unexpected and troubling news

heard from the SCCA friday on an 8.1.4 request made around the first of the year; unexpected and troubling news. see attached Appeals Court judgment.

only a fool asks a question they can't deal with either answer. it's actually a good deal easier to make horsepower with this outcome; it's just my opinion it's not suported by the GCR as currently written or in the membership's best interestes. with the multitude of water and oil passages in the block and head, this decision closely approximates a declaration of unrestricted conventional warfare on the 2-liter cast iron block and head as we've known them...............................

my e-mail to the Court of Appeals is included below (membership number deleted). wonder what the other e-mails had to say and given their apparant influential points, why they're not a matter of public record to Club members. at the end of the day they are the membership's rules.................

Art
artesmith@earthlink.net







From: Art Smith <artesmith@earthlink.net>
To: Wyndi McCormick <WMcCormick@scca.com>
Subject: RE: Rules Interpretation
Date: Feb 27, 2008 1:55 PM

Wyndi-
it must be the spring like weather, I've changed my mind again which isn't like me. if it's not too late, I'd greatly appreciate if the note below can be passed on to the Apppeals Court.

Appeals Court:
if the Appeals Court affirms the findings of the First Court as expected, I would hope the Appeals Court also sees fit to includes several needed observations that will hopefully facilitate long overdue corrective action in the administration of the Club's rules. first, the continuing and approaching epidemic abuse of the GCR's "clarrification" provisions to make rules changes has to stop! the GCR says NO changes and to allow any change(s) is a fundamental rule change, NOT a clarification. per the GCR, the membership is entitled to due process in the consideration of a rule CHANGE. second, and every bit as troubling in my mind, is how did obvious (the changes are in plane view) non-compliances with the GCR go undetected/unenforced for a "pratice that may be widespread, encompassing hundreds of engines over many years".

in my view it's (as an absolute minimum) disingenuous for anyone to suggest there's "no competitive advantage" associated with these non-compliant practices. engine builders and competitors go to extreme lengths to reduce lubrication windage losses in the search for GCR compliant horsepower. reliability is a form of performance and the additional non-compliant fasteners are most likely a lighter/less costly solution for equal reliability. any thoughts the Court might have on the appropriate consequences to the engine builder(s) involved would also be appreciated.

Arthur E. Smith, XXXXXX
artesmith@earthlink.net

Art, could you post the text of that word doc? I can't download files at work.

Thanks,

Deleted.

JUDGEMENT OF THE COURT OF APPEALS

Rules Interpretation – FC Drilling and Tapping of Pinto Heads and Blocks
COA08-01-RI

March 20, 2008


PRIOR PROCEEDINGS AND FACTS IN BRIEF
On January 3, 2008, Arthur E. Smith requested a rules interpretation under the 2008 GCR Paragraphs 8.1.4. (Rules Interpretation) and FC 9.1.1.B.3.ee (allowable modifications). He specifically asked if drilling and tapping of heads and blocks for oil management and/or adding freeze plug retention fasteners is compliant. Mr. Smith asserted that it is common practice to make these modifications as part of the race preparation of FC Pinto engines. Per GCR Paragraph 8.1.4., the Chairman of the Stewards program appointed Executive Stewards Gary Meeker, Chairman, Tom Hoffman, and Rick Mitchell as a First Court to review the interpretation. This First Court analyzed the FC GCR rules; specifically Paragraphs 9.1.1.B.3.r (unrestricted lubrication system), 9.1.1.B.3.t (unrestricted cooling system), and 9.1.1.B.3.ee. Dave Gomberg, member of the Club Racing Board (CRB) provided written testimony to the First Court that included the concurring opinion of CRB member Stan Clayton. Their interpretation of GCR Paragraphs 9.1.1.B.3.r and 9.1.1.B.3.t, which state that the lubrication and cooling systems for this engine are "unrestricted," make the modifications compliant. SCCA’s Technical Services Manager, Jeremy Thoennes, provided written testimony stating to the First Court that his interpretation of the GCR would make these modifications non-compliant. The First Court concluded the modifications were non-compliant. Mr. Smith requested that the Court of Appeals review the decision



The Court of Appeals (COA), comprised of Bob Horansky, Chairman, Dick Templeton, and Dave Nokes, met on March 6 and 20, 2008, to review the First Court’s decision

1. Letter requesting rules interpretation from Arthur E. Smith, dated January 3, 2008.
2. Email from Arthur E. Smith, dated February 25, 2008 reaffirming his intent to have the First Court’s ruling reviewed by the Court of Appeals.
3. "Report of the Ad Hoc Court, Drilling and Tapping of Pinto Heads and Blocks in Formula Continental Engines," dated January 20, 2008, and received by the COA on January 31, 2008. Note: This Ad Hoc Court is the First Court appointed for this rule interpretation action.
4. Email to COA from Arthur E. Smith, dated February 25, 2008.
5. Email from Phillip Creighton to Bob Horansky, dated March 7,2008.
6. Email from CRB to COA, dated March 19, 2008.

The COA has reviewed "Report of the Ad Hoc Court, Drilling and Tapping of Pinto Heads and Blocks in Formula Continental Engines," the 2008 GCR including Paragraphs 9.1.1.B.3.r, 9.1.1.B.3.t.,and 9.1.1.B.3.ee., and various correspondence from the CRB

Formula Continental rules are clear in GCR Paragraph 9.1.1.B.3.ee that the only allowable modifications, changes, or additions from the stock engine must be stated in the GCR and that there are no exceptions to this rule. At issue is whether or not the modifications in question are allowed in the GCR under Paragraphs 9.1.1.B.3.r and 9.1.1.B.3.t. These Paragraphs state that the lubrication and cooling systems for the FC Pinto engine are unrestricted. If the block and the head of this engine are part of the lubrication and cooling systems then, per GCR Paragraphs 9.1.1.B.3.r and 9.1.1.B.3.t, they may be modified for the purpose of facilitating these systems. Since there are features in both the Pinto head and block that exist solely to provide lubrication or cooling, e.g. the oil galleys and cooling water jacket, we find that the heads and blocks are included in the lubrication and cooling systems. Therefore, the portions of the head and block that are functionally used for lubrication and cooling may be modified.

The specific modifications under review are drilling and tapping for oil management and securing of freeze plugs. Oil flow management is a proper function of the lubrication system and the freeze plugs are an integral part of the water jacket element of the cooling system. Therefore, both modifications are functionally used for lubrication or cooling and are compliant under GCR Paragraphs 9.1.1.B.3.r and 9.1.1.B.3.t.


The Court of Appeals overturns the First Court. These modifications fall under GCR Paragraphs 9.1.1.B.3.r and 9.1.1.B.3.t and are compliant.

Thanks for posting the text.

IMO, although these modifications have been done for many years, I agree that the clarification/rules-making processes need to be much-better defined to eliminate changes such as these without member input.

In the past, clarifications have been often a result of protest appeal decisions that then become part of the rules. However, the ramifications of these decisions are often not apparent until later, when it is usually much more difficult to revert to the previous state of affairs than it would have been to not clarify/change in the first place.

Hopefully the EPP manifold flap has started a process for an improved clarification/change procedure definition.

Can the problem be summarized in one or two sentances?

Russ-

assuming you believe "fair and open competition on a level track" should
be the objective in SCCA amateur racing, I'm surprised you're not concerned
about the very real possiblity there's more than one set of rules being used.

while there is no "smoking gun" or "home video" of the shooting, that is burnt
gun powder you smell! how many well known and respected engine builders
make questionable (from a GCR compliance perspective) changes in plain sight
without a wink, nod, or get out of jail free card (aka: unpublished 8.1.4 like ruling)?

it's my view that neither suppliers or competitors should be able to buy for $300
(or any amount of money) a secret ruling of "compliant" for anything they're
unwilling to put their "good name" on for competition! ALL answers to questions
and requests for clarifications must be public if we're to have one set of rules.

Art
artesmith@earthlink.net

I didn't say I'm not concerned. I just got weary in the middle of all those words and thought your cause might be helped if you provided a brief executive summary.

don't feel bad Russ, I read all the words and still wasn't sure what it meant. I think it's easier to ramble about "unrestricted conventional warfare" than explain wtf is going on to people who might care enough to write the CRB and the BOD.

If I understand the original post correctly, the question is whether the Court of Appeals judgments on requests for rules clarifications should be published in all cases.

They are currently published in the case of negative rulings. As I understand it, the rationale for not publishing a positive judgment is as follows: if someone has found a legal advantage within the rules, the Court doesn't want to reveal that person's secret. Anyone else is free to discover that tweak on their own.

You can agree or disagree with their rationale.

CoA judgments are binding for the GCR year in which they are made. The CRB may propose GCR changes which implement Court judgments.

In the case of unpublished judgments, as above, the plaintiff, if you will, receives written notification, which he can produce to an SOM in case of protest, and to which the SOM will presumably defer (unless there has been a contrary GCR rule implemented since the CoA judgment).

Personally, I fail to see the "problem".

"Fair and level" can mean all sorts of things, from "everybody has the exact same equipment and setup" to "everyone is free to interpret the rules in whatever manner they want". Without us all agreeing to a definition, this is a pissing in the wind contest at best.

As with most SCCA classes, and with racing in general, part of the game is in creative interpretation of the rules, but staying within what the original philosophy was supposed to be. In this case, the engine builders pretty much all came to the same interpretation of the "free lubrication" and "free cooling" additions to what is allowed, and specifically stated as per the "only modifications and additions specifically stated...." rule. From the lack of any actions by Tech or protests by competitors for 20+ years, this interpretation seems to be universally accepted, even if it was never officially acknowledged.

Art has a different, and obviously more restricitve, interpretation of what the rule means, and asked for a clarification, used the system available to everyone to seek redress, and was overruled. Big deal - it has happened to just about everybody in the club at some point.

The charge of a "secret set of rules" being allowed is ludricous at best. EVERYBODY has the right to see if an interpretation they dreamed up is legal or not before finding out the hard way by losing a protest out in the field. Better to be able to spend a (reletively) paltry $250 to see if it is unwise to spend many times that amount in vain.

To think that a competitor would then be FORCED to give away their new "advantage" (if indeed it works as planned), is beyond comprehension and flys in the face of a core part of what racing is all about.

Another valid conception of what constitutes being "fair and balanced" in racing:

Everybody also has the right to outsmart their competitors, as well as being outsmarted by them in turn.

ya gotta cheat legal.......and this is that

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by R. Pare

...As with most SCCA classes, and with racing in general, part of the game is in creative interpretation of the rules, but staying within what the original philosophy was supposed to be. In this case, the engine builders pretty much all came to the same interpretation of the "free lubrication" and "free cooling" additions to what is allowed, and specifically stated as per the "only modifications and additions specifically stated...." rule. From the lack of any actions by Tech or protests by competitors for 20+ years, this interpretation seems to be universally accepted, even if it was never officially acknowledged.

--snip--

Everybody also has the right to outsmart their competitors, as well as being outsmarted by them in turn.

---

Personally, I've been told that what I've dreamed up is legal - for now - only to find out a rule proposal banning it two months later in Fastrack. Now I wait for someone else to protest it instead of purposely revealing it to my competitors that sit on the SCCA ruling board. They can look for it just like my competitors have to look for it and a group of my peers can descide if it's actually legal or not.

One of the rubs of exploring the grey. If your exploration nets an unwanted advantage you can bet that it very well will be turned black or white soon. How easy it is to undo and at what costs should be part of your risk vs. reward calculation when you set out to explore the grey.

oh yeah....unrestricted means exactly that. HOWEVER, isn't there something in that rule book along the lines of "may not perform other prohibited functions..."

?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Quickshoe

oh yeah....unrestricted means exactly that. HOWEVER, isn't there something in that rule book along the lines of "may not perform other prohibited functions..." ?

---

Not sure what you are referring to there, though there is that type of line in the FF rules pertaining to the valve cover.

In any rule set, there is (or there is supposed to be) a base set of rules for most things, and then any allowances, additions, and/or further restrictions stated in either a separate sentance or a separate paragraph ( within the same subject "area" - ie - "Bodywork" rules section vs "Engine" rules section, etc).

All that mean is this : You can have a rule that states "Thou shalt not..... whatever" that seems to rule out anything other than what is explicitly stated.

You can then have another rule that is worded to open up or "liberalize" the previous rule in a specific area within all of the areas that are governed by the first, restrictive, rule.

In this case, the restrictive rule covers the whole motor, but on the surfaces invloved specificly with the cooling and/or lubrication system, the other rules allow a relaxing of the first rule.


Simple! :D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by R. Pare

Not sure what you are referring to there, though there is that type of line in the FF rules pertaining to the valve cover.

---

Many of the rulesets have something similar to "No permitted component/modification shall additionally perform a prohibited function"

I am not suggesting that is being done in this case, just something to think about when a rule says something like "component x is unrestricted". You don't get to modify it to the point where it performs an additional prohibited function primary or secondary.

If the cooling system is unrestricted, can I make a radiator that is shaped just like a wing no matter how inefficeint it is as a radiator or efficeint it is as a wing? Not being serious with that particular example, just using it to illustrate my point.

If wings are restricted otherwise, then no, you could not.

In explanation: an underlying tennant of rules in "restricted" is that saying that modifications to a particular something are unrestricted means within the normal functional parameters of the something, not as a means to perform a function that is restricted otherwise in another rule subset - ie - the radiator limitation wording would normally be in the Engine subset of the rules, or maybe under Miscellaneous, whereas the restriction about wings is in the Bodywork subset, so crossing over would generally be prohibited. In FF, wings and airfoils are prohibited, regardless of the physical makeup, so turning a radiator into a wing gets caught out by the "no wings" rule - a lack of restriction in one subset area of the rules cannot override a restriction stated in an unrelated subset of the same overall rule set.

In classes that are generally not thought of as Restrictive in nature - ie - DSR, and maybe even F1000, the interpretation might be a bit more "liberal".

A good example I've used a few times is that in DSR and F1000, electrical components are unrestricted ( "free" is a term used frequently). If I were building a car for either of those classes, I'd make a 20HP PM starter motor that I can also engage while out on the track for some extra oomph when I want it - there is nothing in either rule set that says that the only motive power you can have is the 4-cycle engine!

People might get royally pissed off if I did that, but I'd be willing to bet that I'd win the protest! :D

I went out and looked at my two engines. Then I thought through the build process I've done a few times, and I think I now know what Art was questioning.

You need to know what a pinto looks like inside to understand.

Example one: On the top of the block many (most, all) engine builders insert plugs into the oil passages that feed oil up to the head. Those plugs are drilled out with a much smaller hole than the stock passage. This restricts the oil going to the head (where a ton of oil is not needed) and keeps more flow to the bearings.

Example two: Most 'pro' motors are built with a plug inserted in the oil drain passage at the rear of the head. The head is drilled and tapped for a bypass hose to drain the oil from the head directly to the oil pan, eliminating a lot of oil splashing on the rotating crank and rods.

Example three: Every dry sumped pinto that I know of has a plug in the block behind the oil filter blocking the passage that came up from the stock oil pump. The dry sump system will not work without this "modification" to the stock block.

Example four: There are a couple of small plugs at the end of oil passages on the outside of the block. On stock pintos the fine folks at the Ford factory just pressed in tight fitting plugs to seal these passages. All my engines, during the initial race prep had these openings tapped for pipe threads so that screw in plugs could be inserted to seal the passages. Makes cleaning the block easier during rebuilds.

These things have been SOP for more than 15 years that I know of.

So, what's the problem? Didn't the COA rule in Art's favor?

on edit:

Oops. Sorry. I reread Art's underlined sentence above. I see that his point is that the decision was not made public and that others may be unaware of the legality of doing these mods.

I guess.

You summed it up in a nutshell, Russ.

Art is making a point that a 'rules clarification' done behind closed doors and then not made public isn't good for us.

When reading his concerns just remember, the GREAT MANIFOLD fiasco was started with a 'request for rules clarification' and NOT a rule change that would have come into the light of day more quickly.

So, who knows what other "rules clarifications" may be lurking out there buried inside of engine blocks.

it seems I've been both naive and unlucky. how truely silly of me to not think a bare cylinder block casting (no plugs) could be part of BOTH the unrestricted cooling sub-system AND the unrestricted lubrication sub-system. on second thought, the stretch it took to arrive at that ruling probably more than explains why its never previously been made public. unlucky in the sense that if I'd submitted the drilling & tapping 8.1.4 request first I could have saved myself $300. clearly given the critical lubrication containment and lubrication collection functions performed by the crankcase of the block as part of the unrestricted lubrication sub-system, there was never a need to ask for 8.1.4 clarification on painting. after all, unrestricted is unrestricted and isn't it great when we all play by the same rules!! it's unfortunate that a number of very good people's time was wasted when they too were apparantly kept in the dark about "secret #N" during their review of my block/crankcase painting question (decision previously printed in Fastrack).

the Frog as ususal gets high marks for both reading and awareness of the "is condition". monkey see monkey do surely isn't a reason to spend $300 to simply replicate "a practice that may be widespread, encompassing hundreds of engines over many years".

in the spirit of full disclosure, my letter to the Club requesting the 8.1.4 request for clarification is included below for your amusement.


Art
artesmith@earthlink.net



January 3, 2008
824 West Wasp Avenue
Ridgecrest, Ca. 93555

Sports Car Club of America, Inc.
Attnn: Club Racing Office
Building 300 B Street
Topeka, Kansas 66619

Dear Sirs:

This letter is being written to request a determination of legality (compliance) of a component per the procedure defined in 8.1.4 Rules Interpretation. A certified check for $300 is enclosed for both the first and second court per the recently revised GCR fee structure.

The rule in question is FC 9.1.1 B.3.ee:
Only modifications or additions specifically covered by these regulations
are permitted. All engine components not covered by these regulations
shall remain completely standard and unmodified."

Is the wide spread drilling and tapping of Pinto heads and blocks compliant with the GCR as currently written? Specifically, the drilling and tapping of blocks and heads to add freeze plug retension fasteners AND the drilling and tapping of Pinto heads on driver’s side right at the rear (most often for oil management). Specifically excluded from the question is the tapping of existing oil galleries as a means of repair after removing the stock ball plug(s) and/or press fit plug(s). My concern is not with the current practices but rather the expected reaction to someone drilling and tapping one or more holes of a different size and/or in a different location than the current population. Getting passed on a straight has a way of bringing out the closet amateur GCR lawyers and their annoying paperwork!!! In the unlikely event the practices are deemed compliant with the GCR as currently written, I need to know the specific paragragh, sentence, and phrase where the authority is conveyed to the competitor.

Without regard to the findings of the Courts, it’s my expressed wish that the findings be published. I’m not looking for an unfair advantage; I’m looking for a binding/enforceable ruling for use by all competitors.


Arthur E. Smith, XXXXXX

Good Grief Art: Drilling and tapping for freeze plug retainers will not give a car the power to blow by you on a straight, nor will having a drain port at the back of the head. Both of my engines have different oiling schema, both from different builders. One machined the pump return into the filter boss, the other took the sandwiched port plate route. Neither has any more power that my ass can differentiate. Having lost an engine to a freeze plug coming adrift, I will have retainer provisions machined into the block at he next opportunity, thank you very much for your assistance.

You asked, you got the answer. Live with it.

Now if you really want to get excited, read the part of the FCS, FC.B1 paragraph 3 that states no suspension component can be an airfoil shape. Now that is a PROBLEM.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Greg Mercurio

Now if you really want to get excited, read the part of the FCS, FC.B1 paragraph 3 that states no suspension component can be an airfoil shape. Now that is a PROBLEM.

---

Yes and no - the Glossary definition of what constitutes an airfoil is that it must be producing a vertical force.

GCR - 109
Appendix B. Technical Glossary

Airfoil - An aerodynamic device or part of a car which the flow of air over its surface will generate a vertical force by creating a pressure differential between top and bottom surfaces.


If a symmetrically shaped (ie - the typical teardrop shape tubing) a-arm is oriented so that its major axis is parallel (or nearly) to the ground, then it does not produce a vertical force (supposedly, anyway!), and therefore is not considered to be an airfoil.

But you are right, in that the wording as is is a bit too ambiguous, and needs to be fixed.

In reality, the definition of an airfoil needs to be tweaked, as you can actually consider the complete car to be an airfoil, as well as the rotating tires, rotating drive shafts, etc - they all create a pressure differential between their top and bottom surfaces!

so wait, are we whining and crying about oil plugs in pinto heads or about them not releasing the findings of compliance/non-compliance? I'm finding it hard to keep up.

And what was the point again?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wren

so wait, are we whining and crying about oil plugs in pinto heads or about them not releasing the findings of compliance/non-compliance?

---

Or that engine blocks and heads are really just part of the oiling and cooling systems and threrfore unrestricted? :-)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RussMcB

Or that engine blocks and heads are really just part of the oiling and cooling systems and threrfore unrestricted? :-)

---

serious. From the first post I would have never guessed that this thread was about publicly announcing compliance/non-compliance and I'm still not sure that it is about that.


I'm still trying to figure out "unrestricted conventional warfare." Isn't conventional warfare always restricted by things like the Geneva Convention?

I have been confused during this whole thread. I'm probably not the only one.

Art,
Now that I have read your original letter, I'm more confused.

1. Were you requesting permission to drill/tap a hole different than what we usually see in these engines?

2. Or, were you asking how all the current holes that are currently drilled/tapped got approved to be so ? It seems you are questioning the legality of all those alterations. With the cavet that if they say that alteration(s) is/are legal, then they must show the writen rulings over the past 22 years where they became legal. Right? :confused:

3. And where did painting come into the picture? At one point I read about painting, so I assumed you were asking about painting the inside of the block, but your letter to the CRB didn't mention painting.

confuddeled in Panacea :confused:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Purple Frog

3. And where did painting come into the picture? At one point I read about painting, so I assumed you were asking about painting the inside of the block, but your letter to the CRB didn't mention painting.

---

That refers to a separate request for clarification around engine coatings, which the CoA ruled non-compliant, and consequently published in the March Fastrack.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rickb99

Art is making a point that a 'rules clarification' done behind closed doors and then not made public isn't good for us.

---

Let's try to start using terms by their proper meanings. A "Rules Clarification" is when there are curcumstances when there is an immediate and pressing need to make a public statement about what a rule means (GCR 1.2.2.C.)_- such as the stressed floorpan deal a couple of years ago in FF just before the Runoffs. a "clarification" by its very nature (as well as per the rules) has to be made public. This action by Art is NOT a "clarification" as is outlined in the GCR - it is a paid-for, private inquiry requesting a ruling on the legality of something as per GCR 8.1.4. A private inquiry is by its very nature (as well as by the rules) a private, not-for-public-consumption, ruling request.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rickb99

When reading his concerns just remember, the GREAT MANIFOLD fiasco was started with a 'request for rules clarification' and NOT a rule change that would have come into the light of day more quickly.

---

No, it was not. It started with a Topeka officer overstepping his authority, and then compounded by the CRB trying to push it though as a "Spec Line Change", and being overruled by the BOD with their insistance that it was "Rules Change" requiring member input (page 8, March Fastrack)

Oops, sorry for the miss using the terms. Thanks for that clarification.

does Art smith even race ?? an engine builder??? or does he just tinker and complain???

not sure what the point is in making such a BIG deal over nothing...all this oil and cooling stuff has been done for YEARS .. lots of years and MOSTLY is about reliability not HP ... if HP then maybe 1 HP .. and thats nothing in a race ... a skilled driver can drive around that and more .... and only and the sharp end of gthe grid does even 3-5 HP REALLY matter if you are in the middle it is more about getting more out of what you have not that you ONLY have 148 HP ..... geezzz ....... step back and look at the entire picture !!! .:checkered: