Hawthorne Potest - Que Pasa'

[seamus88]

I hope that when this is all said and done that both sides will write a little summary of what happened.I would like to hear about the whole process in detail.I would also like to hear Shane's side of the story.I would like to hear how the other drivers decided what to protest and why. And I would hope that everyone would write a fair and honest report (not bash the other side).I JUST want to know what happened and how the process works. I dont want to embarrass anyone.

Sean Christie
88 ITA

[ITCCRX]

Well I had a ITC Datsun 510 in 1991-92. I raced LRP 4 times in 2 years. I lowered my lap times from a 1:10?? to a record @ the time of 1:06.5. It was a seat time. I won a race overall in the rain. Lapped something like 30 cars. This was a ITB/ITC race and I was a ITC car. The fast ITB cars thought I was cheating!!! LOL. I owned the car Tim is driving (ITC CRX) and have done GT3 racing, and most people think that the "faster guy" is a cheater. That sucks, but that is life.
IT racing is hard. We get DQ'd because of no wiper bottles, no transaxle covers. LOL.
"car meets weight req., but no wiper bottle".
"Must be illegal"!!!

Ed

[Greg Amy]

Time yet again for another one of Greg’s treatises...

Let me start out by expressing my personal support for the 5 guys that got together and protested Shane's car. I support them not because I think Shane is cheating (I don't know the car) or because I don't like Shane (I've never met him). Rather, I support these 5 guys because they recognized a conflict – at least within themselves – and used the existing SCCA system to resolve that conflict.

I encourage anyone watching this thread to take a moment and read another thread that we just went through a few weeks ago. We discussed cheating and ideas to stop it:

http://forum.improvedtouring.com/it/Forum2...TML/000670.html

In that thread I believe that we all came to the semi-agreement that, short of a sea change within SCCA Club Racing, the only way we can stop cheating is to self-police via the vehicle protest system. This is the way the vehicle legality system is designed to work, and that's what these guys did.

Unfortunately, by design the SCCA self-policing and protest system requires an adversarial relationship, and most people are not interested in creating such an atmosphere. The problem with that mindset is that the adversarial relationship was already there, based on competitors thinking – rightly or wrongly - that Shane was cheating. Thus, the only thing that changed with the filing of the protest was that the previously-latent conflict was brought to the fore.

As I understand it, and as Tim noted, the competitor was contacted 'off line' and offered the opportunity to get the issue out in the open via a dyno session (as Serra and Blaney apparently did), but this opportunity was not taken. Fine, that's his prerogative. However, the result of that missed opportunity was that the conflict was neither addressed nor resolved, leaving only two options: ignore the conflict and hope it goes away, or address it via the protest system.

Is there anyone here that really thinks it would have (or should have) been ignored and hoped it would go away?

I also applaud the manner in which this protest was done. As Jake noted, they were not on a 'windshield washer bottle crusade.' Instead, they made a list of tangible, quantifiable items that would have had a significant affect on the car's performance. They also worked to offer a fair financial bond that would agreeably cover any and all expenses involved in scrutinizing these items. They worked as a group to minimize the financial risk to any particular protesting individual (removing one major barrier to protests), and they did it outright and in the open without trying to hide their intentions or agendas. The competitor was notified in a timely manner (they even tried to let him know the evening before instead of springing it right before the race) and they didn't go bragging about it to all who inquired (hell, it was like pulling teeth to get any info from anyone!!)

Unfortunately, it appears from rumors at the track and discussions on this board that the ScruCrew was not prepared for such a protest. Can anyone really be surprised by this? When was the last time any engine was torn down at a Regional event in the Northeast? Why would/should you expect the scrutineers be prepared for such an event? Where is there a requirement for any region/division to own, always have available, and have the skills to use hundreds of dollars of measuring tools for an engine tear-down? How many of our volunteers are mechanical engineering types that even know how to read a vernier scale? (No offense intended, I'm just pointing out it's not a prerequisite, nor should it be). I have the tools and experience, but I damn sure ain't gonna bring that kind of stuff to the track.

I suggest that this failure is one of the system rather than the individuals or scrutineering teams, because we as a whole first, require overt competitor action (a protest) to generate action on a vehicle; second, do not protest to such an extent as a general guideline; and third, are not prepared to deal with such protests on a daily basis. I think it's wholly unfair to blame this on the scrutineers, because if we started doing more of these protests then they will come prepared for it. But, if we're not willing to do it, why bother bringing hundreds of dollars of setup and measuring tools, leaving them vulnerable to theft and/or damage? Alternatively, if the system itself were active in protesting engines (rather than relying on competitor protest) then the system would require the presence of these tools.

In hindsight, in this case I suggest what we should have done is accept that the tools are unavailable, that the skillsets may not have been available, and that these kind of inspections should have been brought to those that posses the requisite hardware (such as a Honda dealership).

Finally, I am not involved in what happened last weekend nor privy to what inspections may be ongoing, but I strongly doubt that the car was "released" from impound without having all requisite inspections completed or without particular inspections being waived by the protesters. It's quite possible that the inspectors could not produce the required tools and requested/suggested that some items be waived, but I am certain this thing was done "by the book" to the best of everyone's ability. I'll let the guys involved comment at their leisure.

So, in short, I think the only "cloud" over this incident is a realization that we have a flawed vehicle legality system that requires the presence of an adversarial relationship between competitors to function, resulting in an atmosphere that suspects cheating by default, generally refuses to address it due to the social and financial risks involved, and then when addressed is not immediately capable of resolving it. The one good thing about last weekend is that the ice has been broken, and I hope that this will clear the way for more such protests in the future, with the same attitudes of cooperation that these guys offered, so we can go about our way enjoying the racing instead of "wondering" if someone is legal.

This is the way the system is supposed to work. If you don't like it, start writing letters, because without membership input it will never ever change.

Greg Amy

[ITCCRX]

I too, expressing my personal support for the 5 guys that got together and protested. If they protected a part that made the car faster, than that IS the right thing to do.
Missing water bottles etc., do not make a car faster.

Ed

[Tom Blaney]

removed

[This message has been edited by Tom Blaney (edited October 09, 2004).]

[Greg Amy]

<font face=\"Verdana, Arial\" size=\"2\">...the integrity of the protest was violated by the tech and som who was in charge of the breakdown...</font>

This is EXTREMELY unfortunate, thanks for the clarification.

Ironically, this situation should have been handled by...wait for it...another protest, this time of the processes and the SOM. Because, unless it is dealt with as proscribed by the GCR, it can, and possibly will, happen again. We need to learn from these kinds of situations so that it won't.

Sigh...

[ITCCRX]

Regards to buying the test equipment. I 1991-1992, we tried to get the IT guys to pay $10 fee to buy equipment. Real cost stuff. You can "puff" an engine etc..
Bottom line was only a few guys wanted it.

Hey Tom,
Gone tell us what you guys protected? Spill the beans?

Ed

[Tom Blaney]

removed

[This message has been edited by Tom Blaney (edited October 09, 2004).]

[ITCCRX]

Tom,
Ok. I just thought that buy posting the "items" protested, it may keep other people honest that run IT cars.
So who are the other guys? Waiting for the "Fastrack" is killing me! LOL.
I guess,

a) Cam shaft.

Cam timing - maybe offset key(s).

c) Compression.

d) Piston design.

e) Bore and stroke.

f) Maybe suspension - bushing - links?

Ed

[lateapex911]

OK, here's the deal guys.
First, I assure you that I, nor any of the "Five" have any reason to be secretive about any of this.

Second, I will be happy to document it as thoroughly as possible, and I will spare nothing.

But...you gotta understand, this is an ongoing situation. The protest itself won't even be concluded for two weeks, minumum.

I will be happy to answer questions regarding the intent, and the standard protocol, but we, and I implore my fellow five to agree, have to leave the specifics of the actual protest, as well as the actions of the stewards out of it until all actions are wrapped up.

but...you will all hear far more than Fastrack will print....when the time is appropriate.



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

[lateapex911]

Originally posted by Tkczecheredflag:
I like Jake's spin, "a badge of courage" and "respect of his peers" on this issue. It will be intersting to hear the final results.

Not a "spin" Tim...

......after we all received a really nice T-Shirt from NYR. Didn't anyone like the "T"?

Geeze....after a weekend like that, and they refused to give me shirt...Grrrrr

Nice write up, Tim.


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

[This message has been edited by lateapex911 (edited October 08, 2004).]

[lateapex911]

The results are in. See "Rules and Regs".

I have moved this as I think it is possible to use this as a learning experience on a larger scale.

get a coffee......

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