SM protests of late

Recently there has been a real rash of protests..all from one guy, in SM. It could happen in iT of course, (if IT were national), so I thought I'd get some opinions.

I've tried to get the story on the recent SM protests, and here's the jist of it.

Background:

As far I as I can understand, the SM ruleset has some "unenforceble" areas and thats where the pro builders make the power. Among them has been cams. The old rule allowed some cams that really weren't stock, but the specs were loose. The new rule went into effect about 3 weeks ago, and i understand the official notice was short.

So....at the Watkins Glen national a week and a half ago, A guy protested 3 guys for cams out of compliance. Results were that 2 were out of current compliance, 1 was in. All engines were reported to be from pro builders. Apparently, these guys were caught on the wrong side of a rules change and hadn't converted over. Of course, the protestees left the race with the cars in peices, making it difficult for the following week. Maybe they have spare cams sitting around, and the time and money to do the work, maybe not.


Fast forward to Lime Rock. Same guy protests two guys again. This time the whole engine gets called out. Of course, the teardown is a big deal and it's decide to do it properly at a third party venue. The protestees object as they need to leave thurs for a Pocono double National which is apparently required if they want to attend the Runoffs. They request the engines be sealed, and the teardowns occur after the race. THe Protester declines, stating that seals are easily faked and can't be trusted, and insists that the teardowns occur this week. He does offer to buy them (on loan) both crate motors that they could use. Both decline on the basis of timing and the potential risks.

Some have said that if you are racing, You need to be prepared...that includes having backup engines, cams and shocks for just such incidents. On the other hand, wasn't Spec Miata supposed to be about driving?? Not having the deepest wallets to resist repeated protests that take your cams and engines away?

I also understand that the protester actually used another person as the "front man" on the Lime Rock protest, but admits to being the true originator. Perhaps to avoid a "vexatious" protest in return.

As a guy who has written serious paper before, I certainly agree that protests are a part of the checks and balances of our racing system and society. However, in our case, we approached the protested party to warn him of the potential for a protest, as we felt fair warning ws a gentlemans way of avoiding the conflict. In the end, he ignored and was found out of compliance on maliciously chosen engine parts.

On one hand, it's a protest or two, and they are by the book.

But on the other hand, it seems rather unsportsmanlike. The protestees have, to my knowledge, been protested before and have been found in compliance each time. The cam protest was clearly someone using a rule change as a weapon. Now, the follow up protest seems to be, to my eyes, designed to hinder the protestess abilty to score the points and track appearances needed to attend the Runoffs.

I understand the world is black and white when it comes to rules, AND I certainly am known as a bit of a 'rules nerd"....BUT...this is club racing.....should our ruleset allow a person to lodge protests that result in the protestees inability to race for the championship, regardless of the protests outcome??

It certainly appears that the protesters goals are that the guys he protested not race, as his refusal to allow the sealing of the motors flies in the face of his repeated claims that the class need to act more like SRF...where "they don't cheat"..per his quotes. Of course, they DO run sealed motors.

If nothing else, "sprortsmanship" has not been a goal on this one.
Thoughts?? Andy?? Greg? other SM guys?


For the full...well, kinda...story..head over to Specmiata.com, northeast section.

I also apologise as I am sure that my facts, while I have tried to get them straight, aren't exact. Tough to do in this case, feel free to correct where I've made errors, and i apologise in advance for any I have made.

[Thoughts?? Andy?? Greg? other SM guys?[/quote]

I think I'm fairly "on track" with what's going on there, plus I was working Tech last weekend at LRP. I've been reading the SM forum, so I think I have everyone's point of view.

Frankly, I'm sitting this one out. There's just too many non-technical issues involved with this particular issue; it has degraded well beyond purely technical issues of rules compliance, instead venturing into accusations of sportsmanship. It has the potential for degrading into personal attacks as it has "over there." To top it off, we don't know the true intent of the protester, only what he says, and he says it's to keep the class clean; many of his peers vehemently disagree. Finally, we've not heard results from this last tear-down so it's hard to make judgement on that.

Generally speaking - and I'm not even inferentially referring to this specific issue - I support the protest process to determine if someone's legal, as long as you don't do it in such a way as to intentionally keep someone from competing. But, the rules are the rules, and processes are processes; how is bending the rules to install equipment any different than bending the rules to other advantages?

Jeez Greg
I didn't even see you!!! Of course I wasn't near tech all weekend I really struggled, but I will turn it around this weekend at Pocono!!!

I think it's apples and oranges right now. NER SM are late adopters to the "Pro Motors" you need to have to run at the pointy end at some of the big tracks - and frankly there is some bad blood between a couple of camps. Sportsmanship? I don't know...part of me thinks it is lacking in the protests in SM up here.

Luckily, IT rules have provisions for a lot of this things that are 'grey' in SS and SM. Balancing and blueprinting, free R&P, etc.

Bottom line? I have to look at Greg's effort, the MSN cars, Blaney's stuff - and I have to decide how much they push the envelope (as do they of me) on the rules. It's not about sportsmanship when a group gets together and wants a teardown of a suspicious car, it is about sportsmanship when a guy protests one or two guys continually.

I think we are ok.

Agreed Andy! For the most part, I think IT is fine here, with the usual exceptions. More to the point, I think that the protest methods have been proper.

And this one is VERY complicated, with semingly significant historical background. The protester strikes me as very shrewd and cunning, but his actions and words are contradictory. Of course, "prooving" a protesters true intents is exceedingly difficult, and "vexatious" even harder. There's no doubt the proteser has the right, and I applaud any bona fide real efforts in keeping the class honest, and weeding out malicious cheating.

But the point here is:

Is there too great a possibility that a situation could result in perfectly legal competitors being removed from attending the required races due to off track "legal" actions?

To me, thats a dangerous side effect of the protest process, and one I'm very uncomfortable with.

Now, I'm not alledging this is the sole intent of this protester, but this situation has plainly shown how such a scenario could play out.

Are there mandates we can place in the rulebook that can avoid such possible situations in the future?

Greg, you're a tech guy....in my experience, the entire process of "discovery" is somewhat negotiated by the stewards between the protester and the protestee. It appears in this case that the entire sealed engine concept was rejected by the protester. What are the drawbacks to requiring that when the timing of protests is such that it will prevent the protesteee from attending a critical event that the engines be sealed and the tear down done later?

(Again, I know this is a he said she said deal, and the facts aren't out....and those that are out may be presented incorrectly, so if I have something wrong, please correct me...I'm NOT trying to start a word war, but rather looking at a larger picture)

Cooler heads have prevailed on that protest. The cars will be allowed to run should the drivers want to.

Hey, John, I saw you guys over there by the press building, but you looked busy at the time; I'll catch you next time...

Jake, I don't know that there are enough GCR details to be able to cover any and all situations. There is a negotiation process whereas the bond(s) and detail need to be worked out between all involved and I suggest that common sense should be allowed to prevail. In most cases it does; in some it does not.

I was not involved in this LRP situation. Last Saturday I was a flunkie, directing traffic, assisting in weighing, and handing out agua. I knew nothing of the protest(s) other than their existence until The Internet provided details so I possess no special insights.

Andy, good to hear this was worked out. The only downside for the protestees is that if they are determined to be illegal, they get tossed from both (three? Is Pocono still a double?) races...

i think there is a very fine line of using the rules for the good of all and abusing the rules.
also if you are the end buyer of a engine how is anybody except the actual builder supposed to know what is in that motor.this is club racing but i think some people take it more seriously then they should,

Andy, good to hear this was worked out. The only downside for the protestees is that if they are determined to be illegal, they get tossed from both (three? Is Pocono still a double?) races...
[/b]

Click to expand...

I don't see that as a downside. If you thought you were illegal, just let the teardown go through as intended. If you are illegal - to bad, so sad.

the root problem in my opinion is SCCA making a change that i'm sure they knew would affect many people in the home stretch of the national racing season. if this change were made in the offseason and someone still had illegal cams per the updated rule during the 07 season, tough noogies. but throwing paper around a week or so after the update in fastrack is a bit harsh.

the guy was offering crate motors? thats pretty nice...

Crate Motors???

They'll be fodder for every Sunbelt and Hartzel prepped motor at Nats. I don't think anyone got even close to the top 10 with a crate motor out here, last year. It's really JD's class he just let's you play in it

well I guess it would be better than a box of parts...

well I guess it would be better than a box of parts...
[/b]

Click to expand...

True, but if your eye's are on the prize. Not making Nat's because your good motor was taken down to parts and found legal, and now you're running a crate that down 10-15hp from you box of parts and everyone else.

I still say it's Jim Danial's class, he just let eveyone else play in it.

1) pro motors are not 10-15hp up on crates. more like 5-10 at most.
2) how is it jd's class? he's not even competing in it.

the guy was offering crate motors? thats pretty nice...
[/b]

Click to expand...

I'm not so sure about that....

If YOU were in a position to make the Runoffs, and you got protested by a guy for the second time in two weeks, and your engine had to come out, would you want him loaning you an inferior engine?

Doubt it...you know you'll likely be off the pace, AND you'll be risking purchasing that engine if anything happens to it. And it's the last thing you want to buy, LOL.

Not to mention, your engine comes out, then the crate has to go in...and then you need to fully accesorize it, then you race, then you de accessorize it, then pull it, then reinstall your engine. Lots of fun that!!

I'm guessing it was a bit of "marketing" being done by the protester. And in the unlikely chance they went for it, he liked the idea of them on a crate motor. But thats just my "read" on it.

Very interesting, lots of issues going on. Commenting on the situation at hand is hard, as I'm sure there's a lot of missing information.

Cooler heads have prevailed on that protest. The cars will be allowed to run should the drivers want to.
[/b]

Click to expand...

Andy, I'm not sure what that means if the protestor didn't withdraw the protest.

I still say it's Jim Danial's class, he just let eveyone else play in it.
[/b]

Click to expand...

James, that's just silly. I don't know you or Jim, or hardly anyone else that races SM, but no one person controls a class.

1) pro motors are not 10-15hp up on crates. more like 5-10 at most.[/b]

Click to expand...

Travis, that's a big jump over a stock motor, on what's supposed to be a spec class. IIRC, SRF motors dyno w/in 2 hp of each other, before they're sealed.

the root problem in my opinion is SCCA making a change that i'm sure they knew would affect many people in the home stretch of the national racing season. if this change were made in the offseason and someone still had illegal cams per the updated rule during the 07 season, tough noogies. but throwing paper around a week or so after the update in fastrack is a bit harsh.[/b]

Click to expand...

Need to research the timing on this before making a comment, but in general, I agree, mechanical changes should not be made mid-season.

They'll be fodder for every Sunbelt and Hartzel prepped motor at Nats. I don't think anyone got even close to the top 10 with a crate motor out here, last year. [/b]

Click to expand...

I don't know how accurate this statement is, but I know there's a perception (and it may be backed up by results sheets) that you need one of these big-dollar pro motors to be able to run at the front. To me, that's not what a spec class is supposed to be about. Since Enterprises is probably going to be sold, having all the SM engines come through them is not really an option, and I'm not sure Mazda wants to be involved w/ managing everything either. However, I think something needs to be done about it. If it's a spec class, and everyone is supposed to be running stock motors, either have them sealed by Mazda (or at a shop that dynos them w/in 1-2 hp of a known stock motor, or put a claim amount on them. You can claim anybody's motor for the cost of a new crate motor and half of the amount for R&R. You would not be able to protest sealed motors, but you could claim them if you thought that the seals had been faked. In that case, the claim would be the cost of a new crate motor and the full R&R cost.

It's a real shame that we're hearing so much about this class being cheated up, especially in its first year of National eligibility. Over on the Prod board, there was a well known individual selling an SM from their shop w/ admittedly cheated-up shocks. When called on it, he got beligerent (sp?), nasty, and abusive and used the "Everybody's doing it" and "Nobody at the front uses stock parts" arguements. I could attribute that to the general perception that there's a "wink, wink" attitude about the rules among a lot of the Prod folks, which is why the Prod rules have evolved into the mess that they are today, but mostly I see it as someone looking for a way to rationalize and justify cheating.

As I said in another post elsewhere on this site, the penalties for cheating need to be harsher, if we want any hope of discouriging (sp?) it.

***Over on the Prod board, there was a well known individual selling an SM from their shop w/ admittedly cheated-up shocks.***

Bill, give it a rest. All your doing by posting this stuff here is laying bait for those folks to slam this site.

I like the claimer rule...If the motor is cheated up and someone spent 10k on it...haha to them and the motor is in your truck. Why not the claimer from the beginning?

First off, there is nothing happening in SM that hasn't been going on in SS for years. Police your own patch.

Second, what I meant Bill, is that the engine have either been sealed or the cars have been under lock and key so that no 'changes' could be made to them by their owners until after the National this weekend. What was legal or illegal at LRP will be legal or illegal after Pocono. Teardowns will take place after this weekend. The schedule had back-to-back Nationals - then a 2 month layoff until the Runoffs. To me, the Division had better have a provision for something like this if they are going to schedule major events effectively on top of each other.

SM is spec in name only. Allowed right now are: 2 different body styles, 4 different stock hp engines, 3 different rear end configurations, 3 sizes of restrictor plates, 'open' air intakes on certain versions, 3 different minimum weights...and on and on.

I emphasize that nothing is happening in SM that is not happening in SS. The top preparers are maximizing their prep in the grey areas - while driving them just as well. I have seen SM's find 7whp just in an all-out driveline friction reduction program - it ain't all in the motor...it's about what gets to the ground as we all know. Is coating the pistons, REM finishing the tranny and diff, blueprinting axels and hubs in the grey? You bet. Having said all that, I think the SM motors are more legal now than ever. When Pro SM first came out, cheats were uncovered and brought to light. Today, these cars are going to have to go through the tech shed in Topeka with a very critcal eye watching them.

If IT went National, 95% of the people running the class would have to tighten up thier programs before even considering a full teardown.