You know, the More I think about this, (Rules and the Strictness of their Intention and application), the More I am thinking it deserves a 'Thread' of it's own (in a similar vein to the 'Driver's have your say' thread),...
AND
The
MORE I believe that
Richard, should be allowed to Keep the 'Points' he Should have Earned for his Excellent Drive the Other night.
Firstly, let's consider the current 'Situation', as initially discovered by myself some time ago and so aptly also pointed out by Mark's recent 'post' and "Considered" with the Racer's Attitude in Mind.
When I first purchased a GT-1 chassis, (from James at HSC), it was to go racing at "Raceworld", as for many years I was unable to attend Any of the SRC events, as I invariably Worked on the nights they were held.
Being a somewhat complete Newbie to almost ANY kind of 'Flexi' racing and perhaps foolishly believing that one Purchased a car and (In Effect), ran it 'As Is' out of the Box, (apart from the standard kind of Tuning possibilities, like making sure it was Flat & Square etc.
I was (at the time) also Unaware of things like
Guide Strengtheners, a fact I soon became Painfully aware of and 'Fitted' after the Inevitable Hard 'Hit' into the 'Deadman' at Wayne's King track.
It was Not until I had the opportunity to perhaps Race in GT-1 at HSC that I even looked at the HSC Rules, prior to purchasing another GT-1 chassis that I brought up and discussed a couple of the points pointed out by Mark's 'post' regarding the
"No modifications to the Chassis" rule and wanted to check with James about the situation with Both the Guide strengtheners AND Pin Tubes and as pointed out by Mark, I too was met with information, suggesting that a guide strengthener was OK and Legal, (mind you, at the time I don't think Pin tubes were, but would seemingly have become so of more recent times).
Having had some similar discussions over some Strangely Included AND 'Interpreted' Rules especially in the 'Scale Racing' world and even HSC's Retro rules, I remarked that it perhaps made it Difficult to KNOW what one could or could Not do, (as a New Inexperienced Racer), by simply Reading the Rules and remarked that perhaps Many of the currently running cars, Could (by the strict application of the Rules), be classified as 'Illegally Modified' !!
BUT,.. with the ever present thought and consideration of the difficulty in getting and maintaining Entry Numbers and people Having FUN, this is I believe the Actual 'Point' of this seeming 'Debate' and situation and is and Should be Interpreted and reviewed with the consideration of:-
Whether the Person had 'Modified' the car for the Purpose of Gaining an advantage !!
It IS, with this simple thought/consideration 'in mind', that I would have to suggest Once again,
that Richard, Should be Allowed to Keep the Points he Should have been awarded for His Fine drive/performance on the Night in Question !!
I say this, mainly with consideration to Richard's general Attitude towards His racing (which has also been alluded to by almost everyone involved in the event and who have 'posted' comments in this thread),..
That HE, Does have the Right Attitude and
Was in No way Trying to or Intending to 'Gain an Unfair Advantage' and was merely a case of (as suggested by himself),
the ONLY Tyres he had in his Box 'On the Night' !!
I am unsure whether anyone actually 'Offered' Richard a set of Wide Softer tyres or Not, (perhaps Richard can chime and confirm either way), but as suggested in Any event his decision to run His car Anyway and Not get any Points,
Shows that he was there to Race, Merely for FUN and was Not in any way attempting to 'Cheat' !!
With consideration to these damned Rules, it also makes me wonder just How many Other cars 'On the Night' were running / entered with (if viewed and interpreted Strictly according to the Written HSC Rules), Illegally !!??
In effect being fitted with either Guide strengtheners and/or Pin Tubes etc.
How 'Completely Legal was the car belonging to Whoever it was that 'Pointed-out' Richard's Narrow tyres !!??
The Rules are (in theory) designed to 'Define' what can and cannot be done,
NOT to be Interpreted in a fashion that 'IMPLIES' a set of parameters that aren't actually Written or defined as such.
If a set of parameters or Modifications ARE what the General Racer IS allowed to do, (through common practice), then it Should, as Fox and others have suggested,.. be 'Defined' as such Within the rules, so as to Make it Clear and NOT be some 'Grey Area' of supposedly Implied and intrinsically 'Understood' legality.
I think it also worth mentioning the actual
Tyre Width rule, as the 'Suggestion' of Reading the Rules keeps being bandied about.
I and Many others here have been racing Slot Cars on and off for Many, Many years, in Many different classes and styles of Cars and
NEVER, EVER has there been
ANY class or Set of Rules that
EVER precluded Anyone from 'Adjusting' the MINIMUM Width of the Rear Tyres !!!
May I suggest that the Main reason Many of us were Unaware of the Rule, is merely that we 'Glossed-Over' the Specific 'Rear Tyres' Section, as We (Collectively), and obviously incorrectly, Did
NOT Expect there to even BE a rule concerning what has In
ALL My Experience merely been considered and regarded as an
Alowable 'Tuning Parameter' and
NEVER previously being a Rule !!
Whilst I obviously Have to agree that this Fact IS written in the HSC GT-1 Rules, it IS (as can be seen by checking
EVERY Other Class),
the ONLY Class where this Rule is even written or Implied !!
AND as suggested above, is also the
ONLY time I have EVER seen a rule like this Written in Any Rule Set for ANY class in Any race I have ever entered,.. it IS VERY MUCH an ODDITY and EXCEPTION to the NORM' as such and is In my View (and I would venture also of many others) a rather Strange and arguably 'Questionable' rule and seriously makes me Wonder Why it was Ever 'Written-In' and Instigated in the first place.
What Was the 'Point' to it's Inclusion in the Rules and What was it Trying to Preclude/achieve ??
I mention/question this, as currently (and for some time), there has been a similar Problem with the
Retro CanAm Rules regarding Overall Width of the Rear Wheel/Axle assembly.
The Rules (when Retro's were first begun) and that can be Confirmed by a number of current and Past racers, were Adopted/Copied from the Then Current
IRRA/D3 rules as run in the USA and defined Quite SIMPLY that the overall Width of the Chassis/Wheel/Axles, could
Not Exceed 3.125" (apart from Pin Head/Body Mountings etc.
Unfortunately and Due completely And
ONLY because Way back when the class was First getting going,
a small Number of chassis (and I DO mean a Small Number,,.. 3 perhaps 4), were built to the Maximum Rear Width with the Use of the Then Commonly available Alpha Rear Tyres/Rims.
Seemingly, all good, as with the Use of the aforementioned Alpha Rims, these cars Were Legal,..
BUT,.. when those same cars were fitted with the Ever so Slightly Wider JK Rims, they Exceeded the 3.125" allowable Maximum !!
Now,.. in consideration of the (
Not Done to 'Gain and Unfair Advantage') concept alluded to above, these cars were allowed to Run,...
BUT,..
Bugger me, a
Modification to the Rules was included
ONLY on and In the HSC Retro Rules, specifying a
Maximum Rear Width of 81mm !! and here we Now have a
'Definition' Problem.
As this Rule was Included to Allow the Very Few Cars that were made Many years ago to be 'Legal',.. something that in reality was Never really Needed, as WE all knew of the 'Situation' AND understood the Problem and may I suggest NO ONE Would have EVER even Thought of Protesting those cars or Prevented them from Racing.
(It is also interesting to Note that as far as I am aware, NONE of those chassis are currently being Run by Anyone and haven't for Some years).
This IS I believe a Problem, as it Confuses the Previously 'Patently CLEAR' understanding and application of the Rules and 'Suggests' that Someone could and can build a NEW Car that Has a Rear Wheel/Axle Width of 81mm.
As can be Clearly seen and read in the Clearly defined and unanimously Agreed to Retro Rules;
http://forum.ascra.com.au/viewtopic.php?f=5&t=1254 such a Car, would
Not be Legal in Any Event AND would (May I suggest), be 'Protestable' if Entered, even at HSC, due to
WHY that Damn confusing Rule was included in the First Place !!!!
It should also be 'Noted' that BOTH Mark and Myself have made it Patently clear to ALL racers from back then and to James that WE would Happily 'Modify' those cars So as to Meet With and be Legal under the
Correct and as Applied Rules that have
Always Been in Place Both Here and Overseas for Retro CanAm,.. yet,.. this Confusion Still 'Hangs Around and was Even Questioned and Suggested by Someone
(The Very Same Builder of these 'Pesky' Wide Cars),
himself when the Question of
Maximim Width came up Prior to
My Scrutineering of the Cars at the recent
SSME Enduro !!
May I also suggest that I took a Leniant (and I believe appropriate), approach on this matter when Scrutineering the cars on the day.
So, in closing, ans as alluded to by Mark and as Often seriously discussed by Himself and I over the years when considering the rules of some of the classes we have decided to enter, (especially in More recent times), the rules should
Accurately 'Define' what is Allowed within the Scope of the class and
accurately 'Reflect' what is accepted as legal for the Race and Series etc.
Not be
Loosely applied to Some aspects,
Ignored completely in Some areas (Due to some Implied Legality or theoretical 'Common Practice') or
Strictly Applied arbitrarily, in Some Particular Areas !!
If there is
NO consistency then it IS rather difficult, to ' Cherry-Pick' one's way through the rules to fully Understand the Legality of Ones car.
On a number of occasions over the years, Newcomers have attended various races, with certain aspects of their cars that May perhaps Not have completely complied with the rules.
In the Mind Set of having Fun and Inclusion of New racers, the Best method (I believe), is to Allow them to Race, but with a Mention and help and description of the aspects of the car that don't meet the rules, as it IS about Inclusion And FUN and (as stated initially), the
interpretation of the Rules needs consideration as to whether the person Knew of or clearly understood the rules and whether they were
Intentionally attempting to Cheat or Gain an advantage etc.
My apologies for the Lengthy 'post' and 'Rave',.. but the Whole thing has Kind of Annoyed me and the More I thought about it, the More I believed something should be said, especially after consideration of and to re-enforce the thoughts and opinions made with Mark's 'post' etc.
This Whole thing we Do,.. is about and FOR FUN I believe and I cannot Help but feel, Some of that Same FUN, was Impacted upon and particularly reduced for Richard on the Night by the Strict 'Application' of a Very Odd part of a Very Odd and arguably poorly Written and Very 'Loosely' Applied set of rules.
Please Note I do NOT wish to OFFEND anyone,.. these are Simply MY Thoughts and Beliefs,..
Cheers
.