Jack Money just posted this link on CR List:

http://bmwccaclubracing.com/static/2006Series/Rules/clarify.htm


Some interesting developments!
Wiring, Doors, and Sun Roof Removal are worth noting among the others.

The Rules Committee has been busy! ;)

so all Prepared AD shock owners are all illegal? or am i reading that wrong?

clarification: 06-0032

so all Prepared AD shock owners are all illegal?

That's not how I read it, but perhaps so? My ADs don't have a reservoir outside the main shock body as their reservoirs are built into the main tube. I was thinking they were stopping piggy-back reservoirs that attach to the side of the main tube and any other method of having a remote reservoir outside the main tube...but I was not on the Rules Committee and was only reading the same Rules Clarifications that were posted today. Who knows? :)

i'm thinking of the lower mount. Its a monoball bearing, and not the stock style bushing mount. Thats what popped in my mind as I read that rule.

i'm thinking of the lower mount. Its a monoball bearing, and not the stock style bushing mount. Thats what popped in my mind as I read that rule.

You may well be right! Wow! That would certainly make a big difference if those were determined to be illegal in Prepared! :eek:

so all Prepared AD shock owners are all illegal? or am i reading that wrong?

clarification: 06-0032



What? I'm not sure I understand what you mean. I just bought an AD setup and thought the rear shocks mounted exactly like the stock configuration?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clevis_pin

I'm going to hope that they just meant that kind of thing is illegal.

so all Prepared AD shock owners are all illegal? or am i reading that wrong?

clarification: 06-0032

I believe they're talking about the rear shock mount (RSM), not the rear shocks. There are certain RSMs that do not allow the shock to pass through but attach below the RSM via a clevis-style pin. The AD's do not do this and use a stock-style RSM.

-Mike

Request: Prepared rear shocks; Is a clevis style rear shock mount legal in the prepared class versus a [stock] pin-type?

Clarification: No, changing the attachment/connection type of the rear shock, top or bottom, is not allowed in stock or prepared classes.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but the AD's I've seen have a spherical bearing at the bottom. If so then they have never conformed to how I read the rules for Stock/Prepared. I've heard it discussed, but don't know that this one has even been enforced.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but the AD's I've seen have a spherical bearing at the bottom. If so then they have never conformed to how I read the rules for Stock/Prepared. I've heard it discussed, but don't know that this one has even been enforced.

It fits well with the others then! ;)

Correct me if I'm wrong, but the AD's I've seen have a spherical bearing at the bottom. If so then they have never conformed to how I read the rules for Stock/Prepared. I've heard it discussed, but don't know that this one has even been enforced.

Shea you are right. Anyone running unmodified ADs could have been protested long ago for this.

Wasn't there a clearification that specifically allowed spherical shock mounts (both front and rear ... to allow camber plates). Or was that just wishful thinking for IPers?

Shea you are right. Anyone running unmodified ADs could have been protested long ago for this.

I think it can be argued both ways since there isn't currently a clarification on this issue.

I think it can be argued both ways since there isn't currently a clarification on this issue.

Bryan,
Would this imply that only items with clarifications can't be argued multiple ways? I.e no rule is CLEAR until it's clarified. ;)

Wasn't there a clearification that specifically allowed spherical shock mounts (both front and rear ... to allow camber plates). Or was that just wishful thinking for IPers?

spherical RSM's were legal until 07, and now if you read the new clarification.

Clarification: No, changing the attachment/connection type of the rear shock, top or bottom, is not allowed in stock or prepared classes.

To me using a spherical bearing in the lower mounting point is changing the connection type.

jeez with my new illegal shocks and illegal trans brace my CM is the place to play. :rolleyes

nice job by the rules committee in putting all those clarifications together. great to see a dialogue going on!

that wiring harness clarification for stock and prepared is interesting. basically can't cut away any of the car's wiring harness. if you can't unplug it at a factory connector, it must stay. i seem to recall seeing a bunch of prepared cars with the "light" wiring harness option....;)

did i read that right?

spherical RSM's were legal until 07, and now if you read the new clarification.



To me using a spherical bearing in the lower mounting point is changing the connection type.

jeez with my new illegal shocks and illegal trans brace my CM is the place to play. :rolleyes

Spherical rear shock mounts were never compliant.

nice job by the rules committee in putting all those clarifications together. great to see a dialogue going on!

that wiring harness clarification for stock and prepared is interesting. basically can't cut away any of the car's wiring harness. if you can't unplug it at a factory connector, it must stay. i seem to recall seeing a bunch of prepared cars with the "light" wiring harness option....;)

did i read that right?


They did do a great job getting the clarifications posted quickly. I know that takes a lot of time and we appreciate it.

However, the wiring harness clarification for Stock and Prepared doesn't make sense to me...especially if it's addressing a "safety" issue. If that's the case, why would it be allowed in SE36 and Modified?

I'm not licensed yet but I'm in the process of building an IP car so I want to make sure I do it right. I really do not want a bunch of extra wiring bundled up just because the rules will not let you remove it. We should let race cars be race cars.

I hope CR reconsiders this clarification and straightens out the logic behind the ruling. I know a lot of IP drivers cannot be pleased right now with the recent updates.

They did do a great job getting the clarifications posted quickly. I know that takes a lot of time and we appreciate it.

However, the wiring harness clarification for Stock and Prepared doesn't make sense to me...especially if it's addressing a "safety" issue. If that's the case, why would it be allowed in SE36 and Modified?

I'm not licensed yet but I'm in the process of building an IP car so I want to make sure I do it right. I really do not want a bunch of extra wiring bundled up just because the rules will not let you remove it. We should let race cars be race cars.

I hope CR reconsiders this clarification and straightens out the logic behind the ruling. I know a lot of IP drivers cannot be pleased right now with the recent updates.


+1

From what I've seen in the paddock, a lot of IP cars are going to be CM soon...
or migrating to NASA.

-John

I guess my laziness and gift of procrastination paid off. I never got around to stripping my harness.

that wiring harness clarification for stock and prepared is interesting. basically can't cut away any of the car's wiring harness. if you can't unplug it at a factory connector, it must stay.

What constitutes unpluging? alot of wires can be depinned at a connector somehwere so does that count? still seems vague

What constitutes unpluging? alot of wires can be depinned at a connector somehwere so does that count? still seems vague

Clarification 06-0045 specifically says you cannot do that.

"Removal of wiring by cutting, splicing, pulling pins, modifying chassis splices, or otherwise stripping of the harness or connectors may not be done."


:confused

What constitutes unpluging? alot of wires can be depinned at a connector somehwere so does that count? still seems vague

It says you can't remove wiring by pulling pins, so I'm pretty sure that would not be allowed. That's how I read it, others may read it different.... That said, I still have all the wiring and relays and full harness. So I guess I don't have as much winter work as I thought.:)

All i know is all this makes me glad I play in mod

What constitutes unpluging? alot of wires can be depinned at a connector somehwere so does that count? still seems vague

It's not vague when you read the clarification and it specifically mentions that de-pinning is not allowed.

OOPS - third person to say the same thing! Sorry - seems that I should read the whole thread before replying to a single post.

so where does this leave those who have gotten a little "trigger happy' when it comes to cutting out wires?

so where does this leave those who have gotten a little "trigger happy' when it comes to cutting out wires?

Mod Class.

It's not vague when you read the clarification and it specifically mentions that de-pinning is not allowed.

OOPS - third person to say the same thing! Sorry - seems that I should read the whole thread before replying to a single post.

I totaly missed that on the clarification, I hate reading rules which is why mod is nice, not to many of those darned things

Request: In Spec E36, can the sunroof panel be replaced with a panel of the same material, as it can be in Prepared class?

Clarification:

The sunroof panel must be the stock steel panel unless it was originally glass. In this case, a stock E36 steel panel must be installed and properly secured per the rules. No alternate material or replacement panel other than stock E36 is allowed.
I take this to mean that removing the sunroof cartridge stuff means you have to rivet/bond/whatever in that hole using the stock sunroof cartridge. I was planning on welding it in, but the gasket bit leaves quite the gap there... am I allowed to flatten out the stock sunroof panel and then weld that in? Perhaps bend the flanges where the gaskets seal inwards a bit and weld that, then fill the rest of the roof gap with bondo or whatnot?

sheet-o-steel cut to fit was my original plan... but scratch that. :dunno

Mod Class.


I was afraid of that answer.

I take this to mean that removing the sunroof cartridge stuff means you have to rivet/bond/whatever in that hole using the stock sunroof cartridge. I was planning on welding it in, but the gasket bit leaves quite the gap there... am I allowed to flatten out the stock sunroof panel and then weld that in? Perhaps bend the flanges where the gaskets seal inwards a bit and weld that, then fill the rest of the roof gap with bondo or whatnot?

sheet-o-steel cut to fit was my original plan... but scratch that. :dunno


Why remove the seal? Just gut the panel and attach it per the rules, using the seal.

I take this to mean that removing the sunroof cartridge stuff means you have to rivet/bond/whatever in that hole using the stock sunroof cartridge. I was planning on welding it in, but the gasket bit leaves quite the gap there... am I allowed to flatten out the stock sunroof panel and then weld that in? Perhaps bend the flanges where the gaskets seal inwards a bit and weld that, then fill the rest of the roof gap with bondo or whatnot?

sheet-o-steel cut to fit was my original plan... but scratch that. :dunno

It's 13 lbs that everyone has to deal with up high, so that's why I submitted the request for clarification, and I agree with the result of the clarification. Why make *everyone* fab a new panel when you've already got one? It's easy to affix with the existing seal or recreating a new seal...

It's 13 lbs that everyone has to deal with up high, so that's why I submitted the request for clarification, and I agree with the result of the clarification. Why make *everyone* fab a new panel when you've already got one? It's easy to affix with the existing seal or recreating a new seal...

The existing "seal" isn't much of a seal. Thats why there is a rain gutter in the cartridge and drain tubes down the a-pillars (works the same on every car that I've seen). Bathroom caulk works pretty well. You can even get it in black.

I guess my laziness and gift of procrastination paid off. I never got around to stripping my harness.

+1
finally my laziness and lack of time pays off also

i was just about to start stripping back some of my harness. legal for scca itr class, but i don't want to shut the door on converting to full bmwcca prepared spec someday.

darn. i really wanted to take the wiring out for the diversity antenna, trunk light and fuel door/trunk power locks out. as far forward as i can trace, no sign of a connecter that can simply be unplugged.

Do what I did - bundle & tie & forget! :)

Hidden & legal, that's what I say!

To me using a spherical bearing in the lower mounting point is changing the connection type.



Not how I read it. To me, it must use the same bolt arrangement, not a clevis or other different type of attachment.

When you changed your rtab bushings to eurothane, did you change the attachment type of the rtab? No...

Material doesn't equal attachment type.

IMO.

i was just about to start stripping back some of my harness. legal for scca itr class, but i don't want to shut the door on converting to full bmwcca prepared spec someday.

darn. i really wanted to take the wiring out for the diversity antenna, trunk light and fuel door/trunk power locks out. as far forward as i can trace, no sign of a connecter that can simply be unplugged.


You're not going to find any connectors to unplug. The recent rules clarification basically limits you from removing any wiring out of Prepared cars.

I'm hoping enough people lobby to have this rule changed. It was addressed as a "safety" issue and disallowed in Stock and Prepared...yet it's allowed in SE36 and Modified. The logic doesn't make any sense and I know this affects many people with cars that are now illegal. :(

Not how I read it. To me, it must use the same bolt arrangement, not a clevis or other different type of attachment.

When you changed your rtab bushings to eurothane, did you change the attachment type of the rtab? No...

Material doesn't equal attachment type.

IMO.

dave you know the unfounded hate they have for spherical bearings in prepared.

I sent in for a clarification, so we'll see .

Not how I read it. To me, it must use the same bolt arrangement, not a clevis or other different type of attachment.

When you changed your rtab bushings to eurothane, did you change the attachment type of the rtab? No...

Material doesn't equal attachment type.

IMO.

I thought in Prepared the only place you can have a spherical bearing is the front upper strut mounts. If the rear upper shock mounts can't be spherical then I would think that goes for the lower also. Just how I read it....

I have barely even started building my IP car and i'm already illegal. :mad The wiring harness thing makes no sense to me. I guess i will see you guys at the nasa races. I don't have enough money to try to compete in mod. For all of you IP guys with stripped harnesses......good luck next year.

i'll throw in my vote for allowing stripped harnesses in prepared, since i just finished stripping it and now it's apparently illegal (haven't even got my license yet). hopefully all you prepared racers with stripped harnesses can persuade the powers that be to reconsider that clarification

I'll probably get shot for this, but here it goes.

The last line of the wiring harness clarification reads:

"In the interest of safety the rules do not intend for the electrical harness to be modified."

This leads me to believe that the rules and clarification were intended to limit wiring harness based more on limiting prep time and protection most of us from our ingnorance in reading wiring diagrams, rather than limiting competetive advantages.

I agree that it is difficult to disconnect much without cutting wires. It can be done, but since the harness bundles are wrapped, fishing the connector through the tape loops is a PIA.

For those in process, take out what you can per the clarification, bundle and zip tie the rest out of the way.

For those who have already cut more wires that they should have, STFU. Quit admitting your guilt. If you haven't had any electical fires so far, tuck the wires away so that tech inspectors aren't forced to make any tough decision about your classing. If any Prepared opponents protests over small BS like this, I'll provide the gas for the bonfire.

Oh yeah, and next time ask for a clarification before assuming something or going by what others have done. Not trying to pick on anyone, because I'm sure that we've all done this to some extent at one point or another

I realize that I am encouraging cheating, but there are bigger fish to fry out there. If I lose to another competitor because he relocated a few ounces of weight lower in the car through gutting of his harness, Then I need to get my fat ass to the gym and do some mass relocation of my own (and maybe learn to drive).

Many of us would like to see greater levels of rules enforcement and clearer rules, but every time something goes against our previous ASSumptions we raise holy hell. We need to let some of the small stuff go, or our volunteer CR staff will not have time to get to the big stuff which some of us are so impatient to see addressed.

Let's not make such a big deal out of this that the rules committe is forced to write a grandfather clause for those cars with previously gutted harnesses and add 5 pounds to their minum weights.

JMHO.
Sorry for the longish post.

Nomex on.

If someone protest another driver on the basis of their wiring harness missing a few wires that's pretty sad. Who in their right mind would not cut out the wires leading to the factory installed amplifier:rolleyes For all you prepared guys that have cut out unecessary wires keep running in prep. until someone decides to go out like a bitch and proteset you for it. If they call you a cheater for it so be it.

What Qwickm3 and SSBurns seem to be saying is forget the rules, we're all reasonable people here and we can all agree amongst ourselves to do what we think makes sense. If someone does protest you and the CR stewards are forced to reclassifiy you to Mod, then we will ... what? Flame the protester on the forums or some other action that doesn't fix the underlying issue?

I agree with all of you that CR couldn't have punted this in a worse way with this non-clarification. Rules have to make sense or at least be agreeable enough that people will be willing to be held to them without the threats of penalties, DQ, excomunication or what have you. Otherwise what you have is rules that are the equivalent of the old 55 mph speed limit. A non rule that is enforced on a whim with draconian results out of line with the "offense".

I mean, if we follow the line of logic being laid out here (accept the rule clarification, but do what we want) isn't this the equivalent of racers getting together at the bar and scribbling the rule package on a napkin over beers and pretzels? Isnt this kind of anarchical? Wouldn't it make more sense for the Prepared racing community to express their displeasure to CR and ask for a change in the rule? Maybe I'm being too idealistic or romantic, and since I am not invovled in the program yet I may be greeted by a round of laughter that will be heard around the internet. But it strikes me that CR is, or should be, a program that is "for the grassroots, by the grassroots and of the grassroots" and if enough negative feedback is sent the way of the CR rules committee they must take it into consideration.

I am probably stepping into a debate that I don't belong in, but I've done that before and I've yet to learn my lesson.

What Qwickm3 and SSBurns seem to be saying is forget the rules, we're all reasonable people here and we can all agree amongst ourselves to do what we think makes sense. If someone does protest you and the CR stewards are forced to reclassifiy you to Mod, then we will ... what? Flame the protester on the forums or some other action that doesn't fix the underlying issue?

I agree with all of you that CR couldn't have punted this in a worse way with this non-clarification. Rules have to make sense or at least be agreeable enough that people will be willing to be held to them without the threats of penalties, DQ, excomunication or what have you. Otherwise what you have is rules that are the equivalent of the old 55 mph speed limit. A non rule that is enforced on a whim with draconian results out of line with the "offense".

I mean, if we follow the line of logic being laid out here (accept the rule clarification, but do what we want) isn't this the equivalent of racers getting together at the bar and scribbling the rule package on a napkin over beers and pretzels? Isnt this kind of anarchical? Wouldn't it make more sense for the Prepared racing community to express their displeasure to CR and ask for a change in the rule? Maybe I'm being too idealistic or romantic, and since I am not invovled in the program yet I may be greeted by a round of laughter that will be heard around the internet. But it strikes me that CR is, or should be, a program that is "for the grassroots, by the grassroots and of the grassroots" and if enough negative feedback is sent the way of the CR rules committee they must take it into consideration.

I am probably stepping into a debate that I don't belong in, but I've done that before and I've yet to learn my lesson.

100% agree ... also not a BMWCCA racer (yet). Some people try very hard to stay within the rules. Those few (many in this case?) who do not follow the rules should not be allowed to break them just because the rule makes no sense :rolleyes The proper course of action here is a rule change petition, not blatant disregard of the rule!

Despite how my previous post may have sounded, I'm certainly not in favor of "blatant" disregard for the rules. I do favor reasonable rules and fair/consistent enforcement. I personally think that this rule is reasonable, but sucks for those who have already gone a different route. I also don't think that it is a significant saftey hazard or a competetive advantage.

Those who are already afoul of the clarification should certainly submit rule change requests, but our process dictates that we don't have continuous rule change period (and for good reason). In the mean time, what are they to do?
A) Tell no one and continue to run (victimless crime in my opinion)
B) Voluntarily reclassifiy themselves to Mod until a rule change is made (if ever).
C) Rewire their car.


As far as condeming all rule breakers, be careful what you ask for. I would be willing to bet that if I tried hard enough I could find questionable elements on just about any car outside of Mod. If I then submitted clarification requests for each of these questionable elements, maybe 50% would result in unfavorable clarifications and possible reclassification.

For instance, how many prepared cars out there have removed their foglights without using the opening to duct air to brakes or engine intake? I've asked for a clarification on this one because I'd like to eliminate the possiblity for glass on the track (even though I tape mine), and still be legal. I've been given unofficial feedback, but nothing official in the form of a clarification or a rule change.

Should I get upset that my question hasn't been formally addressed. Maybe, but what's the point? Our VOLUNTEER staff have arguably more important items to address, and this isn't really a huge deal in my eyes.

Should I protest all racers in my class at the next event to guarantee myself a class win? This might bring attention to the question, but at what cost? Potentially ruining a bunch of people's weekend (if the stewards agree), and most certainly creating a less than pleasurable atmosphere for myself in the process. If I really think that foglights are what are holding me back from CR stardom then I've got some other issues to deal with.

I guess the point that I'm trying to get across with my ramblings is PRIORITIZATION. All things can't be of equal importance all the time. I want clear rules as much as as anyone, but if we have to clarify every clarification and rewrite every rule we will end up with our own GCR. Some may be in favor of this, but it my mind it is a slippery slope towards enforcement strategies like mandatory engine teardowns. If this happens, I can't afford to play. I'd like to think that there is a middle ground. Maybe I'm just dreaming.

I'm also of the opinion that there should be some way to grandfather in cars that were built prior to the rule change/clarification.

There is certainly no significant harness weight up high on the cars and as long as the cars meet the minimum weights, I don't see a big competitive advantage.

I'm also of the opinion that there should be some way to grandfather in cars that were built prior to the rule change/clarification.

There is certainly no significant harness weight up high on the cars and as long as the cars meet the minimum weights, I don't see a big competitive advantage.

But it was never allowed in the first place. While it would be silly to protest someone for breaking this rule, I would hate the be one of the people whos cars risk the posibility of a BS protest.

I agree, there i no real competitive advantage to removing extra wiring. It simply cleans things up and (when done properly) reduces the risk of problems. I would be all for a rules change.

But it was never allowed in the first place. While it would be silly to protest someone for breaking this rule, I would hate the be one of the people whos cars risk the posibility of a BS protest.

I agree, there i no real competitive advantage to removing extra wiring. It simply cleans things up and (when done properly) reduces the risk of problems. I would be all for a rules change.

Simple to do, really. Grab your CRAC by the throat and tell him to submit it to the rules comittee.

I agree, there i no real competitive advantage to removing extra wiring. It simply cleans things up and (when done properly) reduces the risk of problems. I would be all for a rules change.


Ditto. I'm in the process of building an IP car and hope they take a closer look at the rule governing the wire harness and establish some consitency and logic with the clarification. I know this affects many IP cars and I hope the collective plea for a rules change is enough to get something done.

I'm not licensed yet so I cannot login to the CR website to submit a rules change request. However, I have tried to send questions and request via email, but they hardly get responses. :( I know it's a volunteer staff so I appreciate all the time they put into the program and hope to hear something soon.

But it was never allowed in the first place.

Perhaps - I don't know the entire history of that rule, but there are prepared cars that were built probably close to 10 years ago by now (maybe even older than that). Maybe interpretations were a little looser at one time, but it seems like a lot of people had the impression of removing unecessary wiring for prepared class.

I don't think forcing all those cars to mod class is the right answer.

I feel for all you IP guys. Especially those with cut up harnesses. LOL

I had to get a chassis harness when converting from obd1 to obd2 and Zionsville Autosport had a few in stock. OBD 1 and OBD 2. They're about $250plus shipping. BUT, beware...these harnesses could have nicked and cut wires as well! So, you may be screwed unless you order a new chassis harness from BMW:eek:

I wonder if BMWCCA Rules Committee ever considered just requiring On Board Fire systems for all classes. Let people cut 'em up as long as they make their weight. Seems simple enough to me.

Good luck guys.

Ken Arutunian

I don't want to make the board crash or anything, but mod-class guys might want to note - it has been pointed out to me by another racer that wiring removal from the factory harness is not specifically allowed in the modified class rules either.

I reviewed the rules carefully and confirmed it.

With the rules tailored in such a way that any rule in a lower-prepared class is in effect in a higher-prepared class unless specifically noted otherwise in the higher-prepared class rules, it would seem that this would be in effect in the mod classes as well, thus pushing all those cars to super-modified.

It seems that Spec E36 is the only class that is specifically allowed by the rules to remove unused wiring, other than super-modified.

I hate to stir up a sh*t storm on this, but it appears CCA CR is really painting themselves into a corner on this one. Call it semantics if you will, because that's what it is, but we are supposed to stick with the rules in black and white.

I think it is in every prepared and mod class racer's interest to push for a rules change on this in prepared, in light of the fact that so many prepared class cars are going to be technically illegal after the clarification, when no real performance advantage is to be had. Fixing the rule in prepared will then take care of the mod-class people, as well.

I don't want to make the board crash or anything, but mod-class guys might want to note - it has been pointed out to me by another racer that wiring removal from the factory harness is not specifically allowed in the modified class rules either.

I reviewed the rules carefully and confirmed it.

With the rules tailored in such a way that any rule in a lower-prepared class is in effect in a higher-prepared class unless specifically noted otherwise in the higher-prepared class rules, it would seem that this would be in effect in the mod classes as well, thus pushing all those cars to super-modified.

It seems that Spec E36 is the only class that is specifically allowed by the rules to remove unused wiring, other than super-modified.

I hate to stir up a sh*t storm on this, but it appears CCA CR is really painting themselves into a corner on this one. Call it semantics if you will, because that's what it is, but we are supposed to stick with the rules in black and white.

I think it is in every prepared and mod class racer's interest to push for a rules change on this in prepared, in light of the fact that so many prepared class cars are going to be technically illegal after the clarification, when no real performance advantage is to be had. Fixing the rule in prepared will then take care of the mod-class people, as well.


Is there a class that specifically allows for hacked up harnesses? LOL

I guess everything that doesn't fit in the other classes gets thrown into SM?

That could become the largest class in BMWCCA Club Racing! :rolleyes


Ken Arutunian

Is there a class that specifically allows for hacked up harnesses? LOL
Ken Arutunian
Did you read the post you quoted? SE36 apparently allows the paring down of the harness.

-tammer

Did you read the post you quoted? SE36 apparently allows the paring down of the harness.

-tammer


Obviously not, huh! Who reallys reads any of this stuff? :eyecrazy

Ken Arutunian

I don't want to make the board crash or anything, but mod-class guys might want to note - it has been pointed out to me by another racer that wiring removal from the factory harness is not specifically allowed in the modified class rules either.

ECU rules are listed under the Engine section of Prepared. In Mod, "All other changes, relocations, substitutions, alterations and modifications are free," which seems logical that aftermarket ECU's and aftermarket engine harnesses are allowed by the word free.

In Prepared, the electronics you can remove and modify are defined in the Body/Chassis/Interior section and are pretty much limited to radio and nav systems. It would then follow that since in Mod the "Removal of interior is allowed providing the car “conforms to the spirit” of the BMW CCA Club Racing Program (i.e., aesthetically pleasing)" without any additional limitations like those in Prepared, one would be able to remove any and all wiring in the interior.

At least that's the way I would read the rules coming from a SCCA GCR; background of multiple IT and Spec classes. Wiring isn't specifically mentioned, but it seems to fall under broader categories that are specifically mentioned as free or able to be removed.

All of that said, we're running for the overall win anyway...doesn't really matter what the class letters say.

dave you know the unfounded hate they have for spherical bearings in prepared.

I sent in for a clarification, so we'll see .


well, i guess I got my answer.

Request: [Prepared Class] Specifically on rear shocks, [can] the lower shock connection [be] replaced with a spherical bearing instead of the bushing type connection on [a] stock type shock.

Clarification:

No, the rules specifically state that bushings are not allowed to be replaced by spherical bearings

So AD's, or any shock, with spherical lower mounts on the rear shocks are illegal for prepared.

well, i guess I got my answer.



So AD's, or any shock, with spherical lower mounts on the rear shocks are illegal for prepared.

Ok so who has some shocks for sale I might be in the market:devillook

So ironic. Matt's got the Koni's out of my car at the moment and was fitting the AD's. Oh well, back go the Koni's. Not sure why I just don't go CM for all it matters.

Seriously though, Sean, come do some NASA races with me. The Texas IP cars would dominate GTS3 in this region.

Seriously though, Sean, come do some NASA races with me. The Texas IP cars would dominate GTS3 in this region.

looks like the only place I have to race in TX, or race in CM. :rolleyes Get to pull my ballast too in NASA, maybe the grass greener on the other side.

It's worth a try. I plan to do both again this year. They're really easy to deal with as well.

Should I draft a rules change request, or does someone else want to? This is the sort of thing that really does merit an emergency rules change request...

Should I draft a rules change request, or does someone else want to? This is the sort of thing that really does merit an emergency rules change request...

Which sort of thing? The fact that you can't have spherical bearings in prepared class (and never could have had) or the fact that roll cage tubing (that is not required anyway), is all of a sudden spec'd to HAVE TO BE OF THE SAME THICKNESS AND SIZE as required tubing - how can you spec the size of something that isn't required???

...roll cage tubing (that is not required anyway), is all of a sudden spec'd to HAVE TO BE OF THE SAME THICKNESS AND SIZE as required tubing - how can you spec the size of something that isn't required???

Makes no sense to me either!
We can have NOTHING.....no problem.
But if we have something thinner than the required bars...that's non-compliant!
AND, we're likely touting safety as the reason....but AIR is OK!
The new SC CRAC rep had NOTHING to do with this one!

Makes no sense to me either!
We can have NOTHING.....no problem.
But if we have something thinner than the required bars...that's non-compliant!
AND, we're likely touting safety as the reason....but AIR is OK!
The new SC CRAC rep had NOTHING to do with this one!

Wanna see something even more confusing??? I have a MOTORSPORTS CHASSIS - with a MOTORSPORTS CAGE. So, by clarification, I am LEGAL - and all that smaller tubing, that you can't have in your cage, is legal in MY cage, cause it's a MOTORSPORTS CAGE.

Makes no sense to me either!
We can have NOTHING.....no problem.
But if we have something thinner than the required bars...that's non-compliant!
AND, we're likely touting safety as the reason....but AIR is OK!
The new SC CRAC rep had NOTHING to do with this one!

Well my car aint legal anymore. I have 1in tube spanning the lower door sill and its not getting cut out along with the 1in tube supporting my front strut tower bars. So anyone else going to join me at nasa nationals next year :eyecrazy

I'm not sure I understand this one...pretty stupid if you ask me. I guess alot of cars are illegal. Makes no sense to require tubing to all be the same size if it is not required.

-Rick



the fact that roll cage tubing (that is not required anyway), is all of a sudden spec'd to HAVE TO BE OF THE SAME THICKNESS AND SIZE as required tubing - how can you spec the size of something that isn't required???[/QUOTE]

I'm sure I understand this one...pretty stupid if you ask me. I guess alot of cars are illegal. Makes no sense to require tubing to all be the same size if it is not required.

-Rick



the fact that roll cage tubing (that is not required anyway), is all of a sudden spec'd to HAVE TO BE OF THE SAME THICKNESS AND SIZE as required tubing - how can you spec the size of something that isn't required???[/QUOTE]



This is just crazy...along with the wiring harness rule. My IP car has a good cage that complies to all the required tubes, but it has a couple braces at the b-pillar and a-pillar that are slightly smaller...so does that mean my cage is not not legal?

At this rate...I may not even bother applying for my CR license. :(

For thus of us with JRZ RS shocks please do not worry, there will be a legal solution for the rear shock mounts on these shortly.

Wasn't there a clearification that specifically allowed spherical shock mounts (both front and rear ... to allow camber plates). Or was that just wishful thinking for IPers?

There was, at the time I had my car log-booked in 2003, a clarification allowing monoballs in the rear lower shock mount if they were part of the shock's design (IOW, AD's were legal because they came that way. Doing it to Koni Sports was not legal). My regional tech steward did my tech in his shop and did not, as was suggested on the CR list, "miss" it. He looked right at it and specifically said it was legal. That clarification was renewed in 04 and, although I'm not 100% sure, I thought again in 05. I noticed it's dissapearance in 06 but, not being in Prepared anymore, didn't think about it or mention it.

This is just crazy...along with the wiring harness rule. My IP car has a good cage that complies to all the required tubes, but it has a couple braces at the b-pillar and a-pillar that are slightly smaller...so does that mean my cage is not not legal?

At this rate...I may not even bother applying for my CR license. :(

If you dont already have a log book, yep probably illegal until the rules comittee reverses course.

It's worth a try. I plan to do both again this year. They're really easy to deal with as well.

You racing in Feb?

Another Great Idea by BMWCCA club racing to fix what's not broken!:bs

-Rick


This is just crazy...along with the wiring harness rule. My IP car has a good cage that complies to all the required tubes, but it has a couple braces at the b-pillar and a-pillar that are slightly smaller...so does that mean my cage is not not legal?

At this rate...I may not even bother applying for my CR license. :(

If you dont already have a log book, yep probably illegal until the rules comittee reverses course.[/QUOTE]

You racing in Feb?

Are you? I see that what you had listed as SE36 now reads GTS...

I'm going for the HPDE and to look and see if NASA is where I want to start racing.

Ummm, who's in charge of making sure that stupid rules like this don't make it to print? This is insane. Glad I got a log book!

Ken Arutunian

Another Great Idea by BMWCCA club racing to fix what's not broken!:bs

-Rick




If you dont already have a log book, yep probably illegal until the rules comittee reverses course.[/QUOTE]

Guys - no reason (yet) to get our panties in a bunch. McIntyre has already said on the CR List that they will re-look into this. Here's his statement:

Clearly we stirred up a bee's nest here, and we are working with racers, stewards and national-level officials of other well-known sanctioning bodies to determine if this was a mistake or not, and if it was, we'll correct it.

[ The only people who should be very upset at this point are people in the middle of building new cages; everyone else should just be a little upset, and as I said, we're looking at it. ]

Interestingly, this clarification was based on the belief of all four members of the RC that the rules had always required all tubes to be the required size, not just the required tubes. The rules don't seem to allow undersized tubes in any way, and this was clear to us (although certainly it turns out we didn't understand a common interpretation).

All four members agreed on this, including the member who has strong knowledge of the NASA rules. I am under the impression that this was his interpretation of the situation in NASA as well as BMW CR.

We thought it was a clarification, not a rules change!

So, people with cars under construction with some small tubes - we know you are upset, we understand this, we will figure out how to handle it. Other people, rest assured we're working on it.

By the way, at least one of the people upset with the clarification is clearly using the undersized tubes as gussets, which we intended to allow, so at least one person should be a little less upset.

If you dont already have a log book, yep probably illegal until the rules comittee reverses course.


Jesus...

It's something new every week. Wiring harness, suspension, roll cage...at this rate; I won't do any BMWCR races since my car is never going to be legal. I've never seen a sanctioning body make so many decisions that chase away new racers. At least there's still plenty of NASA events around my area.

does the good ol doc work for NASA cause he sure is pushin everyone that way

-bUFF

You racing in Feb?

Not sure about the first race there at MSRH (Feb 3-4). I'll probably decide last minute. I do plan to do most of the races on the Texas schedule, though.

according to jdholder's post, i see no reason for anybody to be upset about cages. it appears they are working towards a solution, and if the other issues are as important, hopefully they are changing the wiring and spherical bearing clarifications too.

Yay, more drama!

For thus of us with JRZ RS shocks please do not worry, there will be a legal solution for the rear shock mounts on these shortly.

I had this all worked out before Roebling as a special request from Randy. He is pretty paranoid about getting protested, which doesn't seem to help out... I can do them for ADs also.

Honestly, doesn't make a lot of sense to me to buy a proper race shock then have to dumb it down. Part of the whole spend more money to adhere to the rule that was likely intended to reduce cost? I asked the JRZ engineers if they would be willing to send the RS dampers to us with a non-spherical bottom and they looked at me like I was a dope and said "why would we do that?" Oh well.

That clarification was renewed in 04 and, although I'm not 100% sure, I thought again in 05. I noticed it's dissapearance in 06 but, not being in Prepared anymore, didn't think about it or mention it.

WTF? Clarifications have to be renewed???

I had this all worked out before Roebling as a special request from Randy. He is pretty paranoid about getting protested, which doesn't seem to help out... I can do them for ADs also.

Honestly, doesn't make a lot of sense to me to buy a proper race shock then have to dumb it down. Part of the whole spend more money to adhere to the rule that was likely intended to reduce cost? I asked the JRZ engineers if they would be willing to send the RS dampers to us with a non-spherical bottom and they looked at me like I was a dope and said "why would we do that?" Oh well.

agreed.

Guess i'll be calling you about the replacement for AD's, or maybe just for some JRZ's.

WTF? Clarifications have to be renewed???

Yes. If a clarification is not included in the subsequent year's rules, it is no longer valid on Jan. 1.

Honestly, doesn't make a lot of sense to me to buy a proper race shock then have to dumb it down. Part of the whole spend more money to adhere to the rule that was likely intended to reduce cost? I asked the JRZ engineers if they would be willing to send the RS dampers to us with a non-spherical bottom and they looked at me like I was a dope and said "why would we do that?" Oh well.

What is the reasoning behind this rule? Is it a cost issue?

What is the reasoning behind this rule? Is it a cost issue?

"It has always been that way"

I'm curious to know if anyone has ever submitted a rules change request via the rulebook process to allow them.

"It has always been that way"

I know that was tounge in cheek, but that isn't really the answer. Like so many other rules, they were legal when non-remote shocks were free, but only became "illegal" with a clatification in the last year or two trying to get rid of spherical bearings in some suspension locations. I view it as an improper interpretation of the intent of that spherical bearing rule, but we will see.

I know that was tounge in cheek, but that isn't really the answer. Like so many other rules, they were legal when non-remote shocks were free, but only became "illegal" with a clatification in the last year or two trying to get rid of spherical bearings in some suspension locations. I view it as an improper interpretation of the intent of that spherical bearing rule, but we will see.

James,

What do you suggest that those of us with AD's do? My shocks are back at GC getting refreshed at the moment. Do I wait it out and hope for a rule change or see if GC has a solution to change out the bearing.

Craig

I know that was tounge in cheek, but that isn't really the answer. Like so many other rules, they were legal when non-remote shocks were free, but only became "illegal" with a clatification in the last year or two trying to get rid of spherical bearings in some suspension locations. I view it as an improper interpretation of the intent of that spherical bearing rule, but we will see.

Well this is why I asked the question in the first place. Why limit spherical bearings at all in prepared? Is it just cost? Are spherical bearings really that much more than bushings?

looks like the only place I have to race in TX, or race in CM. :rolleyes Get to pull my ballast too in NASA, maybe the grass greener on the other side.

I am planning to race primarily in NASA this season. I have no desire to make a long tow only to be screwed by not having an annual tech prior to arrival or getting DQ'ed for having a few wires removed from my wiring harness.

Scott

And so the saga continues

I am planning to race primarily in NASA this season.

I think I'm going to as well. Not so much because of the bitching in bmw cr, either. We have some great tracks around here (and some new ones on the way) and I am more than happy to just race locally, and without all the micro rules.

I think I'm going to as well. Not so much because of the bitching in bmw cr, either. We have some great tracks around here (and some new ones on the way) and I am more than happy to just race locally, and without all the micro rules.

i'm gonna bring my wiring diagrams out on you guys :devillook

See you guys in GTS3, maybe we'll just start from the back of the AI guys and have fun.

See you guys in GTS3, maybe we'll just start from the back of the AI guys and have fun.

That would definitely add some excitement. :alright

We usually start ahead of them, but you'll catch the back of CMC fairly fast. Don't knock those AI cars, some of them run pretty much the same times as ya'll. :)

damn didnt know its come down to this...
I've actually ruled out SE36, and somewhat decided on JP, but i guess i'm gonna look into NASA and find an appropriate car...

damn didnt know its come down to this...
I've actually ruled out SE36, and somewhat decided on JP, but i guess i'm gonna look into NASA and find an appropriate car...

i'm going to look for windshield washer pump power/ground wires at the next cca event :D

wonder how many DM/CM cars are going to be at the next tx club race, i'm guessing the local JP guys aren't too compliant.

just one day later, BMW CR said ...
This is just a short note to let you know that Rule Clarification 07-0005 now reads:

Request: Do non required cage tubes have to be the same tube diameter/thickness as required tubes?

Clarification: No, only required tubes must meet the specified tubing requirements. Tubes which obviously do not serve as a required tube may be of different specification.

Thanks,
David McIntyre
Chairman, BMW CCA Club Racing

very quick work by the team. BTW, I sent in a clarification I got yesterday from NASA's Jerry Kunzman that NASA only requires the "required" tubes to meet the size/thickness specs.
cheers,
bruce


according to jdholder's post, i see no reason for anybody to be upset about cages. it appears they are working towards a solution, and if the other issues are as important, hopefully they are changing the wiring and spherical bearing clarifications too.

Just saw this re-re-clarification. Good job guys!!!!

Just saw this re-re-clarification. Good job guys!!!!

Great to see this one fixed. And in short order too! Great job guys! :) :) :)

Great to see this one fixed. And in short order too! Great job guys! :) :) :)

Definitely! It's good to see the roll cage clarification get sorted out so quickly. Now I'm hoping they sort out the wiring rule so all the Prepared guys can put the issue to rest. :buttrock

Dittos...good to see this sorted out quickly.

We usually start ahead of them, but you'll catch the back of CMC fairly fast. Don't knock those AI cars, some of them run pretty much the same times as ya'll. :)

Not to mention they throw some nice paddock parties (at least the SE guys do). :wave

Also glad to see the clarification resolved.

Any relief on the harness thing or are they looking for all the guys with some hacked harnesses to go to Mod class?