Jump to content
Wittenauer Racing

2019 Rules Interpretation?

Recommended Posts

Did anyone else get a chance to look at this yet? 

 

I like the effort/intent behind it, but as for the content, some of these are different than what has been clarified previously:

 

Air dam/splitter doesn't discuss anything about where on the bumper (it's back to "vertical surface")

image.png.f105c7e0a678f5e38a44cfa21e7a9de8.png

 

Handtools rule is sort of back?

image.png.9ab31b6d63031275cdbdd9d8aae90d89.png

 

My understanding is these are now/already being enforced? Any others folks have seen so far this year? 

 

We're still early on in the build of our new car (trying to be done for Gingerman) and want to make sure we get all this stuff right the first go-around.

 

 

 

Edited by Wittenauer Racing

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I like that these have been iterated but a few of them are still vague as to what's allowable. A step in the right direction, though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Interesting that for repurposed material you have to provide documentation as in video or photo of you actually re purposing said material....might be difficult for some folks that did this 3-4 years ago...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, hotchkis23 said:

Interesting that for repurposed material you have to provide documentation as in video or photo of you actually re purposing said material....might be difficult for some folks that did this 3-4 years ago...

 

Yea, I'm really glad we've been taking detailed pictures so far on the new build.

 

Based on my past experiences with tech they'll work with you pretty well, so I don't think it will give too many teams huge headaches, but it's one more thing to watch closely on buying a used Champcar.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Good info.  Thanks Bill.  @Bill Strong it might be a bit more easy read if you can order the interpretations by rule number.  They are a bit haphazard as is and hard to cross reference from the rules.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

These are out there to help members understand how tech is interpreting rules. These are not new rules let's get that correct. Any advice or suggestions are welcomed. Good, bad or indifferent we are listening to our members.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 3
  • Sad 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Regardless of if you agree with the interpretation or not (like all of us, some I don't), it is helpful to know what to expect when you get there.....

 

I think it is a good idea. Harder on the tech guys to share all this stuff, hear our complaints about it, etc....so I appreciate the grit it takes to post it. 

  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

With any ruleset, there are three levels:

1. The intent behind the rule

2. How it is written

3. How it will be enforced

 

I also appreciate seeing things being spelled out. 

 

At one time, there was an attempt to reorganize the rule book to make it easier to read for people coming into the series. This is moving in the right direction.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Good, this is a good step in the right direction.

 

Having the rules written in a separate document keeps the primary rule book short.  A short rule book is definitely the primary consideration in a successful rule book.   If the rule book is too long, people won't read it.

 

As a side benefit, the rules interpretations can now be changed on a whim.

  • Like 1
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 hours ago, E. Tyler Pedersen said:

These are out there to help members understand how tech is interpreting rules. These are not new rules let's get that correct. Any advice or suggestions are welcomed. Good, bad or indifferent we are listening to our members.

Lets get this actually correct:    These are changes to existing rules, which are equally as jarring as "new" rules.

Frankly, its insulting that the BOD keeps insinuating that "interpretations" are not rule changes.

Changing interpretations is  changing the rules.  Therefore, these ARE new rules.  I don't understand why we keep going in circles on this.

 

 

Its pretty simple.  

Question 1.  Is there a precedent currently set on how this rule has been interpreted?  Another way to say this is, Did Phil allow a car to do "x" in the past?

Yes> Changing this IS a rule change

NO> Changing this IS NOT a rule change, but instead is a clarification

 

if there are multiple precedents set (aka, different regions are interpreting differently), the LEAST RESTRICTIVE precedent is the "rule", and any restrictions are effectively rule changes - therefore they should be announced with fanfare and lead time to allow teams to adjust accordingly.

  • Like 3
  • Thanks 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have an email from Jay that directly contradicts something on this list.  Which is correct?  

  • Like 1
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I still haven't seen an official ruling about if you can make aero out of reused stuff from your car at no points or if this costs the fixed point.   

 

It would be really nice to get this as the rules are not clear either way.

 

and please, no more members replying with their "interpretation"  I want a 100% ironclad ruling. @Bill Strong @National Tech

Edited by theblue

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am only doing my job at posting up what the BOD had sent me. I provide some feedback, but have to post up what they send me. 
I looked at putting the items in order, and will do that in the next version. I just did not have the time to redo the list. 

I personally don't like a list like this. I too don't like having two sets of rules... One BCCR and one document saying how Tech is interpreting the rules this week.
I am trying to sort out how to incorporate it into the BCCR, if we even can. 

Maybe like this.

4.3.2.1. You can do this to the car.
               [R.I. Scrutineering is passing cars that use green, but not yellow. Yellow is worth 10 points. Green is free.]
something like that?
Just thinking out loud.

22 minutes ago, theblue said:

I still haven't seen an official ruling about if you can make aero out of reused stuff from your car at no points or if this costs the fixed point.   

 

It would be really nice to get this as the rules are not clear either way.

 

email tech. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
46 minutes ago, Snake said:

I have an email from Jay that directly contradicts something on this list.  Which is correct?  

 

no clue. email tech again

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 hours ago, Huggy said:

Lets get this actually correct:    These are changes to existing rules, which are equally as jarring as "new" rules.

Frankly, its insulting that the BOD keeps insinuating that "interpretations" are not rule changes.

Changing interpretations is  changing the rules.  Therefore, these ARE new rules.  I don't understand why we keep going in circles on this.

 

 

Its pretty simple.  

Question 1.  Is there a precedent currently set on how this rule has been interpreted?  Another way to say this is, Did Phil allow a car to do "x" in the past?

Yes> Changing this IS a rule change

NO> Changing this IS NOT a rule change, but instead is a clarification

 

if there are multiple precedents set (aka, different regions are interpreting differently), the LEAST RESTRICTIVE precedent is the "rule", and any restrictions are effectively rule changes - therefore they should be announced with fanfare and lead time to allow teams to adjust accordingly.

 

ChampCar employee hat off and car builder and racer hat on.
 

I agree.
But look at it this way. Most rules in other series say you can do this and that to the car, they don't give you any grey areas. We give you those grey areas. I don't like the "interpretations list" as that takes away the grey areas I thrive on. It's my job as a car builder to try and sell that grey area to the tech person.
That's what we do in ChampCar. It's the fun part. It allows innovation. This is being taken away by making a list that explains how that grey area is now no longer a grey area.

I got yelled at regularly by tech and the BOD of the past because of my emails and texts of what I think the rule means, or how I think their interpretation is wrong. In fact, the table filled with nachos and near beer kept me from jumping over the table one time. Jay and I worked out our issue in a more friendlier way. lol :)

ChampCar Employee hat back on.
Hopefully this form will assist you in building a car that has an easier time getting through tech and that every car becomes a aero laden BMW or Mazda. 

:)

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The rules need at least one more line that says: If it doesn't say you can do it, then you can't do it.

 

 

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
39 minutes ago, theblue said:

I still haven't seen an official ruling about if you can make aero out of reused stuff from your car at no points or if this costs the fixed point.   

 

It would be really nice to get this as the rules are not clear either way.

 

and please, no more members replying with their "interpretation"  I want a 100% ironclad ruling. @Bill Strong @National Tech

Documented, repurposed materials can be used for aero.

 

Ps - If you want answer to a tech question send me a text or an email.  I am online every weekday, except race days, from 8 - 11 answering question.

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Richard said:

The rules need at least one more line that says: If it doesn't say you can do it, then you can't do it.

 

 

 

I disagree. I think that is what makes this series fun for the car builder.

  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/10/2019 at 2:17 PM, Wittenauer Racing said:

Did anyone else get a chance to look at this yet? 

 

I like the effort/intent behind it, but as for the content, some of these are different than what has been clarified previously:

 

Air dam/splitter doesn't discuss anything about where on the bumper (it's back to "vertical surface")

image.png.f105c7e0a678f5e38a44cfa21e7a9de8.png

 

Handtools rule is sort of back?

image.png.9ab31b6d63031275cdbdd9d8aae90d89.png

 

My understanding is these are now/already being enforced? Any others folks have seen so far this year? 

 

We're still early on in the build of our new car (trying to be done for Gingerman) and want to make sure we get all this stuff right the first go-around.

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, National Tech said:

Asking the video guy for an answer to a tech question just makes no sense

Jaymauney1@gmail.com

 

jay.mauney@champcar.org - that way there is a corporate backup of the responses so that it does not look like backroom deals.

signed... The media guy.

  • Like 2
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, Huggy said:

Lets get this actually correct:    These are changes to existing rules, which are equally as jarring as "new" rules.

Frankly, its insulting that the BOD keeps insinuating that "interpretations" are not rule changes.

Changing interpretations is  changing the rules.  Therefore, these ARE new rules.  I don't understand why we keep going in circles on this.

 

 

Its pretty simple.  

Question 1.  Is there a precedent currently set on how this rule has been interpreted?  Another way to say this is, Did Phil allow a car to do "x" in the past?

Yes> Changing this IS a rule change

NO> Changing this IS NOT a rule change, but instead is a clarification

 

if there are multiple precedents set (aka, different regions are interpreting differently), the LEAST RESTRICTIVE precedent is the "rule", and any restrictions are effectively rule changes - therefore they should be announced with fanfare and lead time to allow teams to adjust accordingly.

Huggy  I know you are a engineer and want things spelled out. Most people do.  The ChampCar rulebook will never do that.  It is a set of rules to help teams, build a car that can be classed,  balance competition at a very minimal level and to help make it a safe car - to a very minimal level. 

It is also a series management tool. It is not a procedural step by step Ikea build manual. 

 

It seems like many of you guys are at times upset by the effort to clarify things but only when it is your unwritten rule interpretation has been clarified.

 

Granted the specificity of my interpretations got watered down after they left my desk. There are more specific details.  The only way you are going to get more details is to open up a conversation with me.  I don't have a personal agenda to make to rules fit my car like most of the forum participants. I dont have a car to race, so no dog in the fight.  I just share the 19 years of racing mistakes that I have made as a team owner, driver and official in an effort to make the series better.  If you ask me a question I will get you an answer. It's not my answer, but the memberships answer, adjusted by the BOD, TAC, Ray Franck and most importantly our CEO.  There is a huge effort to make certain there are no more Phil rules or Phil Exceptions and there are NO more regional rules variations.  I have been out West, to Texas and on the east coast and taken care of that.  There is the "clarity effort" Not because it is what I want, it IS what you guys want.  Keep in mind You Guys are made up of the 25 guys on the forums plus the other 4000 members that send a positive vote with their silence and their participation - in the 100's at many events. You complainers are the minority. 

 

Your opinions still matter, be confident and cut out all the approval seeking posting, and just get on with it by calling or texting me. 

I know that talking to me, Ray or Chisek is a more direct line.  The majority will still rule but atleast your opinion will go into the note book.

 

 

  • Like 4
  • Thanks 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, National Tech said:

Huggy  I know you are a engineer and want things spelled out. Most people do.  The ChampCar rulebook will never do that.  It is a set of rules to help teams, build a car that can be classed,  balance competition at a very minimal level and to help make it a safe car - to a very minimal level. 

It is also a series management tool. It is not a procedural step by step Ikea build manual. 

 

It seems like many of you guys are at times upset by the effort to clarify things but only when it is your unwritten rule interpretation has been clarified.

 

Granted the specificity of my interpretations got watered down after they left my desk. There are more specific details.  The only way you are going to get more details is to open up a conversation with me.  I don't have a personal agenda to make to rules fit my car like most of the forum participants. I dont have a car to race, so no dog in the fight.  I just share the 19 years of racing mistakes that I have made as a team owner, driver and official in an effort to make the series better.  If you ask me a question I will get you an answer. It's not my answer, but the memberships answer, adjusted by the BOD, TAC, Ray Franck and most importantly our CEO.  There is a huge effort to make certain there are no more Phil rules or Phil Exceptions and there are NO more regional rules variations.  I have been out West, to Texas and on the east coast and taken care of that.  There is the "clarity effort" Not because it is what I want, it IS what you guys want.  Keep in mind You Guys are made up of the 25 guys on the forums plus the other 4000 members that send a positive vote with their silence and their participation - in the 100's at many events. You complainers are the minority. 

 

Your opinions still matter, be confident and cut out all the approval seeking posting, and just get on with it by calling or texting me. 

I know that talking to me, Ray or Chisek is a more direct line.  The majority will still rule but atleast your opinion will go into the note book.

 

 

 

Its fine if you want to brand me as a complainer - I will wear the badge with pride if it makes you happy. 

In case its not clear, I don't take this personally, and I don't mean any personal insult towards you.  As I have been told, the forum is like the corner dive bar.  

 

I'm not sure why you say I want things spelled out - I am a proponent of this being a "builders" series, where we have certain flexibilities to be creative.  Thats the opposite of spelled out.  

 

My whole line of reason is that I want a clear and consistent rule set that doesn't change often.  When it does change, I want those changes to be documented and announced clearly ahead of time - no surprises in the tech line.  For example, the new "dash bar" requirement change.  

 

Some things you are doing are a great step in the right direction, and I applaud you for that.  For example, looking at build photos and contacting teams ahead of time.

 

The "interpretation" document, IMO, is not the correct way to proceed - its another layer of confusion.  In fact, I see this as doing what you said will never happen (spelling things out).

 

Specifically, some of the interpretations are new rules, or could be seen as new rules, to teams.  They should be given at least some advance notice of these changes.  It saddens me to learn that You and Tyler don't see these things as changes to existing rules (or rule interpretations) that deserve to be announced in advance.  

 

Sorry if you see me as a problem for having this opinion.  I want the series to succeed just as much as anyone else, and I have been voicing my opinion on how to do that.  Obviously I am just a member, so all I can do is talk - it means nothing of substance.

Regards

Chris

 

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We get a document that tells us how tech sees things....and we're not grateful............

 

Help me out Chris.  You don't want things spelled out, you want flexibility.....and you want clear consistent rules.  If its not spelled out its probably not clear.  if its not spelled out, its probably hard to be consistent.      

 

I'm likely to regret sending this but what the heck

  • Like 4
  • Haha 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...