Whoa, is my M3 steering wheel illegal in stock?

[rumatt]

Alternate steering wheels are allowed, provided the outside diameter
is not changed by more than one inch from the standard size.
Steering wheels with an integral airbag may not be changed.

Is the E46 airbag an "integral" part of the wheel? I'm guessing yes.

Ugh, stock wheel and dead pedal go back on before Friday I guess. :ack:

[dan]

didn't you change wheels without touching the airbag?

[rumatt]

didn't you change wheels without touching the airbag?

Nope.

1) Bag/horn pops out
2) Swap wheel
3) Bag bag back in.

[dan]

cheater

[clyde]

cheater
ignorant slut

[rumatt]

cheater

:lol:

[JST]

Is the E46 airbag an "integral" part of the wheel? I'm guessing yes.

Ugh, stock wheel and dead pedal go back on before Friday I guess. :ack:

I wouldn't call it an "integral" part of the wheel--the fact that you can re-use the stock airbag when swapping in an M3 wheel is convincing evidence that the airbag isn't "integral" to the new wheel.

[rumatt]

Well, after reading the following definition of "integral" I decided to remove it.

in·te·gral (ĭn'tĭ-grəl, ĭn-tĕg'rəl) pronunciation
adj.

1. Essential or necessary for completeness; constituent:

The airbag is "necessary for completeness". I can't risk the idea of getting protested based on something so stupid. It's already listed for sale on e46fanatics :speechle:

I also removed the M3 dead pedal, so I can go back to the cheap, plastic one that cracks and creaks when you actually use it. :rolleyes:

[Andy]

I think you’re fine with the M3 wheel and I’d call the dead pedal “cosmetic”, seeing how it doesn’t actually do anything. … but then again, this is coming from a guy who just bought three OEM plastic splash guard fasteners because I noticed they were missing. :eeps:

Oh yeah, the new exhaust is in and it is LOUDER THEN CRAP!!! The parts I took off weighed 41 lbs. :line:

[rumatt]

but then again, this is coming from a guy who just bought three OEM plastic splash guard fasteners because I noticed they were missing. :eeps:

:lol: :lol: :lol:

One of my fog light covers is unpainted. Is that somehow a violation? :)

We tested our straight pipes on Friday also (THANKS TeamRx8!!!). The car sounds MEAN! If nothing else, it will be worth the trip to Topeka just to drive around sounding like a badass. :D

[ZBB]

The airbag is "necessary for completeness".

But you didn't remove the airbag. Integral=completeness, and the airbag is still there, so you have the same completeness. Since integral also can be defined as built-in, you have an argument that since the subcomponent is completely swapable to the new wheel, it is not integral to the original stock wheel.

The wheel diameter is the same (I swapped to the M3 wheel in my e46). The same "integral" airbag is used. The only difference is the wheel thickness and leather quality.

If you're worried about it, get a ruling. If its against you, then sell the wheel.

[JST]

Well, after reading the following definition of "integral" I decided to remove it.



The airbag is "necessary for completeness". I can't risk the idea of getting protested based on something so stupid. It's already listed for sale on e46fanatics :speechle:

I also removed the M3 dead pedal, so I can go back to the cheap, plastic one that cracks and creaks when you actually use it. :rolleyes:

That is not what integral means in this context. I understand you wanting to play it safe, but the inclusion of the word "integral" as a modifier has to mean something--and if you used an expansive definition like the one that you posted above, *every* car with an airbag would be covered, and there'd be no need to use the word "integral." You could just say "airbag."

Moreover, and as an alternative line of argument, I would say that even under your expansive definition, your airbag is not covered. Your airbag is not "necessary for completeness" of the steering wheel--the steering wheel is a separate part that bolts on regardless of whether or not you have the airbag installed.

I wouldn't have changed it; frankly, if I lost that protest, it would be sufficient to turn me off the sport of autocrossing forever.

[bren]

If you're worried about it, get a ruling. If its against you, then sell the wheel.

[rumatt]

If you're worried about it, get a ruling. If its against you, then sell the wheel.

The problem is that the SCCA rules don't work that way. You can ask, but they will only give you hints on how to interpret the rules. Nothing is official unless you get protested and it either gets upheld or dismissed.

Kinda like patent law. :speechle:


No way I'm taking any chances in Topeka. I don't actually care THAT much because I'm getting last place anyway, but my codriver would freaking kill me. :ack: :D

[rumatt]

Oh, and I'm already told that the dead pedal is NOT legal. Pedals are not legal in stock.

[Elwood]

Oh, and I'm already told that the dead pedal is NOT legal. Pedals are not legal in stock.

you're insane.





guess you wont be @ NY Saturday =[

[rumatt]

you're insane.


Old news.


guess you wont be @ NY Saturday =[

Will too. :p

[Roadstergal]

The airbag is "necessary for completeness".

I actually thought the opposite when I read that. The airbag is not necessary for it to completely serve its function as a steering wheel.

I dunno - I'd ask a ruling authority about that one.

[rumatt]

Hi, Matt,

The last sentence of 13.2.E seems pretty clear to me - "Steering wheels with an integral airbag may not be changed."

I believe this has already been clarified several times over the years. And the answer hasn't changed yet...the airbag-equipped steering wheel has to be standard (alternate airbag-equipped steering wheels are not allowed) to the model of car. It's the same in Street Touring, too.

Later,


- Doug

Doug Gill
SCCA Technical Manager, Solo
PO Box 19400
Topeka, KS 66619-0400
1-800-770-2055

:dunno:

He didn't really clairify the definition of integral, and you could still interpret his response as not applying to this case.

But whatever. It's still for sale. I can use the $300 to pay for 1 new R-comp. :lol:

[JST]

:dunno:

He didn't really clairify the definition of integral, and you could still interpret his response as not applying to this case.

But whatever. It's still for sale. I can use the $300 to pay for 1 new R-comp. :lol:

That's not very helpful, you're right. He does seem to be saying that if a steering wheel has an airbag, it cannot be swapped for a different wheel, period. But that can't be what the rule means; the idea behind the rule is obviously to avoid people putting different airbags into their cars, which would be all sorts of dangerous. If one reuses the exact same airbag module in a different wheel, what's the problem?

But given the irrationality of many of the decisions that come out of the SEB, and the conceptual direction this response suggests, it probably pays to play it safe.

[rumatt]

the idea behind the rule is obviously to avoid people putting different airbags into their cars, which would be all sorts of dangerous. If one reuses the exact same airbag module in a different wheel, what's the problem?

Actually, I believe the rule is avoid the SEB from allowing/removing of savety features in your car. In that spirit of the rule, I didn't modify anything.

No way am I bringing the wheel to topeka. The only question is whether I install it again afterward and use it for local events.

[Plaz]

Actually, I believe the rule is avoid the SEB from allowing/removing of savety features in your car. In that spirit of the rule, I didn't modify anything.

No way am I bringing the wheel to topeka. The only question is whether I install it again afterward and use it for local events.

You'll want to. You probably forget how hard and skinny that non-M version is. It's pathetically uncomfortable in comparison, IMO. :dunno:

[clyde]

The wording of the rule doesn't really reflect the intent (as it's been explained to me several times by those that I would trust on rule interpretations). If you change a steering wheel with an airbag, you should be ready to be protested...and lose, because that's what's going to happen.

[JST]

The wording of the rule doesn't really reflect the intent (as it's been explained to me several times by those that I would trust on rule interpretations). If you change a steering wheel with an airbag, you should be ready to be protested...and lose, because that's what's going to happen.

So, does the SEB ever actually issue any decisions that comport with the text of the rulebook, or do they just make shit up as they go along and justify it based on "intent?"

If the latter, why the do they make me buy a rule book?

[Terri Kennedy]

He didn't really clairify the definition of integral, and you could still interpret his response as not applying to this case.The M wheel is a special order option from BMWNA - option code SA710. The only reason it is a special order here is due to the way BMWNA packages options. In the rest of the world, you just configure your car with it if you want it. It is possible to get a dealer in the US to order a car with the wheel - the same as if you wanted a non-standard color. The dealer just has to be willing to a) put in the time to deal w/ BMWNA, and b) accept getting stuck with an odd car if you back out of the purchase (due to US deposit rules).

I don't know if this will help with your stock classification or not, but figured I'd clarify the situation.

[JST]

The M wheel is a special order option from BMWNA - option code SA710. The only reason it is a special order here is due to the way BMWNA packages options. In the rest of the world, you just configure your car with it if you want it. It is possible to get a dealer in the US to order a car with the wheel - the same as if you wanted a non-standard color. The dealer just has to be willing to a) put in the time to deal w/ BMWNA, and b) accept getting stuck with an odd car if you back out of the purchase (due to US deposit rules).

I don't know if this will help with your stock classification or not, but figured I'd clarify the situation.

According to clyde's post in another thread regarding the possibility of a non-sunroof equipped E90, Terry's post (while seemingly dispositive) would likely be irrelevant to the SEB.

See http://forums.carmudgeons.com/showpost.php?p=49411&postcount=14

Clyde's theory (and I have no reason to doubt him) is that despite the clear and unambiguous nature of the rule, the SEB would find that their "intent" (whatever the decisionmaker thought that was) would govern, and the fact that a car was ordered, purchased and delivered (or orderable, purchasable and deliverable) through a US dealer wouldn't mean jack.

This level of arbitrary disrespect for the written word and senseless exercise of random, unpredictable authority is a kind of perfect storm for a lawyer with a severe authority problem such as myself. If I were a competitive autocrosser, it would keep me from being a competitive autocrosser.

[rumatt]

This level of arbitrary disrespect for the written word and senseless exercise of random, unpredictable authority is a kind of perfect storm for a lawyer with a severe authority problem such as myself.

:lol:

[clyde]

According to clyde's post in another thread regarding the possibility of a non-sunroof equipped E90, Terry's post (while seemingly dispositive) would likely be irrelevant to the SEB.

Not irrelevant. The steering wheel thing...if you were to produce the documentation, such as a Monroney sticker showing that a car from that model year was delivered that way, a letter or two from BMW/BMWNA saying that it could be done, etc, it would be considered. However, in the end, I think that the protest would be upheld with a sanction that amounts to, "It's not performance advantage so we'll let the results stand. Return the steering wheel to the correct one and don't do it again."

The E90 sunroof issue is a little different, but still substantially the same. Like most of the "special" BMW options, they aren't options that are available to the average buyer at the average dealer. Getting an E90 without a sunroof, it can be argued, would be comparable to me calling up a buddy in Dearborn and having him build me a special Mustang GT that is really a Cobra. Just because it's technically possbile to pull certain strings to order a car in some custom one off configuration doesn't make a it a stock legal car. At least that's the anti-argument that I believe would carry the day.

The SEB is made up of participant volunteers. The rules are rules and not laws. They have a certain flexibility that is maddening at times, but I think it ends up being to the community's benefit.

[JST]

Not irrelevant. The steering wheel thing...if you were to produce the documentation, such as a Monroney sticker showing that a car from that model year was delivered that way, a letter or two from BMW/BMWNA saying that it could be done, etc, it would be considered. However, in the end, I think that the protest would be upheld with a sanction that amounts to, "It's not performance advantage so we'll let the results stand. Return the steering wheel to the correct one and don't do it again."

The E90 sunroof issue is a little different, but still substantially the same. Like most of the "special" BMW options, they aren't options that are available to the average buyer at the average dealer. Getting an E90 without a sunroof, it can be argued, would be comparable to me calling up a buddy in Dearborn and having him build me a special Mustang GT that is really a Cobra. Just because it's technically possbile to pull certain strings to order a car in some custom one off configuration doesn't make a it a stock legal car. At least that's the anti-argument that I believe would carry the day.

The SEB is made up of participant volunteers. The rules are rules and not laws. They have a certain flexibility that is maddening at times, but I think it ends up being to the community's benefit.

I understand your point, but I don't think "intent" should ever trump the text whether you are talking about the Constitution, federal law, or rules in a car club. The text is something that we can all read and come to our own conclusions about. "Intent" is something that only the delphic SEB can determine. Sure, when there is ambiguity, it makes sense to talk about intent--but there isn't ambiguity in either of the examples we are discussing, at least IMHO.

[rumatt]

I understand your point, but I don't think "intent" should ever trump the text whether you are talking about the Constitution, federal law, or rules in a car club.

Ironically, the rules specifically state that their interpretation trumps the written rules. So in a way, they are not trumping the written rule by trumping the written rule. :wtf:

Put that in your SCCA love-pipe and smoke it.

20.5 RULES INTERPRETATION
In the event of doubt or ambiguity as to the wording and/or intent of
the operating rules for the ProSolo NationalSeries, the decisions of
ProSolo Officials shall prevail and be binding. SCCA ProSolo Officials
reserve the right to revise these rules, to issue supplements to them at
any time, and to promulgate special rules in an emergency.

[clyde]

Ironically, the rules specifically state that their interpretation trumps the written rules. So in a way, they are not trumping the written rule by trumping the written rule. :wtf:

Put that in your SCCA love-pipe and smoke it.

:rtfm:

That applies to Pro Solo, which is different from Solo II.

[rumatt]

:rtfm:
That applies to Pro Solo, which is different from Solo II.

:banghead:

[JetBlack330i]

Nope.

1) Bag/horn pops out
2) Swap wheel
3) Bag bag back in.
If it popped out it's not integral. That's how I view it.