Calling all SpecBoxers...
12-01-2011, 03:20 PM
#76
My main point in this is the obvious difference of opinions, and necessity to involve "interpretation" and "spirit". The rules should be more clear. And DQ for intent and spirit are really hard to make, or defend against, when the literature is not there to support them.
I have made my suggestions to the rules on the Porsche Owners Club forum in the Boxster Spec section if one is so inclined to read them. I will refrain from posting here due to the length.
12-01-2011, 05:33 PM
#77
Perfect Angel
Rennlist Member
Rennlist Member
Brad Roberts website is still up. Not sure if this is the same one others are talking about.
http://www.bradrobertsag.com/c=PXUnX...y/boxsterspec/
http://www.bradrobertsag.com/c=PXUnX...y/boxsterspec/
12-01-2011, 05:52 PM
#79
Instructor
Join Date: Oct 2003
Posts: 114
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Check out this old site. It is of Bill P.'s build of his spec boxster and the one that got me started with my build. Bill was one of the first ones to document his build online and a great start for anyone interested in doing it themselves.
http://boxcar-racing.com/forum/index.php?topic=230.0
http://boxcar-racing.com/forum/index.php?topic=230.0
12-01-2011, 09:44 PM
#80
Racer
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: SA Texas
Posts: 443
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The fact that the car was run this way all year means nothing. Nor does the fact that this was listed as a mod on his build sheets.
His car was protested and the mod was ruled illegal.
The simple fact is that all he had to do was run this mod by the Competition Committee to get approval. He did not or we would not be reading about this here. He opened up the ECU and modified the programming. Not something you do in a spec class without getting approval.
It's a hard ruling but it doesn't sound like politics. Does his car run on the stock ECU? No? Protest upheld. Pretty simple really. The fact that the BoD upheld the DQ tells us the same thing. Unless you are suggesting the POC Competition Committee and the entire POC board are out to get him. I doubt it.
Scott
His car was protested and the mod was ruled illegal.
The simple fact is that all he had to do was run this mod by the Competition Committee to get approval. He did not or we would not be reading about this here. He opened up the ECU and modified the programming. Not something you do in a spec class without getting approval.
It's a hard ruling but it doesn't sound like politics. Does his car run on the stock ECU? No? Protest upheld. Pretty simple really. The fact that the BoD upheld the DQ tells us the same thing. Unless you are suggesting the POC Competition Committee and the entire POC board are out to get him. I doubt it.
Scott
Aside from this, let me also say that as Eric has proven himself the fastest (or at least amongst the fastest) guy out there, why the hell would anyone take that away over a dubious technicality unless they have an agenda. In Australia we would call it "tall poppy syndrome" - the desire of mean spirited losers to cut the head of the off the most prominent player. Shame on those who did it and shame on those who support the decision. Ask yourself:- Would Eric's results have been different if he had carried an immobilizer? If you find yourself doubting it then you know he deserves his results.
Just for the record I have never met or spoken to Eric. I know him only through the many and enthusiastic posts he has made on this and many other forums. I wrote this dialog for no other reason than to express my opinion on what seems to be a gross injustice.
12-01-2011, 10:02 PM
#81
Addict
Rennlist Member
Rennlist
Site Sponsor
Rennlist Member
Rennlist
Site Sponsor
Scott: We'll have to agree to disagree 
Your car looks great by the way! Bet it's a blast to drive.
Eric did not tamper with the ECU to change the performance of his car, like playing with the timing, fuel mixture, or other things that could give him an advantage over his competitors. Had he done that...Any alterations to engine mapping are detectible with the Porsche diagnostic software which must be available since PCA Scrutineers plug laptops into ECUs all the time to see if they have been flashed or altered.
All he did was remove the anti-theft components. His doing this was out in the open for all to see, since he says it was listed as an option if someone were to hire him and his shop to build a car. It would have been every obvious to the tech guys and his fellow racers since he says he has a toggle switch to start the car. Can't do that with the immobilizer in place. I don't see any conscious effort to deceive the rules committee or his competitors in order to gain an advantage.
Your car looks great by the way! Bet it's a blast to drive. Eric did not tamper with the ECU to change the performance of his car, like playing with the timing, fuel mixture, or other things that could give him an advantage over his competitors. Had he done that...Any alterations to engine mapping are detectible with the Porsche diagnostic software which must be available since PCA Scrutineers plug laptops into ECUs all the time to see if they have been flashed or altered.
All he did was remove the anti-theft components. His doing this was out in the open for all to see, since he says it was listed as an option if someone were to hire him and his shop to build a car. It would have been every obvious to the tech guys and his fellow racers since he says he has a toggle switch to start the car. Can't do that with the immobilizer in place. I don't see any conscious effort to deceive the rules committee or his competitors in order to gain an advantage.
12-01-2011, 10:06 PM
#82
Rennlist Member
Take a look. Who do you think has the HP advantage here? I get runs on him up the hill in turn 8 because I never lift, and it finally allows a pass. http://youtu.be/218n5HAC4aM
12-01-2011, 11:33 PM
#84
I am not saying the situation does not suck. But, I bet that NASA and PCA would do exactly the same thing with rules written the same our very similarly. The intent of the rules is for the computer system to not be modified, whether or not the mod is performance enhancing.
Ask NASA. Ask PCA.
Scott
Ask NASA. Ask PCA.
Scott
12-02-2011, 09:58 AM
#85
Been following this thread with great interest. I am 3/4 done building a BSR ... hope to finish it over the winter months. The BSR class is perfect for me. As a tall person, I was able to construct a custom cage that is both safe and comfortable. My next challenge is a weight reduction plan (for both the driver and the car).
+1 on a 986/996 Spec forum.
As a member of PCA (no NASA or POC this far north) I wish there was more transparency as to what is going on. I will be very unhappy if the class fragments.
Eric, I am sorry to hear your news. It smells fishy and race officials would be well served to make the reasons for their decision public.
Know that your posts have been a wonderful guide as I work through my project. One of my winter goals was to eliminate the immobilizer, so it would be really nice to get some clarification on this.
As you stated there are many reasons to want to get rid of the immobilizer, none of which affect performance. It would be nice if there was a program to make sealed modified ECUs available. Builders could choose to run with the immobilizer or to purchase a modified unit. Doesn't seem to me that it would be difficult to police ... after qualifying, have the fast guys switch ECUs with the slow guys.
Anyway, I wish you luck.
Michael
+1 on a 986/996 Spec forum.
As a member of PCA (no NASA or POC this far north) I wish there was more transparency as to what is going on. I will be very unhappy if the class fragments.
Eric, I am sorry to hear your news. It smells fishy and race officials would be well served to make the reasons for their decision public.
Know that your posts have been a wonderful guide as I work through my project. One of my winter goals was to eliminate the immobilizer, so it would be really nice to get some clarification on this.
As you stated there are many reasons to want to get rid of the immobilizer, none of which affect performance. It would be nice if there was a program to make sealed modified ECUs available. Builders could choose to run with the immobilizer or to purchase a modified unit. Doesn't seem to me that it would be difficult to police ... after qualifying, have the fast guys switch ECUs with the slow guys.
Anyway, I wish you luck.
Michael
12-02-2011, 01:12 PM
#86
Advanced
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 90
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Michael,
I believe the 2012 PCA Rules will not allow the immobilizer to be removed, or at the very least, the language in question in the rules will remain, at least for 2012. This is where the car owner needs to decide how to proceed. Re-sale value of the car may be higher if it can fit in all of the sanctioning bodies, but maybe not. On the west coast, we may try to clean up the rules to be much clearer in language under the POC/PRC banner. Let's say the distinction is made clearly that it is okay with POC/PRC, the language may or may not make it in to PCA or NASA.
It's probably best to contact the sanctioning group's scruts and see if you can get a clarification, prefereably in writing. That way you have something to refer to.
Bill P.
I believe the 2012 PCA Rules will not allow the immobilizer to be removed, or at the very least, the language in question in the rules will remain, at least for 2012. This is where the car owner needs to decide how to proceed. Re-sale value of the car may be higher if it can fit in all of the sanctioning bodies, but maybe not. On the west coast, we may try to clean up the rules to be much clearer in language under the POC/PRC banner. Let's say the distinction is made clearly that it is okay with POC/PRC, the language may or may not make it in to PCA or NASA.
It's probably best to contact the sanctioning group's scruts and see if you can get a clarification, prefereably in writing. That way you have something to refer to.
Bill P.
12-02-2011, 02:13 PM
#87
Advanced
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 57
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Michael,
[snip]
This is where the car owner needs to decide how to proceed. Re-sale value of the car may be higher if it can fit in all of the sanctioning bodies, but maybe not. On the west coast, we may try to clean up the rules to be much clearer in language under the POC/PRC banner. Let's say the distinction is made clearly that it is okay with POC/PRC, the language may or may not make it in to PCA or NASA.
Bill P.
[snip]
This is where the car owner needs to decide how to proceed. Re-sale value of the car may be higher if it can fit in all of the sanctioning bodies, but maybe not. On the west coast, we may try to clean up the rules to be much clearer in language under the POC/PRC banner. Let's say the distinction is made clearly that it is okay with POC/PRC, the language may or may not make it in to PCA or NASA.
Bill P.
Not jumping into the discussion re Eric's circumstances, and I understand he's rightfully passionate about getting the POC/PRC rules clarified, but I have a concern about changing the language of the BSR rules without thoroughly considering the consequences. Specifically, I'm worried that any cleanup might move the POC/PRC rules further away from the PCA rules and move the two rule sets apart in ways that can't be easily reconciled. I know a number of the POC BSRs have moved outside POC's region and would hate to see the market turn into a multiple tier version of BSR/SPB. I know that door has already opened, but so far, the rule sets seem close enough that cars could flow relatively easily between the two rule sets.
I'm hoping to see Nick this weekend at the POC event and mention it to him.
Eric
POC BSR #187
Last edited by egress91506; 12-02-2011 at 02:14 PM. Reason: chubby fingers
12-02-2011, 02:51 PM
#88
Advanced
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 90
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hi Eric,
I am totally with you on your concerns. My post above was meant for a car owner to be aware of the rule set they are running under but also keep in mind that it may be beneficial to the car's worth to keep it eligible for all of the sanctioning bodies, thus maximizing the market size.
This will be an interesting evolution as I side with Eric O. that the rules would benefit from clean up to make it more black and white. However, it doesn't mean that any org outside of POC needs to even look at any possible enhancements to the rules. It will be up to that body to entertain them.
Bill P.
I am totally with you on your concerns. My post above was meant for a car owner to be aware of the rule set they are running under but also keep in mind that it may be beneficial to the car's worth to keep it eligible for all of the sanctioning bodies, thus maximizing the market size.
This will be an interesting evolution as I side with Eric O. that the rules would benefit from clean up to make it more black and white. However, it doesn't mean that any org outside of POC needs to even look at any possible enhancements to the rules. It will be up to that body to entertain them.
Bill P.
12-02-2011, 04:38 PM
#89
Pro
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Lake Forest, CA
Posts: 698
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
May be beating a dead horse here BUT.... The rules say ECU cannot be modified. ECU by every definition I can find on google refers to the Engine Control Unit which controls engine management through such things as timing and fuel injection. Not one definition referenced the box in which the hardware and software were contained. Not one definition referenced other things (such as alarm systems) that happened to occupy the same box. As Eric has not changed the programming and actions of the engine management system then he has broken neither the spirit nor the letter of the rules. I therefore answer your question:- "Does his car run the stock ECU?" by saying yes! And at that all other answers reverse themselves.
Aside from this, let me also say that as Eric has proven himself the fastest (or at least amongst the fastest) guy out there, why the hell would anyone take that away over a dubious technicality unless they have an agenda. In Australia we would call it "tall poppy syndrome" - the desire of mean spirited losers to cut the head of the off the most prominent player. Shame on those who did it and shame on those who support the decision. Ask yourself:- Would Eric's results have been different if he had carried an immobilizer? If you find yourself doubting it then you know he deserves his results.
Just for the record I have never met or spoken to Eric. I know him only through the many and enthusiastic posts he has made on this and many other forums. I wrote this dialog for no other reason than to express my opinion on what seems to be a gross injustice.
Aside from this, let me also say that as Eric has proven himself the fastest (or at least amongst the fastest) guy out there, why the hell would anyone take that away over a dubious technicality unless they have an agenda. In Australia we would call it "tall poppy syndrome" - the desire of mean spirited losers to cut the head of the off the most prominent player. Shame on those who did it and shame on those who support the decision. Ask yourself:- Would Eric's results have been different if he had carried an immobilizer? If you find yourself doubting it then you know he deserves his results.
Just for the record I have never met or spoken to Eric. I know him only through the many and enthusiastic posts he has made on this and many other forums. I wrote this dialog for no other reason than to express my opinion on what seems to be a gross injustice.
Finally, someone who gets what Eric has been pointing out. So many people, (scrutineers, compeitiors, builders, 'writer of the rules', etc.) have agreed the rules are vague (not clearly or explicitly stated) and very gray.
Using the cop out "intent of the rules", who knows exactly, positively, the state of the person's mind that directed his or her actions when the rules were written.
And interpretation (an explanation of the meaning of another's work) of the rule???
Could the rule possibly be interpreted differently by similair parties?
Boards decision was absolute - he/she broke the rules, he/she knowlingly cheated, disqualify him/her, take away the points, no final run for the chanpionship.
That's supposed to be fair and in the true spirit of competition? Sorry not in my book
12-02-2011, 05:38 PM
#90
Laura,
I have always understood what Eric has been pointing out and I sympathize with his plight. However, having dealt with motorsport rules in various disciplines for many years, I also understand the difficult role the people that must enforce the rules have to play.
Spec class rules are notoriously tight. If you want to do something that is in a grey area of the rules, you go to the rules committee (or equivalent) and you get a ruling. If you are smart and want to cover you butt, you get it in writing.
As you have pointed out so clearly, the rules here are vague and grey. So, if you want to make sure this kind of ruling does not go against you, you check into it before you actually do it.
Or, you roll the dice and go with the modification and hope you are okay if you get challenged on it.
Scott
I have always understood what Eric has been pointing out and I sympathize with his plight. However, having dealt with motorsport rules in various disciplines for many years, I also understand the difficult role the people that must enforce the rules have to play.
Spec class rules are notoriously tight. If you want to do something that is in a grey area of the rules, you go to the rules committee (or equivalent) and you get a ruling. If you are smart and want to cover you butt, you get it in writing.
As you have pointed out so clearly, the rules here are vague and grey. So, if you want to make sure this kind of ruling does not go against you, you check into it before you actually do it.
Or, you roll the dice and go with the modification and hope you are okay if you get challenged on it.
Scott