'Splain it to me Lucy!

ICSCC Reg. 1106.G. Class letters are required on both sides of a car. Cars with multiple class designations that may be applicable in one run group must cross out or cover designations that do not apply to the current session. (Fall 2008)

I'm still trying to use the English language, so would someone be so kind as to explain to me how that regulation eliminates the need to cover the unnecessary class designator before entering the track with a Group that does not contain that class?

The change in 2008 only added the words "that may be applicable in one run group". How did that change anything?

If you have two classes (e.g.) on your car that run in the same group, you must cross out the one you are NOT entered in for that group. Obviously, this could change from year-to-year, if and when a class is moved from one group to another to even things out.

Lucy you got some splaining to do!

I get it I think.
Say my car has RS & ITE on the side of my car. Both classes run in Group 4.
If running RS I crossout ITE and visa versa.

Exactly. With this rule change, I no longer needed to cross out SPM and ITE between Group 1 and Group 4 (I always double-enter). It's also one less thing the lovely folks in pre-grid had to deal with when I occasionally forgot to switch the tape from one class to another between sessions.

We are just drivers after all not rocket scientist.
Cross out classes, fuel car, torque wheels, check air pressures, check oil, get dressed, etc.

More then our little brains can handle sometimes!

And I am sincerely trying to understand.

I get the idea/intent that if one has multiple class designations on the car then those designations that do not apply to the current Group must be marked out. I get that...but,

What I'm weak on, is understanding how that change in verbage eliminated the marking out of any, and all designations that do not apply to the current Group. Is it simply because that situation may no longer be considered due to the newly formed sentence? Yep, kinda weak on that part.

See, it says "may be applicable", not "only applicable". So in my logic, that would suggest that other circumstances of multiple class designators that may not be applicable to the current group "...must cross out or cover...".

Just sayin'

Ken Killam said:

I get the idea/intent that if one has multiple class designations on the car then those designations that do not apply to the current Group must be marked out. I get that...but,

Click to expand...

No, you don't get it: UNLESS you have multiple class designations that are in the SAME group, you DON'T need to mark anything out.

A class in Group 1 and a class in Group 4 means I NO LONGER have to mark out Group4's class when I'm running in Group 1 and vice-versa.

Thanks for the insight, Steve.

The rule doesn't say, nor imply "unless". The regulation specifies the designations that may be applicable to the Group as being affected, and does nothing to suggest that those designations that "may not" be applicable to the Group are exempt.

So the verbage isn't suppose to relate to any designations that do not apply to that Group? Any and all other designations are simply deemed non-existent to the application of the regulation.

So yes, that is what I'm not gettin'.

I larned my Englitch in a different skool, I guess. And I'm not the individual that is responsible to not enforce that regulation.

I get the idea/intent that if one has multiple class designations on the car then those designations that do not apply to the current Group must be marked out.

Click to expand...

I honestly don't understand your confusion. I think you're overloading the meaning of the word "may," but I don't understand how your reading of the rule means that classes from other run groups have to be crossed out.

Possibly overloading the word, or taking it for its grammatical value when used in context with regulations that are necessarily (over) scrutinized to eliminate that confusion, yes. Possibly, but I don't think that I was reading between them.

It may be understood by those drivers that instigated the change in 2008, that didn't want to fiddle with marking, and unmarking their designators any more.

But I'm in the position of having a responsibility to explain the regulations, when asked by both Novice, and experienced alike as a representative of the Race Official's Div. of ICSCC to CSCC. It's very hard to do that if I'm not convinced that it says pretty much exactly what it means, and vice versa.

Sometimes it's too easy to read the meaning we want to expect from a phrase. And perspective is impossible to control outside of our own personal sphere of understanding. So maybe it'd be fun to publish intention with the 'Rule Change List' when it's produced and published for drivers to make their informed voting decisions.

Here is how I MAY have reworded the regulation to exclude all other designators as applicable. Remembering that I am not the guy getting sniveled at for forgetting to mark things out while I was otherwise preparing my car at my paddock space.

--

Cars with multiple class designations allowed within the same run group must cross out, or cover designations that do not apply to that (delete- current) session.

--

No "Mother may I?" to that at all. I understand that it is certainly not a Safety issue, but merely a convenience for the administration of the event.

"Who need's 'em, anyway?"

C'mon now Steve - some ol' houn' dawgs get all a' the easy meat that comes offa bone then are content ta go have a nice com'fotable snooze on a sunny corner o' the porch. Otha dawgs won't give up until they have worried away every little speck a meat, part of th' bone and all of th' marrow, even if they have ta bust they teeth ta get it.

Even if the membership clearly voted that there is no meat. And no bone.

Although, I have always been in favor of the cleanup of any confusing language THROUGHOUT the rulebook. All rulebooks seem to have similar problems - it is very difficult to avoid somehow. I was looking at a section that someone pointed out in the SCCA Production car rules (back when I ran a Production car) and it is simply amazing that any cars get built with all of the possible interpretations.

Ken Killam said:

Cars with multiple class designations allowed within the same run group must cross out, or cover designations that do not apply to that (delete- current) session.

Click to expand...

I like it.