Funny debate in Spec E30

[Stu]

Cliffs:

In SE30, the rules require all ballast weight to be in the passenger floorboard, and you are allowed to use a spare tire in the spare well if your car doesn't make min. weight. The Grassroots Motorsport team welded 50 pounds worth of weights onto the spare wheel to make min. weight (and get more weight over the rear end in a low CG area)

Pictures:

http://grassrootsmotorsports.com/news/052008/chromepocalypse.php

Thread:

http://spece30.com/component/option,com_fireboard/Itemid,86/func,view/id,24774/catid,16/limit,10/limitstart,0/

Just an example of taking advantage of the gray area of rules clarification.
There's a variety of opinions on the subject, but it looks like it's not going to fly in the long run.

[e30pwr]

yeah I watched the spec class saturday and mike reffet was kickin the hell out of mopst of the other cars in the field. besides to 05+ mustang and viper.

gray areas are the best way to exploit all opportunities.

[TDE30]

Interesting. I don't particularly follow SE30 that much. Grassroots sounds like a pretty big name in that series. Considering that, do you think that the organizers would penalize them and risk losing a team that could promote the series moreso than simple word-of-mouth?

It's very risky what they're doing, but they certainly aren't violating any rules or regulations.

[z31maniac]

It's very risky what they're doing, but they certainly aren't violating any rules or regulations.

I haven't looked at the discussion over there, but I'm sure the argument is that they are violating the "spirit or intent" of the rules.

[DSP74]

They need to install just a spare tire/wheel. A studded snow tire on a HUGELY heavy wheel. Fill the tire with sand bags before seating it to the wheel.:D

[Dave]

The rule is going to be changed to get rid of any strained interpretation that that "spare" is legal. Clearly, the intent of what Scott did there was way outside the realm of reasonable.

If the rules don't say you can "Modify" or "replace" the OE part, you can't.

GRM isn't a "team" - they have one of the staffers from the magazine who built a car for the series. And I dont think they should be allowed any special treatment - rules creep will screw the series.

[DSP74]

The rule is going to be changed to get rid of any strained interpretation that that "spare" is legal. Clearly, the intent of what Scott did there was way outside the realm of reasonable.

If the rules don't say you can "Modify" or "replace" the OE part, you can't.

GRM isn't a "team" - they have one of the staffers from the magazine who built a car for the series. And I dont think they should be allowed any special treatment - rules creep will screw the series.

Agree with everything. Rules in an inexpensive series that is gaining popularity like SE30 is needs to be enforced with an Iron fist. Rules creep and open interpretations drive up costs big time.....taking away a big portion of the series appeal to everyone......

I think a claimer engine program is a good idea IMO.

[Jordan325iC]

I don't understand what the big deal is. I think he went the right route by putting his "rule stretching" in plain sight for review by his SpecE30 peers and overlords. He could have done something sneaky by filling the spare tire with water or filling the rear of the cage with lead shot to get the same effect. I don't think he's trying to gain an unfair, cheating advantage. He is openly pointing out a loophole.

[aaron.j]

if someone really wanted to why not fill the rear frame , on both sides of the spare wheel well, with cement..or lead. A lot of dirt track cars and 4 cyl mustnag calsses use lead in the fram rails for weight dist.

[Brew]

I think he brings up a pretty good debate. Maybe because of this they will change the rules to say that no spare tire or sound deadening, factory or aftermarket, is allowed in the trunk. And as others have said, he's not being sneaky about it.

Maybe they need to lower the minimum weight so they don't need to use so much ballast?

[Dave]

I don't understand what the big deal is. I think he went the right route by putting his "rule stretching" in plain sight for review by his SpecE30 peers and overlords. He could have done something sneaky by filling the spare tire with water or filling the rear of the cage with lead shot to get the same effect. I don't think he's trying to gain an unfair, cheating advantage. He is openly pointing out a loophole.

There is no reasonable way one can interpret that his ballast creation (creative as it is!) is really a "spare". You could not argue that it is safe or possible to drive the car on the road with that thing mounted.

The rules have very specific limitations on where you can put ballast in the car to make weight - and it is NOT in the trunk.

I'm not condemning him for being a "cheater" - sure what he did is less offensive than if he had done it in a way that was concealed and intended to be hidden from his competitors. Doesn't make it right. It is very disingenuous to argue that this is a legal "spare tire".

As I look at it, the rules are not written to be exploited at every possible turn. They are to be viewed with a modicum of common sense. This contraption flies in the face of that.

[ddavidv]

LOL, apparently GRM learned something from us in $2002 and $2003 when we used effective rules interpretation to win their Challenge thingy. :D Kudos for trying, though I suspect at some lesser degree they (he) expected to be told "nice try, but no". No rational person would agree that is a 'legal' spare wheel in the spirit of the rules.

I'd like to see the minimum weight be reduced a bit myself. I read about a lot of people struggling to make weight and it shouldn't be that hard. I haven't weighed mine yet, but I run with the spare (an actual, usable one) and a Corbeau passenger seat, so I should be ok.

[Brew]

If there is no rule clarification on this issue, which I think was his point all along, what's stopping someone from running the stock spare, 50 lbs of stock sound deadening (which at least one racer brought up as a possible safety issue in an accident), and a 100 lb battery to get better corner weights?

[Bavarian3]

"As I look at it, the rules are not written to be exploited at every possible turn. They are to be viewed with a modicum of common sense. This contraption flies in the face of that."

I have to agree with Dave. Although in racing, usually someone is not following by the rule book.

If it doesn't clearly state in the rule book that it is allowed, it isn't. Rules state (as Stu said) "A car found to be underweight after a qualifying session shall (3.1) have securely mounted
ballast installed in the passenger compartment to meet the minimum weight requirement
without exceeding the maximum ballast weight allowed. Alternatively, a spare tire may (3.1)
be placed in the spare tire well and appropriately secured. The car shall (3.1) start at the back
of the grid for the race if it meets the minimum weight requirement."

and

"Ballast is permitted, and shall be securely mounted in the passenger foot well, aft of
the firewall, and shall be forward of the passenger seat. Alternatively, ballast may be
mounted using the passenger seat mounting points, if the passenger seat is removed."

It states spare tire or weight on passenger floor. It does not state, weight ballast on spare tire.

I wonder what his cross-weight numbers were..

[rwh11385]

If there is no rule clarification on this issue, which I think was his point all along, what's stopping someone from running the stock spare, 50 lbs of stock sound deadening (which at least one racer brought up as a possible safety issue in an accident), and a 100 lb battery to get better corner weights?

+1

I don't understand what the big deal is. I think he went the right route by putting his "rule stretching" in plain sight for review by his SpecE30 peers and overlords. He could have done something sneaky by filling the spare tire with water or filling the rear of the cage with lead shot to get the same effect. I don't think he's trying to gain an unfair, cheating advantage. He is openly pointing out a loophole.

+1