5. A. 2 Lakester Wing rule wording

[panic]

"May" is never a requirement or qualification, it's an option.

[gowing]

Of course, the rules can be reworked...

Since no one seems to be able to definably answer the question, This sounds like a rule that could use some reworking.

[panic]

How about "A wing, if used, must be mounted at least 12 inches above the top of the rear tires"

[Tybeeman]

How about "A wing, if used, must be mounted at least 12 inches higher than the top of the rear tires"

[racergeo]

  How about Stan jumping in and return this topic to being fun

[Stan Back]

This wasn't fun . . .

We broke our own record at El Mirage and the Impound Official added a prepositional phrase to a mechanical rule.  Then called the Category Official over and repeated the "modified" rule to him -- and he agreed.

So we left Impound with no fuel check and that was that.

Funny how we'd set seven records in the category before that time without the "rule?" coming into effect.

[panic]

If "what the rule means" is not a distinct and specific statement requiring no explanation, but instead is what some official thinks it means...

... it's not a rule.

[deepindebt]

 Stan, inquiring minds want to know??

[gowing]

Damn Stan, That Sucks!

It doesn't inspire much confidence in the system when so much time, money and effort are invested just to have the outcome decided by some guys opinion.

But I guess in the end it comes down to... It's their game, therefore their "rules".
Caveat emptor.

[Stan Back]

This all has to do with Street Roadster rules. My Rule Book collection starts at 1970. Then there's a big gap until 2002 thru to 2021. The rule part is not in the 1970 book, but has remained consistent from 2001 thru at least 2021. We set seven records in the C and D Street Roadster classes at El Mirage and Bonneville from 2002 to past the time of this incident in November of 2016 at El Mirage. We were running against my own record to give my buddy a record, too.

A little background here. The Street Roadster classes allow only 10% engine setback. And for those of us that run mechanical fuel injection, it's almost mandatory that you position the fuel supply ahead of the engine. I had many years driving this car on the street with Enderle injectors and a tank in the back. Under sudden acceleration, the fuel would try to run to the back.

When the SCTA finally got around to making the rules about front-mounted tanks, they had to consider a couple of changes. Some owners were mounting tanks vertically in front of the radiator for a supposed aero advantage. Some were mounted low to direct air flow under the car for the some reason. With that they might be a safety hazard in case of an accident. So they wrote a rule concerning the tank style and position -- now cylindrical tanks should be mounted in such a way that they did not go below the frame rails and were protected in case of an accident.

This rule did not change in the 15 years we'd been running the car. (And we were proud to have a car with a real roadster body -- especially in the Street Roadster classification. The doors opened. It had 5" automotive headlights without the "lens" wrapping around the buckets. Its doors were not smooth lines outlined on the body. Its grill was not laid back or shortened. It was a Street Roadster.)

So, rolling into Impound we were told the rule said that the tank had to be above the top of the frame rail. 15 years of holding Street Roadster records and I guess they were all illegal. He read us this "ruling". We had never moved it. It complied with the rule. Here's the ground, here's the frame rail, here's the bottom of the tank, protected by the frame rail and offering no aero advantage.

Huh? Really? He also told us that our rear fenders were too wide. What advantage would that be? I suggested he contact Henry about this. "Henry who?"  "Henry Ford, he made the fucking fenders."

So he goes over to his car, gets in, rolls up the window and summons the Category Chairman. He then repeats the "modified" rule to him. Not knowing the exact wording of every rule, the chairman agrees -- it has to be above the top of the frame rail.

Stunned, we left Impound. After we'd figured out the charade, it was too late to go back. So my buddy didn't get the record ? it stood for a couple more years. He knows he set the record, I know he set the record. But this was bullshit. I've volunteered for duties dozen years or so and am proud of the organization. But every organization is not squeaky clean.

[deepindebt]

All I can say is wow. Doesn't that stuff usually start with somebody protesting? Total bummer

[jl222]

 
Stan... apply for a rule change, specifying tank must be above the bottom of the frame.

  JL222

[Stan Back]

Well, John, by the time we figured out what they'd done to us, we were out of Impound.  Didn't need a Rule Change.  We'd set 7 records over 15 years as it was -- at both Bonneville and El Mirage.  What we needed was officials egregiously adding words to the rules as they read them.

I'll try to post of picture of the tank as it was for 15+ years in Inspection and Impound . . .

[jacksoni]

Yah, Dan Warner is fond of saying, "don't read into the rule book what isn't there." Problem, like yours, is when the inspector says " Our interpretation is......". I've had those exact words said to me. You're screwed. Haul out the rule book and show me where it says that.......   See above.

[slowalex]

Well, John, by the time we figured out what they'd done to us, we were out of Impound.  Didn't need a Rule Change.  We'd set 7 records over 15 years as it was -- at both Bonneville and El Mirage.  What we needed was officials egregiously adding words to the rules as they read them.

I'll try to post of picture of the tank as it was for 15+ years in Inspection and Impound . . .

Nice looking Roadster Stan. I never would have though that anyone would call that a "low" mounted fuel tank.