Ron Bartell wrote:
...or the flywheel doesn't line up with the driver's feet...
The regs are mute regarding location of the flywheel rotating plane in relation to the driver.
Jim, to clarify myself, I have no grief with your posting these possible tech discrepancies here in the Prod forum as a heads-up. In fact, I actually appreciate it. What I have grief with is the implication that the Runoffs technical inspections are going to focus on relatively odd, non-performance-related technical items in an apparent "gotcha!" campaign ("bolts" - not Dzus,
definitely not glue - and scattershields?) on cars that have been that way for, potentially, years.
The Runoffs is not the right place for that.
In my opinion, Runoffs technical inspection should focus on things that really matter
to the Runoffs. I don't see obscure and inconsistently-applied (or -interpreted) GCR 9.3.x as that. While I certainly don't promote overlooking egregious safety concerns, my ask is that we focus inspection efforts on things that really matter (for example, those things in GCR 9.1.5) while making note of other discrepencies (and a "fix by next race weekend" logbook notation) and then publish all these discrepencies afterward for everyone to be aware of to either fix and/or request CRB regs clarifications/adjustment over the winter (for example, what I've already done for the glass bonding, and what I will be doing to clarify a terribly-nebulous scattershield requirement).