Stressed loor pan on late model VD's

Gentlemen,

We must define what is ment by "chassis". It would seem obvious the term "bracket" was not intended to include 24 inch (approximately) long extensions of the tubular frame.

Taken to the extreame, by this interpretation of "bracket", I could design a car with very large bolt on panels to which the front suspension attaches, and these could be called "brackets", even though they clearly could stffen the frame as much as "stressed panels".

Having said that, I agree with Richard - the floor pan under the engine doesn't seem to be a real issue for anyone.

There other issues with the 1986 FF rules which should be clarified or changed - such as being able to attach body work by any means. One could design a car with very rigid body work which in effect would become a monocque if allowed to be attached in any manner. The tubular frame could be simpler and lighter since the torsional load would be taken by the bodywork.

Maybe I let the cat out of the bag with that one - but it has been done.

Jerry

[SIZE=1]

Quote:

---

such as being able to attach body work by any means. One could design a car with very rigid body work which in effect would become a monocque if allowed to be attached in any manner.

---

D.6.c (body side protection) says:

[SIZE=1]

For either method, fasteners shall be no closer than six (6) inch centers (no stress-bearing panels).

So you can't do that, also D.6.a:

[SIZE=1]

The chassis shall be of steel space frame construction. Monocoque-type structures are prohibited.

[/SIZE]

So in my rather sketchy argument earlier about having a single-panel from front to rear, I could have gone on to fold that same panel around the sides.. but clearly that would violate D.6.a.

In D.6.d, brackets are explicitly allowed:[SIZE=1]

Brackets for mounting components, such as the engine, transmission, suspension pickups, instruments, clutch and brake components, and body panels may be nonferrous, of any shape, and fastened to the frame in any manner.

The GCR defines "frame" in the glossary, p141:<B>

[SIZE=1]

Frame

[/SIZE][SIZE=1]The minimal configuration of a car necessary to contain all running [/SIZE][SIZE=1]gear and to provide support for the body. Not present on “frameless” or “unibody” cars.[/SIZE]

Which I find a little hard to parse -- but clearly I on a 98+ VD I could remove the subframe and side-rail things and still have the body supported and the running gear contained - they would be attached by the top+bottom front engine mounts.

James
[/SIZE][/SIZE][/SIZE]

Sorry, but it is not "obvious" at all, since there has never been a definition put forth by the club!

"Taken to the extreame, by this interpretation of "bracket", I could design a car with very large bolt on panels to which the front suspension attaches, and these could be called "brackets", even though they clearly could stiffen the frame as much as "stressed panels".

Not extreme at all, and definetely legal as per the definition of what constitutes a "stressed panel".

In fact, as I've described here before, one could make a very minimal tubular frame and attach stamped steel shells to it via welding, as long as the "centers" of the welds are no closer to each other than 6". This would mean that you could weld for 6 inches, gap for .1 inch, and weld for 6 inches again, etc. As long as no 2 welds have the centerpoint of their lengths at or closer than 6 inches, it would be perfectly legal.

Might cause some head scratching and screaming in Tech, but it couldn't be declared illegal! At least, not via the "stressed panels" rule....... ;)

The same goes for attachment of rigid bodywork - as long as the fastener centers are over 6 inches, it would be perfectly legal. At least by the "stressed panel" rule......;)

However, for both methods, it could possibly be judged to be afoul of the 'Monocoque-type structures are prohibited" rule if you don't shape things correctly. :D

Chas;

A long time SCCA member, FF racer and steward once told me that each class gets the rules they want and deserve. The rules in the final instant are the responsibility of the competitors to enforce, if they choose.

Topeke/Denver and in earlier times Connecticut are not going to do the job. FF/FC is filled with examples of car manufacturers, especially the domonant manufacturer, marketing cars that do not meet the letter of the rules.

As to the nose box issue and the floor pan issue, the guys racing the cars are ultimately responsible for the legality of the car you enter. But who is going to buy a car and then even worry about whether it is legal or do anything about it. If every body you are running against is in the same kind of car, who cares?

If you are a small manufacturer, especially a domestic manufacturer, you are more careful. First competitors and officials are more likely to come after you if you beat them and they can find something to protest on your car. Second, as a domestic manufacturer, I feel that I have to be very careful because of percieved or potential liability.

Finally, only the competitors study the relavent rules sections in sufficient detail to understand then. Definitely the officials do not know the details of the class specific rules.

In a way Chas you have some responsibility for this problem getting to this point. I built my cars the way I did to avoid this very problem. The Van Diemen drivers have not been very critical of the cars they bought. I don't have any problem with the way your car is built. I think it the rules should be changed so I can build my car the way your car is built. I see myself as getting the short end of the stick.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Chas Shaffer

Then riddle me this..... I think we all agree the nose box is a safety device so doesn't that mean by default it must be legal for the car to be homologated? I don't understand how a safety device can pass homologation but be illegal. Therefore doesn't the nose box on a 98 and newer VD have to be legal if the car was homologated with it?

---

Chas:

I've had a bit of fun with the CRB in the past questioning how a homologated feature could be subsequently declared illegal! Needless to say, the reaction was underwhelming, but it did serve to get them to narrow the definition of what "homologation" meant.

In the case of composite noseboxes, there is a difference between what is presumed to be legal because of widespread useage, and what is actually stated in the rules.

To give you some background:

Sometime in '93 or '94, there was a request put forth to the CRB to legalize composite noseboxes. The request was turned down flat.

About a year or so later, a new imported car came over that was supplied with a composite nosebox from the factory. The logic given behind allowing it was that the aluminium honeycomb was "equivalent" to the minimum required aluminium sheet stock.

A bit of a stretch, to say the least, but it had the effect of "legalizing" composite noseboxes in most peoples minds, and no one has since questioned that premise - except for Steve and I.

While we are all for composite boxes being allowed, their useage has never been officially permitted by going through the proper Club mandated rules change proceedure.

Nowhere was it ever officially printed (to the best of my knowledge) that there had been a rules change or "clarification", as now seems to be the preferred method of legalizing the illegal.

If you read the rule concerning minimum nosebox construction requirements, AND you have any decent engineering knowledge, it is impossible to come to the conclusion that composite noseboxes are legal.

All that we ask is that the Club make rules changes by sticking to their own mandated proceedures.

I think that all VD's of any year in FC should be classed in Formula Illegal,and sold in one lot to the NASA.Whoever designed them should be found,and made to take a job at Citation until they get's his or her's head right! They also should be made to drive a 72' pinto road car with a leaking fuel tank with the SCCA official that clearly conspired with them to get all 400 VD FC chassis past Citation's engineer's for 20 odd years'.

That was the funniest post I've read in a long time!

John:

Your sarcasm is hardly warrented. If you truely believe that VD never built an illegal car, then answer the "why" to these two instances:

1 - Bodywork higher than the top of the front rim. VD ships over cars that were 6 or so inches high than legal in the front (the first of the "roman nose" cars), clearly contrary to the rules. The Club subsequently changes the rules to keep the VDs legal.

2 - Current floorpan contorversy. VD, among others, seemed to think the rules say something they don't, builds cars with an illegal stressed panel. Club now to issue a rules "clarification" in order to legalise these cars.

The nosebox issue was NOT instigated by VD - they had actually read and followed the rule as it is written.

At least when Swift brought out the DB6 with illegal aluminium bellcranks, the Club made them change them to steel and waited until the following year to change the rules.

Personally, I am happy that these rules have all been changed. However, it is the method with which these changes have been implimented that I take exception to.

And so should everyone else, VD included.

I'm afraid again you are incorrect in your observation Richard.
In 1993 we made a mistake about the height of the nose,[1"] and you must have missed the one about the engine cover,forward stays,tubing size atthe bulhead,and the dash hoop.[Dan and Mike did'nt ] When pointed out we quickly cut the nose section in question,and supplied new ones at no charge.We also got rid of the air intake as it was.some chose to modify it and retain it.
The floor was questioned back in 1989 and was approved as seen by them at the time,not our problem.I think it funny that it comes up now with so much time gone.
You seem to keep making comments about the supposed + treatment that VD has received over the years from the SCCA CRB.And to be honest it is a load of bollocks.
If you remember we made a seqeuntial gearbox from scratch in 1994.This according to the regs was completley legal at the time.But was deemed illegal after a lot of lobbying by Citation and others.This happened in the span of 3 months.VD had spent close to 100,000US and it had to be scrapped.The platform that Citation used was that it would obsolete your cars and kill the class.In hindsight it is the one thing that might have helped the class.
In 98' we built a small roll hoop and it was banned even though we supplied all the data as requested that would permit it under the alternative structure rule.It was not allowed,and we again supllied replacements at no charge.There are many instances where we have had to alter designs over the years in order to comply with the rules.
Although I have no business interest in the FC situation at the moment it does not mean that my company is not concerned about the direction that it is going,and the constant moaning to me is wasted energy that should be directed at some more critical issues.

All this rhetorical debate between our esteemed historians proves is that rule making is much like that of making sausage. It is easier to live with the end product, than to watch the building process.

I was told by an elder back in 1984 about the scales of justice. In one balance is placed scientific reason, technical expertise. In the other balance is placed politics. Politics always wins. :(

"bollocks"?

mark d

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mark defer

"bollocks"?

---

A British expression. It means 'I respectfully disagree with what you say', or something like that. :)

D, I don't know,I just did'nt want to say a naughty word.You coming to Mid-O this weekend?Running the real track and starting on the front straight!Should be fun.JB

John:

Citation had ZERO interest in your sequential gearbox - we were in the process of selling the car business at the time, were only aware of the box as a prototype for S2000, and could have cared less about it. One CRB member DID call us for an opinion, and our only response was that having a manufacturer as the sole source of such a product was not looked on with favor by us. Keep the bull**** of our supposed "lobbying effort" to yourself, please, and stick with the actual facts.

As to "the one thing that would have helped the class", keeping the Pro series as a direct parallel to the Club would have kept things going very nicely, thank you.

On the roll hoop, I was actually on your side for that one and argued with the CRB that you had followed the rules to the letter - as you said, VD had gone through the proper "alternative structures" proceedure and was approved. It was in fact another vested-interest party that pushed against your keeping the hoop because of "aero advantages" over his cars, not us - something that you were well aware of at the time.

No one has accused VD of playing any sort of "game" with the rules, or intentional cheating- only that they have on occasion mis-read the rules, sometimes after which the rules get changed. To the contrary, the arguements have been careful to point out that it is the Club that has played "games" by not following their own proceedures.

You are correct in saying that this is all wasted energy that should be spent on more important matters, with that matter being getting the rules straightened out for EVERYONE via the Club mandated process.

Sorry,Richard I think I get it now.

Somewhere Jeremy Hill is enjoying a chuckle I am sure!

Would you guys please stop arguing about the past and focus on the future

- Like how about designing and building a F1000 conversion kit for the back of '98 up Van Diemens?

Rob:

One of the problems in determining the future is what happens in the present. This thread started as an inquiry about what cars have out-of-spec floorpans, with, I would expect, the idea being to get a rule change done.

The problem lies in the notion that the CRB can just issue a "correction" or "clarification" to the rules to effect the change. NEITHER can be done in this case, as per the Clubs own proceedural rules, since this sort of change is just that : a Rules Change. This is not just a nit-picking notion of yours truely - former Comp Board members have confirmed it.

To continually allow this sort of end run around the mandated proceedures is inviting rules chaos in the future - how will anyone be able to trust that the rules by which we all agree to play to won't get changed overnight and undiscussed, thereby wasting someones time, energy and money? We've all seen that once people get the notion that it's OK to do something a particular way, it continues to get done that way, regardless of what the Rules actually say. Officials are no more immune to this phenomenon than car owners.

What CAN possibly be done in this instance, is for the BOD to issue an addition to the Runoffs Supplementary (I'm assuming that the reason for the big rush behind the "clarification" is to avoid problems at the Runoffs) with that addition stating that they now recognize that there is a just-discovered problem with the floorpans in some older cars, and that because of the late timing, the likelyhood of structural problems with those cars if modified to meet the current rule, and the fact that the rule is to be changed shortly after the Runoffs, the Stewards will not hear any protests against those cars for that particular infraction.

Granted, even this action is most likely not really within the allowed mandates, but I doubt that anyone would have an issue with this problem being handled in this manner - as they say : No harm, No foul, Gentleman's Agreement, and all that.

But for officials to think that they can continually mandate Rules Changes by skirting the required proceedures is a bit much.

Richard,
I think we will have to agree to disagree. My interpertation of the rule is simply that there has to be a floor pan from the front bulkhead to the rear bulkhead and that panel has to be a stressed panel. The rule does not state that the pan must end at either bulkhead. Therefore, in my opinion, they are not changing the rule, but clarifying it if they give start and end points.
What if they do a flip-flop and say the pan must end at the rear roll hoop bulkhead, would you then proclaim that the "clarification" is a "rule change"?

John

What the heck is a loor pan anyway?

Quote:

---

What the heck is a loor pan anyway?

---

A clarified floor pan. New and unfortified.

Stan, can you edit your first post? Its confusing because my loor pan is in the corner with the rods and bait, not on the car:D

Thanks Bob, I'll get right on it... :p

Actually, I meant to write "bed pan", but somehow it came out "loor pan". And even then the thread title is different to my first post title. In any case, I'm not real smart on the whole "interwebs" thing, so maybe there is a way to edit the thread title. The Carter Bro's would know... :santa:

FWIW, I find it hard to argue with JR's analysis in port # 59 - damned if you do; damned if you don't.

Stan

John:

Not to be rude, but what is it about the words "from" and "to" that to you don't connotate as a definitive starting and ending points of the stressed portion of the floorpan? That's one of the Websters definitions of both words, with "from" being a starting point of an action or object , and "to" being an ending point of an action or object, and those useages are common in everyday use of the English language.

Is that not how you yourself would use those words when giving instruction to your workers in the construction industry? Would you not specify that a foundation for one side of the building is to go "from" a certain stake in the ground "to" another stake in the ground? Or would you not care that the workers went 50 feet past those two "from" and "to" points?

When instructed by a race official to drive from the pit lane to the impound area, do you take that to mean that you can make a side trip to your paddock space first? ;)

As said before, those starting and ending points of the STRESSED portion of the floorpan do not preclude the pan from extending past those defined points, but DO preclude it from being stressed past those points.

And that is EXACTLY the CRB agreed upon definition when everyone sat down to write these rules.

Any attempts at changing the meaning of those words is just grasping at straws! :D

Richard,
I would instruct, and do, my workers with explicit directions, starting here and ending there. I find that definitive directions leave less room for them to interpert. The rule says it is required from here to there, does not say it has to end there, nor does it say the stressed panel has to end at the bulkheads. If the floor pan continues past the bulkheads is it no longer a floor pan? I can not see where it says the panel can not be stressed outside of the bulkheads

I was not there when the rule was written, so I dont know what they meant, I can only interpert what I see written.

John

Ohhh. Now I finally understand the argument.

"A stress-bearing floor pan/undertray, minimum of .060” heat
treated aluminum or eighteen (18) gauge steel, is required from
the front bulkhead to the rear roll hoop bulkhead. Its curvature
shall not exceed one inch."

The rule says the loor pan is REQUIRED from here to there but it doesn't say it must end anywhere. It took me until just now to get that.

Jim

I read it as a 'minimum' requirement. It must be stressed from front bulkhead to rear roll hoop bulkhead. The rule does not contain the word "only". (I bet it originally was meant as a safety thing to protect the driver and fuel cell.) Nothing in that rule prevents it from continuing as a stressed member forward under the crush structure, nor continuing rearward all the way up under the rear crush structure behind the gearbox.

Remember now... I worked for the government for 36 years. ;) Lots of training in rule interpretation.

Yes, using very specific instructions is always best, but in this case, the sort of specificity that you seem to want is not there, so we are left with relying on interpreting the rules according to general public understanding of the specific language, words, and sentence structure given.

In this case, the rules state a mandatory, not an optional, "from" and "to" for the stressed area of the floorpan, with NO OTHER stressed panel areas allowed (with the stated bulkhead exceptions, of course).

The "from" and "to" are pretty explicit as to the limits of the required stressed area being described in that sentence. Since there are no other stated allowances for stressing the floorpan beyond that "from" and "to" described area in any of the other sentences, the "No other stress-bearing panels are permitted" sentence has the last word on the subject.

"from" ... "to" : pan stressed area description

"...may also be..." : optional bulkhead stressing

"No other...." : last word on allowances beyond the specific descriptions.

If your boss told you to run a line "from" the 15000 volt overheads "to" the transformer on the pole outside of his new house, would you then assume that he meant that the line didn't have to end there, that you could continue that same 15000 volt line to the 240 volt breaker panel? Somehow, I doubt it! :D

If you told your kid (assuming you have one!) to take the trash barrels "from" the garage out "to" the sidewalk, would it be allowable for he/she to assume it's OK to take it to the middle of the street?

Or maybe you wouldn't have a problem if the local bicycle courier picked up your almost-to-late-for-stopping-foreclosure house payment "from" you, and, even though it was addressed "to" your mortgage company, took it instead to the drunk a bit further on down the block?

I don't think I'd want to be your kid or the courier in either of those scenarios! ;)

"from' and "to" are generally accepted as rather definitive limits when used in this manner, at least out in the general world. In the SCCA, well, at this point, who's to tell?

Anyway, this is the last I will bother debating on this - the rules change and it's final meaning is in the hands of the Club now.

I can see a hoist, mirror and ruler in you future soon HPT!!??
Inpound should be fun this year.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Purple Frog

I read it as a 'minimum' requirement.

---

Ditto

After much reading of this thread, it occurs that the rule as written is not specific.

From the front Bulkhead to the rear Bulkhead is very specific.

But putting the "as a minimum" clause in there certainly opens up the interpertation that it does not have to end there.

If the as a minumum was not in there, then I think it would be clear that only between the bulkhead.

So the rule needs to be clarified and the unspecific langauge removed.

richard, It seems to me that based upon the replies here, the general public understanding of the language is that the rule does not contain the stressed area to be contained between the bulkheads.

You never addressed my other question, if the CRB clarifies the rule to state that the floor pan can only be a stressed panel between the bulkheads is it still a rule change that is not enacted per their own rules? You know, like making classes on a national level without the required participation levels.

I would also agree with you that any other panels are not allowed to be stressed. But if the floor pan is a single piece it can be stressed entirely. If it is in seperate pieces, then only the piece that is between the bulkheads may be stressed

John R. emailed me and asked my opinion on this. This is how I replied:

[SIZE=2]I've never given it much thought until this conversation came up. However, I have always interpreted it as allowing ONLY the floor pan between the front bulkhead and the rear roll hoop bulkhead and bulkheads as specified in FCS D.6.d to be "stressed panels." However, literal interpretation of the wording COULD be construed that since a stressed-panel floor pan is required in a certain area, and it is not specifically stated that the floor pan can not extend beyond that area, stressed-panel extensions of the floor pan could be allowed per that wording. The statement "No other stress-bearing panels are permitted" does not necessarily mean to me that an allowed panel could not be larger than required.[/SIZE]

[SIZE=2]Bottom line: IMO, it definitely needs a clarification, but a rule change should not be necessary which ever way (only in the specified area, or allowed to extend beyond that) the rule is interpreted.[/SIZE]

If we were all to agree that the only stressed areas of the pan can be from the front to the rear bulkhead and that the pan may extend beyond those areas but may not be stressed in those extended areas how should the rule be worded to be clear? --unlike my run on question--

What about forming the front and rear bulkheads to be in more than one plane?

Should the rule be clarified to state that fasteners/attachment of panels by any method must yield at least 6" of unfastened material between points of attachment?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Quickshoe

If we were all to agree that the only stressed areas of the pan can be from the front to the rear bulkhead and that the pan may extend beyond those areas but may not be stressed in those extended areas ...

---

Good luck on that one!

Dave

"A stress-bearing floor pan/undertray, minimum of .060” heat treated aluminum or eighteen (18) gauge steel, is required and must extend from the front bulkhead to the rear roll hoop bulkhead. The floor pan/undertray may continue aft of the rear roll hoop bulkhead but may not be stressed beyond that point. Its curvature shall not exceed one inch."

Sounds like how I would word it, but also allow it to extend forward of the front bulkhead, unstressed in that area of course.

"A stress-bearing floor pan/undertray, minimum of .060” heat treated aluminum or eighteen (18) gauge steel, is required and must extend from the front bulkhead to the rear roll hoop bulkhead. The floor pan/undertray may continue aft of the rear roll hoop bulkhead or forward of the front bulkhead but may not be stressed beyond those points. Its curvature shall not exceed one inch."

May it extend both forward and rearward as opposed to or?

1" curvature---how is that to be determined?

would you propose a maximum thickness? What about clarifying the definition of a stressed panel? R.Pare's example of 6" welds with 1/16" gap between beads means the welds are more than 6" on center...and therefore not a stressed panel by todays' current definition.

For the record...as bad as I believe the current rule is written, based on what I think its' intent, I don't think I could do a better job. Just looking to see what some wordsmiths could come up with...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by John Robinson II

richard, It seems to me that based upon the replies here, the general public understanding of the language is that the rule does not contain the stressed area to be contained between the bulkheads.

---

And those people are flat out wrong, but primarily because they are looking at the "logic progression" of the nature of the rules incorrectly.

One of the problems I see is that most people never digest and understand the first sentence of the second paragraph of D.1. Definition : Formula Ford Is a Restricted class

The meaning of that sentence is that the FF rules are to be read as being Restrictive in nature. In other words, you read these FF/FC rules with a different logic progression than you would for DSR, where the nature of the class is that it is pretty wide open, and you are actually encouraged to go after new things.

The Club mandated nature of FF is that it is a Restricted Class, and therefore you are to read the rules as being generally Restrictive in their nature.

Within that nature in FF, as well as for all other classes, is the assumption that certain words are restrictive and absolute in their nature, and others non-restrictive and permissive in their nature, with the generally given examples being "shall" as a mandatory, and "may" as a permissive. See 1.2.4 - Interpretation and Application of the GCR.

In the case of this particular rule, the words "from" and "to" would be deemed restrictive - ie - they define the limits of the permittable stressed area for that stressed panel, with "from" being the start, and "to" being the ending.

If the premise that you put forth is that just "because the rules don't specify that you can't, then you can", and that premise is accepted by the everyone, then you have no choice but to apply this same philosophy, or progression of logic, to every other rule in the FF section. In that case, here's a sample of "it doesn't say I can't" items I would love to play with:

- It doesn't say anywhere that I cannot use Nitrous.

- It doesn't say that I cannot use a 15 HP starter motor for extra power out on the track.

- It doesn't say that I cannot use gigantic vertical fins down the sides of the car for aerodynamic side force generation.

- It doesn't say that I can't put horizontal wheels on the sides of the car to use to run against the walls on an oval.

- It doesn't say that I cannot use 4-wheel drive.

- It doesn't say that I can't use 6,8,10, or 12 tires and wheels.

- It doesn't say that I cannot use a CVT type single-plate clutch.

- It doesn't say that I cannot use a laser to overheat my opponents tires. :D


And on the "negatives" side that could raise havoc in Impound:



- It doesn't say in the FC rules that the maximum height of the rear wing or bodywork is ONLY applicable when measured with the car at rest. Therefore, if the car is allowed to rise up over that height while out on the track, it is illegal and protestable. (In fact, the pre-1986 rules state explicitly that the max bodywork height measurements are to be made in any condition, with the driver on board - that automatically does not preclude on-track, in-use, measurements. In the 1986 rules it gets even better : they state it as " with the car as qualified or raced.....". Better start lowering that ride height, boys!)

- It doesn't state anywhere that fairings around things like the front suspension upper a-arm inboard pickups are not subject to the 1" deviation rule, or that the primarily vertical, but slightly-sloping-outwards sides on most cars are not subject to that same 1" deviation rule. ( Remember, the rules state the 1" height change as being for the full width of the bodywork)

- It doesn't state that "deviation from the horizontal" means the subject surface is not being referenced to itself, therefore it has to mean it is being referenced to the Earth itself - the "horizon" from which the word "horizontal" is derived. Therefore, your car is probably illegal when going up or down hills, and again, is protestable. ( A former Comp Board actually thought that this was the case (the "horizon"), and that your car was illegal if you put too much rake in it! :rolleyes:)

The rules explicitly state that "Ground effects are prohibited". To get your car out of ground effects, you will need to raise it up to about 1 foot of ground clearance. Oops - looks like can't do that and still meet the max height rule. Guess what? YOUR WHOLE DAMNED CAR IS ILLEGAL!



While some of these scenes sound overly wild, the logic you are applying to the stressed floorpan rule is exactly the same logic used for these scenes.

You cannot pick and choose which logic progression you get to use for which rule, so once you establish a logic pattern for any section of the Specification Book, you HAVE to use that logic pattern for ALL the rules in that section.

So be careful in what you ask for!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by John Robinson II

You never addressed my other question, if the CRB clarifies the rule to state that the floor pan can only be a stressed panel between the bulkheads is it still a rule change that is not enacted per their own rules? You know, like making classes on a national level without the required participation levels.

---

In this case, the "clarification" is not changing the basic nature or meaning of the rule, so it therefore is NOT a "rule change" - at least according to my understanding of the basic nature and meaning of the floorpan rule.

However, I'm now not entirely positive as to whether it is only the BOD that can issue a "clarification" upon the recommendation of the CRB, or if the CRB itself can issue it - the GCR doesn't seen to address this directly, yet the published proceedures I found (and posted earlier) from the Club web site say that only the BOD can approve and issue clarifications and changes! I would expect that there is a separate Proceedures book available that we would have to consult to get the definitive answer to this. Assuming the web site is correct, then it is only the BOD that can issue the clarification.

The BOD CAN issue a clarification in time for the Runoffs so as to avoid impound problems, however, they need to be careful as to the issuance method they use and the reasoning behind the issuance- the wrong method will not make it valid in time, or can invalidate it forever.

And YOU, John, did not answer my questions as to how you would handle the scenarios I gave you!:D