2010 SCCA rulebook

[Kristoffer Gjevre]

Here is one way to have a copy easily available:

IMG_3777_w.jpg (21.03 KiB) Viewed 5742 times

IMG_3778_w.jpg (16.93 KiB) Viewed 5742 times

[John Fendel]

) The SCCA member presenting the vehicle for inspection is required to
possess a current copy of the National Solo Rules.

The way I read 3.3.3.A.3) is: "the SCCA member must possess a current copy of the National Solo Rules." Whether it is the purchased book, a printed copy of the pdf file, the pdf file on a CD, the pdf file on an iPhone, etc., doesn't matter.

3.3.3.A says: "When a vehicle has completed the requirements for an Annual Safety Inspection, an official Annual Tech card will be issued ... individual event tech stickers can be issued when the Annual Tech card is presented rather than the issuance of an Annual Tech sticker." The region can print up Annual Tech cards rather than require a sticker be placed in an annual rule book as it is done now. This last procedure is not documented in our Supp Regs so should not be required.

This should be taken up at a board meeting, formalized and added to the supp regs if it is to be done differently than the National Rules.

[George Schilling]

) The SCCA member presenting the vehicle for inspection is required to
possess a current copy of the National Solo Rules.

The way I read 3.3.3.A.3) is: "the SCCA member must possess a current copy of the National Solo Rules." Whether it is the purchased book, a printed copy of the pdf file, the pdf file on a CD, the pdf file on an iPhone, etc., doesn't matter.

3.3.3.A says: "When a vehicle has completed the requirements for an Annual Safety Inspection, an official Annual Tech card will be issued ... individual event tech stickers can be issued when the Annual Tech card is presented rather than the issuance of an Annual Tech sticker." The region can print up Annual Tech cards rather than require a sticker be placed in an annual rule book as it is done now. This last procedure is not documented in our Supp Regs so should not be required.

This should be taken up at a board meeting, formalized and added to the supp regs if it is to be done differently than the National Rules.

That's the way I interpret it too John. I guess our age is showing when apparently we can no longer interpret the written word. :gpower:

[Steve Towers]

Along these lines, the local Porshe folks printed up a nifty window decal for annual tech. Always on the car, easy to see. Next time you see Abbott or me, take a look.

[Mike Simanyi]

Sorry guys, the official interpretation of that is the published book is required.

Please send your letters to seb@scca.com and let us know what you'd prefer. I'm sure they'll receive thorough consideration before the 2011 rules are set.

Mike Simanyi
Your Friendly Neighborhood SEB member

[George Schilling]

This reminds me of dealing with government.

A few years ago I had a job to retro fit a building with 18 new direct furnaces. The code said that when installed under a window (which is where these were), the vent discharge had to be at least 9" from the closet window opening. We had 11" easy. When the inspector turned down the job, he said the way he interpreted the code was the measurement was from the window opening to the closet area perpendicular to where the vent penetrated the wall. This measured 8.5". When I pointed out that the wording doesn't support his interpretation, he basically told me to pound sand. I thought, OK, like I"ve done many times before, I'll go over his head to someone with some intelligence and who can under stand the written word and I'll get this job passed. But NOOOOOOO! While they conceded that I installed the vents according how the code was worded, the wouldn't accept the job because I somehow should have known that that's not what the wording meant. Turned a very profitable job into a huge loser.

Words have meaning folks. This is BS. Even though this is a small issue, when we disregard the written word in favor of a nonsensical interpretation, we're all screwed.

BTW, this is no slam on Mike......he's just the messenger. But I think we should send a message by using the written word as our guide.

[John Stimson]

Sorry guys, the official interpretation of that is the published book is required.

Then the rule should have been written to reflect that intention. As written, it does not.

Charging to waive the rule book requirement, then requiring rule books anyway, is pretty low. Especially in light of the explanation above that event fees were raised to compensate for lost rule book revenue.

[John Fendel]

Please send your letters to seb@scca.com and let us know what you'd prefer. I'm sure they'll receive thorough consideration before the 2011 rules are set.

Email sent.

[Steve Ekstrand]

I can't send an email.

It would be too rude.

[Mike Simanyi]

Steve,

How about we all agree to let John Fendel speak for you? ;)

Mike

[George Schilling]

One of the requirements for annual tech is to "possess a current copy of the National Solo Rules." It does not specify whether it must be a paper copy or a digital copy.

It just dawned on me that as much as I and those arguing the point thought we were right, the fact that "National Solo Rules" is in caps indicates it's a title of a book, whereas "a current copy of the national solo rules" would indicate just a facsimile would be acceptable. It's a technicality I know, but it is what it is. I'm admitting I was wrong in my interpretation. Clearly it was an oversight and I now agree with Mike that sending an email would be the best way to get the correction made for next year.

Doesn't mean I still don't think the rule is stupid.

[John Stimson]

It just dawned on me that as much as I and those arguing the point thought we were right, the fact that "National Solo Rules" is in caps indicates it's a title of a book, whereas "a current copy of the national solo rules" would indicate just a facsimile would be acceptable.

I don't buy it. Suppose that I buy a copy of George Orwell's Animal Farm for my Kindle, or iPad, or whatever. When I write to my friends to let them know what I'm reading, do I say "Hey, I'm reading animal farm"? Right now on my hard drive, I have a "copy of the National Solo Rules" in a PDF file.

[John Fendel]

This is the response I got. Now we wait and see.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hi, John,

Your comments have been logged 10-199 for Annual Tech Comments and sent to the SEB. They will discuss this topic and once they have made a decision they will post it in a future FasTrack news.

Thanks for your input!

Brian Harmer
SCCA Solo Technical Specialist
1-800-770-2055
Solo National Rules: http://www.scca.com/documents/Solo_Rule ... _rules.pdf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
FastTrack: http://www.scca.com/contentpage.aspx?content=78" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: John [mailto:jjfendel@cox.net]
Sent: Thursday, March 11, 2010 11:56 PM
To: seb
Subject: Rule book requirement for annual tech

Sirs,

The way I read 3.3.3.A.3) is: "the SCCA member must possess a current copy of the National Solo Rules." I take what is written as the literal meaning.

The way this is written, if the member has a purchased book, has printed a copy of the pdf file off the web site, has the pdf file on a CD, has the pdf file on an iPhone, etc., shouldn't matter. The member still "possesses" a copy of the Natioal Solo Rules.

I have heard that this is not how the rule is interpreted. It is interpreted that the member must still have a purchased book. If that is the intent, then write the rule to reflect that requirement. Don't say that SCCA has increased its fees to compensate for the loss in revenue from not requiring the purchased book and then still require the purchased book.

Would someone please send me an email clarification of what the rule is intended to say?

Thank you,

John Fendel
19R123573

[Craig Naylor]

Letter sent

clarification - email sent, hopefully it matters, since someone on this board stated it's worth less to the SEB.