The following clarifications have been issued by Clement Schmitt, National
Tech Steward/BMW CR. The subject and clarification have been copied
directly from the emails sent to the racer who requested the
clarification.
To submit a request for a rules clarification, follow the instructions below:
- Go to www.bmwccaclubracing.com and click on "Racer
Login".
- Enter your username and password and click Login.
- Select "Rule Clarification" from the menu on the
left and it will bring up a form for you to submit a Rule Clarification
request.
- Fill out the subject line and body of the email with all
information that you want answered. Please be as detailed as possible
- list the specific area of the rules you are questioning, any supporting
information, and whether this questions pertains to modified, prepared or
stock classes. The rules committee will respond to you as soon as
possible."
- Please note: If you link directly to the form it
will not work unless you are already logged in as it checks permissions
before it gives you access to that page. It also prefills your email address
that you have in the system so please be sure that your email address is
correct so that you can receive a reply.
| Clarification
Number |
Subject |
Date
Issued |
|
|
|
| 05-01 |
Interior Rearview mirrors in
stock and prepared
|
12/14/2004 |
| Request: Are wink mirrors (multipanel
review) allowed in Prepared classes?
Clarification: I consider Wink and other racing style mirrors
for the interior of the car as legal.
The wink mirror, or any other mirror(s) inside the car would be
considered replacement(s). The exchange of mirrors would not change the
performance of the car even though they arguably aide the performance of
the driver. Racing style mirrors are, indeed, a safety item and are
"racing convention". |
| 05-02 |
Ducting in prepared classes |
12/14/2004 |
| Request: I ask that the
PREPARED Rule be clarified to allow ducting for any airflow or cooling
purpose. Also consider whether openings in the hood or fenders should be
allowed or disallowed.
Clarification: The rules are clear as written. You can duct to
coolers. You cannot duct for engine intake air. You cannot make openings
in any body panel/piece for cooling or any other purpose. |
| 05-03 |
Window removal in prepared
class |
12/23/2004 |
| Request: Is the removal
of window and window actuator mechanisms from the drivers and passengers
doors legal in prepared classes to allow side door impact bars, or
NASCAR-style bars?
Clarification: Yes. Page 24, paragraph 7, section C states that
door operating mechanisms can be removed. Although it does not
specifically address the window glass, the glass is a part of the
operating assembly by mechanical attachment and would arguably be eligible
for removal. This would be my interpretation in and of itself. The glass
can legally be removed in "prepared" classes.
Additionally, leaving the glass in place without the attachment to the
operating mechanism would be a safety issue, especially without the door
panel (or an acceptable replacement) to contain glass, if broken (in the
event that Nascar style intrusion bars are installed).
Operating mechanisms can be legally removed from BOTH doors, period!
Section C says so. And it is not contingent upon the installation of any
type of impact bars. The installation of side impact bars allows for the
removal or modification of the door panels, but does not address door
operating mechanisms (nor does it need to since door operating mechanisms
are addressed independently) |
| 05-04 |
Ground Control rear lower
control arms for E36 M3 in prepared class |
2/20/2005 |
|
Request: Are the adjustable rear lower control arms as supplied by
Ground Control for the E36 M3 allowable in prepared classes?
Clarification: Yes, the lower rear control arm as supplied by
Ground Control is legal in prepared.
Clement Schmitt National Tech Steward/BMW Club Racing |
| 05-05 |
Foot protection allowed on
both driver's an passenger's sides? |
1/12/2005 |
|
Request: There seems to be some confusion on foot protection. On
page 9, in the current rules, it states that 2 bars may be extended from
the front downbar to the front wheel well to protect the driver's feet. Is
it true that this can only be done on the driver's side? 2 bars would seem
to indicate that it can be done on both sides. Since I intend to use my
car for DEs, including instructing and being instructed, I'd like
protection for the passenger's feet as well.
Clarification: It is intended that you have protection on each
side of the car. In other words, a bar extended forward from each down
bar. (The way this is written, you could put both on one side and still be
legal.)
Clement Schmitt National Tech Steward/BMW Club Racing |
| 05-06 |
Are Snell SA95 helmets legal
during calendar year 2005? |
3/21/2005 |
|
Question: Will helmets bearing the Snell SA95 markings remain legal
during the 2005 BMW CCA Club Racing season?
Answer: YES. SA95 helmets are good through the end of
calendar year 2005. Beginning in January 1, 2006 you will have to have an
SA2000 or newer helmet.
|
| 05-07 |
Can you mix a head from one
engine and a block from another engine? |
8/20/2005 |
|
Question: Can you take the head from one engine and use it on
another (different type of) engine in the prepared and stock
classes? For example, if you have an S50 3.0 liter engine from a
1995 M3, and you want to have a 3.2 liter engine, you are allowed to drop
an entire S52 into the car and would still remain in the same class per
the "engine Swap" rule referenced on page 24 of the rules.
However, can you accomplish this objective by using the block from a 3.2
liter S52 engine but retaining the 3.0 liter head, thereby creating a new
engine with both S50 and S52 engine parts?
Answer: NO. The head must match the block as OEM and visa
versa for stock and prepared classes. Matching a non OEM head to a block
will result in that engine being classified as Mod.
Clement Schmitt National Tech Steward/BMW CR |
| 05-08 |
Maximum allowable piston
overbore in stock and prepared |
9/12/2005 |
|
Question: Is the maximum piston overbore allowable in stock and
prepared limited by those piston overbore sizes available as "factory
replacement spec" and also by the 0.020" or 0.040" limits
listed in the rules? Or are the 0.020" or
0.040" limits considered as absolute limits regardless of the
overbore sizes that are or ever were available as "factory
replacement spec"?
Page 17.
Stock Classes
1. Engine.
G. All pistons, including aftermarket replacements, must be factory
replacement spec and match factory dome, dish, valve relief configuration,
ring geometry, weight, wrist pin height; compression must meet factory
replacement specifications. A maximum of .020 (.5mm) overbore is allowed.
Pages 23 & 24
Prepared Classes
1. Engine
E. All pistons must be factory replacement spec and match factory dome,
dish, valve relief configuration, ring geometry, weight, wrist pin height;
compression must meet factory replacement specifications. A maximum of
.040 (1mm) overbore is allowed. Compression ratio may be changed only
within the tolerances effected by resurfacing for trueness.
Answer:
Prepared Rule 1E is clarified as follows:
All pistons must be factory replacement spec. and match factory dome,
dish, valve relief configuration, ring geometry, weight, wrist pin height;
compression must meet factory replacement specifications. The maximum
allowable overbore is limited to the largest available factory replacement
piston, not to exceed .040 inch. Compression ratio may be changed only
within the tolerances affected by resurfacing for trueness.
Stock Rule 1G is clarified as follows:
All pistons, including aftermarket replacements, must be factory
replacement spec and match factory dome, dish, valve relief configuration,
ring geometry, weight, wrist pin height; compression must meet factory
replacement specifications. The maximum allowable overbore is limited to
the largest available factory replacement piston, not to exceed .020 inch.
BMW CCA National Appeals Committee 10-24-2005
|
Statement regarding rule clarification 05-08 above:
Message from the BMW CCA Board of Directors:
On September 25, 2005 the BMW CCA Board of Directors received an appeal from
Mr. Michael Gilbert, a licensed BMW CCA Club Racer and BMW CCA member in good
standing, concerning a recent request for a rule clarification he had requested
from BMW CCA Club Racing. The appeal was submitted under the provisions of
paragraph 3.7.10 of the BMW CCA Operations Manual, which stated that "the
purpose of the National Appeals Committee is to address any issues brought to
the Board of Directors' attention that are unresolved after due process within
the Club Racing staff and Club Racing Protest or Appeals procedures (per Club
Racing Rules, Event Guidelines, and Licensing Policy)." The appeal
questioned not just the clarification of the rule that Mr. Gilbert had
requested, but also the process by which the Club Racing staff developed the
clarification, and whether the clarification was a clarification of an existing
rule or actually a rule change. The primary concerns of the Board of Directors
were whether Club Racing was developing rules clarifications in accordance with
its Rule Book, and whether the clarification, if it was actually a rule change,
had followed the rules change process outlined in the Rule Book, which requires
advance publication of proposed rule changes and a comment period for racers to
voice their opinions on the proposed changes.
The matter presented to the Board in this appeal was one of which at least
two Board members already had knowledge and had developed opinions. The Board
preferred a resolution that would be derived fairly and objectively, with
representative participation by the pertinent elements involved. Toward that
end, the Board authorized referring the matter to the National Appeals
Committee. In convening the National Appeals Committee, the Board put final
resolution of the matter into the hands of an independent committee comprised of
a member of the Club Racing National Staff, a member of the Club Racing Advisory
Committee, and a member of the National Board. Once the committee was impaneled,
they were free to conduct their examination and deliberations as they deemed
necessary to explore the matter and reach a fair and reasonable conclusion.
It should be noted by all Club Racing participants that the Board's action in
convening the National Appeals Committee to examine this specific appeal does
not constitute an open door to an automatic Board or National Appeals Committee
review of each and every complaint that may be submitted by racers to the Board.
The vast majority of arguments and protests will continue to be resolved within
Club Racing, and rightly so.
All parties should note that the referral of this appeal and the Committee's
findings are not an indictment of any racer, Club Racing staff member, or any
element of the program. From this point onward, we will proceed with the
understanding that the racer making the appeal was within his rights to do so,
that the members of the Club Racing staff involved in the rule clarification
were doing what they thought was right, and that all parties were acting in good
faith.
The findings of the National Appeals Committee are that the rule
clarification process was followed, but that the actual wording of the
clarification constituted a rule change, not a clarification. Please recall that
at the time the clarification was issued, due to personnel turnover, change of
leadership, and high-profile events being organized, the Club Racing staff was
under tremendous pressure and working very hard to bring new people on board and
keep the program operating at a high level so that the racers could enjoy the
best possible racing experience. The Board of Directors appreciates the hard
work performed by the Club Racing staff and we also appreciate the investment in
time and money that racers make to stay competitive and compliant and to enjoy
their sport. Not everyone may be satisfied with the findings of this report, but
it is the final resolution of this appeal. It is now time for everyone involved
to move on and continue to work toward the safe, fair, and fun program that Club
Racing was created to be.
Thank you for your patience.
Scott Blazey President, BMW Car Club of America
Click here to view the National
Appeals Committee findings document in its entirety
Click here to view the Appeal as it was filed
with the BMW CCA Board of Directors
