CHAP
12-02-2002, 02:30 PM
THE FOLLOWING IS THE TEXT OF THE APPEAL TO DENVER BY SDJ MOTORSPORTS ON THE BEHALF OF THE #6 IT-7.
ALL THIS POSTURING AND CONPLAINING AMONGST OURSELVES, ALTHOUGH SOMEWHAT SELF-GRATIFYING, REALLY DOES GET ANYTHING DONE! POSSIBLY SENDING SOME SORT OF SUPPORT TO OF THE FOLLOWING POSITION TO DENVER MIGHT EXPOSE THE SITUATION.
The issue of the operation of the secondary linkage on a stock Mazda RX7 4-barrel carburetor was the basis for the disqualification and subsequent protest after the ARRC sprint race on Saturday, November 9, 2002. The contention is that the decision of the Stewards to interpret "mechanical operation of the secondary throttle plates" as "any detectable motion" is contrary to both the spirit and letter of the published rules.
Although the following may seem petty and not in the “spirit of the rules” by those rendering judgment, please note that the lack of “the spirit” in the interpretation of this rule is a principle basis for this appeal. The paragraph noted as the violation (17.1.4.D.1.q.2.B) does not mention the specifics of any modification. It only refers to the application of 18 other paragraphs (.D.1.a-k and .D.1. m-s). This doesn’t meet the requirement of specificity required of the competitor’s protest or this appeal.
Assuming the paragraph in question is actually 17.1.4.D.1.a.2, it states in the first sentence: “External throttle linkage…. may be modified or changed.” The last sentence states that: ”Method of operating the secondary throttle may not be modified.” The secondary throttle is still operated, controlled and modulated by vacuum. The secondary throttle functions and performs in every way as a vacuum operated secondary throttle carburetor.
I would also like to refer to the Intent statement (17.1.4.B) as evidence of the Club’s directives for establishment of the rules and therefore guidance for interpretation by the competitor and inspectors. This paragraph states: “It is the intent of these rules to restrict modifications to those useful and necessary to construct a safe race car.” After experiencing the secondary throttle blades sticking in the their bores on a start from some untouched Mazda carburetors and not other, it would not be a surprise to find that Mazda may have intended for the last degrees of primary throttle shaft motion to just unseat the secondaries on one of it many variants. The last sentence states: “Other than those specifically allowed by the these rules, no component or part normally found on a stock example of a given vehicle may be disabled, altered, or removed for the purpose of obtaining a competitive advantage.” This statement was complied with fully, even if the primary linkage did slightly crack the throttle at the extreme of its travel as it unlocked the secondary shaft for rotation. The intention of any mechanically operated secondary design is to open the secondary simultaneously throughout the primary opening event. No competitive advantage was gain by cracking the secondary throttle in the last few degrees of the primary throttle travel, only a safer condition was produced.
The mechanical linkage that joins the primary and secondary throttle plates is a standard design feature of the stock carburetor. It was noted and demonstrated to the Stewards that at the open limit of primary travel, and in primary over travel, this linkage may slightly unseat the secondary throttle plates, facilitating the opening and operation of secondary throttles by the vacuum circuit. Upon post-race inspection, the Scrutineers observed this slight motion, and reported a condition of "mechanically-opening secondaries". Keep in mind, they operated the primary linkage by hand, not the throttle cable, with the carburetor off the car and inverted. The primary shaft travel stop linkage is susceptible to bending if over stressed, necessitating the installation of positive pedal stop. It is not unlikely an over travel of the primary throttle plate, beyond perpendicular to flow, might have been created by the manual force applied by the inspector. Such over travel, detrimental to performance, may have been the travel necessary to crack the secondary blades.
A number of factors should be noted here. First of all, these carburetors, being of stock condition and years out of production, are all subject to the significant combined effects of original manufacturing tolerances, wear and tear, and repeated maintenance cycles. Mute testimony to this variation was the demonstrated differences in the extent of this primary/secondary interaction among the various stock carburetors that were provided by competitors in impound.
Secondly, the "mechanical operation" reported by Scrutineering amounts to a miniscule crack of the butterfly from its seat, no more than a primary throttle plate would be moved for an idle adjustment. There is absolutely no functional mechanical opening of the secondary throttle, and no compromise of the factory-designed vacuum operation of the secondary throttle. By no stretch of the imagination is there any sort of performance issue in question here, merely an insignificant technicality. This is hardly the intention of the rule.
The spirit and, I contend, the letter of the law has been complied with by the competitor in this case. Conversely, the Scrutineers are far from the bounds of the spirit and intent of the Club. They took a deserved first win away from a new member based on a very narrow minded, capricious interpretation. What was the intent of this action? It did not level the playing field amongst the competitors. On the contrary, it sent the message that the competitor cannot depend on any sense of reality prevailing in the judgment of the officials.
Rules enforcement must be even-handed, consistent, and reasonable. Disqualification over something so esoteric and insignificant is entirely inappropriate. At worst, a notation in the vehicle logbook and a warning from a Steward may have been warranted.
This rule obviously exists for purposes of prohibiting carburetor modifications in what is essentially a stock class. Ironically, the only way this team could have avoided disqualification at the ARRC would have been to modify this link on the carburetor. Catch 22.
Sadder than the disqualifications from a hard-fought race was the sight of competitors packing up and going home, so disgusted they chose to skip Sunday's races in which they were entered.
ALL THIS POSTURING AND CONPLAINING AMONGST OURSELVES, ALTHOUGH SOMEWHAT SELF-GRATIFYING, REALLY DOES GET ANYTHING DONE! POSSIBLY SENDING SOME SORT OF SUPPORT TO OF THE FOLLOWING POSITION TO DENVER MIGHT EXPOSE THE SITUATION.
The issue of the operation of the secondary linkage on a stock Mazda RX7 4-barrel carburetor was the basis for the disqualification and subsequent protest after the ARRC sprint race on Saturday, November 9, 2002. The contention is that the decision of the Stewards to interpret "mechanical operation of the secondary throttle plates" as "any detectable motion" is contrary to both the spirit and letter of the published rules.
Although the following may seem petty and not in the “spirit of the rules” by those rendering judgment, please note that the lack of “the spirit” in the interpretation of this rule is a principle basis for this appeal. The paragraph noted as the violation (17.1.4.D.1.q.2.B) does not mention the specifics of any modification. It only refers to the application of 18 other paragraphs (.D.1.a-k and .D.1. m-s). This doesn’t meet the requirement of specificity required of the competitor’s protest or this appeal.
Assuming the paragraph in question is actually 17.1.4.D.1.a.2, it states in the first sentence: “External throttle linkage…. may be modified or changed.” The last sentence states that: ”Method of operating the secondary throttle may not be modified.” The secondary throttle is still operated, controlled and modulated by vacuum. The secondary throttle functions and performs in every way as a vacuum operated secondary throttle carburetor.
I would also like to refer to the Intent statement (17.1.4.B) as evidence of the Club’s directives for establishment of the rules and therefore guidance for interpretation by the competitor and inspectors. This paragraph states: “It is the intent of these rules to restrict modifications to those useful and necessary to construct a safe race car.” After experiencing the secondary throttle blades sticking in the their bores on a start from some untouched Mazda carburetors and not other, it would not be a surprise to find that Mazda may have intended for the last degrees of primary throttle shaft motion to just unseat the secondaries on one of it many variants. The last sentence states: “Other than those specifically allowed by the these rules, no component or part normally found on a stock example of a given vehicle may be disabled, altered, or removed for the purpose of obtaining a competitive advantage.” This statement was complied with fully, even if the primary linkage did slightly crack the throttle at the extreme of its travel as it unlocked the secondary shaft for rotation. The intention of any mechanically operated secondary design is to open the secondary simultaneously throughout the primary opening event. No competitive advantage was gain by cracking the secondary throttle in the last few degrees of the primary throttle travel, only a safer condition was produced.
The mechanical linkage that joins the primary and secondary throttle plates is a standard design feature of the stock carburetor. It was noted and demonstrated to the Stewards that at the open limit of primary travel, and in primary over travel, this linkage may slightly unseat the secondary throttle plates, facilitating the opening and operation of secondary throttles by the vacuum circuit. Upon post-race inspection, the Scrutineers observed this slight motion, and reported a condition of "mechanically-opening secondaries". Keep in mind, they operated the primary linkage by hand, not the throttle cable, with the carburetor off the car and inverted. The primary shaft travel stop linkage is susceptible to bending if over stressed, necessitating the installation of positive pedal stop. It is not unlikely an over travel of the primary throttle plate, beyond perpendicular to flow, might have been created by the manual force applied by the inspector. Such over travel, detrimental to performance, may have been the travel necessary to crack the secondary blades.
A number of factors should be noted here. First of all, these carburetors, being of stock condition and years out of production, are all subject to the significant combined effects of original manufacturing tolerances, wear and tear, and repeated maintenance cycles. Mute testimony to this variation was the demonstrated differences in the extent of this primary/secondary interaction among the various stock carburetors that were provided by competitors in impound.
Secondly, the "mechanical operation" reported by Scrutineering amounts to a miniscule crack of the butterfly from its seat, no more than a primary throttle plate would be moved for an idle adjustment. There is absolutely no functional mechanical opening of the secondary throttle, and no compromise of the factory-designed vacuum operation of the secondary throttle. By no stretch of the imagination is there any sort of performance issue in question here, merely an insignificant technicality. This is hardly the intention of the rule.
The spirit and, I contend, the letter of the law has been complied with by the competitor in this case. Conversely, the Scrutineers are far from the bounds of the spirit and intent of the Club. They took a deserved first win away from a new member based on a very narrow minded, capricious interpretation. What was the intent of this action? It did not level the playing field amongst the competitors. On the contrary, it sent the message that the competitor cannot depend on any sense of reality prevailing in the judgment of the officials.
Rules enforcement must be even-handed, consistent, and reasonable. Disqualification over something so esoteric and insignificant is entirely inappropriate. At worst, a notation in the vehicle logbook and a warning from a Steward may have been warranted.
This rule obviously exists for purposes of prohibiting carburetor modifications in what is essentially a stock class. Ironically, the only way this team could have avoided disqualification at the ARRC would have been to modify this link on the carburetor. Catch 22.
Sadder than the disqualifications from a hard-fought race was the sight of competitors packing up and going home, so disgusted they chose to skip Sunday's races in which they were entered.