Jump to content

Should all rulings be published?


mender
 Share

Should all rulings be published?  

39 members have voted

  1. 1. Should all rulings be published?

    • Yes, otherwise only certain people will know about it and will have an unfair advantage
      29
    • No, because people should be allowed to have an unfair advantage if they ask the "right" questions.
      3
    • Maybe, because I might want an unfair advantage.
      1
    • Yes, because information whether positive or negative can be helpful to someone
      3
    • No, because revealing the questions and/or answers could give build information that may be sensitive or vehicle specific.
      2
    • Maybe, but should be considered as proprietary unless it has a general application that benefits a majority of teams/applications.
      2


Recommended Posts

Sorry about that! It's the first poll I've tried and I messed up the settings. It kept telling me that I wasn't clicking the right boxes so I clicked them all and it worked! I just changed the settings, the poll is open again.

 

I purposely worded the answers to elicit the response that I agreed with. I suspect the one "no" was a protest vote. Discussion is also open. :)

 

As Rob said, I thought one of the main points of the rulings was to get rid of backroom deals and secret or suppressed rulings by publicly providing answers to questions. The other part that I thought was to act as a FAQ, showing that a particular question had already been asked and didn't need to be submitted again.

 

Also, to get official answers to questions rather than having to read every single post in every thread to make sure they didn't miss an important piece of information or way of thinking that could have a significant impact on their team. "All parts can be shared" appeared on one thread in response to a recent debacle, only to be denied after further discussion about how that applied to other vehicles. A description of how and when the interpretation came about also surfaced, which lent yet another interpretation to a BCCR rule that wasn't public knowledge but had been used to advantage by a team or teams that knew about it. 

 

A person should only have to read the BCCR and now the information desk to know how to build a car for the series and not need an intimate understanding and conversant knowledge of the last 6 years of forum activity to know what to expect at the track. 

 

Recently, it seems that people have been puzzled about either not getting an answer or at least an acknowledgement to their question but also that an answer they received hasn't been published. That to me goes contrary to the intent of forming the information desk in the first place. 

 

Edited by mender
  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

And where do we think this poll will go?

 

As Rob said he thought that was the goal.

 

It must not be and I see it much the same as the secret handshaking back door deals. In reality it is worse as I thought it will be nice to review once and awhile to see what is changing. 

 

So far not much changed and seems to have gotten worse.

 

No green font and none intended!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not to be too picky on this poll Mender but are you asking about the tech desk clarifications? They are only clarifications and are not rulings until they go through the BOD and are voted to change and then added to the next BCCR from what I understand. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, 55mini said:

Not to be too picky on this poll Mender but are you asking about the tech desk clarifications? They are only clarifications and are not rulings until they go through the BOD and are voted to change and then added to the next BCCR from what I understand. 

I agree with this.  However, what happens if you protest one of these rulings?  Are you denied even if it seems to go against the bccr?

 

If you are denied, then these ARE rules and must be followed even if it is temporary until reviewed. 

 

I actually don't know.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

24 minutes ago, wvumtnbkr said:

I agree with this.  However, what happens if you protest one of these rulings?  Are you denied even if it seems to go against the bccr?

 

If you are denied, then these ARE rules and must be followed even if it is temporary until reviewed. 

 

I actually don't know.

Can't protest a ruling that's not published, I guess?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would argue if it isn't in the BCCR, it is not an actual rule, it is an "interpretation" made by tech to be then voted on by the BOD.  Tech does have the right to assign points to things not on the VPI list, which is more of how I see this. 

 

If a protest got filed, the event director has the ability to let it happen, or they can shut it down.  I suspect the latter might be how this would be handled.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If an new ruling goes against what is in the BCCR, then it needs to be published. But not all answers to tech desk questions need to be published... most of these will should be "no, we won't give you that exemption, the rulebook already covers this".

 

I'm not going to answer your silly poll because of the silly options you have provided as answer choices.

Edited by enginerd
  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, enginerd said:

If an new ruling goes against what is in the BCCR, then it needs to be published. But not all answers to tech desk questions need to be published... most of these will should be "no, we won't give you that exemption, the rulebook already covers this".

 

I'm not going to answer your silly poll because of the silly options you have provided as answer choices.

There have been a number of "answers" recently that I thought were covered in the BCCR but it turns out that my understanding doesn't match how tech interprets the rule in question. Had the issue not been pushed, the real interpretation of the rule wouldn't have been revealed or explained. It was considered "according to the BCCR", which by your reasoning wouldn't need to be published. 99% of the teams would never know, yet it has some significant repercussions.

 

Then someone revealed that despite it being according to the BCCR and not needing an answer, they received an answer confirming that E36s and E46s get the same interpretation. Again, despite years of "no mix and match" going well back into the Condren years despite that being the justification used for the interpretation.

 

It would be nice to see which questions get answered the same way I would, to help guide my understanding along the correct path. 

 

 

No problem, I said I purposely worded the answers to get the responses that I wanted, just like the polls that claim to be accurate 9 times out of ten. :)

 

What answer would you click if it was there? From what you posted here, it sounds like you'd prefer a variation of #2 - but maybe that's just me being provocative. ;)

Edited by mender
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, 55mini said:

Not to be too picky on this poll Mender but are you asking about the tech desk clarifications? They are only clarifications and are not rulings until they go through the BOD and are voted to change and then added to the next BCCR from what I understand. 

I've said many times: the rules are how they are enforced, not necessarily how they are written. I think we have more than ample evidence of that.

 

Has the BoD reversed any tech interpretations?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

All questions and all responses should be published, there shouldn't even be a method to reply directly to the person asking the question IMO.

 

Even if the answer is "no", that is still information that can help someone, and possibly prevent the same question from coming up again.

 

I think the first step that is necessary for this to be successful is to accept that everyone has a unique interpretation of what they read in the BCCR and all these questions are opportunities to help align everyone else's interpretations to tech's. 

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don’t prefer polls that purposely bias the result with the wording of the choices. Why not make it: 

Yes

No

Maybe

 

Instead people are pushed to say yes or else they have to choose an answer that says they want an unfair advantage. While that may be true, I think that’s your opinion and ruins the validity of this whole thing. 
 

Also, I voted yes because I thought they would all be published. 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, cowboys647 said:

I don’t prefer polls that purposely bias the result with the wording of the choices. Why not make it: 

Yes

No

Maybe

 

Instead people are pushed to say yes or else they have to choose an answer that says they want an unfair advantage. While that may be true, I think that’s your opinion and ruins the validity of this whole thing. 
 

Also, I voted yes because I thought they would all be published. 

The other options are there but not published.😁

  • Haha 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, cowboys647 said:

I don’t prefer polls that purposely bias the result with the wording of the choices. Why not make it: 

Yes

No

Maybe

 

Instead people are pushed to say yes or else they have to choose an answer that says they want an unfair advantage. While that may be true, I think that’s your opinion and ruins the validity of this whole thing. 

My interpretation of the present situation is just as valid as anyone's; please feel free to start a poll that reflects your point of view. Alternately, if someone has an answer that they would like to see represented here, send me a PM and I'll be happy to add them. I already added three as requested. :)

 

This is for my enlightenment only, as far as I know it will have no more influence on how Champcar moves forward than any of my other posts.

Edited by mender
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, morganf said:

The other options are there but not published.😁

Well done, you divined the symbolism behind the structuring of my poll. :)

 

Tomorrow's homework:

1. Presentation is as important as implementation.

2. Justification is one form of verification.

 

Please expand, and provide examples of your premise.

Edited by mender
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, Burningham said:

I voted no because if I find a loophole and you don't I want to be able to exploit it until you figure out what I did.  Plus I just wanted to go against the grain since nobody else was voting no.

So you would have answered the second "no" that is now available; #5 on the list. I get that.

 

Here's an example of why I think all the results should be published:

"20-Mar-2020 3:38pm - Fuel Cell - Stock Capacity +/- 2 Gallons

Q.
The listed stock capacity for our car is 16 gallons.
We would like to utilize a SFI 28.1 rated fuel cell for safety reasons.
After an exhaustive research process, we have discovered that a SFI 28.1 fuel cell with a capacity of 18 gallons is not available.

QUESTION(s)

1. Can an SFI 28.1 Fuel Cell with an advertised 22-gallon capacity be installed that has an actual total capacity of 18 gallons?

2. If so, what does ChampCar Tech feel would be the safest and best mean(s) and method(s) for additional internal material(s) to bring the overall capacity to 18 gallons, thus adhering to the "stock capacity +/- 2 gallons" found in the BCCR?

 

A.
2020 BCCR v 3.0.0.
9.10.2.3. All fuel cells must have FIA-FT3 (or higher) or
SFI-28.1 certification.

Pyrotect makes some 18 gallon FIA FT3 cells.
an example
https://90racing.com/products/pyrotect-pyrocell-elite- ... a925&_ss=r

Yes, you can run a 22-gallon fuel cell. But it must be SFI 28.3. SFI 28.1 does not meet the ChampCar road racing standard.
There are fuel displacement products you can use to get down to 18 gallons.
Be prepared to show the displacement blocks at all times as tech may request proof of install."

 

The method of enforcement is implied in the last statement. Knowing what to expect from tech puts everyone on an equal footing, and it's up to teams to figure things out from there.

Edited by mender
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, ABR-Glen said:

The answer quoted the rule as saying SFI 28.1 was acceptable and then contradicted it by saying that it isn't? That's quite a "clarification" :huh:

Thank you. The answer shows that apparently tech is not going by what the BCCR says. If the BCCR is wrong,  it should be fixed.

 

Misc. Fuel Related

Polymer (Foam-Filled) Fuel Cells
SFI Spec 28.1 | Manufacturers
Effective Date: Aug. 25, 2017

Crash Resistant Fuel Cells
SFI Spec 28.2 | Manufacturers
Effective Date: Jul. 14, 2000

Competition Fuel Cell Bladder
SFI Spec 28.3 | Manufacturers
Effective Date: April 21, 2014

Edited by mender
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, Slugworks Paul said:

As always, mender has created the most overtly wordy poll in the history of mankind. I would expect nothing less :)

Be thankful I only asked one question instead of the usual twenty. :P

 

And if you purposely used overtly instead of overly, I applaud you. :)

Edited by mender
Link to comment
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.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...