825 replies to this topic

[Danny Steyn]

We keep the door rear view mirror remote control harness so that we can adjust the two mirrors from the driver's seat.

[speedengineer]

Jason, Bench happens to be wrong in his comment to the other post. He is suggesting with his interpretation that the defining characteristic is based upon what comes with it when you buy it from Mazda. But nowhere in the rules does it say that his suggestion is the way it is. I define system as every integral piece to make something work. The connecting wires are critical to make the airbag work so therefore are open to be removed. Until someone defines to a gnats ass what "system" means OFFICIALLY in the rule book, he is wrong.

I originally interpreted it as you did, radio and SRS system wiring to be fair game to be removed.  However, I didn't want to argue over it as when I wrote that post, I thought that that topic wasn't quite relevant to my door gutting question.

 

However, now that you have mentioned it, perhaps there is relevance.  Rules allow gutting the door of speakers, wiper motor, and inside door latch mechanism.  If we do consider wiring as part of those systems, then I suppose it would be fair game to remove the wiring harness for the speakers, window motor, and power door locks.  Interesting.  Then again, it doesn't say 'system' when referring to removing those components.  Hmm.

 

NOW, this still doesn't make it legal to remove the inner door structural panel!! 

 

 

We keep the door rear view mirror remote control harness so that we can adjust the two mirrors from the driver's seat.

Yup!  That's all I kept on my last car, and you are right, it is a very convenient feature to retain!

[davew]

See my post on the wireing discussion

 

Regarding the door gutting:

 

The inner door structural panel may be modified, but

not removed to facilitate this type of side protection. The stock side

impact beam and the outside door latch/lock operating mechanism shall

not be removed or modified.

 

AND:

 

Modify/Modification – To change a component from stock.

 

So we can change the inner door structural panel, but not remove it. Since the method of change is not limited, we can assume we can do any type of change. We just can not "remove" it. You could paint it, polish it, trim it, heat treat it, cryogenic it, change its shape, or any other form of modification as long as it is still there. To me as long as a single atom of the "inner door structural panel" remains, the panel is still there. Just modified. So long as you do not remove or modify the "stock side impact beam or door latch/operating mechanism".

 

Again, read the entire rule book. It is very common for one paragraph to say the exact opposite of what another says. And then the spec line over rides the main body of the GCR.

 

Dave

[speedengineer]

 

See my post on the wireing discussion

Regarding the door gutting:

The inner door structural panel may be modified, but

not removed to facilitate this type of side protection. The stock side

impact beam and the outside door latch/lock operating mechanism shall

not be removed or modified.

 

AND:

Modify/Modification – To change a component from stock.

So we can change the inner door structural panel, but not remove it. Since the method of change is not limited, we can assume we can do any type of change. We just can not "remove" it. You could paint it, polish it, trim it, heat treat it, cryogenic it, change its shape, or any other form of modification as long as it is still there. To me as long as a single atom of the "inner door structural panel" remains, the panel is still there. Just modified. So long as you do not remove or modify the "stock side impact beam or door latch/operating mechanism".

Again, read the entire rule book. It is very common for one paragraph to say the exact opposite of what another says. And then the spec line over rides the main body of the GCR.

 

Dave

 

 

So, you're saying that the following image does not have the "inner door structural panel" removed, simply based on that fact that there is at least one molecule of Fe left attached?  Looks pretty removed to me.

 

And then separately comes the whole door wiring harness debate.  On your cars, you mentioned that you don't modify any of the wiring harness, except maybe a radio connector to power auxiliary devices.  Does that mean you retain the entire door wiring harness?  Do you just zip tie it up inside the door, or pull it back through to inside the car and zip tie it up under the dash? 

 

[davew]

I see lots of inner door structure in that pic. The entire upper support is still intact. About 4 pounds per door IIRC. I am not sure from the angle that the door bars go into the door. If they do not, then gutting the door would not be legal. But the angle is too poor to make that determination.

 

Do I cut the speaker pigtails? Sometimes. But it is technically not permitted.

 

What I do see that is blatantly illegal is the missing heater controls. Looks like heater boxes may be removed. Not legal if this is in fact an SM.

[Ron Alan]

Heater controls??  Rutt Roww 

[speedengineer]

I see lots of inner door structure in that pic. The entire upper support is still intact. About 4 pounds per door IIRC. I am not sure from the angle that the door bars go into the door. If they do not, then gutting the door would not be legal. But the angle is too poor to make that determination.

 

Do I cut the speaker pigtails? Sometimes. But it is technically not permitted.

 

What I do see that is blatantly illegal is the missing heater controls. Looks like heater boxes may be removed. Not legal if this is in fact an SM.

 

 

Heater controls??  Rutt Roww 

 

Hehe, not an SM.   My NASA PTE car.  Thus no heater controls.  Though the door bars do go out into the door, just difficult to tell from this angle. 

 

These parts are also in the door, but not listed as parts that can be removed, and definitely are not part of the 'inner door structure'. 

 

 

Honestly, I think the rules need to be clarified to make this door gutting legal.  Everybody already does it anyway, despite the gray area.  I think it would be difficult to convince tech that it's legal. 

 

Certainly it'd be a weenie protest, but who's to say whoever finishes 11th at runoffs next year doesn't protest the top 10?  How much money do you think they'd have to put up to have tech perform the [very invasive] inspection of looking at someones door panels for the presence of inner structural panel, harness, and the other bits?  ya...   If I perform this door gutting, I'll definitely be submitting a letter.  Surprised nobody has written one yet.  Needs to happen, imo.

[Bench Racer]

Trust me I'm not to comment any further on anything jamz14 writes because he marches to the beat of the NASA drummer or his own tortured interpretation of SCCA rules and my marching orders come from SCCA.

 

Jayson, what are the Mazda OEM part names for the parts in the photo of post #127. My 1990 had none of those parts. With Mazda OEM part names maybe further comments could be made. It's all in what the Mazda OEM part names are.

 

Dave, thanks for throwing the SCCA glossary definition of "modify/modification" into the mix. SCCA glossary is a wonderful tool. 

[speedengineer]

Trust me I'm not to comment any further on anything jamz14 writes because he marches to the beat of the NASA drummer or his own tortured interpretation of SCCA rules and my marching orders come from SCCA.

 

Jayson, what are the Mazda OEM part names for the parts in the photo of post #127. My 1990 had none of those parts. With Mazda OEM part names maybe further comments could be made. It's all in what the Mazda OEM part names are.

 

Dave, thanks for throwing the SCCA glossary definition of "modify/modification" into the mix. SCCA glossary is a wonderful tool. 

 

The yellow foam thing is called a 'Pad' by Mazda.  Couldn't find the white foam part (appears to be crash safety item) nor the metal plate. 

[speedengineer]

Quick math, if I want to have this car done by the end of march, I need to put in about 20 hours per week.  Long way to go...

 

Tonight I removed all the interior seam sealer and such.  These two tools made it easy.  Used to use a handheld putty knife, this year I tried the power scraper thingy, which worked awesome.  As in the past, wire wheel does final clean up.  Can't just use the wire wheel from the start as it'll make a huge mess as it will just melt and smear the seam sealer.  You need to have the bulk of it off before wire wheeling it.

 

 

[Steve Scheifler]

I figured the door panel thing would get someone wound up. 😗 I agree with Dave, but unfortunately we are forced to justify it as Dave did with "we can assume... ". In other words, we absolutely must interpret the rules to some degree because they will never be absolutely explicit on all points. And that's why the oversimplified statement that if it doesn't say you can, you can't, is a common debating point. The fact that applying it can seem as obvious in one scenario as it is ludicrous in another explains why there have been so many claims of grey area over the years. If tech were run entirely by strict constructionists most cars would fail.

[speedengineer]

I figured the door panel thing would get someone wound up. I agree with Dave, but unfortunately we are forced to justify it as Dave did with "we can assume... ". In other words, we absolutely must interpret the rules to some degree because they will never be absolutely explicit on all points. And that's why the oversimplified statement that if it doesn't say you can, you can't, is a common debating point. The fact that applying it can seem as obvious in one scenario as it is ludicrous in another explains why there have been so many claims of grey area over the years. If tech were run entirely by strict constructionists most cars would fail.

 

Yup.  But I'm sure you'd agree that this particular 'grey area' that is so commonly exploited could very easily be fixed by an adjustment to the rules wording.  Certainly grey areas will always exist, but making the rule set to be better-worded is a good thing.  This isn't rules creep, it's rules clarification.  I think that in this instance something should be done.

[Steve Scheifler]

For this we share rules with IT (and others maybe) so either all are clarified or we have to have our own. I know multiple builders of IT cars that have stayed within the apparent intent of the rules for their cars and all customers, removing just what was reasonably necessary to accommodate the bars. They think we are all blatantly out of compliance on this.

[Steve Scheifler]

...
Do I cut the speaker pigtails? Sometimes. But it is technically not permitted.
...

Not true I think. See reply in the wiring topic.

[Dave D.]

I find watching build threads like this and reading the comments from the ivory towers very entertaining. The hypocrisy is ridiculous where pages of how to completely  strip undercoating so the belly of the car can be painted for the "OOOS and AAAHHHs" of internet sideline spectators and strip all sealer/ from interior surfaces in preparation of that gleaming 3 color interior paint job, yet removing wires and small random bits will get you 10 years in a Siberian Gulag.It seems such practices are on the same level of offense as STR mods,bent spindles,increased compression,revalving shocks etc..   I interpret "system" as in all components involved,meaning wires. There is no performance advantage to simplifying a wire harness,unless you consider the car starting and running reliably and easier to work on as such. I have done it to my own car and weighed the wire that came out and was less than pound so I did not do it for the weight reduction.Technically, after removing the wire from the power windows,ABS,cruise control,AC, and other options, how is my harness any different from a harness out of a car built without them in the first place? Didn't some Canadian cars come without SIR? The ABS and SIR system have nice 30 and 20 amp ignition switched power feeds that now can be re purposed  for use with radios,data ac,etc.. without the rats nest look of Scotch lock power taps or crimp butt splices into unknown power sources behind the dash that will fail at the most inopportune time.It also gives me the opportunity to clean all ground connections make repairs and "bullet proof" the electrics so when I invest a great deal of time,money and energy to escape to the racetrack for a 3 day event I know that the car is going to start every time and run reliably. 

   Chastise me all you want, I really,really, don't care. It's not like I am running a cheater engine,hidden piggy-back ECU or REMed gears in the trans and diff or some other popular cheats. The level of nit picking sometimes amazes me. Flame away.................    

[Steve Scheifler]

I think you read way more into this than anyone intends. This seems to me, at least until now, a very light hearted discussion about little things that nobody takes very seriously but someone just getting started might ask about before making a mistake which is difficult or expensive to correct. I recommend that you chill.

[Dave D.]

Steve,

I'm not that bent out of shape about it, I guess that is one of the issues of the internet not being able to convey emotions or impressions. I have delt with SM guys out here that do take the interpretation of the rules and intent to another level and preach how we are all illegal. I get what you are saying, but a newcomer might just get confused at to what to do or not do based on who's opinion they follow. I don't know what is the best way to handle situations such as this, I mean, there has to be a line to how much is allowed to cut, but ask 10 people you will get 20 opinions..................

[wheel]

The GCR section about compliance review has been re-written to take it out of the hands of stewards and courts.   You may now submit a request to have a rule clarified, for a small fee, which might be waived in some cases.  Although section C. calls for an in person inspection, I don't think that would apply in the case of questions about what wires may be removed.  Everyone involved knows how the wiring harnesses are built.  I think you could get a ruling from SCCA that you could take to the bank.

Here is how the section is now worded:

 

8.1.4. Compliance Review

A member may request a determination on the compliance of their vehicle or its components by submitting a Compliance Request Form to the Club Racing Department at which time a letter will be entered into the CRB letter system. The Compliance Request Form is available through the Club Racing Department.

A. The staff will review the request and must consult with the CRB and other appropriate experts.

B. Club Racing will schedule in-person inspection of the vehicle or components by a class expert. The expert will submit a written opinion back to Club Racing and the CRB.

C. Club Racing and the CRB will review the expert’s opinion. If required, the CRB may initiate a clarification of the applicable rule(s). Club Racing will then submit a written ruling to the applicant.

D. A fee will be determined and paid in advance of the inspection. A portion of the fee may be refunded at the discretion of SCCA.

E. Verification of compliance is based on the GCR as of the date of the written response to the member. The GCR changes annually, and there is no guarantee of compliance beyond the current rules season. 

[davew]

If in my opinion, if the rules allowed me to gut the wire harness, I would remove every wire that has anything to do with an allowed removable system. That would be air bag, cruise control, A/C, stereo and anything else I can find. That takes about a day to accomplish. Saves about 10 pounds, most of it high, front end weight. I think that would be a performance advantage. BUT, in my opinion it is not legal. Therefore I do not do it.

 

If in your opinion, it is legal. DO IT. If you have strange electrical gremlins, my first response would be to get another unmodified harness. If something happens in tech, then it is your opinion versus the tech guy. Good Luck

 

Dave

[speedengineer]

I'm not concerned with stripping the harness of all wires for removed systems, etc.  Not worth squat in lap time, not worth the risk of electrical gremlins in the future, and a huge pita and time investment.

 

- It appears that removing the door wiring harness is legal in SCCA, but illegal in NASA.  Was not expecting a difference here. 

 

- It appears that removing the door inner structural panel is, in my opinion, illegal for both SCCA and NASA.  It's a shame that have to stretch the rules in order to justify removing it.  I'm not an expert on scca rules process - would adding a clarification within the SM rules allowing inner structural panel removal override the primary section of the GCR? 

 

 

PS:  The GCR is a pos document.  Who the heck wants to download and scroll through a 10 MB, 942 page document?  Break the rules sections specific to individual classes out into their own pdf files.  At least then the GCR would 'only' be 200 or so pages.  Yuck!