Got caught Cheating...

[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

[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.
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]

Website: home.alltel.net/jberry