SIC Roebling - Tech Inspection Issues w/outside tech?

**Ron Earp** · 10-01-2006, 02:12 PM

I recently heard that a tech inspector came in from Topeka over the weekend to investigate some cars at Roebling. Some issues were found with some of the SM cars (and maybe others I don't know), but no action taken as I understand it despite the tech inspector's advisory. Surely this is a small piece of what actually happened, anyone have the true story on this, or is it a bunch of bunk?

Thanks much,
Ron

**charrbq** · 10-01-2006, 11:33 PM

Ouch! That could have implications if correct!

**Parrish57** · 10-02-2006, 08:54 AM

In a conversation with one of our SEDIV tech guys he mentioned meeting an inspector from Topeka while at the SIC. He didn't say anything about rules infractions but I will ask......

**Greg Amy** · 10-02-2006, 09:52 AM

A Topeka tech guy showed up at a LRP National this year. I was a lowly tech weenie so didn't really get into why he was there, but it seemed he was simply there observing... - GA

**Toni** · 10-02-2006, 10:23 AM

There was a noncompliant car. Tech noted the issues correctly and gave report to stewards. There was a miscommunication (no communication?) from there. Incorrect option was taken on CSA by a steward. Car was released before communication and resulting CSA could be corrected. We goofed.

Toni Creighton

**EAPCPA** · 10-02-2006, 01:28 PM

Geeee! wonder how much race engineering had to pay for that miscommunication. OOps did I say that shame on me!!

**lateapex911** · 10-02-2006, 01:41 PM

Geeee! wonder how much race engineering had to pay for that miscommunication. OOps did I say that shame on me!!

[/b]

Who is race engineering? Is this a joke or an accusation?

**Ron Earp** · 10-02-2006, 01:52 PM

I don't know who it involves, doesn't much matter to me. Just find it interested that tech inspectors are coming in from HQ and it looks like it has been done before a LRP too. I didn't know they did that sort of thing, pretty cool.

R

**dickita15** · 10-02-2006, 02:06 PM

occasionally you will see someone who is staff show up at a distant event, usually it is reasearch or as at the NHIS national we had the National Administrator of Tech show up. he didi some teaching and also gave some feedback on tech's operations.

**Fastfred92** · 10-02-2006, 03:09 PM

Ron, we had two tech guys and the head of club racing at the VIR nationals a few years back, it happens more than you know.

**JeffYoung** · 10-02-2006, 03:47 PM

WARNING AND DISCLAIMER -- I KNOW NONE OF THIS TO BE FACTUALLY TRUE, IT IS ONLY THE "STORIES" THAT I HAVE HEARD FLOATING AROUND.

Jake, Race Engineering is Bob Thornton's outfit from down near Charlotte. Builds very fast Miatas, Miata motors and clutches.

Supposedly (and I say supposedly because I don't know, have just heard, and honestly don't really care all that much) after the test day, there were several cam swaps on the OPM (Tom Fowler's outfit, another set of very fast, very well prepared cars). Given all of the confusion on the cam rule, I can see why this MIGHT have happened.

Then, after the race on Sunday, supposedly a car or several cars went through Tech, failed, and nothing was done. Toni cleared that up for us above -- it was one car, and the "passing" of it was due to a miscommunication.

No discussion of this on the SM board which leads me to believe it was a non event. Good to see tech from National show up at our regional championship. I like that.

JEFF

**x-ring** · 10-02-2006, 04:47 PM

Given all of the confusion on the cam rule, I can see why this MIGHT have happened.[/b]

How can there possibly be confusion about SM cams? The cam specifications have been published since June. That was NOT a smarta$$ question. As you may (or may not) know I have more than a passing interest in SM compliance, at least until the middle of this month.

Then, after the race on Sunday, supposedly a car or several cars went through Tech, failed, and nothing was done. Toni cleared that up for us above -- it was one car, and the "passing" of it was due to a miscommunication.

No discussion of this on the SM board which leads me to believe it was a non event. [/b]

Toni told me that the area of non-compliance was not particularly performance enhancing, but rules are rules, and the car shouldn't have been released with only a logbook note, particularly at a championship race.

Good to see tech from National show up at our regional championship. I like that.[/b]

As someone else said, they travel quite a bit. They just don’t make a big deal out of it.

See you in Kansas next week?

**CaptainWho** · 10-02-2006, 04:50 PM

I don't know about tech people coming in from HQ, but I've worked races in SEDiv where F&C people from HQ showed up. As far as was discussed at the morning worker meeting, they were there to observe and maybe advise.

**Ron Earp** · 10-02-2006, 05:25 PM

Toni told me that the area of non-compliance was not particularly performance enhancing,

[/b]

I like that quote, seems like a good one to use when questioned on something. I'll remember it.

"Mr. Earp, looks like your head prep work is questionable".

"Oh, yeah, I know, but that isn't particularily performance enhancing."

I'm poking fun, but why do it if it "isn't particularily performance enhancing"? Was it just one car or a few cars with the same thing?

Ron

**gprodracer** · 10-02-2006, 06:20 PM

FYI,

Headquarters sends people to random events, to check random things every now and then. The last really invasive one I know of down here was to an ECR event at Sebring in the mid 90's. The top 4 in all classes of the ECR had to pull heads, manifiolds, etc. and all cams were checked resulting in at least one DQ, for an illegal cam.
I'm not sure what prompts these visits (rumor was that a lot of IT cheating was occuring in SEDIV, but who knows?) but I was glad to see that Headquarters actually cared about what was going on in Regional racing.
I'm sure there have been several more since then, so you never know...
Anyone with more info, please post.
Toni, can you release anything else? I understand if you can't.

BTW, I'm not affiliated in any way with R.E, OPM, or any SM driver, but unless anyone has any official news, it is probably in bad taste to imply that they did anything wrong.. just my opinion.

Thanks,

Mark

**Harvey** · 10-02-2006, 06:55 PM

Gee thanks Mark for that reminder.

The SARRC has had provisions for years to bring in Tech people from National for the SIC it just never seemed to come together because of conflicts with the runoffs??

**x-ring** · 10-03-2006, 07:54 AM

I like that quote, seems like a good one to use when questioned on something. I'll remember it.

"Mr. Earp, looks like your head prep work is questionable".

"Oh, yeah, I know, but that isn't particularily performance enhancing."

I'm poking fun, but why do it if it "isn't particularily performance enhancing"? Was it just one car or a few cars with the same thing?

Ron
[/b]

OK, so maybe I didn't phrase that particularly well.

Toni told me that a competitor had done something to his/her car when preparing it that while non-compliant, made no difference, in her opinion, to the on-track potential of the car.

SM is a tightly regulated class. It would be easy to make a long list of things you could do to an SM that would not make it any 'better' (that is faster, more reliable, more comfortable, whatever) that are not within the bounds of the rules.

**Toni** · 10-03-2006, 09:02 AM

The non compliant car had additional modifications to the driver’s compartment. At least some of these were safety items that should have been corrected before an annual tech approval was issued.

Invasive checks made post race found all cars to be compliant in those areas checked.

Toni

**JeffYoung** · 10-03-2006, 09:38 AM

Thanks for the clarification Toni.

Mark, probably should not have posted what I "heard" because I don't mean, at all, to imply that OPM, RE or ANYONE else was cheating. Actually, scratch, I'm glad I did, because Toni came here and clarified the situation (thanks for that). All I have seen from OPM and RE cars are well prepped and fast cars, well-driven.

Honestly, the "they must be cheating" talk (especially in SM) drives me bonkers. Way too much of it without much to back it up.

**Fastfred92** · 10-03-2006, 10:39 AM

The non compliant car had additional modifications to the driver’s compartment. At least some of these were safety items that should have been corrected before an annual tech approval was issued.

Invasive checks made post race found all cars to be compliant in those areas checked.

Toni
[/b]

Sounds like maybe the old seatbelt bulkhead thing is rearing its ugly head again???

Thread: SIC Roebling - Tech Inspection Issues w/outside tech?

Thread Tools

Search Thread

Display

Bookmarks

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions