What is the procedure for obtaining a ruling on legality?

[alangbaker]

I'm assuming there must be a way to (privately) inquire as to the legality of potential modification to a car.

But how does one do so?

[Dave Gomberg]

This is covered in section 8.1.4 of the GCR.

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 Road Racing Department at which time a letter will be entered into the CRB letter log system. Formal rule clarifications may be submitted to the Club Racing Board at www.clubracingboard.com.

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

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

C. The Road Racing Department and the CRB will review the expert’s opinion. If required, the CRB may initiate a clarification of the applicable rule(s). Road 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 monthly, and there is no guarantee of compliance.

[R. Pare]

I believe that this is what governs reviews now:

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 Road Racing Department at which time a letter will be entered into the CRB
letter log system. Formal rule clarifications may be submitted to the Club Racing Board at www.clubracing-
board.com.
A. The Staff will review the request and must consult with the CRB and other appropriate experts.
B.
The Road Racing Department will schedule in-person inspection of the vehicle or components by a class
expert. The expert will submit a written opinion back to Road Racing and the CRB.
C. The Road Racing Department and the CRB will review the expert’s opinion. If required, the CRB may
initiate a clarification of the applicable rule(s). Road 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 monthly, and there is no guarantee of compliance.

[Jnovak]

I believe that this is what governs reviews now:

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 Road Racing Department at which time a letter will be entered into the CRB
letter log system. Formal rule clarifications may be submitted to the Club Racing Board at www.clubracing-
board.com.
A. The Staff will review the request and must consult with the CRB and other appropriate experts.
B.
The Road Racing Department will schedule in-person inspection of the vehicle or components by a class
expert. The expert will submit a written opinion back to Road Racing and the CRB.
C. The Road Racing Department and the CRB will review the expert’s opinion. If required, the CRB may
initiate a clarification of the applicable rule(s). Road 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 monthly, and there is no guarantee of compliance.

I have used this process 2 times and the cost at that time was $300 per request. Also at that time (about 10+ years ago) the ruling was good for the calendar year or what was left on the calendar year! A useful process but it may not be valid for long based on Richard's comment!

[John Nesbitt]

I have used this process 2 times and the cost at that time was $300 per request. Also at that time (about 10+ years ago) the ruling was good for the calendar year or what was left on the calendar year! A useful process but it may not be valid for long based on Richard's comment!

Quite true. But, as 8.1.4.E. points out, specs change, and what is compliant today may become non-compliant next month. Or vice versa. It is not reasonable to grandfather formerly compliant parts. For example, consider motorcycle engines in FC. They used to be allowed. No more.

[Jnovak]

Quite true. But, as 8.1.4.E. points out, specs change, and what is compliant today may become non-compliant next month. Or vice versa. It is not reasonable to grandfather formerly compliant parts. For example, consider motorcycle engines in FC. They used to be allowed. No more.

I totally get it John.. I do wonder how often this process is in use, as in, used how many time a year??

[R. Pare]

As with everything in a class, a certain things will be legal until the rules change and outlaw it.

[stonebridge20]

For example, consider motorcycle engines in FC. They used to be allowed. No more.

I think one morning they were "allowed" but not in the afternoon.

[John Nesbitt]

I totally get it John.. I do wonder how often this process is in use, as in, used how many time a year??

It is a few years since I was close to the process, but not many. Perhaps a couple, or so, per year.

[Daryl DeArman]

I think one morning they were "allowed" but not in the afternoon.

Getting' Jeremy'd.

[Daryl DeArman]

Interesting that they consult a "class expert" to issue an opinion. So much for keeping your cards close to the vest. Furthermore, the ruling/opinion appears to be non-binding since there's no guarantee that how they felt on Monday is how they are going to feel about it a week from Thursday.

I think I'd just take my chances in a potential protest and subsequent appeal. If my interpretation was different than theirs then so be it.

[Dave Gomberg]

...

I think I'd just take my chances in a potential protest and subsequent appeal. If my interpretation was different than theirs than so be it.

That doesn't work if you are trying to get a ruling on something you haven't built yet but are considering.

Dave

[Daryl DeArman]

That doesn't work if you are trying to get a ruling on something you haven't built yet but are considering.

Dave

Section B. seems to require the thing must be built for physical inspection. Lacking that requirement, I would agree.

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

[alangbaker]

Getting' Jeremy'd.

Can you point me to a thread or tell me what to search for?

[Daryl DeArman]

Can you point me to a thread or tell me what to search for?

Cliff notes as I recall the debacle:

MC engines legal in FC for many years.
Most didn't believe they would be competitive with the Pinto given the huge torque difference.
MC power was evolving at a much faster rate than the Pinto development.
Jeremy Hill built and raced a solid FC car for quite some time with MC power.
Some FC folks with pull, decided it would be best to have a competition adjustment for the all MC-powered FC cars (read one) immediately proceeding the RunOffs rather than make it effective the following season, or lobby for the adjustment several months before the RunOffs.
Jeremy was straddled with a pretty large weight penalty right before the RunOffs.
There was some unpopular blowback against those that lobbied for the last minute adjustment.
They back pedaled too little too late to save face.
FB was born.


On edit, found a thread: https://www.apexspeed.com/forums/sho...ht=jeremy+hill

[Joefisherff]

Somewhat related to this, would it be possible to have them sign a non-disclosure for anything seen during compliance review or tear down? How would you protect your inventive solution or can you?

[John Nesbitt]

Somewhat related to this, would it be possible to have them sign a non-disclosure for anything seen during compliance review or tear down? How would you protect your inventive solution or can you?

In Road Racing, there is no provision for an NDA, and it is difficult to see the need for one.

In the first place, officials (tech and stewards) maintain confidentiality as a matter of policy. Protesters may not watch a teardown; only the relevant officials and the protestee may.

Second, and with the greatest respect to innovators in our sport, this is not F1 or NASCAR. There are not vast sums or or sponsorship deals or world championships at stake. It is amateur sport; a gentleman's sport.

Finally, most every innovation enters the public domain, and sooner rather than later. Most come from tweaking and attention to detail. (Consider Scott Tucker's DSR. There was nothing radically new or innovative about it except the million dollars of development effort.) Most innovations are plainly visible. At least, the legal ones. . In my (former) little corner of the sport (FF), the single greatest game-changer in 50 years was the DB-1. As soon as people saw the car, they saw what it was about. That stayed secret for a good 10 seconds.

[Daryl DeArman]

In Road Racing, there is no provision for an NDA, and it is difficult to see the need for one.

In the first place, officials (tech and stewards) maintain confidentiality as a matter of policy. Protesters may not watch a teardown; only the relevant officials and the protestee may.

The expert required to the letter of the rules which govern this process, would likely be somebody closely involved in the class.

The matter of a widget or modification only being "secret" for 10 seconds, is fine once the owner of such widget decides to make said widget public by utilizing it at an event.

[John LaRue]

While there is no definition as to a "class expert" it is likely going to be someone from within the appropriate advisory committee or CRB. Persons who serve on those committees are held to a level of confidentiality as to the data and materials that they are exposed to in such positions. The best way to maintain confidentiality is to not disclose "it" to anyone. Even if a NDA were executed, what would be the likelihood under these circumstances that any action would be taken to enforce such through a restraining order; or who would bother to litigate damages?

[Daryl DeArman]

While there is no definition as to a "class expert" it is likely going to be someone from within the appropriate advisory committee or CRB. Persons who serve on those committees are held to a level of confidentiality as to the data and materials that they are exposed to in such positions. The best way to maintain confidentiality is to not disclose "it" to anyone.

How many of those members on the appropriate advisory committee or CRB are also participants (owners and/or drivers) in said class? They may not disclose it to anybody else, but they may certainly do the same "it" should they feel "it" is worth pursuing.

The expert should be somebody that can read the written rule objectively with zero vested interest in the outcome and zero appearance of any conflict of interest. Absent that, I'm going with doing what I think is okay and see what happens, fully prepared to accept being wrong.

[mmi16]

Cliff notes as I recall the debacle:

MC engines legal in FC for many years.
Most didn't believe they would be competitive with the Pinto given the huge torque difference.
MC power was evolving at a much faster rate than the Pinto development.
Jeremy Hill built and raced a solid FC car for quite some time with MC power.
Some FC folks with pull, decided it would be best to have a competition adjustment for the all MC-powered FC cars (read one) immediately proceeding the RunOffs rather than make it effective the following season, or lobby for the adjustment several months before the RunOffs.
Jeremy was straddled with a pretty large weight penalty right before the RunOffs.
There was some unpopular blowback against those that lobbied for the last minute adjustment.
They back pedaled too little too late to save face.
FB was born.


On edit, found a thread: https://www.apexspeed.com/forums/sho...ht=jeremy+hill

And now FB has died being combined with FA.

[provamo]

remember when we had fewer classes?

[Joefisherff]

remember when we had fewer classes?

And more track time and participants?