PDA

View Full Version : A protest story.



lateapex911
10-18-2004, 01:17 AM
A protest story….a bit long.

Many of you are not aware of a recent protest action in the NE division. It has been discussed in the NE section of IT.com under the heading of “Hawthorne Protest”. I suggest some background reading. I warn you also that this write up is not a short one, but even at this length, there is more.


First, some general comments. I am writing this summation for a number of reasons. , I promised all a full disclosure, and as we have discussed the entire protest procedure here on the site, I think this protest is one that will shed a lot of light on the workings of the system and the procedure. Hopefully this will provide insight for those who haven’t been there before.

Second, I will be disclosing all the facts, and there are some issues that are not pleasant. We are all human, and we all make mistakes from time to time. This BBS is well known for rational discussion, and I hope inflammatory comments will be kept under check. There is no need to trash the protesters, the protested, nor the officials involved in the procedure.

In this post I will outline the actual proceedings and process, and in the following post I will make some observations and comments on what went right, what went wrong, how we as competitors can best use the system, and how the system can be improved. I invite all to comment accordingly, and feel free to ask questions of items I have overlooked.

That said, some background. Five ITA drivers (alphabetically, Tom Blaney, CRX, Ray Lee Chee, Acura Integra, Jake Gulick RX-7 {and ‘recording secretary’ of the protest}, Richard Hunter, Acura Integra, and Anthony Serra, Acura Integra) protested Shane Hawthorne’s CRX, on a variety of items at the NARRC Runoffs at Lime Rock Park in CT. As background, Serra finished 2nd at the ARRCs last year and set fast race lap. Blaney has been around racing in SS, Pod, and now IT. He and Serra trade race wins.

On Friday after qualifying, we went through final discussion as to whether to move forward with the protest or not. After finalizing the decision, I was chosen to contact the Chief Steward and discuss the process at about 3PM. Dick Patullo acted as advisor during this stage. The Chief Steward sent us to the Drivers Liaison, Stan Rider, who outlined the procedure and the timing of the protest. He stressed that the paperwork be submitted ASAP so that the tech officials could prepare. He also inquired as to whether any of our party had any discussions with Shane. We had. Shane is more of an occasional competitor than the other front runners, and his times showed a large drop at the very fast end of the curve that raised eyebrows. He is a good driver to be sure. But it was felt that the way his times were set, and how the car ran on the track was suspect. Certain clues as to the fuel used hinted at engine issues as well. Three members of the group discussed his performance on one occasion or another, and the talks netted a feeling that the story didn’t jive. In the end, it was felt that the competitors in the class have spent significant time and money to create legal and fast cars, and wanted assurance that all cars at the front were clean.

With the proper forms, we set about defining the protest. Once we defined the exact parameters we submitted the paperwork along with the fees. It was then discovered that a group may not protest. It must be an individual. Ergo, my name was used.

This set the wheels in motion, and the SOM in charge of the protest, Terry Hanushek, as well as the Head of Tech, Richard Welty were summoned to the tower after Welty’s duties in tech were finished, and we sat down to establish the exact parameters of discovery that we were requiring. This is an important part of the procedure. For example, we protested the rear tires protruding enough that the tread was visible from a vertical position above the rear quarter, and listed the GCR rule and defining technique as our standard. We also protested a number of items in the engine.

I should note here that this protest was thought out, and designed to be as “efficient” as possible. We didn’t want to tear the entire engine apart, but we wanted to pull the head and define as much of the engine as possible. In doing it this way we felt that the burden on tech was manageable, and the protest was reasonable as it was interested in significant performance enhancing issues, rather than minor details that may have been illegal but wouldn’t be dramatic performance enhancers. Throughout the process, our thrust was to conduct a “fair and well intentioned” protest. We felt that as the ITA cars were in Group 1, that this weekend would be ideal from a scheduling standpoint as well.

In the meeting we defined our standards for the teardown using the factory shop manual to provide the proper part numbers and specifications for the parts we were protesting. We also used the GCR to provide pertinent ITCS specs. During this process, Terry Hanushek worked methodically from item to item to come up with an exact list that tech would use to determine compliance. It was obvious that he was concerned with being fair, and exact. We also provided standard shop rate information to be used in determining the bond. We offered all the proper tools to be used to measure the parameters we protested, but due to obvious conflicts of interest, we were told that our tools could not be used in any way. We left the meeting assured that the tools would be available and that a proper teardown location had been arranged. By this time, Shane had left, and was not able to be informed.

The following morning Terry met with Shane, and discussed his options. He could withdraw, and be sanctioned per the GCR (6 mo. suspension, and a $250 fine), perform the disassembly himself, or a third party could do the work and be paid thru the bond. The bond amount was discussed with him as well, determined to be fair, and he chose to do the work himself. Terry met with me and set the bond amount at $800, which included the fees, the labor, the cam check fee, as well as shipping, and restocking costs for the cam. We paid the amount in cash, and it was sent to the national office to be held in escrow until the end of the appeal period.

I am told that the car was under SOM observation from the time the protest was lodged until the tear down was completed.

I am also told that due to a communication problem, the location that was to host the teardown was unavailable, and that the decision was made to conduct it in Shanes paddock area. We also heard requests over the PA for anyone with engine measuring tools to come forward.

At the end of the day, we met with the protest committee to discuss their findings. Terry began by stating that the SOMs only had to meet with me, but as a courtesy, he allowed the other protesters to sit in. (All were there except Blaney)

The rulings:

1- The tires were judged to be in compliance. This surprised our team as they protruded excessively, but the procedure involves rolling the car though talc to define “tread”. As the car was a lightly loaded front driver, and the rears have 2 or 3 degrees of camber, only a portion of the tire is in contact with the pavement at static rest. Significantly less that what most would consider the “tread”.

2- The bore was measured via a micrometer at the top, and “t” gauges further down, which were then measured. The bore was in compliance. The proper bore gauge was unavailable.

3- The deck showed no signs of visual modification and was judged to be in compliance.

4- The head thickness was measured using a micrometer and was in compliance, and the judgment was made that it was un-modified in terms of combustion chamber shape.

5- The pistons were examined and were determined to be of a non stock origin. There were no part numbers visible, as there would be with stock Honda parts.. During the process, it was related to us by Terry that Shane admitted they were not factory, but he said that they were of stock specifications, although he didn’t know the source. A digital picture was taken as there was no known good example of a stock piston available.

6- The SOMs and Tech person were unable to CC the required volumes as we required, to determine compression ratio. Therefore no calculation of existing compression ratio was possible. They made the judgment, however, that compression ratio was in compliance due to the fact that neither the head, nor the block showed signs of modifications, and the measurements that they had taken were in line with specs.

7- The protest also listed the throttle body. Our requirements were that it have the stock part number, and show no signs of modification. (there were no dimensions available in the FSM) It was found to have illegible part numbers, but was determined to be in compliance because it appeared old, dirty and stock.

I would be remiss if I didn’t note that there was some heated discussion through this findings report.

At the end, I wanted to cover a couple of issues.

First, I suggested that the determination of the compression ratio was invalid as it assumed that the pistons met stock specifications. I was told that the pistons appeared to be the same as in the FSM, and that they appeared stock. I asserted that the line drawing that was being referred to wasn’t an engineering drawing, and that it was likely a “generic” rendition of a typical piston. I was told that the decision was made, and stood.

Second, I wanted to re-examine the throttle body issue. I asked what options existed. Terry began to outline the procedure where a stock throttle body could be obtained, and comparisons made, but he was stopped by Sarah, who stated that the part had been released, and no further discussion could be made. I noted that that was most unfortunate, as I felt that there was a possibility that another ‘old’ throttle body from a higher performance model could have been substituted. Again, I was told the decision was final.

I was informed that this was a meeting to relate their findings, that they were entertaining discussion and questions as a courtesy, and that the findings were final, and only subject to appeal. I was asked for two decisions: Did I (we) still want to send the cam to Kansas, and did I want to pursue matching the digital picture of the piston with a stock example. After private discussion with the others, I said yes to the first, and at first I thought the piston picture comparison was a waste of time, but did it after being reminded that gross differences would be obvious.


Subsequent findings:

The camshaft was put on the “Cam Doctor” in Topeka by Jeremy, and checked against a digital file he has and was determined to be stock and within compliance.

The digital picture was taken by Kathy Barnes (NER RE and SOM) to a Honda dealer, and a stock part was ordered. Upon comparison, a Honda Technical rep signed an affidavit stating that the piston pictured was not of stock configuration, and was in fact a domed piston, and was not in compliance..


That completes the items that were protested. Due to the non compliance of the piston(s), the protest was upheld. The protest fee, along with the bond amount that was apportioned to the teardown aspect of the procedure will be returned to the protesters once the appeal time window is over, and Shane will be sanctioned. The penalty was determined by the stewards to be disqualification from the event. Terry indicated that discussions with Shane resulted in the understanding that Shane was not informed as to the contents of the motor by his engine builder. The stewards felt that the disqualification, the cost of motor re-assembly, and the stigma of a guilty verdict were sufficient penalties.


(Edits for proper paragraphing)

------------------
Jake Gulick
CarriageHouse Motorsports
ITA 57 RX-7
New England Region
[email protected]

[This message has been edited by lateapex911 (edited October 18, 2004).]

lateapex911
10-18-2004, 01:20 AM
A Protest Story, Thoughts and Comments.


This protest has been a voyage of discovery for me, and I suspect that the other four would agree as well. It is NOT a simple procedure, from a protesters point of view, nor from the protested or scrutineers points of view.

Up front I want to emphasize that it is my opinion that the parties involved on all sides acted to the best of their abilities. I know that as the protesters, I was concerned that we present legitimate concerns and behave ourselves in a professional manner. I hope that we were mostly successful. (It is difficult to control a reaction in times of conflict)

I understand that the Scrutineers were challenged by what has been termed “the conditions”. Specifically, the were unable to procure the proper measuring tools as they had assured would be used, and they were unable to do the work in the best environment as they had also assured would be the case. I admire their “press on regardless” attitude.

It would be correct to say that I am disappointed in the lack of basic tools, and some of the decisions that were made in the actual protest procedure
.
Generally speaking I am disturbed that once the teardown began, several “forks” in the procedural road came up, but decisions affecting the out come of the protest were made that went against the prescribed procedures, and we were not consulted.

Specifically:

1- I am troubled by the ruling that was made stating that the compression ratio was legal, when there was no actual reading or calculation. It was a presumption, and one based on the car running a stock piston, which it was not. And that fact was known by the scrutineers. It is a decision that I can not understand. We suggested that the parts should have been impounded as the results of the protest were not going to be final in any case, and proper measurements taken, as provided for in the GCR. The response from the Stewards to that comment was that it would require the out of town Steward to stay over at our expense, and that the bond would need to be increased dramatically. But we were never apprised of the situation, or the options. Perhaps I am missing something, but it seems that taking the CC measurements was agreed upon by the Stewards, but then the procedure was deleted during the process. And, more importantly, why was a decision of “in compliance” made when there was no evidence to that end, and the evidence that did exist (a non stock piston) suggested the opposite? This troubles me. I hope I am missing something.
2- A lesser issue with me is the methods of reading the bore. I have enough confidence in the results to let it go, but the technique is a difficult one, especially in disruptive conditions. Proper tools would eliminate any questions, and that’s an important part of the process. Any measurement techniques should be bullet proof and repeatable, as the conditions under which these measurements will be taken in can vary.
3- I am also completely befuddled by the throttle body result. The agreed upon standards called for a proper part number AND no signs of modifications. The result was a “We don’t know” about the part number, and a “We think its un touched”. While the second parameter was a judgment call, the first was an easy yes/no call. If the part number was illegible (I am told that only three digits were legible), the fist parameter has not been satisfied. Yet the part was passed as in compliance, and released. Again, with all due respect, I am very surprised at this call, and can find no reasonable explanation. Perhaps I am mistaken, or am missing something, but this aspect is very troubling to me.

In the end, it is very fortunate that the pistons were found to be out of compliance, as the results of the protest would have been a failure otherwise. (By that I mean that we would have had no concrete answers, and only bad blood and a huge loss of confidence in the system as a result) I am surprised actually, as I thought that a picture would never be capable of defining the difference from a stock version and an aftermarket but “close” (but not legal) version. But obviously, the differences were gross, and obvious. It points out that the protest must be written in such a way as to be fail safe. In other words, if the scrutineers had been able to measure compression ratio, this step would have been redundant. But at the same time, the pistons shape shows that indeed the engine did have a non stock compression, and the decision of the cars compliance on the compression count was wrong.

So, what did we learn?

First, writing and submitting a protest is a BIG deal. I spent 8 hours writing, administering and organizing the people and paperwork, and countless more in pre and post race weekend discussions. A good working knowledge of the GCR, and the process is crucial. I can say that the process is out of the ability for some competitors.

Second, not all regions, even large ones are prepared to do such work. The tools and facilities can be in short supplies, and the staff is not always large enough to handle both the standard tech duties as well as the teardown procedure. I am sure that the conditions may have had an affect on this protests outcome. I think that changes are needed to ensure that future protests of this nature run more smoothly.

Third, time is against the protester. One one hand, submitting a protest long in advance of the deadline (ours was 16 hours early) allows the tech staff and Stewards time to acquire the tools and proper location. But, too much advance notice can result in a lot of ‘backlash” from the protested party, which can create a tangle of work (in our case it could have been 5 extra protests) drowning even the best prepared tech staff. There was a suggestion by the officials in post protest debriefing that discussing, but not submitting a protest with the stewards early would be preferable. The downside to this tactic is that if word somehow leaks out, the car will be put on the trailer, and the result will be all the bad blood, but none of the answers.

Conclusions:

Our protest was, we thought, and easy process for the staff, but it didn’t work out that way. The subject of staffing is a difficult one, as there are often problems with adequate manpower. But the tools needed to perform this protest (a burette, a bore gauge, etc.) are readily available, can free up manpower, and are financially a drop in the bucket. Well under a thousand dollars will buy the tools to perform this type of protest reliably and quickly. In contrast, the rental of the track was well in excess of $20,000, and the revenue from entries about twice that.
- Regions, especially large ones need to provide the basic tools to perform protests such as this, if they expect the competitors to have any faith in the legality of the competition, and confidence in the system.
- We are told time and again, that as drivers, we are self policing, and we must be willing to protest, and to utilize the system. In turn the system must function.
- Tech staff needs to be trained in such basic measurements. Subsequently, I have been told that it is not part of the training procedure. I am sure that Welty was capable, but the fact should be that such basic measuring techniques should be available at any race.
- I am unsure what to do about what I consider irreversible decisions made during the process. I am wondering if there should be an extra level of checks and balances in the system.

All in all, it has been enlightening. I am impressed by the systems depth and its inherent fairness, and by the Stewards basic mind set, and sense of duty. I think it is fair to say that they are aware that this wasn’t the smoothest running protest, and perhaps they can provide further illumination. I hope this write up helps improve the system in some way.

If I have made factual mistakes or characterizations that are unfair, please correct me, either here or by private email.


------------------
Jake Gulick
CarriageHouse Motorsports
ITA 57 RX-7
New England Region
[email protected]

RSTPerformance
10-18-2004, 02:20 AM
I for one thaught the decision to hold the final results for 2 weeks was a good decision. I don't disagree that our clubs make more than enough money to buy these simple tools, however if they make our entries higher to buy the tools and make the same revenue then I would rather have the "hold 2 weeks for final results" choice. It would be a crime if they do not purchase the tools needed after the profits tehy received from the NARRC Runoffs. I would also agree with you that compression should have been checked. Whoever made the poor decision that compression was in compliance made a terrible mistake that they themselves will have to live with and hopefully our region and others will learn from. The intake I disagree with you on. Instead of checking the part numbers a factory part should have been supplied to compaire it to and then the decision made. My car is 21 years old and I am sure that some part numbers are unreadable do to corrocion. If they are "filed or cut" off then that is a different story. So I agree partially.... It should have been checkded for compliance not jsut the it looks old but actually checked, however part numbers that are corroded off should not make it illegal. All in all a ton was probably learned from what was probably the biggest most intense teardown I have heard about in the NE in a long time.

The one thing that I will take out of this that National needs to consider is templates that can be available for protests so "stupid" people can make legitamate protests. I agree that it is impossible to make a protest and we are frowned upon making mechanical protests as it is. You are much much smarter than I and if I had filed the protest and illegal driver would still be on the loose terrorising the ITA feild http://Forum.ImprovedTouring.com/it/wink.gif

Good job to everyone involved and in the end the right thing happend and stewards, tech people , and all others involved have learned a lot of valuable information!

Stephen

PS: Jake can you scan or send me your protest "right up" so I can use it in the future? I have all winter so don't make it a top priority but if you have it on file I would love to use it.

jc836
10-18-2004, 06:21 AM
Jake: Not having been there I and not knowing the parties I can only say that this protest was indeed a valid expression of the concerns your protest group had.

Now to test instruments. I have said this before and repeat that the items you mention are reasonably priced and should be in the "kit." A suitable set of bore gauges will set someone back, but they are very accurate. Compression check-the NASCAR Thumper has worked wonderfully for years and is not hard to build, calibrate or maintain. If the roundy-round people can use it on every car impounded why not have it at championship events such as ours.

You mention documentation. THis is a major issue for many in the Honda camp. Compared to some other car makers one has to obtain the parts lists page by page from a dealer so it seems. That is how I did my car-as I purchased items I logged them and the sales slips against the drawing in the parts book I have been building. This is not unreasonable. The pistons in question had an obvious variation from what the GCR says is allowed-good thinking as part of a teardown.
The throttle body concerns anyone who would expect to see a complete number. This leads me to something-engine builders.

I think the engine builder is responsible to the competitor. It is the shop that must document every part for compliance as part of the teardown/buildup of an engine in their care. If one goes to a builder it shouls be expected that any replacement part will be fully documented. This includes signing off as to the correctness of an aftermarket component. If one is his own builder the rule I suggest would still apply. Although not an internal component-distributors come from various sources; some do not carry the factory number on the ear, but the paperwork should be proof enough of where you got it and its intended use.

We have all benefitted from this. THank you

Bill Miller
10-18-2004, 07:15 AM
Jake,

First off, thanks for taking the time to share this, excellent write-up. I have many thoughts on this, and will get back to it later. But, I must comment on the throttle body issue. Two things for now. If the p/n on the TB has been obliterated, has the TB not been modified? Also, if the p/n cannot be determined, I fail to see how any reasonable person could deem it as stock, unless there were other stock examples to compare it with.

I'll spend more time on this later this evening. I will say, I'm pretty dissapointed by what I just read.

------------------
MARRS #25 ITB Rabbit GTI (sold) | MARRS #25 HProd Rabbit
SCCA 279608

cherokee
10-18-2004, 09:31 AM
I think by outlining this was a very good thing for you to do. As a relitive newb to all of this shows how it works in the real world.

I have a question for you....Would you do it again? Lets say the pic of the piston was at a different angle or not clear, the outcome would have been different. For me banking on something like a photo is not how I think the process should be done. I aways thaught it should be a "nuts and bolts" kind of thing.

apr67
10-18-2004, 10:31 AM
Personally, I think every division should have a mandatory tech kit (called out in the GCR), and it should contain a few thousand dollars worth of tools, and some explination of how to use them.

Then the division bigwigs could randomly pick races out of a hat for the season and decide what was going to be checked at each race. This 'kit' would also be at any 'big' races (nationals, season deciding runoff's type divisional races, etc).

I (as a spec miata driver) would not mind paying my division a $1 on every entry to pay for the tools, calibration, training, and trasnportation to races.

That's my 2cents. I think you were screwed, but you also got very lucky in that the pistions were visually different.

Tom Blaney
10-18-2004, 02:51 PM
At this point the only issue I have left to deal with is the very light penalty for a blatent violation, and the catch me if you can attitude.

Not what I think club racing should be about.

benspeed
10-18-2004, 05:51 PM
I want to thank Jake for the professional write-up on the sequence of events. Clearly a lot of hard work and quality writing in the post. I've never been part of a protest or observed a protest, but the summary gives a great point of reference.

I think the suggestion that a fee be levied so the racing regions can buy a standard kit is excellent. A couple of bucks to each driver is nothing. I like the idea that the same "kit" would be available at all the tracks raced by a division.

I think it was also professional and considerate to mention the gentlemen found out of compliance was not aware his shop used non-standard parts. True or not, I think the fellow got off pretty light with a disqualification. Trophies from past races should be given to the guys who played fair and finished 1 place off the podium. (OK-I doubt that's in the GCR.)

The business about the throttle body - bogus. Should be judged as no good without proper part numbers first, then compared if a stock part is available.

Shane - if you're following these posts, take heart in your driving skill. You made a great save in the left hander on lap 1 or 2-big oooooh! from the crowd. Come back and play fair-great competition is what the fun is all about.

Final thought - thanks to all who shared the status on this forum - we all learned something from your efforts.

------------------
BenSpeed
#33 ITS RX7
BigSpeed Racing
[email protected]
NNJR

JackH55
10-18-2004, 09:46 PM
Jake,
First, as you know, I was originaly on the SOM commitee but had to recuse myself because my son was in ITA. I did, however, follow the protest as close as I could. I do know that the Stewards were impressed with your demeanor and professionalism.
As for the Stewards, you could not have had a better Chairman than Terry and the others are all first rate.
Your point about the tools is well taken and Kathy and I talked about it at the Glen this weekend ( congratulations to Ray Lee)
We will be asking the NARRC Regions to pool their resources- so that we can purchase the tools and keep them at LRP. We will do this at the Mini Convention in November.

Jack

Geo
10-18-2004, 09:50 PM
I'm disappointed that rulings of compliance where made where it could not be determined.

I would be much happier if the officials just fessed up that they could not make a ruling in the manner requested for reasons x,y, and z. I'd be a lot happier if they would have considered alternate methods of determining compliance, but in their defense, it appears the means for determining compliance were agreed upon in advance, therefore it wouldn't necessarily seem appropriate to change the "rules of engagement" in the middle of the process.

I think Jake that you may have been able to protest the Chairman of the SOM for returning the throttle body (assuming you don't accept the negotiated "rules of engagement" is where the protest stops.

Back to the issue of the return of the throttle body, GCR 13.4.6 states: "Any recorded evidence such as technical data or inspectors' reports or measurements shall be forwarded to the Club Office with the tear down bond (See 13.3.4). The Chairman SOM shall accept any parts tendered by the owner for safekeeping pending appeal. The SOM shall have the authority to impound parts."

So, (and my interpretation may be off here) it appears to me that the Chairman SOM did not keep the parts safe pending appeal. To my mind, what they did was deprive you of your right to appeal their decision.

All of this of course again depends upon how you view the negotiated "rules of engagement." I certainly can see a case being made that the protest procedure stops at the agreed to point of determining legality.

Great thread Jake. Very educational. I'm sure we'll all learn from this process.

BTW, I'm surprised at not being able to include more than one person on a protest. The only protest I was a party to was leveled my two other drivers besides myself against the Chief Steward (IIRC) regarding a totally botched qualifying where the three of us (and others) were directed to the garage during a black flag all when the rest of the field was sent out for additional qualifying. The result for me was effectively no qualifying time since it was my first event at the track and I was spending the first half of qualifying learning the track and trying a few things here and there with a plan to go for a time in the last half. Grrrr.... BTW, our protest was considered well founded, but the protest committee couldn't offer any solution.


------------------
George Roffe
Houston, TX
84 944 ITS car under construction
92 ITS Sentra SE-R occasionally borrowed
http://www.nissport.com

Knestis
10-19-2004, 12:16 AM
I liked the plot twist at the end, where good triumphed over evil. I pretty much expected that would NOT be the case, having seen similar situations go the other way.

"Ah, gee - we can't prove it's illegal so it must be OK."

K

Quickshoe
10-19-2004, 02:19 AM
[Devils' advocate]I feel that the penalty is severe enough. How many of us have torn down and inspected our motor after paying a builder to do the job correctly? It could happen to many of us acting in good faith.

If you paid your engine builder to build a good, legal motor and later found out that it was illegal what would you want your penalty to be?

lateapex911
10-19-2004, 02:49 AM
It is an interesting question.

What follows is my thinking on the matter...all IMHO, of course!

First....we need to determine whether there was knowledge or not. Which, to be sure, is not easy.

Honda brainiacs I know have said that the domed piston requires specific fuel, and specific spark plugs.

If true, the engine builder would need to relay that info to the owner. As an owner who is fully aware of his responsibility for the complete legal condition of your car, wouldn't that set off some red flags?

To further that concept, there were telltale signs that specific fuel was being used, which was a major factor in determining the odds of a successful protest.

Maybe I am paranoid, but when I requested help in rebuilding my engine last year, all aspects were discussed with performance, longevity and legality in mind, then I stood by and watched the process.

If there is one thing we all have learned in racing, it is that others will never value your needs as much, or in the same balance, as you.

That said, the Stewards saw the piston, hopefully knew what they were looking at, and hopefully asked enough questions from enough different angles to expose any inconsistancies in the story. Assuming that happened, they are obviously of the opinion that the penalty is appropriate.

Terry reported that Shane was very displeased, and Terry, along with the other Stewards felt that the stigma of being labeled a cheater was weighing heavily on Shane.

It is a difficult call to be sure, and I would like to hear other opinions.

In general, I DO feel that when items are discovered that require actions and money to accomplish, and that result in real performance enhancements, that a strong signal should be sent. If Shane was "hoodwinked" on this one, shame on him for allowing it to happen.

What would I like as a penalty if that were to happen to me? Of course, a slap on the wrist! What would I expect to receive? A 6 months probation, perhaps a monetary fine. Yes, it would SUCK!

It is, of course, hard for me to be completely unbiased.....I really feel for Shane, as the procedure sucked, and the results are ugly for him, if indeed he was completely without knowledge. But keep in mind that he was beating guys who are nationally known leaders, and had been warned of this exact scenario.

I know this...If I were him, and I had been approached in the manner that he was, I would have placed a call to my engine builder and gone over every detail with a fine tooth comb, because I would have expected the cost to be extreme if I failed a teardown.

But, as I said before, I am a bit paranoid, and of the belief that penalties need to be very strict to send the proper message.

What are your thoughts??

------------------
Jake Gulick
CarriageHouse Motorsports
ITA 57 RX-7
New England Region
[email protected]

lateapex911
10-19-2004, 03:04 AM
Originally posted by JackH55:
Jake,
First, as you know, I was originaly on the SOM commitee but had to recuse myself because my son was in ITA. I did, however, follow the protest as close as I could. I do know that the Stewards were impressed with your demeanor and professionalism.
As for the Stewards, you could not have had a better Chairman than Terry and the others are all first rate.
Your point about the tools is well taken and Kathy and I talked about it at the Glen this weekend ( congratulations to Ray Lee)
We will be asking the NARRC Regions to pool their resources- so that we can purchase the tools and keep them at LRP. We will do this at the Mini Convention in November.

Jack

Folks, Jack Hannifan is a Steward who is very involved in the NE.

Jack, I am impressed that such a response is occuring so quickly, and bouyed by the concept. I hope you will keep us informed as to the progress and the specifics of the program.

Going into the protest, I was impressed with Terry's approach, his reputation for fairness, and I was pleased he was the Chairman.



------------------
Jake Gulick
CarriageHouse Motorsports
ITA 57 RX-7
New England Region
[email protected]

Tom Blaney
10-19-2004, 06:34 AM
Just so everyone including ALL the SOM's of the meet (men and woman), I think Terry is a fine steward and I like him personally. But what I feel is that the inspection that day was done poorly, and although Terry was not the inspector, it was under his watch. There were rules in the GCR that covered what should have been done in the case of a discrepancy or the inability to determine legality. These were not followed, and were discussed. A steward made a big issue of the fact that there were 5 "protestors" involved and that was not how it was going to be handled, only one individual was to represent the protest, this was discussed thoroughly prior to turning over the cash, and part of the protest message was that ALL FIVE OF US WERE INVOLVED. So when SOM's start to throw around rules technalities back at the protestors, when it was a handshaked agreement, than I have concerns that the system is broken.

It was Terry's role to follow the GCR for both the protestor"'s" and the protestee, and that was the responsibility of the chief steward and should only be the responsibily of that individual. If part were to be impounded until validated than so be it.

This obivious attempt to cheat was almost pulled off and that would make a mockery of the entire process.

Regarding Shane's responsibility regarding the "engine builder", I think that any driver worth his/her salt would know the difference in performance between a car with 9.5 compression and 11.0 compression pretty quickly. As mentioned previously in my post, he was typically a 1.04 driver and in a matter of 3 races he is setting track records by multiple tenth's!!! Hello if it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck. A slap on the wrist and a gee Shane feels badly is not an acceptable penalty. He was given the opportunity at prior races by two of the drivers to "check things out" and basically said catch me if you can.

I am more than willing to discuss my impressions of the process with any or all of the stewards involved that weekend, and intentionally made myself available to two of them at the Glen last weekend, unfortunatly only one would give me the time of day. Thanks Jack, and lets continue the discussion at your leasure.

Tom Blaney
26R292861
[email protected]
845-258-4844

[This message has been edited by Tom Blaney (edited October 19, 2004).]

ITCCRX
10-19-2004, 09:23 AM
Jake,
Do you have a photo of the "domed" piston, you can post? I would really like to see it.
I am a Honda guy and would really like see how it looks to the aftermarket pistons I buy?

Ed

apr67
10-19-2004, 10:02 AM
Everyone is going to say that the builder did it. I don't think any competitior is ever going to say 'yep, its an illegal pistion, I did it'.

What should the penalty be? Next 6 races (whenever) the driver will be scored DFL.

Fines are the wrong penalty. For a low buck guy a $100 fine means something. For a high buck guy $1000 fine means nothing.

But having to race and endup DFL, that is a penalty.

OTLimit
10-19-2004, 11:16 AM
Even if he says his engine builder did it, he is still ultimately responsible. End of the bs.

How about we make cheaters buy the beer and food for the worker party at the next race?

------------------
Lesley Albin
Over The Limit Racing
Blazen Golden Retrievers

Jake
10-19-2004, 11:42 AM
I am somewhat saddened by how close he was to getting away with an illegal engine. If we can't find something as basic as a higher compression ratio, we're in trouble when some of the more difficult to detect cheats are used.

Here's an interesting one for the Rule Nazi's here: The car in question did not have door panels nor aluminum skins on either the driver's or passengers side. However, this was not part of the protest. Am I correct in thinking that the penalty would have been the same if that infraction was the extent of the protest?

apr67
10-19-2004, 11:49 AM
I doubt the penalty would have been the same.

I would file a missing door panel as 'log book entry, fix before next race'.

Bill Miller
10-19-2004, 04:59 PM
Based on Tom's comments, sounds like Shane knew the deal all along. I'm guessing that he never thought anyone would actually pony up the money to protest him. And, as Lesley said, the driver is ultimately responsible. Just ask the guy (can't remember his name) that lost the HP national championship because his engine builder used stock valves, and didn't measure them. Turns out they were a couple of thou. too big (.003" IIRC).

I still can't believe that the throttle body got a pass, and that it wasn't impounded pending appeal. Especially since it was not clear that it was legal.

That lack of a proper 'kit' for performing some fairly standard measurements, is also disheartening.

As far as the penalty being too severe, I don't think so. But I also think that Shane will be a pariah for quite some time.

------------------
MARRS #25 ITB Rabbit GTI (sold) | MARRS #25 HProd Rabbit
SCCA 279608

gran racing
10-19-2004, 05:28 PM
The throttle body and compression check (or lack thereof) were the most disappointing to me. Throttle body – I don’t think it is a big deal that the part #s were worn off. If filed off that would be a different story. As others have said, many of our vehicles are pretty old and I would imagine that stuff just happens. I honestly do not know if the part number is still easily visible on my throttle body. (I am curious to check now though) But needless to say it should have been measured for proper size or held until it could be.

This protest still leaves many questions unanswered and it could frustrate both parties. Assuming the compression and throttle body were legal and I guess we have to assume they were at this point (although there will always be questions), I as the person being protested would have wanted these items checked thoroughly to rid any possible doubt. Maybe that’s just me.

The penalty – we are all going to view this one a bit differently with our different perspectives. For someone knowledgeable of building engines, this tear down may not be that big of a deal especially at the end of a season. Heck, this stuff may have already been planned for anyway so what is the big deal? Loss of the race finish? If you’re not in a season points chase, big deal. On the other hand, if you have someone like myself this would be a pretty significant punishment. Put back together an engine? Oh great!

The piston / picture thing has me a bit puzzled and this may be due to my lack of knowledge with pistons. Could a person tell from a picture if it is illegal or not? Obviously in this case you can.

Jake and Tom, based on your experience do you see any way to create a template or guide for a protest request? No, not just the info. stated in the GCR. Something that would be more helpful to the average racer. I’m certainly taking notes from your experiences; but hopefully I’ll never have to worry about it.

The bond that agreed upon – would you mind sharing the associated cost to protest these items?

When you really think about it, this protest was very successful overall. One of the most important outcomes of this is that we all have learned a lot from your experience. And now hopefully protests will be handled a bit differently in the future and the regions will have the necessary tools available in the future. (My wife always yells at me to look at the postive side) The protest system really needs to be re-evaluated.

Thanks for taking the time to share this!

------------------
Dave Gran
NER ITB #13
'87 Honda Prelude si

Quickshoe
10-19-2004, 05:58 PM
Originally posted by OTLimit:
Even if he says his engine builder did it, he is still ultimately responsible.

Lesley, I agree. We (the racers) are the ones who are responsible for ensuring our cars are legal. I further, completely understand that if it was an acceptable out (to blame your motor builder) those who would willingly cheat would also not hesitate to claim ignorance.

My perspective: I raced Formula Ford. A good rebuild from Ivey will set me back about $7000. Are you suggesting that I need to have that motor shipped 1500 miles back to me, fresh off the dyno and take it apart to make certain it is legal? And then put this very carefully assembled motor back together?

I don't think that is what you really think is practical. We have to rely on our motor builders' reputation as building top quality legal race motors.



[This message has been edited by Quickshoe (edited October 19, 2004).]

Geo
10-19-2004, 06:18 PM
Originally posted by gran racing:
The throttle body and compression check (or lack thereof) were the most disappointing to me. Throttle body – I don’t think it is a big deal that the part #s were worn off. If filed off that would be a different story. As others have said, many of our vehicles are pretty old and I would imagine that stuff just happens. I honestly do not know if the part number is still easily visible on my throttle body. (I am curious to check now though) But needless to say it should have been measured for proper size or held until it could be.

My question remains: should it have been?

I'm not so sure. From reading Jake's account, the protest specified the manner in which legality would be ascertained.

I'm disappointed the ruling was "We can't tell, so it's legal." I would really like to know (if anyone does for sure) if it is simply beyond the scope of the protest to use another method. This is important to know.

What may seem on the surface as common sense to try another method, it may not be proper within the protest rules. I just don't know.

If it would be proper, Jake would have had the (lost) opportunity to protest the SOM Chair for failing to retain the questionable part.


------------------
George Roffe
Houston, TX
84 944 ITS car under construction
92 ITS Sentra SE-R occasionally borrowed
http://www.nissport.com

RSTPerformance
10-19-2004, 06:24 PM
Shane-

I am sure you have some sort of recourse with your engine builder. I am sure that you have documentation that you spent thousands of dollars for a LEGAL motor. If a professional engine builder built me an illegal motor you bet your a$$ I would be going after them to pay additional costs plus the costs for someone trustworthy to build another one.

We spend $5,000-$10,000 on motors for AS, that is a lot of money to be dishing out, and we better be getting what we pay for (professionally built motor). As for the ITB cars, well we dish out $0.00 to a few crew people who will loose their hats if they build me an illegal motor http://Forum.ImprovedTouring.com/it/wink.gif. The responsibility comes more on me at that point.

Good Luck Shane on getting some money back from the engine builder. Who was the horrid engine builder who put you through all this??? I always like to know where the cheating all begins. I loved the post a little while back with the ad from Turner Motorsports selling the illegal BMW cams for ITS. I lost a lot of respect for that team.

Raymond “I bet the engine builder blames Shane… Get everything in writing” Blethen

Bill Miller
10-19-2004, 07:09 PM
For the people that feel that the engine builder may have done this on his own. What do you feel would be the motivation for an engine builder to build a known illegal engine, w/o the driver knowing anything about it? If it's a professional engine shop, why would they take that kind of risk? Where's the reward for them? The potential to lose a large portion of their business is high. After all, who would go to a builder that knowingly builds illegal motors?

For those that have asked about the difficulty in telling legal parts from illegal ones, in this case, pistons. If you look at the pistons from an A2 VW GTI (10:1), and the pistons from an A1 VW GTI (8.5:1), you sure can't tell them apart by looking at the top. They're both 81mm pistons, and you can use either one in either block.

------------------
MARRS #25 ITB Rabbit GTI (sold) | MARRS #25 HProd Rabbit
SCCA 279608

lateapex911
10-19-2004, 07:28 PM
Originally posted by RSTPerformance:
Shane-

..... I am sure that you have documentation that you spent thousands of dollars for a LEGAL motor. ....... I loved the post a little while back with the ad from Turner Motorsports selling the illegal BMW cams for ITS. I lost a lot of respect for that team.

Raymond “I bet the engine builder blames Shane… Get everything in writing” Blethen

Raymond...let me clear up a couple little points.

First, don't lose respect for Turner...I think we surmised that he was playing a bit of a joke, and doing a little bit of finger pointing by "selling" those used cams on his site. I think his rep is pretty clean, even in a pro series where the "rules of engagement" are quite different.

Secondly, I hope Shane didn't shell out thousands of dollars for this build, because he got ripped off if he did. The pertinant items I was told were: The head...measured within new tolerances. (in other words, never cut.) The valves and ports were stock. (In other words, no sign of any machine work on the head) Hence, no money spent there.
The deck was 'factory clean' according to the results I was told. No cutting there, therefor no money spent on it.

So, it would appear, that the pistons and rings were the entire "rebuild". As it was reported that they were domed units (which are visibly quite different than the stock units), a conclusion could be reached that this "build" was a mere replacement of higher compression pistons, which is the quick and easy way to make power.

(An interesting aside here was that the pistons were actually spotted by a distant observer during the teardown, and reported to me later that day, but I dismissed it as unreliable third party info. "How can you tell from 20 feet away?" I thought. Evidently, you can....)

If Shanes builder was able to build a motor in such a way, and bamboozle Shane by showing no receipts for the usual machine work, etc, then charge Shane thousands of dollars, the guy should be in jail!

Another possibility here is that Shane is telling a bit of the truth. Maybe he bought the engine from another guy, or a wreck or something, was under the assumption that it was legal, then decided to tell a white lie to protect the seller.

Of course, the bottom line is the same...it's your ass on the line and you better be SURE you know what you got.



------------------
Jake Gulick
CarriageHouse Motorsports
ITA 57 RX-7
New England Region
[email protected]

Ron Earp
10-19-2004, 08:06 PM
From the perspective of a newcomer this is a very informative post and I'm happy to see it brought out in the open. Thanks much and keep it coming. This is a much better way to learn how things work in the real world rather than having to read the rule book which outlines the process, but nothing more, or, having it happen to one's self.

Ron

------------------
Ron
http://www.gt40s.com
Lotus Turbo Esprit
BMW E36 M3
RF GT40 Replica
Jensen-Healey: IT prep progressing!

Quickshoe
10-19-2004, 08:34 PM
Originally posted by Bill Miller:
For the people that feel that the engine builder may have done this on his own. What do you feel would be the motivation for an engine builder to build a known illegal engine, w/o the driver knowing anything about it?

SALES! Fast motors sell more motors.


[b]<font face=\"Verdana, Arial\" size=\"2\">[B]If it's a professional engine shop, why would they take that kind of risk?</font>

I don't think they would if they felt that the motor was likely to get inspected.


<font face=\"Verdana, Arial\" size=\"2\">Where's the reward for them?</font>

Again--$ale$.


<font face=\"Verdana, Arial\" size=\"2\">The potential to lose a large portion of their business is high. After all, who would go to a builder that knowingly builds illegal motors?</font>

I certainly would not. I have been on the receiving end of an illegal motor that was in a car that I purhcased. It had been built by a professional builder. I was owner #3, owner #1 was a Runoffs winner while utilizing the same motor builder as owner #2. Before you call me out for not naming names...I don't KNOW with certainty that this motor was not altered by owner #2. #2 only had 8 races in the log book, with receipts for the motor rebuild during that time frame. The mechanical aptitude of owner #2 was very low--so I don't believe he did it. But I don't KNOW, so how dare I tarnish a shops' image by naming names.

Sorry, you don't have to accept my viewpoint. But, I do believe it happens.

apr67
10-19-2004, 09:51 PM
Why do people pay SunBelt $5000 to take a brand new crate Miata motor and make it faster?

Because whatever magic is worked on a motor that is suppsoed to be stock, can't be detected.

You send cubic dollars on a motor that should not cost that much, you are paying for a engine that will pass tech. Legal, or illegal, you expect it to pass tech.

racer-025
10-20-2004, 07:31 AM
I'm sorry, but this engine builder legality debate doesn't wash with me. I am very certain that engine builders will give an exact quote to the client for engine work, detailing the machining & parts. ie: "Do you want .020" over OEM Honda pistons for $250, or do you want the .040" over HC aftermarkets for $1000". Big difference in price. Also, if said engine was purchased from racer #1 and you are racer #3 (getting the rebuild done), wouldn't the engine builder call you up and let you know about the extra costs above the normal rebuild because of these pistons?

I just don't buy it.

[This message has been edited by racer-025 (edited October 20, 2004).]

Knestis
10-20-2004, 08:12 AM
It's been a while but I've seen "real" engine builders do some devious stuff:

** Suggest that installing a cam in an otherwise stock VW "because it will make the same power as a really good, legal IT motor for a lot less money."

** Ask me if I want to be "legal, 'legal,' or competitive."

** Suggest the "nudge, nudge, wink, wink" parts that "nobody will notice because you have the only Renault out there."

** Suggest that "nobody will bother you" about "safety" issues - like aftermarket rod bolts (so you don't blow up and oil the track).

However, I have never heard of anyone putting illegal parts into an engine without the customer knowing about it. They cost money after all.

I've never really thought about it like this but it IS blindingly obvious that they wouldn't build cheater engines if they believed anyone was checking.

K

apr67
10-20-2004, 10:54 AM
Not sure what class you are talking about, but aftermarket rod bolts are allowed in IT.

As someone like Robello what they do to a motor. Its a competitive secret. It's usually not in the parts (that is black and white, usually easy to detect), its in the machine work.

almracing
10-20-2004, 10:56 AM
I have a couple of questions about the process...

Since the engine was found to be in "non-comliance", is it noted in the log book?

And (not to hammer this particular issue), are non-compliant parts reinspected for entry into the next event?

It is a bummer to see the results of the protest... being that is was found in favor of the protestors. It was a hard season for our race team, and to think we were passed by an illegal car begs the question; how would we have finished if everything was even?

Looking foward to the 2005 season.

Anthony R.
ITA #86 NER
Honda CRX Si

Festus E. Simkins
10-20-2004, 11:30 AM
Lesley Albin's crystal clear logic comes through again. http://Forum.ImprovedTouring.com/it/biggrin.gif Beer and Food. Works for me.

BTW the valve thing has happened twice at the Run Offs. A couple years ago it was Bob Webber in a H-Production bugeye sprite at MO. Many many years ago it was Anatoly Aroutenoff (sic)(I believe he built Hallett)in a 948cc AH Sprite powered Morgan at Road Atlanta. It cost them both a national championship. However, both Bob and Toly have won national championships in H-Production.

Quickshoe
10-20-2004, 11:47 AM
Originally posted by racer-025:
I'm sorry, but this engine builder legality debate doesn't wash with me. I am very certain that engine builders will give an exact quote to the client for engine work, detailing the machining & parts. ie: "Do you want .020" over OEM Honda pistons for $250, or do you want the .040" over HC aftermarkets for $1000". Big difference in price.

No, they all won't. For example want a National quality motor from IVEY or Acme? Send them yours and they'll tell you that it will run somewhere between $X000-X0000 depending on what is needed. They won't know how much until they have yours apart. Further, oftentimes the illegal/non-oem part is cheaper and easier to come by, no 'need' to tell you that they are cutting costs on the rebuild.


<font face=\"Verdana, Arial\" size=\"2\">....engine was purchased from racer #1 and you are racer #3 (getting the rebuild done), wouldn't the engine builder call you up and let you know about the extra costs above the normal rebuild because of these pistons?</font>

I think you may be confusing me with the actual protested party. I had no involvement in this protest. Just relating the information I had to share about my situation. In my situation the motor builder would have machined parts to allow them to be reused, rather than purchasing a new part (machining this old part would have saved the owner money as well as provided a competitive advantage) Perhaps he passed this savings on to racer #2, perhaps he never told racer #2 of it, perhaps it was on racer #1's car when he had it. Perhaps racer #2 replaced it himself with the motor builder having ZERO knowledge/involvement?


------------------
Daryl DeArman

[This message has been edited by Quickshoe (edited October 20, 2004).]

Quickshoe
10-20-2004, 12:03 PM
Originally posted by Knestis:
** Ask me if I want to be "legal, 'legal,' or competitive."

In my search for a new car/ new class/ new motor builder. I made it clear I was looking for a proven-competitive no-excuses car. I have already been asked this same question.

My response was, of course "(D)both A and C"
To which the answer was "good luck, it can be done but it won't be easy."

I am up for the challenge, with a close eye on others who appear to be going a little faster than I think they should, especially those being prepped out of this same shop. If they are smart they won't blow me away down the straights..they'll give it just enough throttle and spin it just tight enough to stay slightly ahead...always with something in reserve that I'll never know about.



------------------
Daryl DeArman

Knestis
10-20-2004, 02:09 PM
Sorry - to clarify, the "aftermarket rod bolts" in question required machining of the rods and caps for installation. Not OK.

K

Bill Miller
10-20-2004, 05:54 PM
Festus,


It was Bob Weber that I was thinking about, thanks.

Anyone besides me wondering why Shane hasn't shown his face here? IF it really was something that he had no knowledge of, I'd think he'd be trying to explain things, and at the very least, offering an apology to his competitors.

------------------
MARRS #25 ITB Rabbit GTI (sold) | MARRS #25 HProd Rabbit
SCCA 279608

Renaultfool
10-20-2004, 06:35 PM
Knestis, I must take offence to the Renault comment. I probably have the only one running out here and I don't even know you and don't think that we run together, so I don't think that you were talking about me. Besides, have you ever tried to buy a "wink wink, nod nod" part for a Renault. You are lucky to find any part for a Renault. There is not even a "wink wink nod nod" Renault store that I am aware of. Yes, the Renault is competitive in C, with the largest engine in the class, well until the VW Bug, but hey, lets line um up and tear them down whenever. I'm ready. Bring your money.

John Herman
10-20-2004, 07:02 PM
Bill, what would be gained. If he said, I'm sorry that I was found illegal, but I had no knowlege of the pistons in the engine, the responses would probably range from a)too bad, its your responsibility, b)man you got a raw deal, you should sue the engine builder, to c) yeah right, not only are you a cheater, but also a liar, you suck. Unfortunately its a situation he can't win on some bulletin board. He will need to re-earn his strips with those he races with. Hopefully he will.

Bill Miller
10-20-2004, 08:44 PM
Renaultfool,

I think Kirk's comment was a bit tongue-in-cheek, as he used to race a Renault.

John,

You may be right. But owning up to it and taking his lumps, will probably go a long way towards getting his 'stripes' back. I'm still really bothered by Tom's recounting of the "catch me if you can" comment. I know that it's technically hearsay, but it's pretty disturbing, if it's true.

------------------
MARRS #25 ITB Rabbit GTI (sold) | MARRS #25 HProd Rabbit
SCCA 279608

[This message has been edited by Bill Miller (edited October 20, 2004).]

Jake
10-20-2004, 10:04 PM
Random thoughts:

1 - Consider that the engine was most likely purchased from competitor who wrecked their IT car and the "engine builder" may never have been talked to (or known)

2 - In my quest for someone to put some legal power into my MR2 - I have found many that want to sell me, say a cylinder head, for $2500-$3000. They say it's legal, but refuse to tell me what they did to it (that's our trade secrets, blah, blah).

3 - Don't assume the domed pistons are more $$$. From what I understand, domed hi-comp pistons were OEM on JDM 2nd gen D16 motors (or something like that - I'm quoting from my Honda-nerd friends).

Knestis
10-20-2004, 10:33 PM
Originally posted by Renaultfool:
Knestis, I must take offence to the Renault comment. ... . I'm ready. Bring your money.

Relax, mon. It isn't always about you.

http://it2.evaluand.com/gti/images/history/renault.jpg

c.1986

I wasn't making a tongue-in-cheek comment, either. I was recounting actual stuff I've heard in the last 20 years.

K

EDIT - from http://it2.evaluand.com/gti/history.php




[This message has been edited by Knestis (edited October 20, 2004).]

lateapex911
10-20-2004, 11:17 PM
Originally posted by almracing:
...... and to think we were passed by an illegal car begs the question; how would we have finished if everything was even?

Looking foward to the 2005 season.

Anthony R.
ITA #86 NER
Honda CRX Si


OK, guys, All IMHO here.........

Anthony, I was wondering when someone would mention that fact.

One of my issues with running improper parts that result in significantly enhanced performance is that it is a slap in the face to the entire class, and of course inderectly to the club in general.

The question then is, how many races was the car in this configuration. (I asked, the answer was "I didn't ask him that"), and how many guys would move up the results sheets?

(I know I would, and a lot of others as well)

The flipside question is: We know he's a good driver...what can he do in a legal car?

Two big questions we won't ever know.

Bill...My mind often thinks in reverse...as in, "If I were him what would I do?" Of course, it's tough to know unless you ARE him, and it depends on what REALLY happened.

But....if he DID have the engine built as he says, and the parts were in without his knowledge...then I would prepare an extremely apologetic statement, I would detail the reasons why it occured while admitting that there really is no truly acceptable reason, I would also look into having the results changed to reflect the actual situation, going back as many dates as needed. I think that would be most ethical thing to do.

(Besides....you know everybody is figuring the things have been in the car ever since his sudden drop of laptimes...you might as well just come clean and move on...the damage has been done)

Honestly, some guys would give thumbs up and it would be a good way to start anew, and some guys wouldn't. But some is better than none. But that's just me.




------------------
Jake Gulick
CarriageHouse Motorsports
ITA 57 RX-7
New England Region
[email protected]

lateapex911
10-20-2004, 11:26 PM
Originally posted by Jake:
Random thoughts:

3 - Don't assume the domed pistons are more $$$. From what I understand, domed hi-comp pistons were OEM on JDM 2nd gen D16 motors (or something like that - I'm quoting from my Honda-nerd friends).


I must have the same friends....

From a rotary guy trying to get a handle on the whole thing, isn't true that compression is the biggest bang for the buck?

Head work is $$$...... pistons are pennies, relatively, ft lbs to ft lbs, hp to hp.


------------------
Jake Gulick
CarriageHouse Motorsports
ITA 57 RX-7
New England Region
[email protected]

Geo
10-21-2004, 01:41 AM
Jake you're right. Compression ratio is over rated for hp generation. Generally only expect a few hp (less than you can count on one hand for a small engine) for each CR point change.


------------------
George Roffe
Houston, TX
84 944 ITS car under construction
92 ITS Sentra SE-R occasionally borrowed
http://www.nissport.com

Banzai240
10-21-2004, 07:06 AM
Originally posted by Knestis:
http://it2.evaluand.com/gti/images/history/renault.jpg

c.1986

Hey... That looks like Portland... (re: a big levy, lots of lush greens... all shrouded in grey! http://Forum.ImprovedTouring.com/it/wink.gif )

------------------
Darin E. Jordan
SCCA #273080, OR/NW Regions
Renton, WA
ITS '97 240SX
http://home.comcast.net/~djjordan/Web/DJ_AV1.jpg

[This message has been edited by Banzai240 (edited October 21, 2004).]

Bill Miller
10-21-2004, 07:10 AM
Originally posted by Geo:
Jake you're right. Compression ratio is over rated for hp generation. Generally only expect a few hp (less than you can count on one hand for a small engine) for each CR point change.





George,

Maybe yes, maybe no. Case in point, A1 VW Rabbit GTI vs. A2 Golf GTI. Both are 1.8 (same bore and stroke). The A1 is 8.5:1 and the A2 is 10:1. The A2 does benefit from a somewhat better intake manifold design, and a larger (I used to have the exact figures, but they're burried in my computer somewhere) throttle body. Both are CIS FI (A2 is CIS-E, and has knock sensor to retard the timing). Can't say for sure how much the intake and TB help, but you're talking about a difference of 90hp for the A1 to 103-105hp for the A2. That's on the order of a 14 - 17 percent increase. That's pretty significant if you ask me. Even if you attribute half of the hp difference to the delta CR, you're talking about ~5hp per point of compression.


------------------
MARRS #25 ITB Rabbit GTI (sold) | MARRS #25 HProd Rabbit
SCCA 279608

gran racing
10-21-2004, 08:35 AM
Don't think that Shane is / was the only person racing throughout the country that ran an illegal engine. That's BS. Of course I'm not saying it is right.

During the course of the past year of so, I have spoken with a few engine builders. During these conversations some have blatenly told me (without my asking) that they have build engines for people in IT that have a "little something extra" in it. And it will cost me less to build then a legal one! Each one of them told me that they have built them for other IT racers.

Now who knows if what they are saying is actually true or not. They took pride in saying people ran their illegal engines and the racers never ran into issues. Like Tom said, a catch me if you can attitude. My opinion is most of what they say is talk.

For a person that is pretty new to racing (like myself) begins to hear this often enough, may develop a perception that this is actually true. It may also be fueled by talks in the paddock about such and such person. Now its time for the person to build up their car. So they get a car that has a little something extra in it because they believe that is what other people are doing. Are they wrong? Of course! But in their mind they have justified it and feel that it is just an acceptable practice. In reality the people they thought were cheating actually are not. Again, it is about their perception.

This was not directed towards any region / person in particular or even SCCA IT. I've had this discussion with several people who race with other regions and other forms of racing. One of my neighbors is a crew chief for a roundy-round team. Now they have some clever cheats!

------------------
Dave Gran
NER ITB #13
'87 Honda Prelude si

Banzai240
10-21-2004, 09:37 AM
I'm pretty sure I do recall reading somewhere that it's typically on the order of about 10% per point of compression...

I can do a test tonight on my Dyno software to see what it says "should" result...

------------------
Darin E. Jordan
SCCA #273080, OR/NW Regions
Renton, WA
ITS '97 240SX
http://home.comcast.net/~djjordan/Web/DJ_AV1.jpg

[This message has been edited by Banzai240 (edited October 21, 2004).]

gran racing
10-21-2004, 09:53 AM
Jake MR2 briefly mentioned the door panels…(on both sides w/o NASCAR bars from what I recall). This was an obvious thing when we looked at the car. One that bothered me. I know what some may say; come on Dave, they are just missing door panels. But here is how I look at it. The GCR has a section that specifically talks about door panels and what can be done. In my opinion, this not just a silly washer fluid bottle, missing horn thing or other small thing.

For a front running car to have missing door panels surprised me. Especially if people may question the legality of the car. Why have something so simple and obviously illegal? What it did for me is raise several questions about the rest of the car.

It hits home for me because prior to racing the car when I used it in HPDEs removed my car’s door panels and threw them out. This caused much frustration for me later. I then needed to find .060” aluminum and fabricate two door panels.

Didn’t someone that placed well in the ARRC get DQed fairly recently for missing door panels?

------------------
Dave Gran
NER ITB #13
'87 Honda Prelude si

benspeed
10-21-2004, 11:11 AM
Originally posted by lateapex911:

OK, guys, All IMHO here.........

The question then is, how many races was the car in this configuration. (I asked, the answer was "I didn't ask him that"), and how many guys would move up the results sheets?

prepare an extremely apologetic statement, I would detail the reasons why it occured while admitting that there really is no truly acceptable reason, I would also look into having the results changed to reflect the actual situation, going back as many dates as needed. I think that would be most ethical thing to do.



Jake - I totally agree with what you posted here. If Shane wants to run with the SCCA and earn back his stripes, resetting the results would be the best way to do it. Saying sorry always matters and an apology to the club should be made. That is what a gentlemen does - take responsibility, admit a mistake and ask forgiveness.

------------------
BenSpeed
#33 ITS RX7
BigSpeed Racing
[email protected]
NNJR

Geo
10-21-2004, 11:25 AM
Originally posted by Bill Miller:

George,

Maybe yes, maybe no. Case in point, A1 VW Rabbit GTI vs. A2 Golf GTI. Both are 1.8 (same bore and stroke). The A1 is 8.5:1 and the A2 is 10:1. The A2 does benefit from a somewhat better intake manifold design, and a larger (I used to have the exact figures, but they're burried in my computer somewhere) throttle body. Both are CIS FI (A2 is CIS-E, and has knock sensor to retard the timing). Can't say for sure how much the intake and TB help, but you're talking about a difference of 90hp for the A1 to 103-105hp for the A2. That's on the order of a 14 - 17 percent increase. That's pretty significant if you ask me. Even if you attribute half of the hp difference to the delta CR, you're talking about ~5hp per point of compression.




Perhaps Bill, but that would probably be absolute MAX. The problem is, even as you said, there are many thing that changed. You're only making assumptions. But, admittedly, I'm only making generalizations as well.

None the less, it would tend to suggest that a major increase in on-track performance is unlikely to be due to CR increase.


------------------
George Roffe
Houston, TX
84 944 ITS car under construction
92 ITS Sentra SE-R occasionally borrowed
http://www.nissport.com

Geo
10-21-2004, 11:27 AM
Originally posted by Banzai240:
I'm pretty sure I do recall reading somewhere that it's typically on the order of about 10% per point of compression...

Not a chance.


------------------
George Roffe
Houston, TX
84 944 ITS car under construction
92 ITS Sentra SE-R occasionally borrowed
http://www.nissport.com

Ron Earp
10-21-2004, 11:34 AM
10% increase in output per point of compression? Is this what is estimated? Not a chance.

I have seen this investigated on a SB Ford and a point of compression was worth about 11 rear wheel hp, when going from around 8.5-9.5, all other factors remaining constant, on a motor that was making about 260 rear wheel hp to begin with. An old MM&FF article performed this by shaving the heads and putting them back on and it was done well and in a very scientific manner.

What is that, about 4%? And, still, 4% is quite a bit. Now, this was just a static compression increase and has nothing to do with dynamic compression or what might happen if cams were to be changed, which we can't do anyhow. So, if the motor made 100hp it'd make 104hp, not a huge difference.

Ron

------------------
Ron
http://www.gt40s.com
Lotus Turbo Esprit
BMW E36 M3
RF GT40 Replica
Jensen-Healey: IT prep progressing!

Banzai240
10-21-2004, 11:40 AM
Yah... maybe it was more like 5%... I know it didn't seem like much for all the extra stresses on the rods, crank, etc...

DJ

Dick Elliott
10-21-2004, 12:20 PM
I have seen many drag racers, and some road racers, rase the compresson ratio 2 or more points and go slower and have head gasket problems. WHY? Stock cam with stock overlap and no where for this new found pressure to go. To make more compresson work, you must change the cam. Plain and simple. I knew a IT racer who mill'd the head on his racer .100, ran race gas and went slower. Best bang for the bucks in an IT car is a light flywheel. Better than any other mod thats not visible. As a engine builder for the past 40 years, who builds what the customer ask for, reguardless of class, I can tell you a simple compresson change did not make that car a killer by its self. My two cents from a very old fart.

Joe Craven
10-21-2004, 12:22 PM
The number I've seen for a point increase is more like 2% to 3%.

Dick Elliott
10-21-2004, 12:47 PM
JOE! Where have you been? If you only run NASA, we still want to hear from you. Hell, if you run Mexico, we still want to hear from you.

lateapex911
10-21-2004, 03:31 PM
Well, we don't know the exact CR that was the result of running the improper piston, but.....
......assuming that you wouldn't put an obviously illegal piston in for little or no gain, (its just common sense to maximize the risk/reward ratio) we can surmise that the compression jump was a couple points, which, according to my engineer friends and their thermodynaic calculations results in a HP increase of about 5%.

I know that if I were running down the straight behind another RX-7, I would give my eye teeth for an extra 5% when I pulled out of the draft to pass.....

------------------
Jake Gulick
CarriageHouse Motorsports
ITA 57 RX-7
New England Region
[email protected]

Joe Craven
10-21-2004, 04:33 PM
Hey Dick, I'm still around. Gonna rebuild the Capri and improve the suspension since I don't know how I can get 5% more power (can't increase the compression anymore) so I'm going to have to improve the handling. Comp Adj might give me some hope with less weight since other cars have superior power and better suspension designs.

In regard to your comments, more compression increased combustion efficiency but if one has to run different fuel, that changes things too. Higher octane fuels often burn more slowly so given all other things, putting higher octane fuel often lowers power. In regards to the improvement, there is more improvement from example 9:1 to 10:1 than from 11:1 to 12:1.

Lighter flywheel - illegal and really doesn't do much at higher speeds where wind resistance becomes a factor. Most road racing is done at high speed in top 2 gears so the benefit isn't much. One might notice an improvement in slow corners coming out in 2nd gear.

Dick Elliott
10-21-2004, 04:55 PM
JOE!
What you must remember is, road racing is nothing more than drag racing with turns. I was a drag racer for 25 years before I ever road raced. The two are very close in what you need in the engine. As long as your gaining speed a lite flywheel helps, and it sure helps under brakeing. As far as makeing your car faster, well that the problem we all have. Locked out distributor helps on a slow, multi turn track. Vertical air flow into the carb helps a bunch. E-mail me off line at [email protected] for the gray stuff. DICK

RSTPerformance
10-21-2004, 06:18 PM
Dick-

Not to get off subject, but I would completely disagree with you 100%. Ok now I have your attention. I agree motor wise perfomance gains might have the same modifications but in the overall picture no part of Road Racing is a drag race unless everyone racing hasn't a clue how to drive or has horribly ill handling cars.

For the newbies reading Road Races are won more by a driver/cars ability to carry speed through the turns (exit speed). If you can exit a turn at 10MPH faster than another car (both cars equal and have simple straight power curve) then you will also be going 10mph faster at the end of the straight. Do that in every turn and down every straight and you will have a winner.

I do agree that if both drivers are equal but the cars are not (IE: one car can gain a lot more than 10mph by the end of the straight) then sure the car with more power might win. It takes a lot HP to make up the difference though from bad or even mediocre driver and/or handling car.

Prime example: ITS cars (200hp?) run almost the same lap times as National AS cars (400hp?) unless it is a track that is all just straights. ITA cars run almost the same lap times as ITS cars (50hp less?).

My point: Don’t give newbie’s or our “thinking about cheating” friends this idea that “HP” cheating will get them victories. Granted this one driver that this post is about did gain a lot and a victory, but he was always a good driver driving a car without the potential to win at this track. I think more mid/front packers cheat to try and compensate for bad driving and/or poor handling cars to get a victory.


Raymond "Drag Racing is to Road Racing like Road Racing driving is to Rally driving" Blethen

[This message has been edited by RSTPerformance (edited October 21, 2004).]

RSTPerformance
10-21-2004, 06:22 PM
Dave-

Yes the 2nd place ITB Omni was DQ'd last year for door panels. I have herd that their was more rumors to the story on that, but for what it is worth I thought it was very unfair.

If their was more to it then that is fine, tell us and don't make us feel bad for him. Don't know him that well (only met him last year) but he does post from time to time here.

Raymond

[This message has been edited by RSTPerformance (edited October 21, 2004).]

Joe Craven
10-21-2004, 06:39 PM
Dave and Raymond, is that the same car that got dq'd for polishing the outside of the intake manifold? Hmmm, back to the thread, protesting sounds very very difficult, both during and after.

Geo
10-21-2004, 07:11 PM
Originally posted by rlearp:
Now, this was just a static compression increase and has nothing to do with dynamic compression or what might happen if cams were to be changed, which we can't do anyhow.

There is NO such thing as "dynamic compression ratio." What you are refering to is volumetric efficiency.



------------------
George Roffe
Houston, TX
84 944 ITS car under construction
92 ITS Sentra SE-R occasionally borrowed
http://www.nissport.com

Geo
10-21-2004, 07:22 PM
Originally posted by Dick Elliott:
Best bang for the bucks in an IT car is a light flywheel.

HIGHLY illegal in IT. It is expressly forbidden.

Hope you're not installing them in your cars.


------------------
George Roffe
Houston, TX
84 944 ITS car under construction
92 ITS Sentra SE-R occasionally borrowed
http://www.nissport.com

RSTPerformance
10-21-2004, 07:37 PM
Joe-

yes it is... that might be why some rumors floated around. 2 DQ's in 2 years.

Again, not sure what polishing the outside of the intake will do... but now it is legal, go figure.

I think he is runing in ITA now (? rumor) with the same car different motor(again rumor).

Raymond

Dick Elliott
10-21-2004, 10:29 PM
I stand by my statement. EVERY TIME YOU COME OUT OF A CORNER, ITS A DRAG RACE TO THE NEXT CORNER. All else being the same if your down on power, you lose. What else would you call it? Clue me in.



Originally posted by RSTPerformance:
Dick-

Not to get off subject, but I would completely disagree with you 100%. Ok now I have your attention. I agree motor wise perfomance gains might have the same modifications but in the overall picture no part of Road Racing is a drag race unless everyone racing hasn't a clue how to drive or has horribly ill handling cars.

For the newbies reading Road Races are won more by a driver/cars ability to carry speed through the turns (exit speed). If you can exit a turn at 10MPH faster than another car (both cars equal and have simple straight power curve) then you will also be going 10mph faster at the end of the straight. Do that in every turn and down every straight and you will have a winner.

I do agree that if both drivers are equal but the cars are not (IE: one car can gain a lot more than 10mph by the end of the straight) then sure the car with more power might win. It takes a lot HP to make up the difference though from bad or even mediocre driver and/or handling car.

Prime example: ITS cars (200hp?) run almost the same lap times as National AS cars (400hp?) unless it is a track that is all just straights. ITA cars run almost the same lap times as ITS cars (50hp less?).

My point: Don’t give newbie’s or our “thinking about cheating” friends this idea that “HP” cheating will get them victories. Granted this one driver that this post is about did gain a lot and a victory, but he was always a good driver driving a car without the potential to win at this track. I think more mid/front packers cheat to try and compensate for bad driving and/or poor handling cars to get a victory.


Raymond "Drag Racing is to Road Racing like Road Racing driving is to Rally driving" Blethen

[This message has been edited by RSTPerformance (edited October 21, 2004).]

Ron Earp
10-22-2004, 07:59 AM
Originally posted by Geo:
There is NO such thing as "dynamic compression ratio." What you are refering to is volumetric efficiency.


Actually there is such a thing as dynamic compression ratio. Could be you were assuming that when I mention cams in my post I was referring to cams changing the dynamic compression ratio but this is not the case nor what I intended.

The static compression ratio, as I am sure you are aware, can simply be calculated by determining the combustion chamber volume, gasket thickness, etc. This has nothing to do with engine condition, ring sealing, etc.

Dynamic compression is different. An engine might have a compression ratio of 9.5:1 when measured by cc'ing, but, with out of round cylinders, out of round pistons, or poor sealing rings the dynamic compression ratio when assembled and running might be considerably less.

Some folks like to bundle things such as cylinder filling etc. into dynamic compression ratio but I do not agree with this definition. To me, these things come under volumetric efficiency.

Ron

------------------
Ron
http://www.gt40s.com
Lotus Turbo Esprit
BMW E36 M3
RF GT40 Replica
Jensen-Healey: IT prep progressing!

[This message has been edited by rlearp (edited October 22, 2004).]

[This message has been edited by rlearp (edited October 22, 2004).]

joeg
10-22-2004, 08:04 AM
A super light weight PP and clutch driven disc of stock dimensions, would be legal and work like a lightened FW.

Cheers.

Tom Blaney
10-22-2004, 09:16 AM
Originally posted by RSTPerformance:
Dick-

My point: Don’t give newbie’s or our “thinking about cheating” friends this idea that “HP” cheating will get them victories. Granted this one driver that this post is about did gain a lot and a victory, but he was always a good driver driving a car without the potential to win at this track. I think more mid/front packers cheat to try and compensate for bad driving and/or poor handling cars to get a victory.


Raymond "Drag Racing is to Road Racing like Road Racing driving is to Rally driving" Blethen

[This message has been edited by RSTPerformance (edited October 21, 2004).]

Ray, your all wrong here period. Shane is NOT A GOOD DRIVER!

I have raced him before and he is not the caliber of Anthony, Ray, Rich, or a lot of mid pack drivers (I learn a lot of this because I keep spinning to the back of the pack and have to flog my way up front).

Here is why he is not a good driver. A good driver respects his competition, he understands the value of hard work and the need to come to the track with a LEGAL car. A good driver knows how to get the most out of what is defined by the rules and what is in the other 99% of cars on the track. A good driver can leave the track in 1st or 35th place knowing that he/she did the best they can with what they had, and the 35th driver beat the 36th driver on talent not unfair cheating.

A good driver builds a complete racing package, that means that he brings a safe car to the track, brings the mental stability to accept the consequences of his/her actions (be it cheating, or crashing or winning) and will apply it to everything from parking in the paddock to thanking the corner workers.

A good driver is respected in the eyes of his/her competitors, because they can respect him for his talents, not his underhanded sneaky rule bending attempts to kick the other guys ass.

So if you compile this list together, Shane does not get a passing grade, and in my eyes (and I hope the other 99%) of drivers demonstrates why we did what we did to protest him and protect our own efforts at being a good driver that is respected by their competitors.

Unfortunatly Shane didn't get the penalty that he rightly deserved, but fortunatly he has lost the respect of the other 99% of drivers who have put in the sweat equity to become good drivers.

Geo
10-22-2004, 09:52 AM
Originally posted by rlearp:
Actually there is such a thing as dynamic compression ratio.

Ron, dynamic compression ratio is one of those Internet fantasies that keeps getting repeated often enough that it becomes "common knowledge" even though there is no such thing.


------------------
George Roffe
Houston, TX
84 944 ITS car under construction
92 ITS Sentra SE-R occasionally borrowed
http://www.nissport.com

RSTPerformance
10-22-2004, 10:37 AM
Ok to clarify a couple things.... for me http://Forum.ImprovedTouring.com/it/smile.gif

My original post about Shane and his engine builder had a bit of sarcasm in it. Obviously I think that Shane new his car was illegal (he was super fast). So I think that it is absolutely wonderful that the protest was made. I support all of you (who protested) 100%.

I don't even think I know who Shane is so please do not get confused and think that I like him, or don't like him. But in Shane’s support we all have friends that we know have cheated.

As far as Shane’s driving, I agree it is a complete package to make a driver, but I was only talking about his driving skills. I still do feel he drives well. I only want to stress to others thinking of cheating that even if you cheat you will still need to physically drive well to win. In other terms, if you are cheating and you are not winning well then not only do I think you suck because you are cheating, but I also think you suck at driving, thus you really really suck as a driver.

Is that a little bit clearer?

If not here it is again:

This post might encourage some people to cheat. We all bitch about how rare it is that someone (or a group of people) gets up the courage, $$$, and knowledge to actually make a major protest such as the one discussed here. Granted this post shows haw a "bad guy" got caught, but it also shows all the issues that prevent people from making protest or having a successful protest. I would like people to realize one simple thing; even if you cheat you still need to driver well to win, so it really isn't worth it. Just have fun and use your driving skills to win the race whether it is for 1st or 34th.

Raymond

[This message has been edited by RSTPerformance (edited October 22, 2004).]

Ron Earp
10-22-2004, 01:59 PM
George, I'm not sure what the internet says about dynamic compression. If I made the term up, so be it, but I don't think you can argue that the measured/calculated compression of the motor is the same as the compression the motor acheives under running conditions, hence, dynamic compression. Maybe I should have used actual or practical compression.

I'll read what the "internet" terms as dynamic compression for interests sake. But, I stand by my opinion that you can increase the compression 1.00000000 points by milling and running the numbers, but what you see in real life will vary from what you calculate due to the items I listed and more.

I apologize for digressing on this thread and I'll stay out to let you fellows continue on the original path.

------------------
Ron
http://www.gt40s.com
Lotus Turbo Esprit
BMW E36 M3
RF GT40 Replica
Jensen-Healey: IT prep progressing!

[This message has been edited by rlearp (edited October 22, 2004).]

Renaultfool
10-22-2004, 05:07 PM
FYI Dynamic Compression I don't know but I used to race a Datsun Roadster and in the factory shop manual, that I still have, it lists the "Max Exploding Pressure at 711.2 lb/in2". I never figured out how to use that important piece of data for anything useful.

Knestis, glad to see that you too once raced a fine French car. Nice photo.

lateapex911
10-24-2004, 03:37 PM
Keep in mind that "dynamic compression" which is apparently influenced by parts tolerances and wear, is in effect on a stock engine as well as one with high compression parts.

So, while the parts might not actually acheive the compression that a static reading would indicate, neither will a stock or legal engine.

The net/net is close, or the same.

------------------
Jake Gulick
CarriageHouse Motorsports
ITA 57 RX-7
New England Region
[email protected]

Geo
10-24-2004, 08:19 PM
Volumetric efficiency will have far more influence on cylinder pressures in an operating engine than anything else in a reasonably healthy engine. Prior to the combustion event of course. Ignite the mixture sufficiently early and that will have a significant effect on max pressure during the combustion event.


------------------
George Roffe
Houston, TX
84 944 ITS car under construction
92 ITS Sentra SE-R occasionally borrowed
http://www.nissport.com

[This message has been edited by Geo (edited October 24, 2004).]

lateapex911
10-25-2004, 09:23 PM
Getting back to the core issue, Jack Hannifan has posted a question for us racers in the NE section regarding the tools issue.

Might be interesting reading, and I know a lot of you have the expertise to make some suggestions.



------------------
Jake Gulick
CarriageHouse Motorsports
ITA 57 RX-7
New England Region
[email protected]

Greg Amy
10-26-2004, 11:42 AM
I'm sorry to be late to this party, but I've been out of town for over a week. I've also had some folks point out my lack of commentary here (thanks for noticing!) and ask for my two cents.

In my opinion, there is and should be an expectation of a certain of technical capability in a Chief Scrutineer, a certain level of administrative capabilities to manage a team that does, or the administrative capabilities to properly impound a car and supervise its transportation to someone who does. The GCR (6.18.1) states, "The Chief Technical and Safety Inspector or Series Technical and Safety Inspector shall ascertain that the cars comply with the GCR, Specification Books, and Supplementary Regulations." How else can these explicit duties be carried out?

Note that onsite tools and capable persons is not necessarily required. Convenient? Absolutely, because no one wants to have to wait for results. However, if a technical person with the tools to do the job is not available then the responsibility of the Chief Scrutineer becomes one of impounding the vehicle in a safe manner and managing that vehicle under close scrutiny to a facility that can provide this techical expertise.

It is wholly wrong to agree to a technical inspection otherwise!!

This management capability became most critical during the initial discussion phase of this protest. Jake noted, "We left the meeting assured that the tools would be available and that a proper teardown location had been arranged." This was the initial failure point with the system. It was the responsibility of the Chief Scrutineer to verify that these tools and skills were, indeed, available; if they were not then it fell upon him to arrange suitable post-event inspection. This, apparently, did not happen.

Next, knowing in advance that specific parts were protested, and knowing that stock examples would be needed for reasonable comparison, there should have been arrangements to confiscate those specific parts to be compared against known stock examples. This may seem obvious in hindsight, but apparently was not done and the parts were released prior to true verification. This is a very aggregious, and troubling, error. Then, to dig heels into the sand and not consider the errors is an blatent disregard for the General Competition Regulations, and a distinct discourtesy. Everyone is human, and everyone risks possibility of error.

Also note that ignorance of one's installed equipment is certainly no exception, and it cannot be excused even if absolutely true. He either knew about it in advance and should be sanctioned, or he picked the wrong engine builder, maintains accountability for that choice, and should be sanctioned. If ignorance is all it takes then I plan to tell Matt to do whatever he wants to my engine, just don't tell me about it; the worst we can expect is a DQ.

Finally, "stigma" as a penalty is not listed in the GCR as acceptable sanction; the DQ sanction applied is absolutely absurd and insulting to anyone's intelligence. "Stigma"?!? Hell, I'll take bad stigma and a win every time!

It appears that the technical inspection crew made it clear through words and actions that they do not consider the technical compliance of competition vehicles to be high on their priority list. Given that, what is In hindsight, I suggest the system should have worked as follows:

First, the protesters did a HELL of a job pre-informing the tech crew as to what they wanted in a detailed manner using the regulations as written. I don't see how they could have made it any easier or any clearer for anyone. Good job.

Second, when the protesters presented a list of items to check, the Chief Tech Inspector should have polled his team to find out if the tools and expertise were available to perform these inspections. At this point, finding some inadequacies, he should have notified all involved that checks A, B, and C would be performed at the track, but specific parts will be impounded for transportation to a suitable, mutually-agreed location to perform inspection procedures D, E, and F. Didn't happen. Instead the inspection team plodded along diving into unknown territory where they should have feared to tread.

Finally, parts for the latter inspection should have remained impounded until the inspections were performed to all parties' agreement. Why in the HELL would anyone even CONSIDER releasing those parts when there was no way they could verify compliance? Only after all inspections were performed adequately should the parts have been released and the final ruling released.
Then, to disregard the obvious compression ratio illegality when faced with obviously incorrect pistons is beyond me. Maybe they felt the domed pistons and incorrect compresion ratio were the same thing? Dunno, but totally oddball.

In my opinion, the protest system still - disappointly - failed them. Yes, I believe it's a system failure, which encouraged failure on an individual level. Had we a better system that placed more emphasis on vehicle compliance (instead of simply saying that we do) then I believe these inspections would have taken on a greater meaning, and been correctly perceived as the potentially watershed event that is was. Tend result of this protest is that we now have a perception of "catch me if you can" (thanks, Tom) in the northeast. Frankly, I don't see where there's been anything done to discourage cheating, and in fact I believe that this may have very well ENCOURAGED it. Where's the disincentive? A DQ? OUCH!
Please note again that I believe while technical capability within the Scrutineering staff is a good thing, the more important issues is that they either "didn't know what they didn't know", or didn't care enough to do this correctly.

In the end, it seems "the system" is poorly designed, and while not intended certainly makes a protest unattainable for many. This certainly supports the observation from many years that the system is truly broken and short of a wholesale change in attitudes the club will continue limping forward with its Secret moniker.

Geo
10-26-2004, 11:17 PM
Originally posted by GregAmy:
This management capability became most critical during the initial discussion phase of this protest. Jake noted, "We left the meeting assured that the tools would be available and that a proper teardown location had been arranged." This was the initial failure point with the system. It was the responsibility of the Chief Scrutineer to verify that these tools and skills were, indeed, available; if they were not then it fell upon him to arrange suitable post-event inspection. This, apparently, did not happen.

Greg, I am pretty much in agreement with you, however....

A question I raise has not only gone unanswered, but even unaddressed. I think from an educational standpoint we should address it and find out what the letter of the law is so we can learn.

That point is, IIRC, the protestors agreed to certain methodologies to determine compliance. It is my assumption that this was written into the protest (Jake, can you comment and correct if necessary please). It would seem to me that if a methodology is agreed upon, this defines the scope. And if the agreed upon scope does not render a clear answer, there would appear to be no basis for broadening the scope (and again, we should get a clear answer here).

If this is indeed correct, we can all use this as a learning experience. What have we learned? Not to limit the scope or methodology for determining legality of any given part unless absolutely necessary.

Also, please don't tell me about common sense. I've seldom seen the law to operate on common sense. It operates on what is written.


------------------
George Roffe
Houston, TX
84 944 ITS car under construction
92 ITS Sentra SE-R occasionally borrowed
http://www.nissport.com

lateapex911
10-26-2004, 11:55 PM
George-

I have read your comments, but I must admit they got a little lost in the soup! Sorry.

I will address the throttle body part of the protests as an example, as it it the most black and white issue I see.

Before the meeting to determine our standards of acceptable proof of legality, Terry Hanushek, (and I am sorry Terry if you are out there and I am butchering the spelling of your name!) who was the Steward in charge of the protest, described how the protest would "run". He stressed that there could come forks in the road, where our feedback would be required. For example, he organized the items into different sections that were based on the physical methods of measurement. The tire protrusion item was first as it was simple to measure. The flywheel was separate as all it required was the removal of an inspection plate, and a magnet. Terry stated that IF those items were to be found not in compliance, he would come to us to get our decision on whether to continue into the 'expensive' parts of the protest.

I indicated that he should operate in such a manner as if we would be affirmative...he should prepare for the worst...that it was unlikely that we would pull up short at that point. He nodded and added that there were other, unforseen items that could arise, and that we should be available in the event the bond needed to be changed or the procedure altered.

Now, our standards for the throttle body were simple. Because the FSM had no bore measurement available, (and we wanted to keep the process as "streamlined" as possible) we agreed that we would accept a proper part number AND the lack of evidence of tampering as proof of the parts compliance.

Those two standards were not either/or. It was an "AND" statement. After the teardown and measurements, we were told that the decision that the trottle body was in compliance was based on only the lack of tampering standard, and the "appearance" of age.

(Later in that meeting I was allowed to ask clarifying questions, as I detailed above in the rather lenghty opus...I asked about "our options" regarding the throttle body, and Terry began to explain the procedure of comparision before he was stopped by Sarah, the second Steward on the Protest, who said, "No, we can't do that. The part hs been released")

While Terry did not ask us what would occur in each situation if they were unable to ascertain the standards we specified, his general statement regarding the need for us to be available to provide further input in the event of unforseen circumstances (such as the sudden inability to take proper measurements, and the lack of critical part numbers) was, to me the "what if" directive.

I fully expected that if something were to occur, such as the inability to CC the motor, and it was decided that it needed to be done off premises, that I would be contacted with a ultimatum such as: "Due to events beyond our control, we need to enlist the services of a dealershp and its staff to make the required measurements. This will add $XXX to the bond. Do you wish to proceed?"

In the throttle bodies case, it was even easier. The part should have been impounded, and the ultimatum to us would have been: "The part numbers you require are unavailable, we have, as an option, the ablilty to send the part to Kansas, and it can be measured and compared to either the database, or to a purchased stock part. If it is the latter, you will be responsible for the cost of shipping, and a restocking fee of $XXX. How do you wish to proceed?"

Now, if this was NOT the case...that the exact "what if" procedures needed to be spelled out in detail for EVERY protest item, I was not informed of that, nor was it EVER mentioned in any way that I can recall. I would strongly think that if that were the standard procedure, that it was incumbent upon the Steward to enlighten us of that fact.

------------------
Jake Gulick
CarriageHouse Motorsports
ITA 57 RX-7
New England Region
[email protected]

Bill Miller
10-27-2004, 06:33 AM
Jake,

Here's a couple of comments that I'll offer. It may be too late, and it may not be. First, I see nothing in the GCR that allows for the increase of the bond, once it's established. Second, the rules clearly state that
<font face=\"Verdana, Arial\" size=\"2\"> The Chairman SOM shall accept any parts tendered by the owner for safe keeping pending appeal</font>

This was clearly not done, in the case of the throttle body. We've already gone over the fact that compliance was not determined based upon the previoiusly agreed upon standards. Also, the time limit to protest the person that released the part, has expired. However, I think that the Steward's license for the person that released the part(s) (Sarah?) should be revoked. Their knowledge of the rules is clearly lacking. I would contact someone in Topeka regarding this issue.

I agree w/ Greg, if anything, this has sent a message out that will encourage cheating. The process doesn't work!

------------------
MARRS #25 ITB Rabbit GTI (sold) | MARRS #25 HProd Rabbit
SCCA 279608

Geo
10-27-2004, 05:46 PM
Jake, based upon what you wrote I believe your protest was mishandled. You've added enough pertinent info that it clears up some matters.

In that case I would have filed a protest against the Chariman SOM for mishandling the impound. A lot of people don't know that officials can be protested in the execution of their duties (my only SCCA protest is against the Chief Steward because those under his responsibility screwed up qualifying leaving me with no "go for it" time and starting from the back). I only learned about this because I jumped in on the protest of two other more experienced members.

Bill, I don't think the protest would cause the official's license to be yanked. But I understand officials can get points assessed against them as well.

This is very educational.

Jake, I would certainly say if the official hadn't discussed the "forks in the road" then the scope spelled out would limit the protest. But an official guiding you through the process and telling you about such options shouldn't end up in a position to tell you that your options have been dropped. Certainly these are things for others to remember should they find themselves in a protest situation.

BTW, good job.


------------------
George Roffe
Houston, TX
84 944 ITS car under construction
92 ITS Sentra SE-R occasionally borrowed
http://www.nissport.com

Tom Blaney
10-27-2004, 06:45 PM
Part of what we did with the protest was to send a strong message that cheating will not be tolerated. We hope and expect that there was a lot learned on both sides of the table with this action. Terry did a respectable job based on the action of his staff at the time, and Jake and I discussed the fact that there was nothing to be accomplished by protesting the stewards. I am sure that Terry and his staff learned what needed to be fixed and an additional slap on the wrist was not going to do anything to change what happened.

However the slap on the wrist that Shane got was far too inadequate, and should I/we/others take this type of action, that they spell out ahead of time what the penalty should be as part of the protest process.

Tom Blaney

lateapex911
10-27-2004, 07:38 PM
Well guys, I know opinions are going to vary, and I know that even among our Five, that's probably the case.

But...I was vaguely aware of the ability to protest an official, but didn't give it much thought. At the time I felt that I might be too tied to the process to be truely objective, and I decided that the Appeal would be a better route. But, when the "guilty verdict" came in at the last minute, it seemed that an appeal of an upheld protest might be tricky, and really, I thought it would send the wrong message.

I would be lying if I said I wasn't disappointed in the procedings and in the outcome. My goals in this protest were probably more damaged than those of the other 4 guys, as my ideals were to use the system to verify the compliance of a questionable car, and if it was found to be out of compliance, to set a tone, and send a message to others. I would be a fool to think that this was the only regional ITA car running illegal parts!

Some of you think it was a total failure and indeed backfired because the actual message sent was one of the systems inability to correctly determine compliance. I can't argue totally with that, but I draw the line in saying that we are behind rather than ahead of where we were before the protest.

The net on this was that the sytem struggled, but several good things can come from it.

1- A weakness has been identified and is being rectified as we speak. See the "Protest tools" thread in the NE section of this BBS.

2- A car that was not in compliance has been identified and the facts in the matter that were able to be determnined have been made public.

(Before the protest,we were discussing the scope, tactics, etc, and I told the guys that at the conclusion of the protest I wanted to know one thing: that the car was illegal and had significant performance enhancing mods, or....that Shane was a heck of a wheelsman and got a ton out of the car on a small budget. I have my answer, but just barely.)

3 - We have identified a weakness in the system in my opinion. I am troubled in that I am not sure there is an easy remedy for it that doesn't involve yet another layer of "management". Still, we can't fix anything unless we can identify where it needs work, so we are ahead in that area!

4 - We sent a message that the competitors take legality seriously, know how to use the system, and are not afraid to. (I overheard some SCCA folk (not drivers) discussing the protest, and it was obvious they were not supportive of the action. The general comments were in the "Who cares? So what if its a little massaged...they need to just race" vein. Frankly, I don't get that kind of attitude. When we decided to race we were told to read the rulebook. It attempts to lay out a fair competition for all in the best way possible. Why is it OK for someone to decide that they deserve a bit more power or whatever...? Perhaps other organizations run where the understanding is that there is no real rulebook, or whatever, but thats not the case here. Well, at least in ITA, there are 5 of us who disagree, and think that the rulebook needs respect.

As for appeals and protests of officials, I just don't think its needed. I would much rather look at this from a systems point of view. While the problems could possibly be pinned on one person, I would rather understand why the system sputtered as I, and apparently others, think it did, and then try to resolve that.
I was kind of hoping that there might be some commentary from the "other side" here. While I have attempted to be as totally factual as possible, it was a long procedure with lots of meetings and I suppose I could have something slightly twisted. I think the net net as I have presented it is totally right, but I DO want to be totally fair in the portrayal of the event.

With regards to the sanctions against a driver who runs illegal domed high compression pistons in his car, I am surprised at the relative "slap on the wrist".

I am saddened actually, not because I want to see Shane suffer, but because I do think it sends a very dangerous message.

My impression that the bottom line of the "Penalties for cheating" thread we had here just a few weeks ago was that as competitors, we wanted to have fair, but strong penalties.

Was this either?

------------------
Jake Gulick
CarriageHouse Motorsports
ITA 57 RX-7
New England Region
[email protected]

Racer Chris
10-27-2004, 08:05 PM
It seems to me that a year ago a Spec Miata driver had his season points taken away in addition to disqualificaton, for a very minor infraction.
I agree that the penalty in this case does not match the infraction.
While it is unfortunate that the system wasn't able to handle the protest as it is designed to, it points out that we as drivers need to use this route a little more often so the officials will become better prepared to handle these situations.
I have heard many times of drivers being discouraged from protesting by one or another official. We really have to use the system regardless of how the officials feel about it. The entire system exists for us to use. It isn't the officials' system it is ours. Knowing how the protest rules are supposed to work is a driver's responsibility, just as we are supposed to know what modifications are and aren't allowed on our cars.
I am glad you five worked together to accomplish this because currently there are significant pressures working against such actions. Individually you would have found it nearly impossible to overcome those pressures I think.

------------------
Chris Foley
www.tangerineracing.com (http://www.tangerineracing.com)

dickita15
10-28-2004, 07:06 AM
chris is spot on. and lets not forget the additional benifit. there are five drivers who have helped demystifie the protest procedure. we are a self policeing group and now the probability of a tear down in the furure is grester because of the actions of the gang of five. this has to be on the mind of anyone considoring building their next engine. and thanks to Jake's reporting the rest of us can learn from this as well. some will read this and decide the system is too hard to deal with, but some will take the knowledge from this and futher efforts to self police legality.
dick patullo