Jump to content
Wittenauer Racing

2019 Rules Interpretation?

Recommended Posts

1 hour 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.

 

 

 

 

Silence and continued participation do NOT equal a positive response. If you're basing the success of the series and your strategy on grudging acquiescence, I wouldn't say it will necessarily illuminate a bright path forward, for broad-reaching innovation and overwhelming success. 

 

Some of us don't care that much about the bizarre house of cards that are the rules here and race with this group solely because it's closest and easiest way to compete sometimes. If there was a group endurance racing spec pintos at VIR several times a year, I'd be racing pintos. 

 

Leaving gaping holes in the rule book like @Bill Strong touts above, might increase engagement and participation for some folks. It could leave other people, like me, thinking this is more of an engineering series than one for driving and racing, which is just fine for some folks. I mean to say that one could look at the rule set for champ and what's missing from it and say to themselves, "Perfect, I can engineer my way out of not being good at driving race cars." Others of us who are confident about their driving might look at a much tighter and more closely regulated rule set like those found in spec series and say to ourselves, "Perfect, I don't have to engineer anything and I can let my own driving speak for me." Just talking perception and reality a little bit here. 

 

Anyway, here's a cautionary tale about taking silence and acquiescence as success from the world of business: if you do that anywhere I've worked, ever, you lose business and don't stay open. So far, so good for this group but you never know. The place where I work now has been around on that strategy for decades and it took us losing a lot of business for our GM to start putting a little effort into sales and forward-thinking. Hope we make it. Hope chump survives and thrives too. I like racing w/ y'all when I do it. 

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, bendawson3 said:

Leaving gaping holes in the rule book like @Bill Strong touts above, might increase engagement and participation for some folks. It could leave other people, like me, thinking this is more of an engineering series than one for driving and racing, which is just fine for some folks. I mean to say that one could look at the rule set for champ and what's missing from it and say to themselves, "Perfect, I can engineer my way out of not being good at driving race cars." Others of us who are confident about their driving might look at a much tighter and more closely regulated rule set like those found in spec series and say to ourselves, "Perfect, I don't have to engineer anything and I can let my own driving speak for me." Just talking perception and reality a little bit here. 

 

 

This is good.
I am NOT an engineer and will never be one. So I look at it from the perspective of a guy that has done decades of reading about building race cars, and watching racing through the 1960s to now and how development and trends have evolved. 
I look at this building and open ruleset as a way of developing my knowledge. But as more and more pro-teams come it with engineers that did what I am doing now in the 8th grade, then yes, maybe having the black and white is a good thing. 
But I hate it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, National Tech said:

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.

 

good to know.. I'll be building air dams, splitters, undertrays, and wings out of stuff and expect zero points added at tech.  thanks.

Edited by theblue

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Bendawson3

 

Call me or text anytime

 

 I make an effort to speak to every team at every ChampCar race I work.  I have direct interaction with the teams at prerace tech inspection and make an effort to have direct interaction during the 7 to 8 plus hours I walk up and down pit lane each day during the race weekend.  If I am not on pit lane I am in the garages helping whom ever however.  During pretech I carry on direct conversations.  The talking slows the line down so I open tech multiple hours early and bring or recruit helpers to make up for the extra time is spend with the teams.  At the last ChampCar event we did 92 annual inspections and finished early.  I talked to a bunch of people.

 

I spend an average of 3 hours per day answering emails from ChampCar members.

 

The silence that I was making an effort to describe was the silence of happy racers that dont need to post complaints at the dive bar or on the "The Forum".

Edited by National Tech
Misspelling
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I do appreciate your response, but I'm not posting for myself so much as I want all member to see a single clear ruling on this topic.  emailing you doesn't provide that.

 

honestly, I would it that if everytime you make a clarification or ruling it gets posted to a locked thread or something so we can all see what's going on and get the same advantage as other people.

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, theblue said:

 

good to know.. I'll be building air dams, splitters, wings out of stuff and expect zero points added at tech.  thanks.

Document where the repurposed body work material came from with photos or videos so we can enjoy your ChampCar ingenuity. 

  • Thanks 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, theblue said:

I do appreciate your response, but I'm not posting for myself so much as I want all member to see a single clear ruling on this topic.  emailing you doesn't provide that.

 

honestly, I would it that if everytime you make a clarification or ruling it gets posted to a locked thread or something so we can all see what's going on and get the same advantage as other people.

Posting here in the middle of a 15 page discussion does not get it out to everyone either. Hence the "Interpretation list." One go to spot at the dive bar.

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, theblue said:

I do appreciate your response, but I'm not posting for myself so much as I want all member to see a single clear ruling on this topic.  emailing you doesn't provide that.

 

honestly, I would it that if everytime you make a clarification or ruling it gets posted to a locked thread or something so we can all see what's going on and get the same advantage as other people.

...is that not exactly what the Rules Interpretation document does? It provides all members with a document unaltered by the members that provides clarification and ruling on the rules... not sure what else you are looking for.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, National Tech said:

Call me or text anytime

 

 I make an effort to speak to every team at every ChampCar race I work.  I have direct interaction with the teams at prerace tech inspection and make an effort to have direct interaction during the 7 to 8 plus hours I walk up and down pit lane each day during the race weekend.  If I am not on pit lane I am in the garages helping whom ever however.  During pretech I carry on direct conversations.  The talking slows the line down so I open tech multiple hours early and bring or recruit helpers to make up for the extra time is spend with the teams.  At the last ChampCar event we did 92 annual inspections and finished early.  I talked to a bunch of people.

 

I spend an average of 3 hours per day answering emails from ChampCar members.

 

The silence that I was making an effort to describe was the silence at bar or "The Forum".

 

I assume you are busiest at tech early in the year and the later races you have some "free time". What would you think about calling some teams to re-tech later in the year to fill that open time (could be random or based on previous races, etc)? Valuable or making work for no reason? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, cmi11er said:

...is that not exactly what the Rules Interpretation document does? It provides all members with a document unaltered by the members that provides clarification and ruling on the rules... not sure what else you are looking for.

I think he wanted an answer to his question about repurposed materials that wasn't addressed in the document, obviously there will never be an end to these interpretations/clarifications.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, JDChristianson said:

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

 

I disagree with the implementation.  I think the "interpretation" should be in the rules document.

 

1. I don't think things should be spelled out so specifically.  Its taking away (slowly, one component/rule at a time) from the creativity that this series uniquely offered to the market.

I didn't see a problem with the previous 2 years' interpretation of splitters, for example.  I also don't think there is any difference in radiator ducting before or after the radiator, and therefore don't agree with charging points for one and not the other.   This is all personal opinion on the content of the rules.

 

A. If they must be spelled out specifically, it should be in the rules document (and therefore subject to the current annual update cycle) - aka consistent.  In my interpretation (for lack of a better word), this is more about the implementation of the rules regardless of the content.

 

My objection to A stems from the situation where a team does not read the "interpretation" document and shows up at the track with an extrude honed manifold or plastic hood vent inserts instead of cut and bent factory metal, and is therefore subject to a points penalty they weren't expecting.  

 

Perhaps I am missing something in the nuances of specifics in a rule document versus specifics in an interpretation document?  If so, can someone enlighten me?


Sorry if I came off snarky or ungrateful.  We plan on continuing to support champcar as we like the people and racing.   

 

 

*as a side thought

Perhaps there was something to the "chumpcar" name keeping high $ teams/engineering away, which gave us a particular charm.  Now that we are Champcar, we may be falling a bit victim to our own success in having to develop/evolve the rules faster than before to keep up with fancier engineering efforts pushing the boundaries.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Huggy said:

as a side thought

Perhaps there was something to the "chumpcar" name keeping high $ teams/engineering away, which gave us a particular charm.  Now that we are Champcar, we may be falling a bit victim to our own success in having to develop/evolve the rules faster than before to keep up with fancier engineering efforts pushing the boundaries.

I agree with many of your points but this may be what is happening.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, ABR-Glen said:

 

I assume you are busiest at tech early in the year and the later races you have some "free time". What would you think about calling some teams to re-tech later in the year to fill that open time (could be random or based on previous races, etc)? Valuable or making work for no reason? 

I completed 92 annual tech inspections at Watkins Glenn.  Never slows. For all our mistakes the fields continue to grow, even on holiday weekends.

Share this post


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

 

I disagree with the implementation.  I think the "interpretation" should be in the rules document.

 

1. I don't think things should be spelled out so specifically.  Its taking away (slowly, one component/rule at a time) from the creativity that this series uniquely offered to the market.

I didn't see a problem with the previous 2 years' interpretation of splitters, for example.  I also don't think there is any difference in radiator ducting before or after the radiator, and therefore don't agree with charging points for one and not the other.   This is all personal opinion on the content of the rules.

 

A. If they must be spelled out specifically, it should be in the rules document (and therefore subject to the current annual update cycle) - aka consistent.  In my interpretation (for lack of a better word), this is more about the implementation of the rules regardless of the content.

 

My objection to A stems from the situation where a team does not read the "interpretation" document and shows up at the track with an extrude honed manifold or plastic hood vent inserts instead of cut and bent factory metal, and is therefore subject to a points penalty they weren't expecting.  

 

Perhaps I am missing something in the nuances of specifics in a rule document versus specifics in an interpretation document?  If so, can someone enlighten me?


Sorry if I came off snarky or ungrateful.  We plan on continuing to support champcar as we like the people and racing.   

 

 

*as a side thought

Perhaps there was something to the "chumpcar" name keeping high $ teams/engineering away, which gave us a particular charm.  Now that we are Champcar, we may be falling a bit victim to our own success in having to develop/evolve the rules faster than before to keep up with fancier engineering efforts pushing the boundaries.  

Huggy change does take time.  The interpretation concept had to be reviewed, approved and written up and then posted. Past race notes from here on out should be pretty simple as now I think that it will be just me writting up any technologies or ingenuities that present at pretech or post race impound, get the report approved and post to the forum.  Nothing hard to do. I did a tech event report for every MX5 Cup event last two years.

Edited by National Tech
Misspelling
  • Like 1

Share this post


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

Huggy change does take time.  The interpretation concept had to be reviewed, approved and written up and then posted. Post race notes from here on out should be pretty simple as now I think that it will be just me writting up any technologies or ingenuities that present at pretech or post race impound, get the report approved and post to the forum.  Nothing hard to do. I did a tech event report for every MX5 Cup event last two years.

Hashtag like.

Share this post


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

 

I disagree with the implementation.  I think the "interpretation" should be in the rules document.

 

1. I don't think things should be spelled out so specifically.  Its taking away (slowly, one component/rule at a time) from the creativity that this series uniquely offered to the market.

I didn't see a problem with the previous 2 years' interpretation of splitters, for example.  I also don't think there is any difference in radiator ducting before or after the radiator, and therefore don't agree with charging points for one and not the other.   This is all personal opinion on the content of the rules.

 

A. If they must be spelled out specifically, it should be in the rules document (and therefore subject to the current annual update cycle) - aka consistent.  In my interpretation (for lack of a better word), this is more about the implementation of the rules regardless of the content.

 

My objection to A stems from the situation where a team does not read the "interpretation" document and shows up at the track with an extrude honed manifold or plastic hood vent inserts instead of cut and bent factory metal, and is therefore subject to a points penalty they weren't expecting.  

 

Perhaps I am missing something in the nuances of specifics in a rule document versus specifics in an interpretation document?  If so, can someone enlighten me?


Sorry if I came off snarky or ungrateful.  We plan on continuing to support champcar as we like the people and racing.   

 

 

*as a side thought

Perhaps there was something to the "chumpcar" name keeping high $ teams/engineering away, which gave us a particular charm.  Now that we are Champcar, we may be falling a bit victim to our own success in having to develop/evolve the rules faster than before to keep up with fancier engineering efforts pushing the boundaries.  

Thanks Chris

This does help me understand what your thinking.  Some of it I agree with and some not as much.  Any system is going to be imperfect, and I really think its a leap forward that we are hearing from tech on how they are interpreting and enforcing.   I for sure think that many of these interpretations should make it into the rule book in the form of clarifications or re-writes to be more specific and match the real world implementation.   

 

I think your last thought is pretty spot on.   We have left so many gray areas because we all want to be creative with a hammer and a saw in our backyard,  what we need to remember is that some peoples back yard might be an IMSA race shop and they have a race engineer on a tie out back there instead of a German Shepard.   

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, National Tech said:

But that is a good idea.  Random inspection would only take a few minutes.

 

Maybe after a podium you go into a pool of cars that will be re teched at next race.

 

If points are added (stuff that was missed or changed interpretation through season) in re tech it doesn't impact your prior win, just brings the car into spec before it wins again. Also helps defend our current position, that you cannot protest a item that was claimed in tech and approved.

 

Keep in mind at the pro level the enforcement changes weekly depending on your prior success, we are still many times more stable than that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, JDChristianson said:

 they have a race engineer on a tie out back there instead of a German Shepard.   

 

 

 

 

I prefer crate training in the garage but i am housebroken. Not fixed so better keep the other dogs away. Obedience training is a work in progress......

  • Haha 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, National Tech said:

But that is a good idea.  Random inspection would only take a few minutes.

A really good friend was Tech for a local circle track.   He used to occasionally call cars outside the podium to the barn at the end of the race.  He would do something like "ok podium cars and odd numbered finishers back to 15 come on in lets see what you've got."   He said it was really funny the look on the 9th place finisher when they found out they were getting checked.  Sort of an oh crap we are busted sort of thing.

Share this post


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

 

I prefer crate training in the garage but i am housebroken. Not fixed so better keep the other dogs away. Obedience training is a work in progress......

They are still working on you....cant get you to shake that Neon thing.

 

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...