A word on "Creative Rules Interpretation"

JG's recent article on how to win the Challenge made a comment that got me thinking. He said as the event has grown, they've seen a drop in "creative rules interpretation", and he associated this with cheating. I've heard a lot of people make this association.

I'd just like to clarify something...Cheating has never been cool at the Challenge. Creative rules interpretation, however, is.

When the rules said "Car must have headlights", and Guido installed his in the trunk for ballast, that was cool. When the rules said, "All body panels must be present", and Andrew hammered the old fenders from the yellow bug flat to use as patch panels for the floorboards, that was cool. When the rules said "$1008 lump sum could be recouped without any line item accounting" and Bragan figured out that meant he could bring a negative budget 2002, that was cool.

I could probably give 50 more examples of things that clearly fit inside of "creative rules interpretation", but were not cheating.

There will never be a set of rules that can't be interpreted creatively. And thinking outside the box regarding the rules for the Challenge is the best part of the game.

It's unfortunate that "creative rules interpretation" has gotten a bad rap, and been re-interpreted to mean "cheating". It's not the same thing. At the Challenge, cheating generally comes down to lying about the budget (or at least overlooking something). I don't think that is very creative at all.

So, don't be ashamed of "creative rules interpretation"- it's still a badge of honor!

Although t-shirts, shorts and flip flops on a drag pass in an open top car without arm restraints is still frowned upon.

In reply to QuasiMofo:

There's a fine line(and a bit of tanning) between leather & flesh, I still see some room for creative interpretation here...

The Zamboni was a high water mark.

Thanks for the shout out SVreX. One thought, i think the creative rule interpritation connotation has evolved over the years.

Early on in the challenge it seemed to be praised. Now, if a team capitalizes on a rule ambiguity they are reprimanded on the basis of "you know what we ment".

An example of this was the negative $$$ value '02. If you look at the article they state that it was never possible to go negative, but a review of the RULES FOR THE 2016 GRM CHALLENGE will show there was no language forbidding it.

I pulled a fast one... i'll admit that. But i think the feedback was anything but positive.

NordicSaab wrote: Thanks for the shout out SVreX. One thought, i think the creative rule interpritation connotation has evolved over the years. Early on in the challenge it seemed to be praised. Now, if a team capitalizes on a rule ambiguity they are reprimanded on the basis of "you know what we ment".

This is what the BMW Club Racing Rulebook calls "The spirit of intent" and this little bit of aerodynamic chicanery in C-Mod resulted in a "talking to" about that very thing. Apparently when they say "must retain the characteristic appearance of" a kidney grill and roundel were not satisfactory .

In reply to NordicSaab:

Well, my feedback is positive.

There was a time when the rules were very clear-negative was not possible. The rules changed, and in 2016 they clearly did not forbid it (although some old-timers like myself were still playing by the old interpretation).

You played by the rules, creatively. I support that. If I had recognized it when you did, the Mumpkin would have returned looking for an overall win. I didn't recognize the difference until about a week before the $2016 Challenge. If I hadn't seen it, I would have been filing several protests in 2016. But I knew it was legit before I got there.

We don't write the rules, we just play by them.

In reply to Huckleberry:

Looks like a Bimmer to me.

So, who gets to decide which creative interpretations are cool and good and which are evil and bad?

I don't know how to answer these questions.

In reply to Robbie:

It's pretty simple- read the rules. If they allow something, they allow it. If they prohibit it, they prohibit it.

Trying to enforce the "intent" doesn't make any sense.

In reply to SVreX:

Right, but most creative interpretations come from something that is not specifically allowed or specifically prohibited. Take the headlights in the trunk example.

In reply to Robbie:

I would suggest that pretty much all rules are limitations, not encouragements.

The rule was pretty clear. Car must have headlights. It did. If they meant the car must have a method of lighting the path in front of the vehicle, they should have said so.

Failure to write a rule that defines your intent does not make it the participant's fault when they understand it to mean something else.

I'm honestly not trying to be inflammatory here, but this is exactly my point. You think headlights in the trunk is a cool and good creative interpretation, but it could easily be argued that according to the official definition of headlight in the Merriam Webster dictionary, that headlights in the trunk are not headlights at all and therefore vehicle clearly does not meet the rule!

M.W.D. Definition of headlight. 1 : a light with a reflector and special lens mounted on the front of a vehicle to illuminate the road ahead; also : the beam cast by a headlight.

In reply to Robbie:

Yep.

But that definition is incomplete too. Define "illuminate". When is it sufficient illumination, and when is it not?

I know Mike Guido. If he had been confronted with the M.W.D. definition you just offered, he would have mounted a flashlight to the front grill with duct tape, which would have met the definition completely (although, obviously not the intent).

You can't create a rule without creating a loophole. That's racing (and life).

I think it is much better when we don't get our panties in a wad over stuff like that.

SVreX wrote: I think it is much better when we don't get our panties in a wad over stuff like that.

This I 100% agree with.

Unless it's a safety rule. Then I say we get our pitchforks and burn the witches. Not going to comment on whether a headlight is a safety rule or not.

You hopefully now see my original point, that every single person will have a different reaction to each creative rules interpretation, and many people will feel some are good and others are bad. Other people will disagree. So back to the question:

Who gets to say which are good and which are bad? (And that is a question I don't have a good answer for).

In reply to Robbie:

GRM does. It's their event.

As a participant I will, however, support my fellow participants if an "intent" tries to be enforced that is not defined in the rules.

For events that are supposed to be more about fun than winning I think it works well to appoint a tech steward with a sense of humor. Like the original Lemon's guys did. You were free to be as creative as you like. And they were free to let it slide or reward you for creativity by welding a cast iron radiator to your roof or something equally as hilarious and in opposition to the intended gains for your infraction. It's funny either way.

The challenge does not appear from the outside looking in to be a serious cut throat event so it seems like embracing foolishness is the right move. It is more attractive to me that way, anyway.

BTW, when Andrew Nelson built the yellow Bug, he wanted to build an open wheel roadster. This was pretty clearly outside the "intent" of the rules at the time he built it. It was NOT, however, outside of the actual rules.

He solicited the input of several competitors (I was 1 of them) to review his project and make sure it was compliant with the rules. He shared the details confidentially, and got feedback from several people.

That car won the overall last year. Go figure.

SVreX wrote: In reply to Robbie: Yep. But that definition is incomplete too. Define "illuminate". When is it sufficient illumination, and when is it not? I know Mike Guido. If he had been confronted with the M.W.D. definition you just offered, he would have mounted a flashlight to the front grill with duct tape, which would have met the definition completely (although, obviously not the intent). You can't create a rule without creating a loophole. That's racing (and life). I think it is much better when we don't get our panties in a wad over stuff like that.

Now you're parsing.

That would fit the definition of a headlight. The rest would be requirements, which if insufficient at one event could be remedied for the next.

Regarding intent, it would be the intent as defined by the governing body. Which you could clarify beforehand, but nobody does because a) they're afraid of "losing their advantage " or b) they're pretty sure it's illegal, they don't want to get caught, and figure they'll argue the case if caught, as on the spot decisions arguably have a better chance of success in such a case.

In reply to OldGray320i:

Umm... the "governing body" is GRM. It's their event, their rules.

And, when you say "The rest would be requirements, which if insufficient at one event could be remedied for the next", it sounds EXACTLY like what I am calling "creative rules interpretation". That's exactly what happened when Andrew brought the yellow Bug. The rules were modified the next year to prohibit what he had done (and later modified again to allow it again). Same thing happened with the headlight rule.

My point is that the article suggested "creative rules interpretation" was cheating, which bothers me. I guess we could say that the M.W.D definition of "headlights" is parsing, in the context of this discussion.

(BTW, flashlights duct taped to the vehicle was confirmed this year as an acceptable method, so I disagree with your suggestion that I am "parsing").

The point is being creative is not cheating (and, as you have pointed out, rules can be modified the next year to further clarify when necessary).

Being creative is what moves the bar forward, higher, or over. I did not know about the fenders as floors but would be totally for it within the parameters of the way the rules were written. Cheating on the other hand is, in my opinion, clearly intending to circumvent the rules. That being said I don't have a clear definition for pornography either but know it when I see it!

Creativity is not cheating.

Cheating, however, should not be absolved by calling it creative.

The association of the two concepts and the negative connotation of the term in regards to the challenge did not happen by accident nor without cause. I use the term much in the same way as JG.

I think it is obvious that a group consensus as to where to draw a line between the two different descriptors may never be agreed upon... although most of us can readily distinguish one from the other.

Personally I tend to shrug and move on. The Challenge isn't like any usual race that you can win or lose; do not expect active and impartial regulation from any type of sanctioning body.

In reply to tb:

Ok, I'm listening.

Can you give any examples of cheating you are referring to that may have earned such a reputation?

I have already mentioned the budget. I think some teams freely replaced stock parts when they shouldn't have, and defining professional labor has always been tough for some teams (and the staff).

Other than that, I have basically no knowledge of "creative rules interpretation" that would rise to the level of earning the reputation of "cheating".

I'd like to understand a little better, and am particularly wondering what "creative rules interpretation" has been reduced in the last few years with "tighter" rules. Honestly, my perspective is exactly the opposite (more "cheating" recently because of looser rules, but more acceptance of it).

Huckleberry wrote:

NordicSaab wrote: Thanks for the shout out SVreX. One thought, i think the creative rule interpritation connotation has evolved over the years. Early on in the challenge it seemed to be praised. Now, if a team capitalizes on a rule ambiguity they are reprimanded on the basis of "you know what we ment".

This is what the BMW Club Racing Rulebook calls "The spirit of intent" and this little bit of aerodynamic chicanery in C-Mod resulted in a "talking to" about that very thing. Apparently when they say "must retain the characteristic appearance of" a kidney grill and roundel were not satisfactory .

Seems legit

SVreX wrote: BTW, when Andrew Nelson built the yellow Bug, he wanted to build an open wheel roadster. This was pretty clearly outside the "intent" of the rules at the time he built it. It was NOT, however, outside of the actual rules. He solicited the input of several competitors (I was 1 of them) to review his project and make sure it was compliant with the rules. He shared the details confidentially, and got feedback from several people. That car won the overall last year. Go figure.

Paul, Paul, Paul

The Black Bug was built in 2008. It was built after a family crisis that included my son's near death crisis and Paula father passing 26 hours before our son was hooked up to the same type of equipment. After the crisis and multiple operations and 7 months of recovery our son asked if we could build a Volksrod months before the event. In 77 days we whipped the car together and tried to get the fenders done at home. However, we ended up rolling the car into the trailer with wet paint, tossed the fenders into the truck with the bolts and tools needed to complete the work. Before we could finish the work we were barked at with the question, "where's your fenders?". To which I replied, "they are in the truck". When the questioning became more heated the statement was made that they have to be on the car. In a moment of disappointment, frustration and a overwhelming sense of 'screw this', I replied that "The rules state that they must be present and they are, they're in the truck". The next comment(s) were more heated and led to the proclamation that, "That will change for next year!" To which I replied that, "I brought the fender, bolts and tools and if one single person complained I will cut up a prefectly good set of fenders and install them for this 2 day event, but I don't think that is the spirit of this event. I ran out of time to do that at home and I had to choose to finish, OR participate with hope to install the fenders." I was told I did not need to install them.

Fast forward to 2009, the rule was changed to require all body parts to be present and on the car. In light of the unpleasant exchange about the fender and rules interpretation in 2008, the 2009 Yellow Bug was born. Don't blame me for being able to read, and yes I did contact you, others and GRM directly about my plans. Every body panel was on the car somewhere and in many cases left and right side pieces were swapped side to side. The floor was made from a dryer. In 2010, rules required body panels be present, on the car, and in their original configuration, hence the MG. 2011 IIRC led to the fender removal allowance for pre-48 cars or car designed before 48. The constantly changing rules were not well received by the competitors which led to the 3 year freeze and simplification.

Fast forward to 2015 and 2016, there are no body panel rules restricting the removal or placement was eliminated in the simplification rewrite.

Long story short, you have 3 different thing rolled up into one. And the yellow bug was built with GRM being aware of our project (I called them and told them how I was interpreting the all panels must be present and on the car).

If you read Tom's comments on the rules thread, he clearly states that they want you to run the idea thru them first. I did in 2009 and they did not stop the car from coming. I am sure you can get clearance to do what you want in 2017, as long as it is safe.