A protest story.

[lateapex911]

A protest story….a bit long.

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The rulings:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


Subsequent findings:

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

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


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


(Edits for proper paragraphing)

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

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

[lateapex911]

A Protest Story, Thoughts and Comments.


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

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

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

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

Specifically:

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

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

So, what did we learn?

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

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

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

Conclusions:

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

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

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


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

[RSTPerformance]

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

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

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

Stephen

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

[jc836]

Jake: Not having been there I and not knowing the parties I can only say that this protest was indeed a valid expression of the concerns your protest group had.

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

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

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

We have all benefitted from this. THank you

[Bill Miller]

Jake,

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

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

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

[cherokee]

I think by outlining this was a very good thing for you to do. As a relitive newb to all of this shows how it works in the real world.

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

[apr67]

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

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

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

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

[Tom Blaney]

At this point the only issue I have left to deal with is the very light penalty for a blatent violation, and the catch me if you can attitude.

Not what I think club racing should be about.

[benspeed]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[JackH55]

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

Jack

[Geo]

I'm disappointed that rulings of compliance where made where it could not be determined.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

[Knestis]

I liked the plot twist at the end, where good triumphed over evil. I pretty much expected that would NOT be the case, having seen similar situations go the other way.

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

K

[Quickshoe]

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

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

[lateapex911]

It is an interesting question.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

What are your thoughts??

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

[lateapex911]

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

Jack

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

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

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



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

[Tom Blaney]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[ITCCRX]

Jake,
Do you have a photo of the "domed" piston, you can post? I would really like to see it.
I am a Honda guy and would really like see how it looks to the aftermarket pistons I buy?

Ed

[apr67]

Everyone is going to say that the builder did it. I don't think any competitior is ever going to say 'yep, its an illegal pistion, I did it'.

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

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

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

[OTLimit]

Even if he says his engine builder did it, he is still ultimately responsible. End of the bs.

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

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

[Jake]

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

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