ensuring legal cars

[dickita15]

So to build on one of Kirk’s comments what can be done to help make sure IT cars are compliant.
Is it something that can be done with the way the rules are written?
Is there a way to make the protest process more user friendly for both parties?
Should tech be more proactive in enforcement with the additional staffing and training that would require?
Is it really a problem or should I just shut up and race?

[JeffYoung]

Dick, good questions.

My perceptions from my lillipad in my little pond here in the NCR region of the SEDiv:

I believe that my class is mostly legal cars. All of us probably have something here or there that is not legal. I had brake ducts mounted improperly and am in the process of correcting a distributor issue. But, in almost all cases, in ITS anyway, I don't think we have big time performance enhancing cheating going on. I would say it is mostly policed "internally" with a friendly chat with someone that has something illegal and that has worked decently so far.

[trhoppe]

In a conversation with Kirk I suggested a VTS for every car in IT. List out those specs that aren't in the Service Manual that we want to care about. Sure it will be some effort, but it fixes it "right".

Only write VTS's for requested cars. That way you don't have to do every car eligible for IT.

Once you have real specs, devote $10-15 of every entry fee to pay someone to actually enforce the cars and check the specs. Much like in SM.

-Tom

[JoshS]

So to build on one of Kirk’s comments what can be done to help make sure IT cars are compliant.
Is it something that can be done with the way the rules are written?
Is there a way to make the protest process more user friendly for both parties?
Should tech be more proactive in enforcement with the additional staffing and training that would require?
Is it really a problem or should I just shut up and race?

Well, I think it's entirely unreasonable to expect "tech" to find things on a car that you think you know about. That option makes no sense to me.

The only way to have something you know is illegal on one of your competitors looked at is to tell the club, and the process for that is called a protest. If for some reason the process is too difficult, then we should clean it up (but I don't think it's very difficult at all.)

That stewards dissuade entrants from filing protests (rumor, I haven't experienced this) is a problem. Protests should be encouraged, not discouraged, and there should be no shame in filing one. We should all (including those protested) see the big picture and understand that legal cars makes everything better, and PROVING that a car is legal is actually a feather in one's cap.

[lateapex911]

Josh, i think Dick was asking open minded questions. He's a tech inspector, by the way.

I think it is actually cool to have open hood impounds after qualifying, for example. Walk around, check things out. Sure, you can't SEE the illegal cam, but you CAN hear people talking about solid engine mounts and you can see illegal ram air or cold air openings.

Or illegal batteries, or a host of other little cheats. And sometimes thats not the only thing in there...

...and tech can go and do other things, like weigh cars..that's not going to require "model specific" knowledge is it? Maybe after qualifying, LOL. Might be funny to see what people run for weights. Some folks have options.

Bottom line, I've seen lot's over the years, and while in many cases cheaters took themselves out, in others they didn't. Yup, i know, write the paper...but if you have ever done a tear down protest, you know it's a lot of work, and your racing will suffer if you don't have a crew to do everything. (Ask me how I know...) If there are certain things tech can do to help push legality, even if they aren't 100% successful, it's worth considering.

[Knestis]

Another good suggestion that came up in the discussion Tom mentions is enhancing the distinction between "tech" and "compliance." Start by having different people doing the two jobs, the first being concerned ONLY with safety equipment and entry eligibility - the pre-race stuff. The compliance people's job wouldn't start until (1) the checkers fall, or (2) someone files a request for action prior to that time. Have one steward whose only job is compliance, so he/she is not pooped out at the end of the day when the work starts.

We'd also have to make sure those folks have the tools and resources to do the job. The enhanced VTS idea seems sound, the more I think about it. We have the stupid "factory service manual" rule, which gets extended in interpretation as meaning that if a value isn't in that book, there's no requirement that it be maintained as stock. This has been Travis' ongoing point about the SM cam rule and I may be to the point where I agree that we need to document all of the measurements that we care about. MAY need to. I still think that a cultural shift is possible, that puts the onus on Captain Clever to demonstrate where he got his "replacement" camshaft, that anyone can get one, and that it is in fact stock. But that cultural shift is unlikely and probably harder work in the long run than building the library of specs.

We've talked before about a searchable database of stewards' and COA's decisions, that could form a basis for actual case law and persistent precedent. I could build that system in a weekend using an open-source content management system like we used on http://www.rsicommunity.org.

We should also codify the solo-style "parc expose" open-hood, -trunk, -doors, one side on jackstands deal. If we all knew we'd have every other entrant and crew member crawling up our respective orifices, the culture WOULD change. (Thanks again Tom, Tara, Grant, and Bowie.)

K

EDIT - and to add, not only is this something we can do with the current rules, we should absolutely get over the idea that we can improve compliance by CHANGING rules. I know I'm a broken record on this but it's fundamental.

[wbp]

If you are running Regional races in the SEDIV, I believe you can expect to have two items, in addition to weight, checked on each impounded car. The Chief of Tech and Chief Steward will prepare a list of what will be checked on each class before the event. If Tech is very short on people, one of the two items may have to be something really quick to check.
What do you think of having the Chief Steward require hoods of all cars in impound be open?

[lateapex911]

What do you think of having the Chief Steward require hoods of all cars in impound be open?

Done!
And why not o[en trunks and hatches too...?

[jjjanos]

What do you think of having the Chief Steward require hoods of all cars in impound be open?

I think it's a great idea. I also think that a minimum of 2 groups each weekend should have an IMPOUND ALL with the same procedure. Run everybody over the scales and hoods up. One of the groups could even be done on Saturday.

[JeffYoung]

No problem here. We often have the hood open all the time in teh paddock anyway...don't ask me why.......

[JoshS]

Why didn't all of you who like this idea write to the CRB in support of it when they asked for member input on it in Fastrack 10/06? Well, better late than never, do it now!

MEMBER ADVISORIES

GCR

2. The CRB is considering allowing open visual inspections by competitors of vehicles at impound and invites input from the membership.

[ddewhurst]

Dick, I have said it in the past & I'll say it again because roll cages are one of the items that people cheat with on a regular basis. Have people support tech at anual tech who KNOW wht's under a dash on paticular cars. Example I KNOW whats under the dash of Miatas & I KNOW by looking at the front down tube location along with a couple other key items if the down tubes are legal or illegal.

I also wrote a letter with respect to Spec Miata/ITA miata roll cages but nothing happened. Within the letter I suggested which sentences people are using to butcher whatever they like when constructing roll cages. Duh, nothing hapened. I will presume when people write letters with zero results the letter writter figures why wst the time. From my perspective I believe the ITAC/SMAC/CRB would like people to think they are the only people who know anything.

[jhooten]

What would you like me to check in post race tech at the Lone Star regional on the 24th? Top three in each class get weighed.

Fuel sample ports in the Feed line not the return?
Fuel test?
Tire Size/DOT?
Or a full tear down of each engine and transmission?

You have to remember there are 7 classes in the IT run group. That is 21 top three cars. We have a half hour for impound and three to five guys at tech.

BTW, if the teams would send the crew to tech to push the cars on the scales instead of us having to do it we would have more time to actually tech the cars.

[gran racing]

Might be funny to see what people run for weights.

Both light and overly heavy. On my checklist before MidOhio – figure out how much ballast I can remove to get a bit closer to min. weight.

If for some reason the process is too difficult, then we should clean it up (but I don't think it's very difficult at all.)

I find the process of filing a protest extremely difficult, confusing, frustrating among other things. We’ve seen some very experienced groups of people file protests and learned the challenges they faced. For a person who is not very technical to file a protest becomes even tougher

I realize that the cost to protest various items varies from car to car, but it would be nice to have some general ballpark ideas. Maybe some type of “Guide to Improved Touring Protesting” could be created. It seems like there are several common areas people are interested in determining the legality of cars. Heck, maybe as an IT group we could create a list which is a bit more specific to various cars / makes. For example (I could be wrong, but really don’t think so) my Prelude’s cam would be easy to access while other makes are not so easy. Include what the standard shop hours to remove / install various items are to give people a general idea how much a protest might cost. Again, I’m not talking about every item on a car that could be protested, but the most common items.

In the list of various “hot” items for people to check, provide recommendations of other items the person might want to look at the same time. I can’t remember what it was, but when researching a possible future protest it was suggested to me that if you’ll be verifying that, you need to take these items out regardless so it won’t cost anything more to verify them at the same time. In essence, create various packages people might elect to protest another car for. From this guide, people could essentially take a section they’re interested in having looked at and put it on the protest sheet. Scruitineers could also benefit from this guide by having a better idea of what might be coming their way.

If the process to protest a car is made easier, people would be less likely to use illegal items.

Start by having different people doing the two jobs

This would be fantastic! Maybe there even be another set of people who can help people with the protest process itself, who are there only to provide guidance. Oh, you think this is wrong on the car, while doing that it only makes sense to check this as well type of assistance. (They would not be a part of the actual determination of a car’s legality.)

[Knestis]

I was reminded a week or so ago that the Club has a non-teardown procedure for checking transmission ratios. I had completely ignored that (blame being old) so this is going to the top of my potential "write paper on" list (e.g., for the ARRC and IT Fest).

Large performance potential + easy parts cheat on VWs + cheap protest = UH OH

K

[JeffYoung]

Our tech guys (all good) seem most focused on safety. On occasion they get worked up (usually rightfully so) over a particular issue. Last spring it was spoilers too low. I've seen them get after a few cage designs. Weight obviously.

But real mechanical stuff like gear ratios or compression or cams? At a SARRC regional event, VERY RARE for that to happen on its own without a protest.

So, is the policy goal here to INCREASE the amount of technical supervision by TECH, or by RACERS as a group?

[tderonne]

I was reminded a week or so ago that the Club has a non-teardown procedure for checking transmission ratios. I had completely ignored that (blame being old) so this is going to the top of my potential "write paper on" list (e.g., for the ARRC and IT Fest).

Large performance potential + easy parts cheat on VWs + cheap protest = UH OH

K

I've done it at Waterford. Simply roll the car in gear a certain number of engine revolutions (1 or 2). Do it for two or three gears. The ratio of the distances traveled matches the ratio between the gears involved. Won't tell you exactly what ratios are in there, but it's the relative gearing that's important anyway. Takes a few folks to push it in gear, but it works out very accurately.

[planet6racing]

Dick, I have said it in the past & I'll say it again because roll cages are one of the items that people cheat with on a regular basis. Have people support tech at anual tech who KNOW wht's under a dash on paticular cars. Example I KNOW whats under the dash of Miatas & I KNOW by looking at the front down tube location along with a couple other key items if the down tubes are legal or illegal.

I also wrote a letter with respect to Spec Miata/ITA miata roll cages but nothing happened. Within the letter I suggested which sentences people are using to butcher whatever they like when constructing roll cages. Duh, nothing hapened. I will presume when people write letters with zero results the letter writter figures why wst the time. From my perspective I believe the ITAC/SMAC/CRB would like people to think they are the only people who know anything.

I know that Tech would be happy to have you as a volunteer. And, iirc, isn't the next regional a race where SM annual tech is waived? Sounds like the perfect opportunity.

[ddewhurst]

***Have people support tech at ANUAL TECH who KNOW wht's under a dash on paticular cars.***

Bill, read twice then post. ANUAL TECH gets the illegal roll cages at the get go the first time they are looked at.

[GKR_17]

Fuel sample ports in the Feed line not the return?

That's not what the rule says. The sample port must be "located between the fuel tank and the carburetor(s) or fuel injectors". The return line meets that requirement. Or did I miss something in Fastrack?