Who writes these things anyway?

[Fbody383]

Picked out of the Nationals thread...

Hey Glen, how about this rule:
CMC rule 8.5.6 ...The car must be run with the hood, doors, and trunk completely closed and securely latched.

Chuck
CMC Mustang #14

He DID run with all those parts ... for about 1/2 a lap.

The rule doesn't say a racer has to FINISH with all those parts.

BUT, you still have to make weight at the end.

I guess if it was a 1/2 lap race he would've been ok. The rule also doesn't say you have to "start" with a hood either but are you going to get on track without one? So a car that loses a hood can continue but one with the hood flopping open/closed can't?

The rule reads pretty clear to me - to "run," i.e. be on track competing, requires a closed and latched hood.

Maybe the better question starts with this:

1. INTRODUCTION
Camaro Mustang Challenge is a racing series with two classes: CMC and CMC-2. The following rules are not guidelines for this series but an actual listing of allowed and required modifications. All of these rules apply to both CMC and CMC-2 cars unless otherwise stated. The only modifications are those specifically allowed. If not specifically allowed, any modifications shall be prohibited. Some equipment may be required to support the sponsors who have contributed to the year end points fund.

Can anybody point me to the "you don't have to have a hood at all time" rule?

So what does "run" mean here?

8.28. Engine Coolant
All cars may not run antifreeze in their cooling systems. The only engine coolant allowed in the radiator shall be water. Water additives such as Redline Water Wetter may be used. The intent of this rule is to avoid the extremely slick track conditions that spilled antifreeze produces.

The reason I bring it up is that I have learned that several, if not many rules, are NOT interpreted the way they are written.

I'm not trying to pick a fight but become better prepared for the "I know the rules says THAT, but it is really interpreted to mean THIS; we'll consider a revision next year" discussion. And yes, I know this is not the best way to make friends.

[GlennCMC70]

post this over on the CMC forums please.

[AllZWay]

I kind of thought since the whole purpose of having to have a backglass was probably some saftey issue....then running without would not have been allowed.

Probably a pretty unique situation, but I guess ultimately if he made weight after the race it would be excused.

[jeffburch]

Well, I thought I knew the rules from my hood incident last year.
I of course had a good view of this when it happened.
I had nothing for the 22 car in this race.
I didn't mess with the 45 car because I knew the rule.
Silly me.

jb

[GlennCMC70]

this is another example of why we should be allowed to use lexan if we wanted. that thing could have f'ed Jeff Burch.

[Waco Racer]

I doubt it was Nick's intent to run without the hood and back glass. That would be one hell of a dangerous trick just to lose some weight on the car. Was the hood securely latched when he took the track? Looks like it was not. It also doesn't say in the rules that you can crap in your driving suit, I bet Nick did, should someone have protested that?

[RichardP]

I doubt it was Nick's intent to run without the hood and back glass.

I’d be real careful with that “intent” thing.

Many years ago, the NASCAR guys figured out that you could get a little more top speed on some tracks without the rear bumper cover. They started designing the mounts for it so that when your teammate “accidentally” hit you in the rear, the bumper cover would come off.

There was a competitor that came in 6 lbs light after one of the qualifying sessions at Nationals. Clearly there was no “intent” to come in light but the competitor was justifiably penalized for it.

Clearly there was no intent to loose the hood and the back glass. There is either a rule that says that stuff has to be there and secured properly or there isn’t.


A more interesting scenario has to do with making weight in these types of things. Nick still came in 5 lbs over (I probably wouldn’t have at nationals) so it became a moot point. What if he came in under weight? What if the amount he came in under weight was less than the weight of the hood (verified by the official scales)? There was certainly no “intent” to come in under weight.

Nick’s incident happened on the first lap so he ran the whole race in that condition. Does that matter? What if I was in an incident on the last lap of a race that sheared off the bolts holding my 50# ballast weight to the bottom of the car and I came across the scales 45# light?


Richard P.

[Waco Racer]

Concerning the car that was 6 lbs. light - There was intent to run the ragged edge concerning weight and they knew the consequences if they calculated incorrectly.
Concerning your "What if" - Nobody should go on track with the intent of having an incident that shears off properly mounted ballast. If you have such an incident then making weight should be the least of your worries.
Concerning Nick - A securely mounted hood is a must and could easily have been black flagged since the incident happened on the first racing lap. This could make weighing the car after the race irrelevant.

[Rob Liebbe]

Not to mentuin the aerodynanic benefit of now having a flow-trough rear window instead of a glass parachute.

What abot the 50/50 appearance rule?

[AllZWay]

Not to mentuin the aerodynanic benefit of now having a flow-trough rear window instead of a glass parachute.

What abot the 50/50 appearance rule?

Also with no hood....he had ram air induction.