serve a dual purpose, such as the alternator/air conditioning compressor bracket, may not be substituted. 

 

Its not a weenie protest and you wouldn't win... Ive written more protest than everyone else on this board combined (twice over)...  You can leave the A/C fan in the car and you can leave the A/C fan switch in the the center console and if you turn the switch on and your A/C fan comes on that is legal too.....

 

[mhiggins10]

Ooh, 23 drivers signed up for Pitt Majors now.  Suddenly that "top 15" finish previously discussed doesn't sound so bad!!

Is top 15 considered "front running"?

[Tom Hampton]

Is top 15 considered "front running"?

In a 31 car field, yes.

[Johnny D]

 https://www.youtube....h?v=XEMMAeyQosk 

[Tom Hampton]

red shifter -.1, tan dash -.2



this one is +.2 a lap

Jim

I was gonna say that red shifter looks like a dogs D*ck. But, that would be mean and gross. So, I didn't.

[Mike Collins]

Thanks for the dismissive response Mike...appreciate the consideration

 

 

You're on the SMAC I appreciate you volunteering. I don't appreciate when class leaders make incorrect statements or incorrectly quote the rules. If you don't know ask the people that wrote them. It helps keep confusion over the rules to a minimum.

[Rob Burgoon]

You're on the SMAC I appreciate you volunteering. I don't appreciate when class leaders make incorrect statements or incorrectly quote the rules. If you don't know ask the people that wrote them. It helps keep confusion over the rules to a minimum.

 

Deja vu!

[FTodaro]

You're on the SMAC I appreciate you volunteering. I don't appreciate when class leaders make incorrect statements or incorrectly quote the rules. If you don't know ask the people that wrote them. It helps keep confusion over the rules to a minimum.

I appreciate Brandon's efforts and willingness to participate for the benefit of the class. I appreciate Mikes Wisdom and willingness  to continue to participate for the benefit of the class.

 

Sadly confusion in the rules will persist but out discussion IMO help all clarify to the extent possible.

 

Who would have thought that we needed to put a gasket on each side of the restrictor plate. My point. Discussion is good. Education is good.

 

Its all good.

[38bfast]

don't know if I agree that data won't make a car faster.

[speedengineer]

don't know if I agree that data won't make a car faster.

 

Shh!  You're not supposed to tell them that. 

[38bfast]

Good point Jason.

Data will make you slower. Way to confusing and will make you overthink your driving. Rely on your God given data device, your butt.

Data is.nothing more than a expensive lap timer.

[Brandon]

If you didn't want to sound dismissive, cite a ruling of a protest upholding what you're asserting.  Otherwise the rule, as written, is ambiguous when it comes to removal of a "system" and all components associated thereof.  To your point about the AC button and not being required to remove it if the AC system has been removed - again, has that been protested & clarified?  Someone could have added it to operate as a switch instead of drilling another hole in their dash even if their car didn't come with AC.

 

My interpretation of the rule & as-delivered vehicles/components:

A non-AC car came with a single fan.  Adding the AC option included not just a second fan but a whole host of other components that we generally want to remove to lower the starting weight of the car.  Notwithstanding the benefit (performance, reliability or otherwise) of using the second fan, it should be removed if the rest of the AC system is also removed.  It is not a dual-use component (like they cite the compressor/alternator bracket in the rule) in as much as it's needed to ensure enough air passes through the radiator when there's a condenser sitting in front of it.

 

Now, if on an AC car the primary fan was different (bigger/better/moved more air or whatever) then I could see it being allowed since it would be a true "dual use" item and a desirable one at that (like the R-package tie rod ends).

 

If we have had a protest ruled favorable to running two OEM fans let's get that incorporated into the rules so this lack of clarity is removed and no further debates on it are needed.

 

You're on the SMAC I appreciate you volunteering. I don't appreciate when class leaders make incorrect statements or incorrectly quote the rules. If you don't know ask the people that wrote them. It helps keep confusion over the rules to a minimum.

 

[Mike Collins]

If you didn't want to sound dismissive, cite a ruling of a protest upholding what you're asserting.  Otherwise the rule, as written, is ambiguous when it comes to removal of a "system" and all components associated thereof.  To your point about the AC button and not being required to remove it if the AC system has been removed - again, has that been protested & clarified?  Someone could have added it to operate as a switch instead of drilling another hole in their dash even if their car didn't come with AC.

 

My interpretation of the rule & as-delivered vehicles/components:

A non-AC car came with a single fan.  Adding the AC option included not just a second fan but a whole host of other components that we generally want to remove to lower the starting weight of the car.  Notwithstanding the benefit (performance, reliability or otherwise) of using the second fan, it should be removed if the rest of the AC system is also removed.  It is not a dual-use component (like they cite the compressor/alternator bracket in the rule) in as much as it's needed to ensure enough air passes through the radiator when there's a condenser sitting in front of it.

 

Now, if on an AC car the primary fan was different (bigger/better/moved more air or whatever) then I could see it being allowed since it would be a true "dual use" item and a desirable one at that (like the R-package tie rod ends).

 

If we have had a protest ruled favorable to running two OEM fans let's get that incorporated into the rules so this lack of clarity is removed and no further debates on it are needed.

It has been protested, it has been upheld and it has been clarified, the rule is not ambiguous, your "interpretation" of it is and shows lack of understanding in how the GCR is written, the difference between "may" and "must" are HUGE and and the lack of the word "entirety" also indicates you can selectively remove unused components. Ask Ademir or any of the other teams that use to remove the HVAC control panel from the dash in its entirety..... its a miracle they are all back in the cars now because of protest. I stated pretty clearly previously that I have written more protest than ANYONE on this board (at least twice over) 99% of them mechanical...

[Mike Collins]

But if you don't like the rule write a letter to the CRB, they will delegate it to the SMAC and if the SMAC wants to make a change one of two things will happen.  It will either go out for member input or the SMAC will recommend a clarification based on errors and omission where it would not have to go for member input. And.... if you get 9 of your buddies to write the same letter and least one person calls a BoD member it will get moved to the front burner ASAP....

[Bench Racer]

Brandon, this is the maximum I'm going to get in this pi$$ing match. Very similar rule to the AC rule.

 

Rule:

 

"Parking brake mechanisms and actuating components may be removed."

 

Does this wording ^ mean every parking brake part component shall be removed? 

[Brandon]

Please teach me where I'm misreading the GCR with my above interpretation?  I'll give you my insertion of 'entirety' on the cooling system but nowhere does it state you can selectively add/subtract portions of a system if is removed.  Only by interpretation of it not being explicitly denied (some allowance for that via the "may remove") do you get to the interpretation you're asserting that has been protested & upheld as correct.  If you're using the protest of the dash controls not being allowed to be removed as support I'd claim it's due to them serving a "dual purpose" (cabin heating as well as cooling) similar to the AC/alternator bracket.  Thus not removable/or allowed to be substituted.

 

This 'shared history' of protests in your memory isn't accessible to newcomers without asking a question so they risk being vilified for "not understanding how the GCR is written" instead of being shown where/how their interpretation is incorrect.

 

Look at the PS line (9.1.7.c.3.h) - "all power steering components".  That's pretty equivocal and more clear than the cooling system line(s) as they relate to the AC system.

 

This isn't a pissing match between us but a point about how people arriving to the class/sport being expected to know/learn/understand the rules they're being held to when things in the rules are not clear.  If a protest has been filed establishing "X" as allowed/not allowed why aren't those sections of the GCR updated to reflect the particulars of the ruling?  

 

Thus the question about av8or's build incorporating two fans is brought to the forefront and how you have two sides of the discussion.

 

It has been protested, it has been upheld and it has been clarified, the rule is not ambiguous, your "interpretation" of it is and shows lack of understanding in how the GCR is written, the difference between "may" and "must" are HUGE and and the lack of the word "entirety" also indicates you can selectively remove unused components. Ask Ademir or any of the other teams that use to remove the HVAC control panel from the dash in its entirety..... its a miracle they are all back in the cars now because of protest. I stated pretty clearly previously that I have written more protest than ANYONE on this board (at least twice over) 99% of them mechanical...

 

[Brandon]

I'll bite - this is where another clarification is needed on the removal of a "system/mechanism" and said clarification can be one that allowed the selective removal of the components.

 

Removing the AC?  No freon-containing components remain yet the fan may, and AC/alternator bracket must, be present.

Removing the parking brake mechanism?  No levers, cables, or brackets remain yet you have the option of retaining, removing, or gutting the adjuster inside the caliper itself.  Physical removal of the actuating portion of the caliper is not allowed (cutting off that piece of the caliper for example; a potential weight savings is the only thing I can come up with on why you'd want to do that).

 

As I said, I'm not harping on it just to be a pain, but if we're expected to be held to the rules, they should not be ambiguous nor should observers of them be held to previous actions/decisions which are unavailable to those who didn't participate in them.

 

Brandon, this is the maximum I'm going to get in this pi$$ing match. Very similar rule to the AC rule.

 

Rule:

 

"Parking brake mechanisms and actuating components may be removed."

 

Does this wording ^ mean every parking brake part component shall be removed? 

 

[Mike Collins]

The problem is you didn't ask a question. You made an incorrect statement that it was illegal and "weenie" protestable.

It does not say you can "add" anything. Why do you think so many of us start with very particular models within very specific VIN runs with more desirable wiring harnesses.

Once upon a time there was a forum on the SMAC site that had all of these discussions recorded for the history of the SMAC... They are long gone with two updates to the CRB letter writing system. But the resources that developed that data are still here and telling you your ascertation is wrong.

I'm not trying to get in a pissing match but you occasionally make statements that are actually not correct. This one warranted an intervention. But if you don't like the rule, or think it's not well written you are in a position to change it. Or just ask what the rule mans before making a statement.

[FTodaro]

7 days and counting. Are you ready?