Annual Inspections

[tom91ita]

i'm with greg on this one.

one reason i try to get an annual is if there has been substantial things done to the car to make sure it is alright.

i don't want to get to the track and find out they don't like my door bars or fuel cell install, etc. this to me is the biggest driver for getting an annual tech at a non racing tech event. it also is in an easier, smoother atmosphere when you get to discuss things with tech and get advice.

[Krysd]

The annual is good for twelve (12) months, but only extends back to November of 2006, if you had your 12 month instpection prior to November 2006, you will have to do another before racing in 2007. This information came out in a memo from Jeremy just after the first of the year.

[RacerBill]

The annual is good for twelve (12) months, but only extends back to November of 2006, if you had your 12 month instpection prior to November 2006, you will have to do another before racing in 2007. This information came out in a memo from Jeremy just after the first of the year.
[/b]

I don't mean to sound argumentative and do not doubt the memo but.....

A memo to whom? Was this an item in Fastrack? I did a search on the word 'annual' is all four Fastracks and did not find a reference to 'November 2006' or anything else qualifying the 12 month life span.

[Greg Amy]

In NEDiv we are requiring a new annual inspection sometime during 2007, where we inspect the car and write down the belts expiration date. From that point forward we follow the 12 month calendar year.

The logic? Inspections done in 2006 were under the 2006 GCR; items such as expiration date of belts and legality of equipment were only to the expectation that a new inspection would happen in 2007. How are we going to enforce new rules such as double door bars if we haven't seen the car since before they went into effect? Ergo, we start from scratch and work forward.

I can tell you that if someone comes up to me at the April NHIS with a logbook signed off in May 2006 (or later), they'll be asked to bring their car down for a new 2007 annual inspection. They're free to protest if they wish, it's certainly within their right, but by the time they get that all worked out and in place they could have easily had me simply re-inspect their car... - GA

[x-ring]

I don't mean to sound argumentative and do not doubt the memo but.....

A memo to whom? Was this an item in Fastrack? I did a search on the word 'annual' is all four Fastracks and did not find a reference to 'November 2006' or anything else qualifying the 12 month life span.
[/b]

IIRC, it was a memo from tech services (Jeremy) to all DAs of tech. Jeremy asked us to forward it to all the scrutineers in our respective divisions, again IIRC. I probably have it here somewhere; if it is important to you I'll look for it.

EDIT: OK, I found it. The memo was on SCCA Tech Services letterhead, from Jeremy, to Technical Inspectors, and dated 18 May 2006.

The relevant section states that the proposed (published in March '06 Fastrack) rule changes, if approved by the BOD, will become effective 11/1/06. The first rule change he addresses is the annual inspection rule.

That, as I suspected, is where the 11/06 date comes from. That rule (along with 17 pages of others) was approved by the BOD on 8/26/06 to be effective 11/1/06. See Item 5, October '06 Fastrack, page F-24.

[RacerBill]

OK, I can see Greg's point, and agree that every car have an annual done in 2007 before racing, to make sure that it conforms to the 2007 GCR. End of subject, I'm cool.

BTW, IT runs in Group 7 at the Restricted Regional at Mid-Ohio in June, so there's plenty of time to get those annual's done!

[bldn10]

"The memo was on SCCA Tech Services letterhead, from Jeremy, to Technical Inspectors, and dated 18 May 2006.

The relevant section states that the proposed (published in March '06 Fastrack) rule changes, if approved by the BOD, will become effective 11/1/06. The first rule change he addresses is the annual inspection rule."



Looking back at my 2004 GCR I see that the rule change added the "(12 months)" and deleted this: "The year shall be defined as the calendar year." Unfortunately, our typical less than great draftsmanship leaves a new rule that simply says every year (12 months). You really have to look back at what the deleted to understand what the change was. Why could they not say something like: "...on each car once a year, and such inspection shall be effective for 12 months, subject however to any intervening rule changes."?

[Gary L]

Geez... no wonder I was confused!

I respectfully suggest the rolling 12 month inspection periodicity will not work without some tweaking, due to conflicting requirements. For instance this year, I can think of at least two new safety requirements that were written to be implemented January 1st 2007; the 2-bar cage reinforcement, and the fall-down window net. Therefore, most regions are understandably going to want to see the car before it hits the track for the first time in 2007, regardless of when (in 2006) the last inspection was done. It most likely will not be any different in 2008, or any subsequent year... there are almost always some sort of safety changes that affect a class or group of classes, if not all.

As I see it for this to work, new rules & requirements (that can affect vehicle inspection) need to be written such that they are effective "...with the next annual inspection" - instead of - on a given date (e.g. Jan 1 of the next calendar year). Otherwise, we are stuck with defacto calendar year inspection periods, from now 'til the cows come home.

[dickita15]

not having to have an annual tech does not mean the driver does not need to make his car compliant.

[bldn10]

Does anyone know where this rule change came from? Does it make any sense whatsoever except for people who get their Annuals late in the year? Was anything broken that needed fixing? Why does this crap continually happen?

[dickita15]

The 12 month instead of an annual is new this year and has been talked about pro and con for a couple of years. There is a lot of pressure at the first few events of the year and the thought is that annual tech may have been a little rushed.[/b]

[jjjanos]

The logic? Inspections done in 2006 were under the 2006 GCR; items such as expiration date of belts and legality of equipment were only to the expectation that a new inspection would happen in 2007. How are we going to enforce new rules such as double door bars if we haven't seen the car since before they went into effect? Ergo, we start from scratch and work forward.

I can tell you that if someone comes up to me at the April NHIS with a logbook signed off in May 2006 (or later), they'll be asked to bring their car down for a new 2007 annual inspection. They're free to protest if they wish, it's certainly within their right, but by the time they get that all worked out and in place they could have easily had me simply re-inspect their car... - GA
[/b]

I'm sorry but this really comes across as official attitude disease (OAD). The GCR requires an annual inspection every 12 months and you are imposing an additional requirement on the driver that is not justified by the GCR. I'd protest you just on principle, particularly if you said the above to me. And I'm a flagger.

That being said, inspecting the car under 5.9.2.B offers a firmer legal standing and avoids the problem of OAD.

Then again, 5.9.2.B. itself is unclear -
<blockquote>Minimum Safety Inspection—Minimum inspection for each event thereafter shall consist of reviewing the Vehicle Logbook. If it is in order, a Tech sticker shall be issued.</blockquote>

Reading this, it defines the minimum safety inspection and then says if you meet it, you qualify. "...a Tech sticker shall be issued." So is this the minimum safety inspection or is it the maximum? The wording is pretty clear, if your Vehicle Logbook is in order, then you shall get a sticker. Shall being a "loaded" word in the GCR.

Here&#39;s one for the rules lawyers...

Please quote the section REQUIRING an Improved Touring car be equiped with a fire bottle.

[Greg Amy]

That&#39;s all fine and good, dude. Be sure to bring that extra $25 cash for the protest and we can discuss my "disease" in front of a steward (while your race group is out there practicing...) Then, assuming you win the protest, you&#39;ll be asked to bring the car to the tech inspection line to be inspected for review of new rules since Jan 01, such as the dual door bar requirement (while your race group is out there qualifying...)

Greg


On edit: Erasure of references to "SRA" ("Snobby Racer Attitude"). - GA

[jjjanos]

That&#39;s all fine and good, dude. Be sure to bring that extra $25 cash for the protest and we can discuss my "disease" in front of a steward (while your race group is out there practicing...) Then, assuming you win the protest, you&#39;ll be asked to bring the car to the tech inspection line to be inspected for review of new rules since Jan 01, such as the dual door bar requirement (while your race group is out there qualifying...)[/b]

Fine and I repeat, your statements exhibit OAD. It is a perfect example of why many racers turn away from SCCA. You seem to want to punish a racer by costing him a session simply because he correctly refuses to bow to the arbitrary and capricious whim of an official. Your statement raises questions about your ability to be impartial and hence your qualifications as an official.

And on what grounds do you intend to have my car inspected for compliance with rules placed in force since Jan 01? I know the answer and it has NOTHING to do with the Jan 01 rule changes. It applies through out the entire year. Hint - see 5.9.2.C.

[Greg Amy]

Waaaiiit a second...aren&#39;t you the one that I called a pompous ass (or was it a lawyer?) just a few weeks ago? Yep, I just did a search on your posts, that&#39;s you (and, as I recall, you were wrong then, too).

Never mind, dude, I&#39;m not wasting any more time with you. I&#39;m assuming you&#39;re an adult, you&#39;re free to do as you please. Good luck, and all that... - GA

[Drew Aldred]

Fine and I repeat, your statements exhibit OAD. It is a perfect example of why many racers turn away from SCCA. You seem to want to punish a racer by costing him a session simply because he correctly refuses to bow to the arbitrary and capricious whim of an official.
[/b]

Totally agree, see above posts about driver&#39;s responsibility to make sure their car is kept legal thru out the year based on Fastracks. If I was hassled in this manner, after winning my protest, I would load my car up and head home. Stopping first at registration and getting my money back. The rule says annuals are good for 12 months, no mention about only if that&#39;s OK with the given tech inspector for that race.

This is supposed to be for fun, why is having fun so hard sometimes ????

[jhooten]

Waaaiiit a second...aren&#39;t you the one that I called a pompous ass - GA
[/b]

What we have here appears to be a prime example of the pot calling the kettle...

Yes I would protest you. After I won the protest and having missed practice and qualifying I old proceed to registration and demand a refund of entry fees for official misconduct.

You may not agree with the rule but that does not give you the right to punish a driver.

[Greg Amy]

"Punishment", gentlemen? Punishment is doing something with intent to harm. I, however, would do this because it&#39;s the right thing to do. If I have to put my signature in your logbook that I&#39;ve properly inspected your car, I&#39;m going to properly inspect your car. If you don&#39;t like that, and you want someone to pencil-whip your logbook, then find someone else to do it.

Problem is, this is official policy. You may protest, or you may try to find someone else, but you&#39;ll fail, &#39;cause this is what we&#39;ve been told is policy. This, despite the fact I think it&#39;s the right thing to do.

And attitude has nothing to do with it. Is it attitude that we offer three pre-season technical inspections for competitors to get this worked out in advance (the last one I worked requiring me to stand out in a cloudy, cold, windy parking lot all day)? Is attitude offering to meet folks at their homes if necessary to get annual inspections taken care of? Is it attitude to help you do whatever you need done, within the rules, de jure and de facto?

So, instead of taking care of these issues in advance, you guys are gonna show up at your first event, an hour before your first session, with your logbook, $25 in small bills, and a big chip on your shoulder, daring someone to knock it off? Then, when someone does, you&#39;re all "pitiful poor little me, I&#39;m taking my car and going home?"

So, who&#39;s really got the attitude(s) here?

I&#39;m just telling you how it is. You don&#39;t have to like it.

Funny part is probably NONE of you are going to do what you&#39;re threatening to do. In fact, I&#39;d be surprised if any of you actually have a late-season annual are are contemplating trying to get away with it. I&#39;ve seen it before, it&#39;s all false bravado. But, I wish you boys the best of luck. I&#39;ve been around long enough to realize that the economics of fighting these little battles don&#39;t work out in the end; you have a lot to lose and - what? - nothing to gain (two extra months on your annual inspection? Woo Hoo!)? And, frankly, with attitudes like that it doesn&#39;t break my heart you may be going home and won&#39;t be on the track with me that day...

Good luck, kids. Let me know how those annuals go...

[RSTPerformance]

I am not sure I want to get in the middle of this, but I would say that Greg should check anything that has changed since the last year (07 GCR) before issuing a tech Sticker. If a full annual is done or not may or may not be necessary.

What is important is that nobody goes home and everyone has fun!!!


Raymond

[88YB1]

How is it that officials operate under policy when everyone else MUST operate under rules? Does the rewritten rule require a fresh annual before racing in 07?

Chuck