I absolutely understand where you are coming from, and do believe rules should be stated much better in certain circumstances even with "elite" national level organizations, but I don't think that is a cure.
The problem is those creating/writing the rules are "tech guys" and like minded individuals. They are not literary scholars or lawyers so exact wording will probably never happen. For those of us who have tried to sit down and write rules (and then get questioned by every Tom, Dick, and Harry), it becomes quite obvious the process of creating rules/rulebook would be an arduous task. That is where the rules makers give guidelines (rulebooks) and the techs are supposed to be making informed decisions on those rules (many national orgs require tech officials to complete a course), which is why most will say tech official's ruling is final.
Pullers are like kids, they don't like being told what to do. You can explicitly tell your child to be in bed by 10PM, but then at 10:30PM when he or she is not in bed and you ask why, they'll state you never said if it was Eastern time, Central time, Mountain time, Pacific time, or if it was even adjusted for Daily Saving time etc. Just as in truck pulling rules, when rules are written certain things are assumed (such as current time zone and current DST standing in the previous example), and that is how they are expected to be followed yet pullers (who didn't make the rules) will argue. This "type" of thing happens in pulling all the time, and it happens even more when the guys enforcing the rules are not the ones who wrote them, so the intent is missed even by the tech, which then makes it even more confusing for the pullers. Once you open the door to one scenario, it opens the door to many others and it snowballs. One puller pushes the issue on hitch design because of the wording and a wishy washy tech who doesn't understand the intent and allows something that shouldn't be, and another puller then decides to push the issue on turbo restrictions, etc. etc.
I used a non-truck pulling analogy as often times picking a certain truck pulling rule tends to get people focused on the rule rather than the scenario.
And trust me when I say, I used to think the same way when I started pulling especially when I was trying to pick the rules apart for my own agenda (not knowing who wrote the rules or why they did as they did, and often times saying "I think this is what they meant by this or that"), but after getting involved in rules discussions, rules writing, and ultimately rules enforcement, it has greatly changed my way of thinking especially when it comes to the betterment of the sport overall. We have at times worded rules very definitively and as descriptive as possible and asked many people for their input before putting out the rule in writing in hopes to avoid any misunderstanding, but yet after publishing those rules will still have a puller argue what should or shouldn't be allowed.
More writing tends to make longer rules, not necessarily better ones. It shouldn't necessarily come down to exact wording (although a decent wording to start helps), it needs to come down to those creating the rules must educate and have people enforce them as was intended. If the intent of the rules isn't going to be followed, the rules mean nothing anyway.... Just because a puller reads a rule and thinks it means one thing, doesn't necessarily mean he's right. (Edit: I'm not saying he's necessarily wrong either or can't try something new if it follows within the intent of the class).
The general regulations cover the car's safety specifications front to back. 46 pages isn't exactly monstrous when you consider how long nhra has been around and been having to amend rules to fill in the gaps.
I agree with PACougar, if an organization doesn't want something to be allowed they should say it. Over time you would create the bible I was talking about and is the reason many orgs don't (too much $$$ to print each time there is a "revision". If something is blatant it will often getting expressly written but many smaller nuances don't The thorough intent of the rule should be clearly stated in the writing of the rules. You can't say "no nitrous oxide allowed" then when someone shows up with another oxygen extender that isn't in the rules as prohibited then say "well, you know why we meant".Having been there and done that, you'll get somebody who either doesn't know what an "oxygen extender" is or that Nitrous Oxide is even considered an oxygen extender, or you'll get the guy that argues what an oxygen extender really is It should be written "no oxygen extenders, nitrous oxide, dioxide, nitromethane, vortex tubes, etc. anything not listed but considered an oxygen extender is prohibited." Pretty simple. If wording is an issue, it's up to the organizations to fill in any loopholes created by that, not the competitors .That's exactly where educated tech officials are supposed to come in, but we know that term educated tech official (even in prominent orgs) can be an oxymoron. Even writing a 10000 page rulebook won't keep somebody from questioning something
What you're saying is easy to say, tough to do. Even what I'm saying is easy to say and tough to do, but done right it won't scare pullers off (by having to look at a 10000 page rulebook when you have to spell each scenario out and what is/isn't allowed), will keep the class focused within the intent, and fair.
I seen many rules change or interpitation or intent of a rule non written rule. Always remember "He who makes the rules....wins"
