Got caught Cheating...

[Banzai240]

Just curious...

What should be the penalty if someone in IT is caught blatantly cheating, i.e.: illegal cam(s), lightened flywheel, etc...???

Are existing rules adequate for dealing with this or should the penalty be harsher inorder to better discourage this type of activity?

Seems to me that the punishment isn't quite harsh enough to deter this behavior from happening... either that or there simply isn't enough policing going on...

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

[RSTPerformance]

Daren-

IMO we don't have a good enough policing effort. I think more needs to be done collectively by the racers...

As far as penalties, I hate the polotics of SCCA that have different levels of punishment for different people. I have seen some people get a simple DSQ and I have seen other people loose an entire season worth of points (not fair, unless you can prove when the illigal parts were installed) and recieve up to 9 or 10 points on a licence. That second penalty was simply for grinding a weld on their exaughst.

I think their needs to be some sort of consistant penalty. I am glad that in ITB we don't seem to have many if any cheeters in the NE. and/or if anyone is cheeting I don't think it has gained them anything.

Raymond

[Quickshoe]

DQ from the event.
The humilation of being a "cheater".
mandatory bumper sticker for the next 3 events would be cool.
Ineligible for year end point awards for that season.

The problem is agreeing on a defination for "blatant cheating".

I'll start:

Close ratio boxes?
Ported rotaries?
More than 50# too light?

Things that the entrant can not reasonably claim ignorance of.

[moto62]

I got one. Remove from record any lap records set with said cheated up car. Why?? Because it is totally unfair to those who held those records using a legal car and their ability to achieve that goal and it also makes it darn near impossible for someone else to break that record.
Ray

[lateapex911]

Excellent question. And...boy this could get thorny.

First...Raymond- I think I know the case you refer to. I heard it differenty. The protestee told me that he admited that the part had been on his car in that configuration for most of, or the entire season. Secondly, I understand (again, from him) that the grinding in question was the result of a weld made to a stock exhaust manifold to repair a crack. I understand the weld was on the outside and inside and was ground down. Finally, I thought he had a penalty of 7 points.

The rule is that the part must be stock and unmodified. Welding and grinding are modifying. So that part is easy, he was guilty. And this is an excellent example of where harsh penalties can go awry.....he was merely being cheap or lazy or both, and not taking the time and or money to procure himself a new (Used?) manifold. Or so he says. Performance gains were non existant.(The same protest resulted in a teardown to check all the head stuff, displacement, etc, and he passed that part of it)

So....what do you do with a situtation like that? Obvious rule infraction, not so obvious benefit? I was told he got the lightest penalty possible, but I never checked the validity of that.

That said, harsh penalties ARE needed. And there will be casualties, such as the above case. (Keep in mind he knew he was playing with fire when he started welding, but it does suck to see someone slapped around who did something innocent, but dumb)(which he admits)

Now if it is obvious that there was malisciousness involved, then the book and the chair should be thrown.

Stuff like the wrong cam, the wrong displacement, the wrong throttle body (how many VW throttle bodies out there are correct I wonder?), the wrong compression, ported rotaties (YES, of course!) and other items that are black and white, and required effort to perform, are the items that should carry the harshest of penalties.

Still, it puts an incredible burden on the official. I know of guys who have innocenly purchased cars, been told that the cars were legal, then a year later, on a rebuild, found that there were illegalities, These guys have not been front runners, and have denied nobody any trophies, but they were pretty horrified to find the problems. What if they had been protested by a competitor for some petty political reason? They would become an unfortunate fallout. So we and the officials need to be careful that the justice fits the crime, and, to some degree, we need to leave the penalty aspect up to the officials. (I know...huge problem there...suggestions of favoritism, etc)

I think that one way around the problem of frying semi-innocent people is a second chance approach. Lets say Bob got protested for having illegal cams and compression among other things, and indeed, thats the case. Guilty. But Bob says he bought it from a guy who swore that it was legal. Part of the penalty should be a mandatory check at a random future date to be sure the car is still clean. Now, if Bob fails that inspection, or any repeat infraction of the same magnitude, in the future, the penalty has to be exclusion for a minimum of 13 months.

On the other hand, things like a missing bezel from some on track contact, or some subjective bodywork repair that doesn't meet the letter of the law should be dealt with on a most minimal level. Fix before next season or similar.

In the final analysis, we need to make the penalty far outweigh the benefits.

(And, an entire thread could go to discussing the issues with the ease, or lack of same, of protesting...wait..we already did that!)

I can't wait to hear Dicks and Kirks and GregAs thoughts on this...

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

[Bill Miller]

+
I can't wait to hear Dicks and Kirks and GregAs thoughts on this...



Gee Jake, what am I, chopped liver or somethhing???" http://Forum.ImprovedTouring.com/it/biggrin.gif http://Forum.ImprovedTouring.com/it/biggrin.gif http://Forum.ImprovedTouring.com/it/biggrin.gif

Raymond,

You said something about it being unfair to lose a whole season's points because you didn't know when the parts were installed. My take on that, too f-ing bad! That's the severity level you need to discourage cheating.

Stories like the one Kirk mentioned are disturbing. I'll have to check the GCR, but why wasn't this protest carried through with? I remember something similar a couple of years ago at Summit Point. Car was fast, won the race and set a class track record. Protest was filed. Driver of the protested car 'cut a deal' to finish last in the race and lose his track record, in exchange for not being torn down. Why are these kinds of things allowed??????

I agree that there seem to be multiple standards. A couple of years ago, people were allowed to keep Runoffs' trophies even though their cars were found to be in violation of the rules. The justification was that the rule wasn't clear or explicit enough. It was a bunch of horseshit!


Blatant cheating penalties need to be harsh. There was an SSB competitor that was sent home from the Runoffs last year because he was found to have 'counterfit' springs. IMHO, he should have had his license pulled for a year. It's my opinion, that if someone is willing to go to those lengths to cheat, they'll do it again!

I think mandatory post-race tech inspections for X number of races, following being found non-compliant w/ the rules, should be required.

If you want to stop (or at least curb) cheating, you have to do two things.

1) significantly increase the likelihood of being caught, and
2) make the penalties severe enough to be a deterent

In some sense, it's like major corporations. A lot of times, it's cheaper for them to pay the fines, than to spend the money to come into compliance.

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

[Knestis]

http://mrtwig.net/images/606

They'll be sorry that they picked on Kirk. He'll show them 'cuz he's gonna just start cheating like a big mo'fo, starting with using steel thinner than the stock roof when he covers his sunroof hole. He's also gonna refer to himself in the third person from now on, like any good loonie. Bwah-hah-HAH!

Seriously - this stuff is going to continue until a critical mass of entrants takes it into their own hands, steps up, and starts policing itself. The system requires it and it ain't gonna change.

K

[This message has been edited by Dr. Chaos (edited September 17, 2004).]

[This message has been edited by It's Dr. Chaos!(edited September 17, 2004).]

[This message has been edited by Dammit you guys - I SAID that It's DR. CHAOS!! Quit changing it back to Knestis!!! AACK!(edited September 17, 2004).]

[This message has been edited by Knestis (edited September 17, 2004).]

[dickita15]

Wow
Well first we all know what we want, but we need to know we can’t get it. We are looking for severity of the penalty based on intent. If a guy makes a stupid mistake or buys something that is illegal we want to slap his wrist and tell him to fix it. If a guy pushes a gray area and has a reason he feels it is legal but looses, we don’t want him killed but we want his punished. If however a guy, say buys a cam that he knows is illegal but will be hard to catch, we want him stripped buck naked and whipped to an inch of his life. The only way this can possibly happen is to give the stewards discretion and then have stewards that we have complete faith in.

Raymond says:
As far as penalties, I hate the polotics of SCCA that have different levels of punishment for different people.

You cannot have judicial discretion without have people feel this way.

A couple of years ago I stumbled into a post-season stewards meeting where they were discussing a teardown at the Narrc runoffs that year. A formula ford compeitor had been torn down after other drivers got together and posted a bond. This guy went from midpack to podium over the winter. Early in the teardown a part was found noncompliant so the steward running the show stopped the teardown. They never found out if the motor was a blatant as the guys competitors thought. He was Dq’ed and got points. The question under discussion was weather the penalty should have been more severe. Because the teardown was not finished no one know how blatant the cheating was. The steward who stopped the teardown stated that the car was illegal so no further teardown was needed. He stated that illegal was illegal and it did not matter how bad it was. The scary part is that the room was split on if he was wrong.

If you want discretion in punishment than you need the best possible officials and you need to trust them. I do not see that happening anytime soon.

By the way I love quickshoe’s scarlet A idea
”mandatory bumper sticker for the next 3 events would be cool.”

Dick Patullo

[Tom Blaney]

I agree with Ray's comments about track records, but my question is just how many of you are willing to put up a bond to check an IT engine if the result could coust you $1500. Suppose you pick the cam, or the porting job, and it turns out to be something not on the list?

I don't think there is an effective way to solve this problem, I am sure that there are individuals within IT that use parts from oversees that technically are illegal, but could you tell if it's wrong, I can't, and I am sure the part numbers are listed somewhere but not everybody has access to them. Then what?

[Geo]

Don't everybody drop your coffee, but I'm on Bill's side.

I don't think it's terribly practical to institute regular teardowns or tech inspections, but we can still discourage cheating by making the penalties harsh. There have to be some way of taking into account mitigating factors. Things like car champaigned than a year (verified by log book entries), rentals, and similar things. Yes, they can be loop holes, but they have a short life. In the case of rentals you penalize the car owner or entrant if the entrant is the renter and has been renting the car for more than a year.

I agree with the person who mentioned cams, compression, displacement, throttle bodies, illegal gearbox ratios, and similar items as being up for draconian penalties. Any cheating that has been covered up or attempts made to cover it up should be draconian as well. It indicates clearly the car owner knew it was illegal and was doing it anyway.

Penalties for gross violations? One year suspension, loss of points, large fine, tied to an ant hill.... Cheaters suck.

I also agree about not being harsh when it's a matter of interpreting the rule book. That muddies things. I'd be happier if the COA would consider mitigating circumstances regarding harsh penalties. If someone makes a well founded case for their interpretation, even though it's wrong, the penalties should be much lower.

All this requires judgement on the part of various people. Does this invalidate the process? I hope not.

Again, I agree with Bill. The only way to stop this is really harsh penalties.


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

[rjohnson999]

Run in the SCCA where "my dog ate my homework" will finally be recognized as a legitimate excuse!


Originally posted by Geo:
I also agree about not being harsh when it's a matter of interpreting the rule book. That muddies things. I'd be happier if the COA would consider mitigating circumstances regarding harsh penalties. If someone makes a well founded case for their interpretation, even though it's wrong, the penalties should be much lower.

[gran racing]

- Purchased cars that were told they were legal then later found to be illegal.

This is a tough one, primarily for a person new to the sport. What is the first thing we tell people when they express interest in acquiring a racecar? Buy one that someone else has built! Interesting when you think about illegalities here isn’t it? If for example I bought a car and the person bored out the throttle body, different cam, or whatever, the likelihood of knowing this is pretty slim. Now granted the person buy the car should try to get other experienced people’s opinion on the car if possible. As the person gains experience and move up the pack, they should take a closer look at their car. Is it really fair to humiliate or severely punish this person?

On the other hand, I know of situations where people have bought cars from other people and used the “I didn’t put any illegal parts on the car and the person who I bought it from said it is legal” excuse.

- Situations where a person is found to have done something illegal on their car that does NOT improve its performance.

For the majority of racers who are trying to be legal, there may be instances when they have something illegal about their car but simply did not realize it. Things that are silly and will not have any impact on its performance. If brought to that person’s attention, they should fix it. But the first time it is mentioned to them they shouldn’t have to wear the A on their chest.

- Humiliation…
I do think humiliation can go a long ways to punish and deter cheating. I look back to when I was in high school and they published people’s names that got caught for speeding and drunk driving in the news paper (not the little town paper, but one that a significant amount of people subscribe to in CT). I also remember the students always saying how embarrassing it would be to have your name there. I believe this is still being done now.

Like I said in the other thread, publish the list of cheaters in FasTrack’s “Hall of Shame”. Include the car, driver and owner’s name, region, what they got caught for, ect. Then maybe have a list of people that previously appeared in the list categorized by degree they cheated. Could be categorized by the amount of points they received on their license. When doing this, do not include people that were guilty of “minor” infractions.


------------------
Dave Gran
NER #13 ITA
'87 Honda Prelude

[nascarvw]

Speaking of purchased cars...
There's a SEDIV ITB car that is being advertised right now in the new SPORTSCAR magazine that was caught cheating!
Guy was suspended, and decided he could NOT race if he wasn't allowed to cheat, so he's now selling it.
Now, that's scary to a newbie that doesn't know any better...
http://Forum.ImprovedTouring.com/it/frown.gif

[This message has been edited by nascarvw (edited September 17, 2004).]

[bldn10]

If a knowledgeable engine/car builder (someone who knows exactly what they are doing)is caught blatantly (no gray area - a clearly illegal part or mod that gives a significant performance advantage) and intentionally cheating, IMO the proper sanction is "the death penalty." As far as I am concerned, I don't want to see that person in Club Racing again.

[JeffYoung]

Bill, the story on the ITS BMW at CMP was (at least sort of) as follows:

1. Car runs VIR in May and turns a lap about 2.5 to 3 seconds faster than ITS track record.

2. Car goes to CMP test day on Friday.

3. RX7 driver or drivers (not sure which) show up to register with an E36 cylinder head and cams, and state that he/they intend to protest all E36 BMWs.

4. The cylinder head cams are literally set on the registration table "waiting" for the BMW to register. I'm not kidding, I was there, registering my old TR8, and it was right next to me, staring at me, speaking to me...the horror!.

5. Here's where the story goes two ways and I'm not sure which one is correct. Story one is the BMW agreed to a tear down BUT the crew got to set the bond by estimating the cost,and the $$ figure they came up with was $4,000, and no one could put up that kind of money. They guy still went home due to a broken control arm or something. Story two is the guy just went home with a broken part after the running the test day and didn't actually register for the event.

Anyway, that's the rest of the story. Or sort of.

I have to admit I always just felt that the 325 was a superior car and that no one would blatantly cheat like that, but the above websites make you wonder.

[oanglade]

I think that a first offense should get you DQ'd from the event and a probabtion.

The second offense, the illegal part gets confiscated, plus a suspension.

The third offense, the illegal part gets confiscated and the driver and owner get suspended for 3 years.

------------------
Ony Anglade
ITA Miata
Sugar Hill, GA

[Greg Amy]

Assuming this info is correct:


<font face=\"Verdana, Arial\" size=\"2\">[B]...and state(d) that he/they intend(ed) to protest all E36 BMWs.</font>

Well, that's just silly (and stupid) bravado. What did they hope for, that the guys were going to break down and confess at registration, Perry Mason-style? Or, that they'd choose to go home, doing nothing but putting off the issue until next event, over and over again?


<font face=\"Verdana, Arial\" size=\"2\">...the BMW agreed to a tear down...</font>

If under protest, there is no "agreement" from the protestee. You don't get to veto the protest.


<font face=\"Verdana, Arial\" size=\"2\"> ...the $$ figure...was $4,000, and no one could put up that kind of money...</font>

Yet, someone had the money to buy a brand-new BMW cylinder head?

Therein lies the crux of the basis of our legality system. Except for a few key events, the only way to verify the legality of a competitor is via protest, and the protester must post a bond to cover the costs. In this day and age, the costs of such repairs are astronomical, making such protests financially risky, with the financial rewards less than zero.

Given the high risk/low reward of protesting, the result is low risk/high reward for cheating. It's an endless cycle that can ONLY be broken by a major revamp of the rules regarding verification of legality.

I've said it before: self-policing flat doesn't work, and there's no motivation from the Club to do it any other way.

[Ron Earp]

[quote] Yet, someone had the money to buy a brand-new BMW cylinder head?
Given the high risk/low reward of protesting, the result is low risk/high reward for cheating. It's an endless cycle that can ONLY be broken by a major revamp of the rules regarding verification of legality.[quote]

Well said.

I doubt anyone bought a new one, 325 heads are on Ebay all the time and there is a garage in town locally that has cracked ones for free with stock cams. That is all it'd take. So, I don't think they had to put any money into it to get parts to bring to the race.


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

[hornerdon]

Got a question to add to this debate that I didn't see mentioned elsewhere (though I may have missed it). What about a cheated-up car that is still a loser? Either the driver is so bad or the car is so unprepared that it still loses even though it's illegal as heck.

I bought an ITC VW like this a couple of years ago. Some of the cheats were just dumbness (fuel cell supports were attached to the cage); some of them were laziness (axle mounts illegally lowered because the cell was mounted too low); some of them contributed to the car's slowness (the aforementioned axle mounts actually made the suspension much worse); some were blatant (an A1, 1600 VW running in ITC with a close ratio 9A transmission from an A2 VW); some made no performance difference but were still illegal (a hole cut in the inner fender to make access to the tranny easier). These are the highlights; there was much more. Some were highly visible (extra attachment points in the cage).

As far as I know, the car never got close to impound, and the competitors apparently never cared because the owner didn't beat very many people. Still, allowimng something like this to happen certainly sets a bad precedent. Should it be stopped, and how?

------------------
...Don

[Bill Miller]

How about putting some kind of 'scarlet letter' on the car? You know, something similar to rookie strips. Make them put a big "C" right above their class designation!

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

[Greg Amy]

<font face=\"Verdana, Arial\" size=\"2\">...325 heads are on Ebay all the time...</font>

Well, as unique as the gesture may have been, and given that it may have served its purpose by possibly intimidating the perceived cheater into bailing, it would have been pointless in a true protest situation. No good tech inspectors worth their salt would have used a competitor-provided part as a standard against which to compare for legality. Nope, the whole shebang would have had to been bagged up and sent to an objective third party (like a new-car dealer) for comparison to verifiable stock parts or against known standards (like the workshop manual).


<font face=\"Verdana, Arial\" size=\"2\">What about a cheated-up car that is still a loser? </font>

It's still a cheater. Book 'em, Dan-o. Which would lead to my next point...


<font face=\"Verdana, Arial\" size=\"2\">How about putting some kind of 'scarlet letter' on the car?</font>

A fine idea. Make them wear the red badge of shame for 12 months and let everyone know that they have been proven to cheat.

Know why this would be effective? Think of the psychology of cheating in motorsports, especially club competition. Where's the value in winning? One competes to win, one desires winning for some intangible reason. It can't be for money, because we get none. It can't be for glory, because we get none. Fame? None?

We compete for competition's sake, and I suggest that we compete for acceptance and respect of our peers most of all. However, the basis for that respect and acceptance is that we are competing on a level playing field, or at least to a level set of rules. When that level set is lost, so goes the respect.

Think about your attitude and feelings towards the guy that consistently beats you weekend after weekend. Now think about your atittude towards your victor if you knew, for a fact, that they are/have been cheating. INSTANTLY your repect for that person is lost.

Now, put yourself in the other shoes: you're consistently winning. I suggest you do it again and again for the respect and admiration of your peers. Consider what would happen if they found out you're cheating? Instant loss of respect, and now what do you race for? Every time you beat someone in the future, even if you are 110% legal, you know that they think you're cheating. It would take a lot to over come such a severe psychological hurdle.

Which brings us back to our prior guy, the one cheating AND losing. Imagine how this guy must feel! Not only does he suck, but no amount of blatant cheating gets him up the grid! OF COURSE everyone must be cheating, thus I have to cheat some more! What a terrible never-ending circle.

We've beaten this dead horse in the past, and it will never go away until the rules change. Since all we have to win is a psychological battle, that's the only thing we're got to punish with.

As an off-the-wall metaphor, consider what would happen with society if we did not have police, instead we relied on self-policing and "citizen's arrests." What do you think would be the result? I predict the result would be very much like Club Racing is today: a core group of honest folks that do not partake in the rampant crime, but also do not wish to risk life and limb to bring the scofflaws to justice; a core group of criminals that believe there's very little risk in crime because the core group does not wish to risk the citizen's arrest; and a middle group of folks that commit crimes on occasion because "hell, everyone else is doing it" and they gotta 'get their fair share.'

Gotta change the system, boys. Otherwise, b*t*hing won't do anything.

GA

[Ron Earp]

Originally posted by grega:
Well, as unique as the gesture may have been, and given that it may have served its purpose by possibly intimidating the perceived cheater into bailing, it would have been pointless in a true protest situation. No good tech inspectors worth their salt would have used a competitor-provided part as a standard against which to compare for legality. Nope, the whole shebang would have had to been bagged up and sent to an objective third party (like a new-car dealer) for comparison to verifiable stock parts or against known standards (like the workshop manual).

I was merely pointing out that I don't think for this particular move that anyone spent $2000 on a new BMW head. The junker would work fine for this purpose. But.....

Your comments about having new parts etc. means that protest procedure really and truly can't be used. If you have to have a new XYZ for an AAA that you are protesting then how the heck will that take place at the field tent. It can't. It has to go somewhere else that drives up the cost and again prevents someone from putting up bond because it costs so dang much......a horrible circle that, just as you say, cannot be broken without a rules change.

Like a maditory, random, self-imposed, racer run teardown/inspection as proposed on another thread.


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

[rjohnson999]

What changes would you suggest?


Originally posted by grega:
We've beaten this dead horse in the past, and it will never go away until the rules change.

Gotta change the system, boys.

[Geo]

Originally posted by rjohnson999:
Run in the SCCA where "my dog ate my homework" will finally be recognized as a legitimate excuse!


I think you missed the point. There are places in the rule book that truly require interpretation on the part of the reader. I don't think illegal cams, illegal displacement, or illegal CR require any sort of interpretation.

My point was to distinguish between the two.

Let's use the expample of a resistor in the wiring from a sensor to the ECU. If you can run a resistor, can it be variable? Some say yes, and some say no. IMHO when it says you can, you bloody well can. But should it be ruled that a variable resistor was not specifically allowed, I cannot see where someone should face draconian measures for such an interpretation (and I'm not saying they are or aren't legal, just making a point that interpretation is sometimes required).


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

[Geo]

Originally posted by rlearp:
Your comments about having new parts etc. means that protest procedure really and truly can't be used. If you have to have a new XYZ for an AAA that you are protesting then how the heck will that take place at the field tent. It can't.

Furthermore it's sometimes just downright absolutely impossible.

Try to get a brand new from the dealer Datsun 510 cam.


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

[Geo]

My question is: Is it really possible to have regular tech inspection for rules infringement without paid inspectors that will increase the entry fees? And what would the effect be on other volunteer positions?

I'm not trying to argue. I'm just not sure it can be done and wonder what people's thoughts are.


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

[Greg Amy]

<font face=\"Verdana, Arial\" size=\"2\">What changes would you suggest?</font>

A reasonable question.

First, accept that self-policing doesn't work. Allow it to remain, but it must not exist as the cornerstone for legality verification.

Second, responsiblity for active verification of legality must move to the sanctioning body, with a zeal approaching that displayed at the Runoffs, ARRC, and Pro Spec Miata. Open-hood sessions and weighing after races are nice, but Scrutineer-sanctioned tear-downs are a must. Competitors must enter their vehicles with the reasonable expectation that they could be torn down at any time.

Third, to do such would require on a change in basic infrastructure. I do not mean to disrepute or degrade the existing Tech personnel but each one of them must be willing and capable of supervising tear-downs of any vehicle at any event. These tear-downs should be randomly-chosen from various events, categories, and competitors, but numerous and common enough to where the possibility of any individual being chosen for significant inspection is high enough to be a disincentive.

Fourth, it requires competitor cooperation and support. If/when someone is chosen for deep inspection they should have expected it and be prepared for it, without whining. Just as in the Runoffs, vehicle verifications should be expected - and welcomed - as part of the process.

Finally, each competitor that is selected for verifiation must accept the expenses involved on their own accord. As an alternative, the Spec Fords have a compliance fee which just may very well be used for this idea, although I do not know the specifics; maybe something like this is a possibility.

Does this idea work? You tell me: how many cars with a reasonable chance of a top-10 finish are going to show up at the ARRC in November without being squeaky clean? What about the Runoffs? How about the next Pro Miata race? Trust me: it works. Until the responsibility of verification of legality is lifted from the shoulders of competitors onto the perview of the sanctioning body, neither the existence or suspicion of legality will disappear.

I already hear the whining: but that's a lot of work, hey this is club racing, this is supposed to be for fun, I can't afford it, I don't have any crew, I don't know how to work on my car, yada, yada, yada. Fine: the alternative is the current system where we all spend our Friday nights wanking on the keyboards complaining that the other guys are putting camshafts in their cars.

Your call.

[badal]

Bill Miller wrote:
Stories like the one Kirk mentioned are disturbing. I'll have to check the GCR, but why wasn't this protest carried through with? I remember something similar a couple of years ago at Summit Point. Car was fast, won the race and set a class track record. Protest was filed. Driver of the protested car 'cut a deal' to finish last in the race and lose his track record, in exchange for not being torn down. Why are these kinds of things allowed??????

If you mean the Yellow ITC Scirocco:
I filed the protest. Alone.
The bond was over $2500.
I knew the car was fast, but I was still on a fishing trip.

My choices:
(A)Allow the driver to finish last.
I get the win.
BTW, He had not set the lap record.
Cost to me $0.

or:
(B)Bet a significant part of my seasonal budget I would find a non-compliant part.
If I were right, I would still get the same net result as in A.

How many of you would choose "B"?
If so, how many mechanical protests have you filed?

------------------
"Bad" Al Bell
ITC #3 Datsun 510
DC Region MARRS Series

[Knestis]

How about starting with the creation of a new specialty distinct from the existing "tech inspection?"

Call it "rules compliance" and define its mission narrowly - catching cheaters. It could be a traveling hit squad, like the divisional people that don't show up at every regional in their area.

Negative reinforcement, to be effective, doesn't have to happen very often. It only has to happen and happen unpredictably. A specialty crew that comes to the race with a few pieces of specialized hardware (Cam Doctor, "whistler" compression checker), the know-how to use them, and an ever-growing knowledge base of how parts are SUPPOSED to be would be a pretty strong deterrent.

K

PS - I like the bumper sticker idea, too.

[rjohnson999]

Greg and Kirk,

I think the combination of these two might be workable. Without Kirks "compliance team" approach there just isn't enough time in the typical regional program for the tech crew, no matter who they are, to do the work and get to work on Monday morning.

Even an action initiated on Saturday would be problematic to complete, including reassembly, for the Sunday program. The way this is usually handled is a car is kept under Steward's control through all practice, qualifying and racing and invasive tear-downs aren't initiated until the completion of all competition for the car that weekend.

It works at the Runoffs because those taking the job know what they're getting into and it's once a year. It works at the ARRC because the heavy tech lifting is done Friday or Saturday night. The enduros don't produce the protest/compliance situations.

[Bill Miller]

Al,

Thanks for clarifying things, I got the info 2nd hand. Gotta make you wonder though, if a driver is willing to give up a win rather than be torn down, how is that anything but a tacit admission of guilt? And while the micro net result was the same, what about the macro result? I saw that same car w/ the same driver at Pocono the following year. It was fast there too.

I'm also curious as to how teardown bonds are determined. In the one story above, I believe it was established by the protested driver's crew. Who wouldn't try and inflate the cost, in that situation? Nobody wants to have to eat the cost of a full teardown, but like others have said, people accept that as part of the 'cost of doing business' at places like the Runoffs and the ARRC.

I like the 'scarlet letter' idea (and not just because it's mine), but how do you determine who gets it? Does the guy that lost his Runoffs' podium because his valves were a couple of thousanths too big get it. Mind you, these were stock parts installed by his engine builder. Or, does the guy that buys a built car, and doesn't totally pull it apart, get one if there's something that turns out to be illegal (and yeah, I know that this could get VERY sticky)? Do you get one on the first offense?

I agree, a line needs to be drawn in the sand. Self-policing flat out doesn't work. Going back to the steward-sanctioned teardowns, does the sanctioning region put up the bond, and pay for the rebuild, if the car is found to be compliant?

I think the penalties need to be the harshest when it's blatantly obvious (like the SSB counterfit springs at the Runoffs). I think the driver got off easy by just being sent home. If you're going to go to that extent to cheat something up, you should be ready to pay a high price if you get caught. Pull his license for a year (at least), and bar him from the Runoffs (if a National class car) or the ARRC for at least 3 years. BTW, anybody from the SE know if he's still running this year? If so, what, if anything, ever gets said at the track?

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

[Geo]

Originally posted by Bill Miller:
Gotta make you wonder though, if a driver is willing to give up a win rather than be torn down, how is that anything but a tacit admission of guilt?

For some the wood and plastic trophy isn't worth the expense and hassle of dealing with a teardown. I can understand why some wouldn't want to deal with it. Honestly.


Originally posted by Bill Miller:
I'm also curious as to how teardown bonds are determined. In the one story above, I believe it was established by the protested driver's crew. Who wouldn't try and inflate the cost, in that situation?

Yeah, that would be a real deterrence. Illegal and trying to avoid the teardown? Set the bond at some outrageous amount.


Originally posted by Bill Miller:
Self-policing flat out doesn't work.

Stepping back from this for a second and asking why it doesn't work, it becomes clear that it doesn't work because WE are the problem. If WE don't want to write the paper, then WE have no one to blame but OURSELVES. Let's not forget that. And I do understand all the arguments why WE don't want to write the paper. In some ways, all that's telling me is that it's not worth it to us.


Originally posted by Bill Miller:
Going back to the steward-sanctioned teardowns, does the sanctioning region put up the bond, and pay for the rebuild, if the car is found to be compliant?

Nobody puts up a bond. That's part of the cost of going racing.


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

[Bill Miller]

George,

Where's the expense (to the driver) of a teardown if the car is found to be complaint? That's the purpose of the bond. IF someone is going to protest me, and put up the bond money, I look at it as a free rebuild.

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

[jhooten]

Let's just do what the short dirt trackers do. Put a claim rule in effect. You win the first person in your class with the set amount of cash takes your car home. Don't worry when he wins next month you can buy it back.

Or, we just put say three different cars in each class and you have to buy your engine from a club sanctioned source with a seal on it. The seal is broken your are DQed until you buy a new engine with an intact seal.

Here is even a better one. All cars must be stored an a club sanctioned facility and if you want to work on it the on site tech inspector will supervise all work and verify all parts are in compliance befor they can be installed. Of course you have to pay his salary for the time he is watching you work.

Random tear downs at owners expensise, that'll work. The first time you piss off a steward I'll be willing to bet you just happen to get randomly chosen at every event for the next two years.

[Bill Miller]

Originally posted by jhooten:
Random tear downs at owners expensise, that'll work. The first time you piss off a steward I'll be willing to bet you just happen to get randomly chosen at every event for the next two years.


This is why I suggested that the sanctioning body cover the cost of the teardown/rebuild if the compeitor is found to be in compliance. It helps eliminate the potential for a steward to 'pick on' any one compeitor.


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

[Geo]

Originally posted by Bill Miller:
George,

Where's the expense (to the driver) of a teardown if the car is found to be complaint? That's the purpose of the bond. IF someone is going to protest me, and put up the bond money, I look at it as a free rebuild.



I get your point Bill, but I can see where people in compliance could still be motivated by other factors. Perhaps they have a long drive and want to get home. Perhaps they don't want the hassle. Perhaps the particular engine really went together just perfectly and they don't want to disturb it. Perhaps they just plain don't want to deal with it.

Whether it makes sense to you or not, people may be motivated by other things will still being legal.


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

[gran racing]

“Competitors must enter their vehicles with the reasonable expectation that they could be torn down at any time.”

If I were to enter the ARRC, I know going into the event that this is a possibility. Would this deter me at all from going to the event? A bit, yes and it is not because I’d be concerned with being found illegal. If I thought I could be competitive I’d still go knowing that the ARRC is at the end of the season and I’d have the winter to put the puzzle back together. My issue is that if certain items were torn down, I’m not sure if I would be able to put it back together by myself. For example if my engine were torn down. I will admit that I do not have to tools or know-how to reassemble it. Again with the ARRC I would have the winter to figure things out or pay someone else to put it back together. If this were done during the season is may quickly ruin the remainder of my season. For other people, it may simply be a matter of not having the time to reassemble things.

Now if something were implemented like Bill stated – the sanctioning body would cover the cost for the teardown / rebuild as long as the competitor is in compliance, then that would be fine with me.

------------------
Dave Gran
NER #13 ITA
'87 Honda Prelude

[Greg Amy]

<font face=\"Verdana, Arial\" size=\"2\">...the sanctioning body would cover the cost for the teardown / rebuild as long as the competitor is in compliance...</font>

While that may seem nice, it's unrealistic and will NEVER happen. You've got to keep in mind the motivating factors.

Think about it: who REALLY wants the cars to be legal? Well, of course, everyone wants it, but who REALLY wants this? The competitors, of course.

The sanctioning body puts on a race, and, honestly, as long as the race is run efficiently and safely it doesn't really matter to the region if the cars are legal or not. Nothing changes for the sancioning body if the cars are illegal compared to if they're legal, so why go to the extra expense and effort? That is why the sanctioning body has placed the responsiblity for legality back on the true stakeholders, the competitors.

Let's do an example. Let's say that we put on our own race, the SCCDG (Sports Car Club of Dave and Greg). Let's say that all our competitors are complaining that other cars are illegal, and they are demanding that we do tear downs at our expense. If we randomly (or specifically) choose cars for tear downs, you and I are going to have to cover the costs if they're found legal.

What are we going to do, Dave? How many cars do you think you and I are going to go after? I'd say that if you even suggest one, it will quickly be the SCCD (minus G). Hell, *I* don't want to pay for it, why should I? What do I have to gain by doing this?

Alternatively, if I increased the entry fees quite a bit and built up a nice kitty insurance policy to cover it, then I might change my mind. Of course, how many competitors do you think we're going to get for the next race if the entry fees were $300, $400, even $500 per race, even *IF* we guaranteed all cars were legal? Not too many, I'd wager.

Nope, the only way I see getting out of this morass is to mandate legality from all competitors, put the burden of proof on the competitors, get tough with inspections while placing the financial burden for inspections right back on the competitors. Those are the folks that have the most at stake, the most to gain, and the most to lose; they should therefore be the ones to cover the costs.

Or, we sit at our desks on Monday mornings complaining about "the cheating problem"...

GA

[gran racing]

hear ya Greg. All I’m trying to say is that I have enough trouble keeping my car together without the help of others tearing it down and leaving it that way. And I know there are others out there like myself. But then again it would have to depend on what is being looked at. If it is something silly like a valve cover, then great.

What if a person who has specific items “torn down” also has assistance from that same person (or group of people) to reassemble it if found within compliance? Or at least have the option of getting assistance putting it back together. Yes, there are still drawbacks to this.

Between this tread and the other one, we have come up with many ideas. Most of these ideas are not realistic or are more long-term goals. What are some of the things that could be done realistically with the tools we already have?

One very important thing that needs to be done is to educate people more on the protest process. The easy way out of doing this is to simply say it is already in the GCR. Yeah well I’ve read that section and still do not fully understand it. And bringing this subject to the forefront certainly doesn’t hurt. Publish a well written article in FasTrack about the protest process, what people can expect, advice on how to put together a “good” protest, things to stay away from, ect. It talks about bonds in the protest process. Are there any price ranges that could be provided? What are the rights of the person making the protest and the person being protested? Also have information on the SCCA web site regarding the protest process.

If for some silly reason people resist this and won’t do it, then it could even be published in the various regions’ magazines and put on their sites. Worst case, put a few page document together and include it with the registration packages provided at an event. At least something would be done instead of talking about it. Even the discussions had on this forum have proven to be valuable for me.

Making penalties harsher is great, but you also need to have people understand the process for that really to matter. If the penalty to have an illegal cam is a one-year suspension, it is almost meaningless if very few people feel confident to utilize the protest system in place.


------------------
Dave Gran
NER #13 ITA
'87 Honda Prelude

[Geo]

Originally posted by grega:
Nope, the only way I see getting out of this morass is to mandate legality from all competitors, put the burden of proof on the competitors, get tough with inspections while placing the financial burden for inspections right back on the competitors. Those are the folks that have the most at stake, the most to gain, and the most to lose; they should therefore be the ones to cover the costs.

Or, we sit at our desks on Monday mornings complaining about "the cheating problem"...

GA

Forgive me Greg, because I know this will seem like the party line, but there is another option. Writing the paper.

If WE want compliance, WE need to write the paper and put the money were our mouths are.

I'm not saying we have the very best solution, but I don't know of a better one at the moment to suggest.


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

[Geo]

Originally posted by gran racing:
One very important thing that needs to be done is to educate people more on the protest process.

This may be the best suggestion yet. If we educate more people on the process and more protests get lodged, perhaps there will be more concern by potential cheaters that they will get caught, especially if the penalties are much harsher.


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

[Greg Amy]

<font face=\"Verdana, Arial\" size=\"2\">If WE want compliance, WE need to write the paper and put the money were our mouths are.</font>

We've already danced this number, George.

No one disagrees with this. The problem is that under the current system the financial risk for trying, due to the expenses involved, far outweigh the rewards.

Motivations, incentives, risks, rewards.

[Geo]

Originally posted by grega:
We've already danced this number, George.

No one disagrees with this. The problem is that under the current system the financial risk for trying, due to the expenses involved, far outweigh the rewards.

Motivations, incentives, risks, rewards.

I don't think we're very far apart Greg. If there is going to be a change to the current system it has to work in the real world. As you stated in another post, adding cost to the entry fees is probably a hugely diminishing return. I would almost submit that requiring tech folks to do teardowns on a regular basis would probalby also be a hugely diminishing return. As it is, volunteers are there from early morning to late afternoon. Some of them have long distances to get home as well.

So, if we want to have more regular tech for non-safety items, how do we do this and keep tech people? My guess is that we would have to offer some financial incentive to these people. But that also raises entry fees.

I don't have any answers. Sorry.


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

[dtheracer]

At the risk of sounding like an economist (which I am and fortunately better at that than race car driving), I would suggest that if you set a price that cleared the market of protesters and potential cheaters, you will eliminate the problem or make the risks so high that it isn't worth the effort.
The most obviuos way is to establish a market based claiming price for any car. For eaxample, a front-running IT_ car can be built for X, the anyone can buy for x + a slight risk premium. This has worked for years at Saturday night circle tracks and there is no reason why it wouldn't work for us. It is the marketworking pure and simple.
Another is to make the cost of non-compliance be far in excess of the cost of compliance-this is why we have jails and fines for civil offenses. The cost of a bond for a teardown can be a deterrent but if the fine or "jail" sentence were the cost of the bond X 2, then the cost of non-compliance would be prohibitive. The car could be held as security for the payment of the fine. MOST IF NOT ALL CHEATING WOULD STOP becuse the risk is the deterrent.
Raising entry fees is nothing other than a tax that many uninterested entrants would not wish to pay. it is a tantamount to an agressive government regulation which causes all costs to rise. In a sense it passes the cost of cheating to all paticipants, willing or not, compliant or not.

Dave Piasecki
ITA #2
SEDIV

[Greg Amy]

Man, I LOVE a good economics debate. Good man, Dave!


<font face=\"Verdana, Arial\" size=\"2\">...establish a market based claiming price for any car.</font>

A good idea, Dave, however in reality it's unworkable. This works well in Saturday-night cirlces because the cars are so similar (in many case, nearly identical). In IT, however, we've got over 300 cars classified, from Pintos to E36 BMWs; the setting of the claiming values would be an administrative nightmare.


<font face=\"Verdana, Arial\" size=\"2\">...if the fine or \"jail\" sentence were the cost of the bond X 2, then the cost of non-compliance would be prohibitive.</font>

A *grand* idea! Not only would this tend to suppress the concept of cheating, but also the artificial inflation of the tear-down bond (who would want to inflate the tear-down bond knowing that they may have to pay TWICE that amount!) It would also place a lot of the financial burden back onto the cheater. It could also result in some pretty interesting bluffing games between protester and protestee.

Further, it would give someone a financial incentive to protest; if they're confident that the protestee is illegal then there's a financial reward for risking the tear-down bond...

A very interesting concept!

[Quickshoe]

I like the non-compliance fine of 2x bond. A problem I forsee is just about every one of the darn things would be appealed. Known legal control parts can be difficult to obtain/prove sometimes. Meanwhile, the original bond is in limbo.

The penalty for failure to allow a teardown or packing up and going home early would have to be a set fine and automatic DQ-non appealable.

Okay, I declare myself King for the next 15 seconds. Claimers with a twist. The claim amount is your car and $2000. The catch, you must be in the same class and finish the race within 30 seconds of the car being claimed. You sure it is the car that beat you? Are you willing to give up yours and some cash? How are you going to feel when the same guy/gal kicks your butt in your own car the next race with the new tires and race expenses you just paid for?

Claimers can work, but to prevent people from claiming up the grid, you need to have them risk something.

[Eagle7]

Originally posted by Quickshoe:
Okay, I declare myself King for the next 15 seconds. Claimers with a twist. The claim amount is your car and $2000. The catch, you must be in the same class and finish the race within 30 seconds of the car being claimed.
Devil's advocate - I'm a regular back-marker with a $2000 car. You're setting track records with your SpeedSource RX-7, but at this event you have an incident, and beat me by a foot. I get your car for $2000.

------------------
Marty Doane
ITS RX-7 #13
CenDiv WMR

[gran racing]

Or you have a very good driver in a poorly prepped car claiming a very well prepped car with a below average driver.

I do like the 2x idea.

------------------
Dave Gran
NER #13 ITA
'87 Honda Prelude

[Knestis]

I heard a great claimer story from back in the day when SCCA Showroom Stock used that rule...

Seems Driver A claimed a frontrunning car (a Pinto, as I recall) from Driver B and was all full of himself.

Driver B let him run it a couple of times, then pulled him aside in the paddock and gave him a friendly warning: If Driver A EVER beat him with his ex-car, he was going to protest him into the next century - since he knew where all of the cheats were. He further promised that he would only protest one at a time, and that there were enough problems to keep Drive A out of the results until he got tired and quit.

Driver A did NOT know what was illegal and had posession of the car long enough that he couldn't squawk that Driver B had cheated the thing up.

Not so smug anymore.

K

[ITSRX7]

To add on to the x2 idea:

Assuming a cheater gets caught: The extra money then gets split - 1/2 to the tech people and 1/2 the potestor. Instant incentive to protest illegal cars as well as motivate the tech people fiscally.

AB

Edit: Upon further thought, while 1/2 to the tech people would be nice, it may cause a situation where there was a actual or perceived conflict of interest. Give it all to the protestor.

------------------
Andy Bettencourt
ITS RX-7 & Spec Miata 1.6 (ITA project)
New England Region R188967
www.flatout-motorsports.com (http://www.flatout-motorsports.com)

[This message has been edited by ITSRX7 (edited September 23, 2004).]

[Quickshoe]

Originally posted by Eagle7:
Devil's advocate - I'm a regular back-marker with a $2000 car. You're setting track records with your SpeedSource RX-7, but at this event you have an incident, and beat me by a foot. I get your car for $2000.


Good point Marty. I've only been involved in one class of racing that had a claimer on anything. Shocks only. The kicker was that you must "claim" prior to the start of the race, sealed envelopes to be opened at the end of the event. If more than one person claimed the same entrant they were drawn out of a hat. This keeps the person from knowing they are being claimed and stuffing it in a wall, or tearing a corner off, grendaing the motor, etc. Because you claim it, you own it, regardless of its' current condition. With the exchange idea, you don't want to wad yours up either, just in case you don't win the claim.

This is just all meaningless typing anyway, because I don't ever see anything like this happening in the IT world.

[dtheracer]

The point on the claim price is that it should be set by class, not by individual car and should be set at price below what what a cheater might want to spend to improperly develop a car and above the theoretical value of a back marking car-this to avoid frivolous claims. For example, the theoretical market for a well developed IT_ is $10,000 let's say. It's imprudent for someone to invest $12,000 when the value can be claimed away-likewise, the $8000/car-good driver has to be quite sure of the validity of the protest or cheating claim to be able invest another $2000. The goal here is not to claim cars or have cars claimed-it's to create a market price to disuade cheating-it's the threat of the claim, not the claim which what works.

Dave Piasecki
ITA #2
SEDIV

[Knestis]

Yeah, but...

Claimer classes do NOT get at the question of cheating and any suggestion otherwise is grounded in the faulty assumption that cheating costs money.

How much is an offset key for my Golf cam? I can probably get a close-ratio 'box for less than the correct one for my car. In the grand scheme of things, how much does a new cam cost, given the economies of scale inherent to the aftermarket?

Claim rules DO control costs and are - I'd argue - the only way to TRULY do so in any meaningful way.

Similarly, rules - in and of themselves - do NOT control cost. Rules limit cheating but only if they are enforced.

Smushing all of these issues together without any clear explication of what theory is supposed to stop cheating doesn't really help solve the problem.

K

[Quickshoe]

Originally posted by Knestis:
Smushing all of these issues together without any clear explication of what theory is supposed to stop cheating doesn't really help solve the problem.
K

True, don't know how we made the leap. But I know I contributed. Sorry. Lastly, if there weren't any rules I could go a whole lot faster on the same buck than I can within the rules. Problem is without rules, there will be an even larger gap between have$ and have nots. Perhaps the leap was--throw the rule book out and put a claimer in place...nothing to enforce but the claim.



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

[Knestis]

It's COMPLETELY academic because nothing even approaching this will happen in SCCA club racing but it sounds like you are defining a sort of "budget bracket" formula.

You can do any damn thing you want in the $4K class but someone can buy your ride for $4001. You could spend more but you'd have to either opt up to the $6K class (or higher) OR run the risk of getting pronged in the wallet if you get bought out...?

It's a different kind of paradigm, that's for sure and one that is SUPPOSED to be applied in the GRM 2004 challenge thing. I don't know for sure but I don't THINK that it IS being enforced. I see a lot of rides in the mag that I'd gladly pay $2004 for but the owners would sure as hell not sell.

K

[Bill Miller]

Anybody know anyone running in the NASA GTI Cup? I believe they have an engine claim rule ($400 IIRC). The cars are also spec cars.

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

[Eric Parham]

Two thoughts:

1) A claimer rule would promote cheating rather than prevent it, and man would our cars look neglected!

2) Although I first liked the 2x idea (even after thinking of some distasteful scenarios), I finally realized that this is not (and should not be) the Sports Car Club of the Affluent.

In the case of tech having to hire a dealership, for example, how does the protestor currently recover the used up portion of their bond? Does the protestee already have to foot that bill? If this were the case, it would already be too expensive for some to race at all unless such expenses were capped (or there was some way to bow out).

That is, if I'm poor, do my own maintenance, and can't afford to pay anyone else to work on it for me (nevermind twice that amount), I wouldn't be able to race at all on the chance that some detail might be found slightly out of spec during a hired teardown. I can see it now: "Recently divorced club racer sells shack to pay for dissassembly of treasured junkyard engine"... Right!

Now, if the teardown could be accomplished without outside expense (don't think this is always the case), the 2x rule might be workable *IF* the protestee could at least reduce the original bond to an affordable 2x level. Is it getting too complicated though?

[Marcus Miller]

There is an interesting thread the cliam rule on a local Spec Pinata mailling list, and Jerry from NASA is chiming in.

A couple interesting notes:
A) The claim rule is in place in NASA Pro7 and NASA SM also.
B) It has been in place for 10 years.
C) It was in place in the heyday of Pro7 with 50 car fields.
D) NASA has never claimed an engine.

Full disclosure: I began motorsports doing HPDE days with NASA, race with NASA NORCAL, and know Jerry.

Marcus
CSCC Pro7 #67

[jake7140]

Originally posted by ITSRX7:
To add on to the x2 idea:
...
Edit: Upon further thought, while 1/2 to the tech people would be nice, it may cause a situation where there was a actual or perceived conflict of interest. Give it all to the protestor.



There's the ticket! I'm not going to spend my yearly budget to prove a cheater. 'Course I'm never in the results (nor tech knowledge) vacinity to tread on this protesting ground, but from the outside that seems to even things out a bit, and give a valid incentive for cleaning things up.

From this and other threads, seems everyone knows who the blatant cheaters are already anyway. So in my mind, I'd always be up a position in my own mind or with my buddies; which is where the recognition lies anyway.

Don't get me wrong, I'd like a perfect world too, and I'm competitive enough to want a fair playing field, and it does get me frustrated to know that I comply and others don't, but it's just not a big enough chunk of my world

Let's see, HANS device or ....protesting, on-track racing or protesting the one race that I could attend....

So hats off to the people that "do the right thing for the right things sake" at their own expense. They are few and far between, like heroes in other walks of life. We shouldn't need to demand that level of sacrifice to keep a "hobby" fun and clean.

------------------
Steve
[email protected]
<A HREF="http://www.geocities.com/jake7140" TARGET=_blank>My racing page
</A><A HREF="http://www.geocities.com/elrss" TARGET=_blank>Elkhart Lake Racing_&_Sipping Society
</A>

[ITANorm]

From a racer's standpoint:

I hate cheaters with a passion. The only problems to the contrary arise from having some rather nebulous rules, and a GCR that weighs over a pound. I will not intentionally cheat - but by the same token, I'll push the rules to the limit.

There should be some differentiation between blatantly performance enhancing modifications - like higher cam lift and obviously ported heads and intakes - and more innocuous ones - like missing CHMSL's or parts obviously removed for cage clearance (and I'm referring to non-required tubes - like taking out the heater controls to clear the under-dash bar). And how many cars with NASCAR bars actually comply with the "removal of no more metal than is absolutely required" part of the driver's door.

From a Steward's standpoint: Consideration is usually given based on the perceived probability that the competitor was aware of the cheat, and its potential effect. I remember, several years ago at an unnamed track, we had a turbo SS car that was just too bloody fast. Instead of tearing it down, we had the car impounded under a CSA. We let the driver stew for a while and offered him the option of withdrawing the car and getting a logbook notation about his boost pressures, or having it tested. He took the former option.

I can't remember the last mechanical protest we received on an IT car in MiDiv. Although there is one particular ITA car that probably would have been torn down had circumstances not changed.

------------------
Norm - #55 ITA, '86 MR2. [email protected]
http://home.alltel.net/jberry/img107.jpg
Website: home.alltel.net/jberry (http://home.alltel.net/jberry)

[ddewhurst]

***And how many cars with NASCAR bars actually comply with the "removal of no more metal than is absolutely required" part of the driver's door.***

Norm, the words are actually:

"and the inner door structal door panel may be modified, but not removed to facilate this type side protection."

It was good to meet you this past weekend at Gateway International.

Have Fun http://Forum.ImprovedTouring.com/it/wink.gif
David

[chuck baader]

David, I think the "inner door structural panel" is the Government mandated crash protection...i.e. factory door bars/reinforcment. I have seen cars that had the stock door bar notched to clear the tie bars on the NASCAR bars.

------------------
Chuck Baader
#36 ITA E30 BMW
Alabama Region Divisional Registrar

[ddewhurst]

Chuck, your post could be correct.

The rule continues:

***and the inner door structal door panel may be modified, but not removed to facilate this type side protection.*** "The stock side impact beam and outside door latch/lock operating mechanism shall not be removed or modified."

I am not looking for a method to be illegal, just looking at the rules to legally get the most I can as I convert from Spec-7 to ITA/7.

Have Fun http://Forum.ImprovedTouring.com/it/wink.gif
David

[ITANorm]

Dave -

That's what I get for paraphrasing the rules without the book in front of me. http://Forum.ImprovedTouring.com/it/smile.gif Same meaning - different phraseology.

And, yeah, it was good to meet you too.

[RKramden]

Originally posted by lateapex911:
I was told he got the lightest penalty possible, but I never checked the validity of that.


The penalty assesed in the case being refered to was "Loss of Accrued points", the highest severity possible with the exception of "Expulsion from the SCCA". See GCR 14.4.1.

In light of what was done at Lime Rock this year (a DQ) for a case where there appeared to be intent to cheat for performance gain, something is totally out of whack.

[Speed Raycer]

Originally posted by chuck baader:
I think the "inner door structural panel" is the Government mandated crash protection...i.e. factory door bars/reinforcment. The "inner door structural panel" is the metal that the cardboard/material panel, commonly called the "door panel" attaches to.


Originally posted by chuck baader:
I have seen cars that had the stock door bar notched to clear the tie bars on the NASCAR bars. The rule clearly states that the side impact door beam may not be modified. If you've seen cars with notched side impact beams then they are plainly illegal.

It makes you wonder what they were thinking when they read the rule. If they'd glossed over the rule, why go through the pain of notching the stock beam to retain it?



------------------
Scott Rhea
It's not what you build...
it's how you build it
http://www.izzyscustomcages.com/images/IzysLgoSm.jpg (http://www.izzyscustomcages.com)
Izzy's Custom Cages (http://www.izzyscustomcages.com)

[Prince Makaha]

Once........when I was five.

[JeffYoung]

And I walked right through that door.....

and I did, just like that

I walked right through the door