SCCA Appeal Discussion

[Hardingfv32]

I wish to discuss a SCCA appeal that did not go my way. I fully appreciate that there are a number of reasons one can loss a protest and I am fine with that....not complaining. I just need some perceptive from other competitors.

We were DQ'd for having a FV tail pipe that did not terminate 1-3" from the end of the body. It was in fact .25" out of this range. I complete agreement with Tech and there were no other nuances applicable to this measurement.

To salvage this mechanical preparation mistake an appeal was filed citing GCR App G.2 (Measuring Standards) which we believe allows us 1/2 of the final digit of the specification.
Possibly stated incorrectly, but what I mean is we should have had a working range of .501 to 3.499. To be very clear the rule states the exhaust must terminate 1" to 3" from the end of the body. No digits after a decimal point. We viewed this as clearly indicating that the tolerance was approximately +/-.5".

The appeal was denied because our use of the .5" tolerance was considered a "strained or tortured' interpretation of the rules. The COA stated that the exhaust rule 'as written adequately provides a range of minimum and maximum acceptable value for the exhaust system termination point'.

Please provide some insight if you can.

Brian

[GBugg]

I’m sorry you were dq’d but as an engineer with a lot of years of manufacturing in the the aerospace industry, I have to agree with the COA on this one. Tolerances typically apply to a single dimension. The range stated is itself the tolerance. If the rule said “must be 3 inches”, I would interpret that as “3 +/-0.5”. But as stated, it means 1.0 (min) to 3.0 (max).

My opinion...

[Daryl DeArman]

We went over this in that other thread about the racer being DQ'd for the same thing back east somewhere.

In my opinion the first paragraph in Appendix G. 2. is poorly written.

However, it clearly states "The following specifications shall meet the standards set below unless otherwise specified or unrestricted in the individual category or class preparation rules." (emphasis mine).

One could choose to stop there and reasonably conclude that all the rest of the crap doesn't apply in this case because the exhaust length specification is in the FV class preparation rules.

Then it goes on to talk about any specs not listed herein as well as the specs listed herein, then states "FOR THESE SPECIFICATIONS" with no definitive path to determine which specs they mean by THESE. The ones not listed or the ones listed?

To compound the crap sandwich they state the tolerance shall be "equivalent to 1/2 the final digit of the specification."

If the final digit is 8, the tolerance is 4. If they meant the place value (tenth, ones, tens, hundreds, etc.) then that's what they should say.

In my opinion you were provided a range of 1-3" in the class rules, therefore the measurement tolerance addressed in Appendix G.2 doesn't apply. If they said "2 inches" the range would be +/- 1 inch since one half of 2 (the last digit) is 1, producing a range of 1-3".

[FVRacer21]

Of course you could use the SCCA FV tailpipe ruler with built in tolerance......



Seriously, if you were .995 and they threw you out it would make a better appeal.

But I thought they were going back to revisit this rule and until then they were going to sort of look the other way.....

Chris

[Rick Kirchner]

what george said. Since there's a min and a max, no other tolerance needs to be stated or applied.

[Daryl DeArman]

what george said. Since there's a min and a max, no other tolerance needs to be stated or applied.

In the FV rule that applies, neither the words minimum nor maximum are used. This is another one of those cases where the GCR is a kludgy mess.

To me, common sense dictates that when the rule says from X to Y, you can't go below X, nor beyond Y. However, common sense doesn't come into play, we have to go by what the GCR says.

The GCR can say maximum and then give you a tolerance where you can be over that maximum. What the hell kind of maximum is that? Engine stroke is one of those examples. Maximum isn't really maximum, you are allowed to be .1mm over the listed maximum.

[Rick Kirchner]

Yeah, I suppose common industrial practice doesn't apply to those that don't practice....

[Daryl DeArman]

Yeah, I suppose common industrial practice doesn't apply to those that don't practice....

Exactly. Especially when the GCR gives measurement standards that apply to certain specs but not to others, instances where maximum means maximum and others where it means something else.

We have to throw common industrial practice out the window when the GCR dictates some other buffoonery.

[problemchild]

Anytime that someone tries to beat an obvious non-compliance issue on a technicality, and fails, I am good with that!
Integrity and sportsmanship do not always overrule legal mumble-jumble, but when it does .....

If that attitude makes me a loser, then I can sleep well.

[Daryl DeArman]

FWIW Greg, I wasn't attempting to argue that the 1/2" over length exhaust should be legal, rather that the GCR can be a kludge, and when it is, it should be fixed so there are no "technicalities".


Black or white. Mean what you say, say what you mean. Don't have rules you can't enforce and enforce the ones you have. I sleep well too

[Hardingfv32]

Anytime that someone tries to beat an obvious non-compliance issue on a technicality, and fails, I am good with that!

'Obvious' to you, but not to a lot of other competitors.

1) This particular FV exhaust termination rule (1" to 3") has no known performance or safety implication. As such, a tolerance of .5" is not significant. Nothing sinister about using the full .5" tolerance.

2) No sentence of a given rule stands on its own. Other sentences or sections of the GCR can apply to a given word or number used to form a rule sentence. In the case of the Exhaust rule, the Tolerance section is one of these modifiers.

There is more ambiguity to the Tolerance Rule than I appreciated. I know have a better understanding how this appeal went south. Plenty of room for a difference in opinion on the part of the COA than I had planned on.

Brian

[Steve Demeter]

You accidentally ran afoul of a rule that could be interpreted a number of ways depending on what direction one is approaching from. Tolerance allowable, between 1-3" means no shorter than 1" and no longer than 3".

Was the pipe measured from a point plumb with the rearmost part of the bodywork in a plane parallel to the ground and parallel to the c/l of the chassis?

I think that one could argue that unless very sophisticated measuring methods (lots fancier than a tape measure and eyeball) were applied that the measurement was inaccurate.

[Daryl DeArman]

'Obvious' to you, but not to a lot of other competitors.

1) This particular FV exhaust termination rule (1" to 3") has no known performance or safety implication. As such, a tolerance of .5" is not significant. Nothing sinister about using the full .5" tolerance.

Not sinister, but certainly could be interpreted as careless. Especially if you don't believe the additional length provided any performance advantage (not saying that it does) why do it?

Why did you interpret the tolerance to be .5" and not 1.5"? The last digit of the spec is a 3 and the rule you want to apply states one half the value of the last digit, not one half the value of the place (ones, tenths, hundredths, thousandths, etc.)

You accidentally ran afoul of a rule that could be interpreted a number of ways depending on what direction one is approaching from. Tolerance allowable, between 1-3" means no shorter than 1" and no longer than 3".

Was the pipe measured from a point plumb with the rearmost part of the bodywork in a plane parallel to the ground and parallel to the c/l of the chassis?

I think that one could argue that unless very sophisticated measuring methods (lots fancier than a tape measure and eyeball) were applied that the measurement was inaccurate.

What about the fact that the rule says "exhaust terminates", where does an exhaust terminate?

[Garry Sharp]

I'm pretty sure these small "tolerances" were originally put in to allow for slight inaccuracies between measuring devices.

[Darren Brown]

Rule clarification.

In April I submitted a letter for clarification on this and more specifically how it related to my Vortech. They have reworded the rule in the June Fastrack and sounds like you guys are applying the old wording.

The comp board removed the word "terminating" and changed the wording, no longer is the 1 to 3 inch window used. I had many conversations with Rick and Scott, and still feel it could be worded better but this is what the rule is now. Similar but with the 4 inch rules allows for the diameter of a curved pipe to fit with in the rule as long as it does not go over the max overall length

Here is a screen shot from the fastrack

[Darren Brown]

June Fastrack page 8

[EYERACE]

In the interests of amateur racing I believe the officials should have given you your finish, made an entry in your log book that the issue need be fixed before your next race and proved that officials are not the void space referred to which exists in the middle zone of sphincter rectum muscles

[problemchild]

I complete agreement with Tech and there were no other nuances applicable to this measurement.

I clearly mistook the strange statement above as an admission that there was no dispute that the part was non-compliant and that the appeal was based on finding a technicality to "beat" a careless mistake regarding a 57 year old rule that is frequently checked by tech.

For example, if you go to tech with a winged car, you can be sure that they will have rear wing width and rear wing height on the list of common items that get rotated through by inspectors. With FF it is tailpipe height. Like FV tailpipe length, any live human being (racer or tech inspector) with a tape measure or yardstick can quickly and effectively check for legality. It is pretty common knowledge that FV tailpipe length is at the top of the tech inspectors list. I have seen 100s of extension tabs added to FV tails in the 39 years that I have been working on FVs and know a few FV newbies that got caught out and learned a lesson. Just conforming to the standard would be so much easier than going to court, or getting the rule changed!

The degree of penalty is really a separate issue.