390 replies to this topic

[dosco]

Originally posted by McGuire
I guess I am not the best person to parse out that particular distinction because I am absolutely opposed to such drugs in any venue, as I am to all drug abuse of any kind.

I'm not suggesting you support "drug use," I'm suggesting you consider it looking at sporting events in different lights from a philosophical perspective.

[dosco]

Originally posted by McGuire
No, you are missing the point. If you want to fix F1, there must be only one proper interpretation of the rulebook: the sanctioning body's. Of course competitors will invent their own interpretations, but who cares?

C'mon, McG. Everyone should care, b/c if a "new development" is considered legal by the sanctioning body, then everyone will scrabble to adopt it. Examples: active suspension, semi-auto gearboxes, etc.

I would like to know how race fans ever got the idea that rulebook re-interpretation represents an engineering feat of some kind. That is not engineering. That is jailhouse lawyering with a minor in semantical jiggery-pokery.

Because as I understand it, many of the interesting developments over the years were "rulebook rejiggers" since the rules weren't written to exclude that functionality. Example: pseudo-active suspension that raised the car in the pits to conform to underbody clearance requirements (and pass inspection), but lowered the car on the track to restore the "sealed underbody."

[Limits]

Originally posted by McGuire


How can the word "sportsmanship" mean anything at all when one is breaking the established rules of the game, willfully and with advance thought and planning?

I noticed your use of the word "professional." Should professional sports have lower standards of sportsmanship than amateur sports? Let's imagine you and I are down at the pool hall playing a friendly round of 8-Ball, ten bucks a game. When I have my back turned, you rearrange the balls on the table. Isn't that poor sportsmanship? At how many dollars per game does it become acceptable sportsmanship?

Knowingly breaking the rules is cheating. There is no other word for it. In auto racing it is also lying, because the entry you are required to read and sign affirms that you will obey and respect the rules. There is further cheating and lying involved after that, as the infraction must be artfully concealed if the perpetrator has any hope of getting away with it.

I am not passing judgement on any of this, just pointing out a few things about auto racing that seem to escape notice must of the time.

I am saying sportsmanship means one thing in professional sport and another if there is no stakes, no audience. If I was to race a friend on a gokart that had limited talent and experience I advice him to rent the 9hp kart and I would take the 7hp vehicle. If Kimi Raikkonen would attend the race I am quite sure he would pick the worst kart out there and start last. To give the others a sporting chance. But Hamilton had no intention of starting the Brazilian GP from the pit lane to give Kimi a sporting chance. Instead he was playing tricks on him during qualifying that was perfectly legal but it would not have been considered very sporting in our friendly kart race.

In professional sport, sportsmanship is regulated by rules but in improvised events rules are replaced by sportsmanship.

If I play football (soccer) with my friends and someone accidently touches the ball with his hand but it does not really change the play situation, nobody would care about it. If someone would accidently hit the ball with his hands so that there is a goal, he would say "Sorry, it was with my hand, no goal". Can you imagine Beckham doing that? If he did, and the team loses the match, can you imagine the reaction by the sponsors and fans?

How many soccer games have been won by a player pretending to be fouled in the penalty zone? How many hockey games have been decided by rough guys cross checking the Players when the referee looks the other way? How many F1 Championships have been won by clever stretching of the rules? How many has been won by good sportsmanship?

[McGuire]

Originally posted by dosco


I'm not suggesting you support "drug use," I'm suggesting you consider it looking at sporting events in different lights from a philosophical perspective.

And I am saying I can't, because at the critical point both are wrong in my eyes. "Performance-enhancing" drugs are just as wrong and harmful for you whether you are an olympic swimmer or a WWE wrestler. I see it as pure evil for any individual in sports OR entertainment, so the entire distinction is lost on me.

[McGuire]

Originally posted by angst


Re-interpretation? Strange term. Interpretation, certainly. As to the idea that there can only be one interpretation of the rulebook - how can that be? The rules are there, how can the teams know what the interpretation is supposed to be, particularly if they are written badly? The teams can only go by what is written down.

No, that is wrong. If the team has any questions it can ask the FIA. If the team is in any further doubt from there it can simply submit the car just as it last passed inspection.

That's the thing about all the "gray area" in the rules that everyone goes on about. For the most part it's only there if you are squinting just right.

Originally posted by angst


As for the 'bullshit'. Find me the dry-weight regulation within the F1 Technical Regulations.......Its not there. Just exclaiming a swear word doesn't make that untrue. Show me the regulation that you see.

We start with Article 4.1. Now here is where you launch into your long-winded and convoluted explanation of how the rulebook doesn't really say what it says and you can invent a different interpretation. Spare yourself the time and spare me the nonsense. All that style of thinking is exactly what is wrong with F1.

And by the way, bullshit is not a swear word, Dickweed. You may consider it profanity if you like.

[Canuck]

Originally posted by McGuire
"Performance-enhancing" drugs are just as wrong and harmful for you whether you are...

Hahahaha...oh man. That statement is so full of holes. You should stick to insulting people, something you seem to have experience with.

[McGuire]

Originally posted by Limits

How many F1 Championships have been won by clever stretching of the rules? How many has been won by good sportsmanship?

There is no such thing as "clever stretching of the rules." First, there is nothing particularly clever about it. Next, there is no stretching as the rules are not intended to be elastic. The rules are supposed to be the same for all competitors. Any manipulation of the rules, "stretching" or otherwise, is cheating.

[McGuire]

Originally posted by Canuck

Hahahaha...oh man. That statement is so full of holes. You should stick to insulting people, something you seem to have experience with.

I will be happy to oblige you, asshole. Categorical assertions are always tricky, but this is one of the safer ones: Abusing drugs is bad for you.

I am adopting the view that you know exactly as much about performance-enhancing drugs as you know about motorcycle riding or internal combustion engines: almost nothing really, but just enough to be dangerous. So if you don't mind I will keep my own counsel on this subject too. Have a nice day.

[Canuck]

See, there you go resorting to personal attacks again . I didn't call you names and I didn't call you stupid, and now you're modifying your original statement to from "use" to "abuse". Of course abuse is dangerous - alcohol abuse, drug abuse, spousal abuse, child abuse...it's why it's called abuse. Use on the other hand is not implicit with abuse.

You know McGuire, you've shared a ton of knowledge with me since I joined up with this forum because you're right, I don't know much about engines compared to some of the folks here. I'm okay with that because at the end of the day, I'm not a **** and I can admit when I'm wrong. You on the other hand can't claim either of those. In typical me fashion, I equated your position with Hot Rod magazine as implying upstanding character but at the end of the day you've exposed yourself as little more than another Franklin, screaming obscenities at people that call you on your bullshit.

[Limits]

Originally posted by McGuire



There is no such thing as "clever stretching of the rules." First, there is nothing particularly clever about it. Next, there is no stretching as the rules are not intended to be elastic. The rules are supposed to be the same for all competitors. Any manipulation of the rules, "stretching" or otherwise, is cheating.

I don't really know what to say about that... In theory you are right, but if I put it this way: The F1 rules do not intent a F1 rear wing to be elastic either.

[desmo]

I'm interjecting to ask everyone to at least think a good long moment before insulting other members. I'm not saying never do it, but at least be sparing and creative with it and not just call each other more or less random dirty names. And if you can see its getting too heated just recognize that and take it down a notch or two. Please. This forum has a great track record for things not often getting personal and I like that.

Just say no to member abuse!

[McGuire]

Originally posted by Canuck
See, there you go resorting to personal attacks again . I didn't call you names and I didn't call you stupid, and now you're modifying your original statement to from "use" to "abuse". Of course abuse is dangerous - alcohol abuse, drug abuse, spousal abuse, child abuse...it's why it's called abuse. Use on the other hand is not implicit with abuse.

Read your post. You suggested that I only insult people and I obliged. What's the problem? If you folks were more aware of your own tone you would have no trouble from me. I am not required to be nice to you while you behave like asses, just because I work for HRM. You be nice to me and I will be nice to you. smiley face icon --->

Athletes who use these substances have little idea what they are taking, or how much, while the people who supply the drugs are neither qualified nor authorized to administer them. That is drug abuse. Next question.

[McGuire]

Originally posted by desmo
I'm interjecting to ask everyone to at least think a good long moment before insulting other members. I'm not saying never do it, but at least be sparing and creative with it and not just call each other more or less random dirty names. And if you can see its getting too heated just recognize that and take it down a notch or two. Please. This forum has a great track record for things not often getting personal and I like that.

Just say no to member abuse!

I would like to go on record that folks may call me whatever they like as long as they show a little style.

[desmo]

I follow cycling and the continual doping scandals are just sucking the life out of the sport. I don't have an answer, no one seemingly does. The whole TC period in F1 from '93 to '01, which reminds me of the doping situation in cycling, did the sport no good in my opinion.

Anyone think the dark suspicions of cheating will be done away with when the new spec-ECU anti-TC goes into force? I hope so.

[Canuck]

Originally posted by McGuire


Read your post. You suggested that I only insult people and I obliged. What's the problem? If you folks were more aware of your own tone you would have no trouble from me. I am not required to be nice to you while you behave like asses, just because I work for HRM. You be nice to me and I will be nice to you. smiley face icon --->

Actually, what I said was that you had experience insulting folks - this thread being a prime example. I implied you had no factual basis for your statement that PED use (abuse wasn't mentioned until you brought it in, after the fact) was dangerous.

Originally posted by McGuire
Athletes who use these substances have little idea what they are taking, or how much, while the people who supply the drugs are neither qualified nor authorized to administer them.

What facts do you base these two statements on? Are you also tied to IOC and WADA? Do you have in-depth, or even non-media experience/exposure to/information to back up either of those? I doubt it. The appearance of your position suggests you know only what you may have been exposed to in the news, and nothing via interaction with professional atheletes, coaches, sponsors or the rest of the multi-million dollar industries that are tied to "sports".
Do you really believe, and expect anyone with even a modicum of sports physio knowledge to believe, that an athelete doesn't know when they're taking PEDs (with or without their explicit approval)? Do you think that the minds that develop PED programs that both evade IOC/WADA detection while simultaneously being more successful than their counterparts in other countries are stupid? Do you really think they don't know what they're doing? That somehow, some moron musclehead has managed to design a drug that enhances performance at the most elite of levels, and still eludes detection by the preeminent anti-doping organization in the world is somehow too stupid to grasp the mechanisms of how the drug works and what effects it has on the body and mind of the athelete? Please. At best that's wishful thinking and worst, willful denial. Authorized? Of course not - they're cheating. No ****.

Making sports stars - track and field, football, baseball, any and all of them - there's big money to be made from them, and people invest big money making them. Don't kid yourself.

Wrong? Different issue entirely. Unsafe? No more or less than anything else of power. I never cease to be amazed by society that deems all manner of invasive plastic surgery and "surgical body modification" to be acceptable, but characterizes the use of PEDs to achieve a similar goal as dangerous, unhealthy and akin to snorting cocaine.

[cheapracer]

Originally posted by Limits

I don't really know what to say about that... In theory you are right, but if I put it this way: The F1 rules do not intent a F1 rear wing to be elastic either.

Everything has elastisity, didnt you know everything flexes

[angst]

Originally posted by McGuire


No, that is wrong. If the team has any questions it can ask the FIA. If the team is in any further doubt from there it can simply submit the car just as it last passed inspection.

That's the thing about all the "gray area" in the rules that everyone goes on about. For the most part it's only there if you are squinting just right.

What do you mean, the team can simply submit the car just as it last passed inspection..? Without another team requesting a clarification then the Ferrari underfloor would pass inspection. Is that, therefore legal? Is the passing of inspection the arbiter of legality? If it is, then how come the Ferrari passed that inspection and yet, upon delivering the clarification sought by McLaren the FIA stated that such a device (as used by Ferrari and inspection passed) would be "clearly" in breach of article 3.15?

The thing about the grey area is that it seems to be treated differently depending upon who is in that area. It has always been delved into.

Originally posted by McGuire


We start with Article 4.1. Now here is where you launch into your long-winded and convoluted explanation of how the rulebook doesn't really say what it says and you can invent a different interpretation. Spare yourself the time and spare me the nonsense. All that style of thinking is exactly what is wrong with F1.

And by the way, bullshit is not a swear word, Dickweed. You may consider it profanity if you like.

Which is basically an admittance that there is no dry-weight regulation (as the CoA had to admit) without actually having the gumption to actually say so. As for the name calling.....I think that just goes to show that you know you are wrong, have no argument and resort to childish, playground tactics. A bit like that man, Max Mosley, again. I guess talking to you in person must be a wheeze, interjected as it must be with 'profanity', raspberries and - possibly - sticking your fingers in your ears and shouting lalalalalalalala at the top of your voice. Or are you a "is is is is is is is " man?

Really, McGuire, get a grip man.

[McGuire]

Originally posted by angst


Which is basically an admittance that there is no dry-weight regulation (as the CoA had to admit) without actually having the gumption to actually say so.

Blah blah blah, jailhouse lawyering. While you find all that rot fascinating and clever and can go on about it for hours, in fact it is destructive and childish and has no place in F1 if the series is to move ahead. The FIA must be the ultimate authority on its own rulebook, not BAR and not you. Especially not you.

Originally posted by angst


..I think that just goes to show that you know you are wrong, have no argument and resort to childish, playground tactics. A bit like that man, Max Mosley, again. I guess talking to you in person must be a wheeze, interjected as it must be with 'profanity', raspberries and - possibly - sticking your fingers in your ears and shouting lalalalalalalala at the top of your voice. Or are you a "is is is is is is is " man?

You don't get it. I am never going to show you one bit more respect than you express for the FIA, Max Mosley and Charlie Whiting et al. Not that I have any great love for them, but as long as you keep carrying on like a pathetic fanboy we are not yet having an intelligent conversation. So in the meantime, why shouldn't I treat you like a jackass if you insist on acting like one?

[McGuire]

Originally posted by Canuck



What facts do you base these two statements on? Are you also tied to IOC and WADA? Do you have in-depth, or even non-media experience/exposure to/information to back up either of those? I doubt it.

Well, here is what tiny little bit I know about it. A few years back a marketing/media buying firm was looking at a deal with a cycling team for one of the mfg'ers. The director was not getting the warm and fuzzies (for unrelated reasons) so he asks me to work up a report. Process/program auditing and technical troubleshooting are my area; I don't know dick about bicycle racing. But they asked me to treat it like any other program and have a look. So I did.

And among the other touble spots identified, yes they were juicing. But there was no apparent science to their methodology, they were all over the place. It was hiding in plain sight, they were all doing something different and then lying to each other. The trainers were Dr. Nick, the entire approach was nefarious and it looked to me like it or something was affecting their training and personal lives. I have no way to know drugs were to blame but these people were a herd of squirrels. Not only was there trouble brewing here, to me the whole thing was doomed to blow up and create a major scandal. So that was my report in a nutshell. The company passed on the deal and you know what eventually happened. So how'd I do? Did I protect my client's $$$?

[McGuire]

Originally posted by Canuck

Wrong? Different issue entirely. Unsafe? No more or less than anything else of power. I never cease to be amazed by society that deems all manner of invasive plastic surgery and "surgical body modification" to be acceptable, but characterizes the use of PEDs to achieve a similar goal as dangerous, unhealthy and akin to snorting cocaine.

To me those are all bad choices. I wouldn't take up one and then defend my decision by pointing to the people making the other bad choices. I would only be kidding myself.

[angst]

Originally posted by McGuire

Blah blah blah, jailhouse lawyering. While you find all that rot fascinating and clever and can go on about it for hours, in fact it is destructive and childish and has no place in F1 if the series is to move ahead. The FIA must be the ultimate authority on its own rulebook, not BAR and not you. Especially not you.

Then the FIA should take control of the rulebook. Such as a dry-weight is so easy to write its unbelieveable that it isn't written so, isn't it? End of ambiguity. Its all very well saying "the FIA must be the ultimate authority.." yah di yah di yah, if they write regulations that are so open to interpretation then they will be interpeted. Do you think, by the way, that BAR-Honda were the only team to be following that particular path? The FIA's own CoA could not find BAR-Honda guilty of deliberately breaking the rules. They had to admit that the interpretation that they took was there.

And never mind calling it 'rot'. Was the Ferrari underfloor legal, as you seem to imly that inspection is the arbiter of that....

Originally posted by McGuire
You don't get it. I am never going to show you one bit more respect than you express for the FIA, Max Mosley and Charlie Whiting et al. Not that I have any great love for them, but as long as you keep carrying on like a pathetic fanboy we are not yet having an intelligent conversation. So in the meantime, why shouldn't I treat you like a jackass if you insist on acting like one?

I have said nothing derogatory about Max, the FIA or Charlie Whiting during this latest phase of discussion - unless you think that questioning the mess that the regs are clearly in is derogatory. It seems that you are not capable of holding a conversation that you consider intelligent unless the other participants in that conversation are in total agreement with you. Why don't you try sticking to debating the issues raised, instead of avoiding them through this, very transparent, deflection?

[McGuire]

Originally posted by angst


Then the FIA should take control of the rulebook. Such as a dry-weight is so easy to write its unbelieveable that it isn't written so, isn't it? End of ambiguity. Its all very well saying "the FIA must be the ultimate authority.." yah di yah di yah, if they write regulations that are so open to interpretation then they will be interpeted.

No, the problem is with the teams and the culture of F1. There will always be these so-called "ambiguities" in the rules, no matter how long and detailed you write them. That has to do with the imagination of the reader, not the precision of the writing. It goes on forever, infinite regress. There must be one final authority with the power to interpret the rulebook, and that will have to be the FIA. Period.

For example, we can go on for weeks debating the precise meaning of all the rulebook verbiage regarding vehicle weight, monks arguing how many angels can fit on the head of a pin. But that is all nonsense, for unless you have the ethical sensibilities of a pine block you know that the team's intention was to subvert the weighing procedure and run their car light. No gray area in their intent.

[angst]

Originally posted by McGuire


No, the problem is with the teams and the culture of F1. There will always be these so-called "ambiguities" in the rules, no matter how long and detailed you write them. That has to do with the imagination of the reader, not the precision of the writing. It goes on forever, infinite regress. There must be one final authority with the power to interpret the rulebook, and that will have to be the FIA. Period.

For example, we can go on for weeks debating the precise meaning of all the rulebook verbiage regarding vehicle weight, monks arguing how many angels can fit on the head of a pin. But that is all nonsense, for unless you have the ethical sensibilities of a pine block you know that the team's intention was to subvert the weighing procedure and run their car light. No gray area in their intent.

In terms of a dry-weight. That is simple enough. There is no ambiguity about a straight-forward dry-weight regulation. AS far as how detailed you write them (the regs)....well, this is what I've been saying all along. There needs to be an understanding that there will be development, that that is the aim of the teams. You cannot micro-manage the regulations.

[McGuire]

Originally posted by angst


In terms of a dry-weight. That is simple enough. There is no ambiguity about a straight-forward dry-weight regulation.

And as far as we know BAR still attempts to subvert the rule by trapping fuel in the cell. We have no reason to believe the team's intent would change just because the wording changed. Their bad faith action was not based on the rulebook language at all, or any supposed ambiguity therein, but on their understanding of the customary weighing procedure. The rules never changed, only the checking procedure. And that is where BAR got caught with its pants down.

In other words BAR knew perfectly well it was against the rules but they did it anyway because they thought they could get away with it. Unless you are a moral and ethical cripple, that is cheating.

[RDV]

McGuire-I would like to go on record that folks may call me whatever they like as long as they show a little style.

It is one's fervent opinion, however, that one cannot advocate that anyone should do so. It is ugly. It is unpermissible. It is just Not The Thing.

Yet...my gracious correspondent might crave, in a spirit of cleansing himself of the sins so eminently displayed in the posts above, a little whipping, chastising, even verbal abuse.

But one is generous. One is forgiving. One will not say any such thing. One will merely post one's preamble for all to ridicule privately, as they wish. 'Tis the kindest thing, really.

However, one will be not be cruel, and not insult, thus leaving these feelings of guilt unassuaged.

During the many months that one has invested in this exercise of educative supreme good taste, one has always used one principle as sextant, beneath the myriad stars of wisdom by which one steers. Oh yes! On one's personal craft, this one guiding light has kept one's hull from cracking upon the Coral Reef of Irrelevance; it has kept the vessel from floundering in the Shallow Waters of Self-Indulgence; it has kept one's sails filled with the sweet winds of inspiration, and one's rudder unencrusted of the Barnacles of Bolshevikism. And what is this principle, this motto to which one adheres unswervingly? Why, simply put: One sticks to the point!

One's faithful readers know how one loathes long, digressive sentences. No, one is not the sort of fellow to repeat something again and again, ad nauseum, over and over and over and over again. One is crisp and to the point. One does not repeat. One is crisp and to the point.

Brevity is, of course, the hallmark of one's style. It is the reason one can provide one's readers with the longest-running source of advice on this technological wonder known as the Technical Forum.

But enough of this piffle!One shall state, simply...er, where was one?

No matter, Helpfully, one remains,
Sir Julius Flangg-Tilly

[Fat Boy]

Originally posted by McGuire


No, the problem is with the teams and the culture of F1. There will always be these so-called "ambiguities" in the rules, no matter how long and detailed you write them. That has to do with the imagination of the reader, not the precision of the writing.

It's not just an F1 thing, it's all competitive sports. You look to anywhere there's an advantage.

I don't fault the teams. I fault the sactioning bodies for not enforcing their own rules and for not having smart enough people to control what's going on. I've pretty much shot things straight during my career, but at times have gone between 'pushing the edges' to (very rarely) out and out, completely over the line, bare-assed cheating. It's like a lock on a door. My dad always said a lock on a door is not to keep criminals out, but to keep honest people honest. For the most part a sanctioning body is the same thing. Most racers are fairly honest when it comes to racing, and a strong sanctioning body will keep those people honest.

I've written about this before. There's a lot of money at stake, specifically, the money going into my bank account. I have to protect that. At one point we went to the sanctioning body with a video clip of a competitor's car going around a slow corner, misfiring, cleaning out, and accelerating. They were clearly running traction control. We got in a room with the chief steward and quizzed him about it. He said that he'd looked at their electronics system and didn't see any traction control. After a couple months of going back and forth we had essentially proven they were running traction control race in and race out. We asked the sanctioning body what they were going to do. Their response was "nothing". We then asked what we were supposed to do. Their response, "Gentlemen, if I were you, I wouldn't bring a knife to a gun fight." After that, we didn't. The next year, T/C was legal. It doesn't make what we did any better, but I'll be damned if I'm going to hide my face and be ashamed. We were essentially told that if we didn't run it, we were stupid.

On the other side of the coin, I also had a deal where my driver had a thing that he was doing that was illegal (he had a computer and just enough ability to be dangerous). In the series that we were in, I felt like a lot of people were playing straight up (although I may feel a little otherwise now). Anyway, I told the stewards what he was doing and how to catch him. At first, I told him to not do it and he told me to pack sand. He was a miserable prick and I enjoyed having the last laugh on that one.

Anyway, that's my take, and I haven't had any problem sleeping at night (except for a little jet lag here and there).

One last thought, I've never had a successful car that wasn't legal. That's got to be a clue. Concentrate on the real work at hand and let everyone else bend themselves around the rule book.

[McGuire]

Originally posted by Fat Boy


At one point we went to the sanctioning body with a video clip of a competitor's car going around a slow corner, misfiring, cleaning out, and accelerating. They were clearly running traction control. We got in a room with the chief steward and quizzed him about it. He said that he'd looked at their electronics system and didn't see any traction control. After a couple months of going back and forth we had essentially proven they were running traction control race in and race out. We asked the sanctioning body what they were going to do. Their response was "nothing". We then asked what we were supposed to do. Their response, "Gentlemen, if I were you, I wouldn't bring a knife to a gun fight." After that, we didn't. The next year, T/C was legal. It doesn't make what we did any better, but I'll be damned if I'm going to hide my face and be ashamed. We were essentially told that if we didn't run it, we were stupid.

What does that tell us? Obviously, that the sanctioning body did not have the technical ability and/or the political authority to enforce its own rules. It happens all the time. Which is not surprising as few if any sanctioning bodies can match the teams for expertise, information, resources or manpower. Or political power.

There are factory teams in SCCA, a number of them. How can that ever work? The only way is if the factory makes a deliberate policy decision not to cheat or to push on the rulebook. If the OEs want to play full court ball, there is no way on earth the SCCA can ever stop them. How could they? With what? It's all well and good to say that it is the responsibility of the sanctioning body to enforce the rules, but they are the ones with the knives at the gun fight.

Teams really need to think about what they are doing when they set out to subvert the rules. It's their racing series too. At the end of the day they are cutting their own throats. It's not clever, it's just cheating. It takes no talent at all to beat up on the rulebook or sneak stuff through tech. Wow, so you fooled an overworked, underpaid, underskilled, understaffed technical inspector. Like that is an achievement of some kind. I never understood that thinking.

[Fat Boy]

Originally posted by McGuire
There are factory teams in SCCA, a number of them. How can that ever work? The only way is if the factory makes a deliberate policy decision not to cheat or to push on the rulebook. If the OEs want to play full court ball, there is no way on earth the SCCA can ever stop them. How could they? With what? It's all well and good to say that it is the responsibility of the sanctioning body to enforce the rules, but they are the ones with the knives at the gun fight.

You're right, I fully agree. Having said that, the example I gave was a professional series (not SCCA PRO, no one would ever accuse them of being professional) and the main contenders in the class were both factory programs. I've come to find out that others governed under the same sanctioning body (not direct competitors) were doing the same thing. Apparently, it was pretty rampant and we were one of the last ones to the party. Like I said, the following year it was declared legal and at some point the sanctioning body had given up policing it.

[McGuire]

Originally posted by Fat Boy


One last thought, I've never had a successful car that wasn't legal. That's got to be a clue. Concentrate on the real work at hand and let everyone else bend themselves around the rule book.

Very true. Foe one thing, if the car had to be cheated up it is hardly a success. That said I have had my hand in some cheating cars. It really is true: sometimes (especially in "production-based" racing) you "have to" cheat, and people start to lose their compass. At some point I made a concious decision to stop using all euphemisms and call it what it is -- cheating -- just to make sure everyone involved knew what they were doing.

My greatest moment of guilt was with a tough aero package. These cars would not turn in the center of the corner (rather like the COT now) and one of the teams was fooling with a high-cambered rear axle, not getting anywhere. I just sort of innocently threw out one day, "well, what if you staggered the wheelbase?" Just thinking out loud. At that time there was an allowable 1" wb variation, which would allow a 2" bias left/right. Perfectly legal under the rules, technically, but if you ever got caught with it there would be hell to pay. (Only a "gray area" if you have a criminal mind.) The crew chief said "hmm."

The next week suddenly they were red hot. They had taken one of their cars and built a new snout, laying the LF back and inch and the RF up an inch, and man would it rotate in the center. Of course, everyone assumed the rear axle was the big hot trick and went running off in that direction. (That was sort of early on in that deal and the axle would eat itself up in one race, probably taking back half the advantage in operating friction.) The crew chief sure was happy to see me when I saw him some time later but I was horrified, pondering unemployment and banishment to Korea. I told him, "Man, I never told you to do that. If you did what I think I don't even want to know." Sort of the low-rent hillbilly version of Ron Dennis' recent statement, "this conversation never took place."

[DOHC]

Originally posted by RDV
During the many months that one has invested in this exercise of educative supreme good taste, one has always used one principle as sextant, beneath the myriad stars of wisdom by which one steers. Oh yes! On one's personal craft, this one guiding light has kept one's hull from cracking upon the Coral Reef of Irrelevance; it has kept the vessel from floundering in the Shallow Waters of Self-Indulgence; it has kept one's sails filled with the sweet winds of inspiration, and one's rudder unencrusted of the Barnacles of Bolshevikism. And what is this principle, this motto to which one adheres unswervingly? Why, simply put: One sticks to the point!

:up:

[dosco]

Originally posted by McGuire
I just sort of innocently threw out one day, "well, what if you staggered the wheelbase?" Just thinking out loud.

... I was horrified, pondering unemployment and banishment to Korea. I told him, "Man, I never told you to do that. If you did what I think I don't even want to know.

How did you "sort of innocently" tell the CC how to cheat?

[Fat Boy]

Originally posted by McGuire

At that time there was an allowable 1" wb variation, which would allow a 2" bias left/right. Perfectly legal under the rules, technically, but if you ever got caught with it there would be hell to pay. (Only a "gray area" if you have a criminal mind.) The crew chief said "hmm."

We think differently. If I'm in a series that has a rules allowing a 1" wheelbase variation and doesn't state "Don't change part X,Y or Z, then it's fair game. Now if it's a production class and the points aren't supposed to move and the wishones aren't supposed to change, I see where you're coming from. If I were racing ARCA or ASA or something, then putting lead (staggered wheelbase) in a car would be fair game.

Cheating for me is something like this. The book says, "Traction Control is Illegal" and then you go and run closed loop traction control. That's black and white. It isn't clever. There is no argument, you're cheating.

[Ben]

Originally posted by Fat Boy


We think differently. If I'm in a series that has a rules allowing a 1" wheelbase variation and doesn't state "Don't change part X,Y or Z, then it's fair game. Now if it's a production class and the points aren't supposed to move and the wishones aren't supposed to change, I see where you're coming from. If I were racing ARCA or ASA or something, then putting lead (staggered wheelbase) in a car would be fair game.

Cheating for me is something like this. The book says, "Traction Control is Illegal" and then you go and run closed loop traction control. That's black and white. It isn't clever. There is no argument, you're cheating.

Whereas an engine management system using MAP as a speed indicator and rate of change of rpm as a reference metric to modulate fuel cut and spark retardation would be clever...

Some would argue that that would be outside the "spirit" of the regs. IMO the FIA approach of accepting that something outside the spirit is allowed, but a rules amendment is added to make it against the letter of the rules is quite good.

Ben

[McGuire]

Originally posted by dosco


How did you "sort of innocently" tell the CC how to cheat?

Yeah, I know. Open mouth, insert foot. It's an ancient dirt track trick, I never thought he would actually do it.

[McGuire]

Originally posted by Fat Boy


We think differently. If I'm in a series that has a rules allowing a 1" wheelbase variation and doesn't state "Don't change part X,Y or Z, then it's fair game. Now if it's a production class and the points aren't supposed to move and the wishones aren't supposed to change, I see where you're coming from. If I were racing ARCA or ASA or something, then putting lead (staggered wheelbase) in a car would be fair game.

Cheating for me is something like this. The book says, "Traction Control is Illegal" and then you go and run closed loop traction control. That's black and white. It isn't clever. There is no argument, you're cheating.

I don't know this, but the NBA rules probably don't mention anything about roller skates.

[Fat Boy]

Originally posted by McGuire


I don't know this, but the NBA rules probably don't mention anything about roller skates.

OK, but hypothetically speaking, that would be different from the rules saying, "No roller skates over 2" in diameter".

-------------------------------------------------------------------------

It'd be a bitch to box-out Shaq if you were wearing roller skates, huh?

[imaginesix]

Originally posted by McGuire
I don't know this, but the NBA rules probably don't mention anything about roller skates.

I always thought one guy could carry another guy on his shoulders. That way they could easily reach the basket and the bonus is the guy with the ball wouldn't have to dribble to get there. Combined with your terrific idea, the team would be unstoppable!

[Limits]

Ouch. I can imagine this thread leading to a heated discussions about TC in the NBA forums in five years from now

[Canuck]

Originally posted by McGuire


Well, here is what tiny little bit I know about it. A few years back a marketing/media buying firm was looking at a deal with a cycling team for one of the mfg'ers. The director was not getting the warm and fuzzies (for unrelated reasons) so he asks me to work up a report. Process/program auditing and technical troubleshooting are my area; I don't know dick about bicycle racing. But they asked me to treat it like any other program and have a look. So I did.

And among the other touble spots identified, yes they were juicing. But there was no apparent science to their methodology, they were all over the place. It was hiding in plain sight, they were all doing something different and then lying to each other. The trainers were Dr. Nick, the entire approach was nefarious and it looked to me like it or something was affecting their training and personal lives. I have no way to know drugs were to blame but these people were a herd of squirrels. Not only was there trouble brewing here, to me the whole thing was doomed to blow up and create a major scandal. So that was my report in a nutshell. The company passed on the deal and you know what eventually happened. So how'd I do? Did I protect my client's $$$?

Apologies - was pre-occupied by the murder of my friend.

Actually I don't know what happened. A US congressional commitee went on a witch hunt in professional sports, teens were getting jacked on athsma medication and meth-chemists used the same over-the-counter substance to make, well, meth. Somehow everything got rolled into one big media circus, fingers were pointed at everyone and even the hero of the moment Mr. Armstrong was accused of (and perhaps guilty of) doping. I don't care enough to follow the antics of a foreign circus, my own government and media provide plenty of fodder.

I certainly can't dispute your experience - sounds like a bunch of pre-teens in their parent's liquor cabinet with the babysitter. No reason to get rid of your liquor cabinet or it's contents however. Also, let it be known I publicly acknowledge McGuire's first-hand experience in speaking with people that abused PEDs which is more experience than I gave him credit for.

If you don't agree with plastic surgery, that's fine, and if you lump PEDs and plastic surgery into the same category of stupid human tricks, that's fine too. What I find amusing is not your opinion of it but of society's and the judiciary at large. If PEDs were as socially palatable as having the skin of your face peeled off and tightened up and bags of saline or silicone inserted into your chest, we'd have nothing to debate save your cheap personal shots and my apparently rampant ignorance. All of this is enormously off topic however. Let's return to debating TC on NBA roller skates with 1.9999" wheels.

[McGuire]

Originally posted by Canuck


Let's return to debating TC on NBA roller skates with 1.9999" wheels.

Agreed. I was out of line and I owe you a drink.

[McGuire]

Originally posted by Fat Boy


OK, but hypothetically speaking, that would be different from the rules saying, "No roller skates over 2" in diameter".

-------------------------------------------------------------------------

It'd be a bitch to box-out Shaq if you were wearing roller skates, huh?

Let me try another sporting analogy. There is nothing the least bit illegal or dishonest about counting cards in blackjack, but if they catch you doing it they will still take you out in the alley and break your thumbs.

... which reminds me, is anyone here in Vegas for SEMA this week?