Self-policing +

[quadzjr]

Very true. I think it happens a couple years into racing. You think you are driving your ass off, and have developed your car to the max, but you haven't. So everyone in front of you has ot be cheating.

It's interesting to me but I think the prevalence of cheating decreases the further up the grid you go. At least in our run groups, we all know about what a "fast" ITS car should be capable of, and if something is out of whack it's either a real power to weight issue (say the unrestricted ITS E36s) or someone has something funny going on.

I'm pretty convinced that most of the fast ITS cars in the SEDiv if not all of them are legal. There may be some nits here and there but the big stuff? All legal.

I am not saying that anyone is illegal. Singling people out is what I would like to avoid. I think that if we can change the culture then people with less development will be more assured that drivers with more are doing so based on ability and setup rather than illegal bits and pieces.

I really really wish the did compliance checks at teh SIC like they do the ARRC. With moving the SIC to daytona this puts it in the backyard of the CFR so the people that do not make teh trip to GA should come. I wonder who would knowing they are going to get inspected?

If what Greg talking about is still the real process. It benefits you to run something obscure. I heard all sorts of grey area stories on a 190 mercedes and 325E BMWs.

So this should help. changing a culture and blanket cam and compression checks both non invasive, plus any visual checks maybe like a hood up car show so that everyone can see.

If something fails the check, and the offender pushes back saying prove it, then we will cross that bridge when we get there.

[jjjanos]

Step 1. Dyno the car before the teardown.
Step 2. Verify those parts and modifications which are verifiable.
Step 3. If vehicle contains parts deemed legal due to inability to verify that they are stock, the parts must be considered stock.
Step 4. We now have a valid dyno pull on a motor that we have established is legal. The only question is whether the engine is a 10/10ths build. Assume that it is not. If the dyno result has an HP below the process HP, the engine is not a 10/10ths build. Stop. If the dyno result is above the process HP, the car obviously makes more than process multiplier. We don't know how much, but we do know that your car is going to be carrying extra weight based on what your legal motor that isn't 10/10ths just demonstrated.
Step 5. Car owner - you now have a choice...
A. Turn state's evidence, turn over the illegal part(s), take your DQ and points and walk away without weight being thrown on your car. Publish the protest in Fasttrack noting that SCCA has retained the dimensions and specifications of these illegal parts and these parts are now ILLEGAL.
B. Stay mum. You get your finishing position, weight on your car and a gold star for demonstrating that your car makes more than the process gains. Publish the results in Fasttrack so that everyone else who drives that model car can thank you for being such a good citizen by having your legal motor put on a dyno.

You wanna cheat because it cannot be caught? Great. You're going to put on more weight than a college freshman.

[gran racing]

Step 1. Dyno the car before the teardown.

If someone else wants to dyno my car, they better bring the dyno to the track or be in the GCR as part of the protest process. Even if done locally, loading / unloading and everything in between consumes too much time and is a PITA.

Besides, the process is used to derive a close estimate. Now one car makes more power than estimated, the illegal items were not caught, the weight for that car gets adjusted and all other owners of said vehicle get a penalty?

The process isn't perfect. Dyno numbers certainly are not either.

[jjjanos]

If someone else wants to dyno my car, they better bring the dyno to the track or be in the GCR as part of the protest process. Even if done locally, loading / unloading and everything in between consumes too much time and is a PITA.

Well it can't happen unless it is part of the GCR, but that being said, nothing in the GCR requires that the tear down take place at the track or even that weekend. (I seem to recall a mechanical protest at Pocono where the protested drivers wanted to tear down down the next weekend after the WGI double?).

Besides, the process is used to derive a close estimate. Now one car makes more power than estimated, the illegal items were not caught, the weight for that car gets adjusted and all other owners of said vehicle get a penalty?

If one car makes more than process, they all can. If you can verify the legality of the head, the crank, the valves, etc. and the cam cannot be verified because SCCA's requires a "verified" stock cam and there are no such beasts, then the cam in the protested car is legal. There are no illegal parts that weren't discovered.

We've only got a couple of choices:
1. Put the weight on the legal car that exceeds the process gains
2. Allow everyone who drives that car to cheat with that part
3. Toss the car out of IT as a car whose legality cannot be verified

The important part is allowing the cheater with the tech-shed legal engine have a choice. You've got a possibly illegal motor but the stock parts to prove don't exist. Either your motor is legal and it makes more than the process weight (in which case your car needs the weight) or it is unprovable-illegal and you are going to show us the illegal part - your choice.

If it were me and I knew what was illegal, I'd take the DQ and hand over the part. More weight just means more consumables.

[pfcs]

what a concept

[Flyinglizard]

My son and I have run the oval track for maybe 80 races. He won around 10 or more features. To collect your money you have to run thru tech. tech may include a vacuum check For excessive cam/
The oval tracks are aware of the cam tech issues and simply state a min vac rule. Our was 17in. I ran an optional alternator with a field switch along with an electric fan.
Post checker, on the way into tech,the alt was fielded and the fan lit. This draws the alt load and idle down,passing tech. I ran a lot of cam, 276/288 on 112LC.
If the battery was low I could get a pretty nice idle.

Contrast that to the Mk1 VW and 026# cam. the Fuel injection was lean high end and Ineeded to run the base mixture really fat. The cam was timed @ plus3. it idles poorly at best. pure legal tho.

For IT racing , hold a driver meeting, state that you will have to pull the VC to collect points and trophy.

First, The cams must have the right part numbers. They should be in the factory SM.
next, you can measure max lift on most OHC engines with veniers, the FSM should also have the min cam lift allowed, may not.
For reground cams you will need the OE cam for comparision. Again the change is visual over the stocker.

If it gets so that the cam has the right part numbers and lift but may be a regrind. You can check for larger lift windows by CCing the entire cam(plunk in into a tube of fluid, measure level rise etc). You still need the OE cam for comparision.

Remember that cam opening timing is stillnot regulated and really cant be without allowing adjustable cam wheels.IMHO

[Z3_GoCar]

Maybe. Probably not.

We had a situation at the Runoffs this year regarding a protest on a turbocharger. Competitior protested that the turbo was modified. Protestor could not obtain a new turbo to compare it against, because the turbo was no longer available as a new part. Protester contacted the original turbo supplier and had them ship, directly from them to SCCA at Road America, two warranty-returned turbos from that car for visual and dimensional comparison; those parts even had tags with the original VIN that they came from. SCCA Court of Appeals did not accept those as valid comparative parts.

Protestee won the appeal on those grounds, however it's likely that this turbo, which was an alternative allowance, will not be allowed in the future due to its inability to be satisfactorily scrutinized.

Bottom line: a reg that cannot be scrutineered is effectively not a reg. See definition of "tech shed legal".

- GA

So, they were bounced for an illegal TIR? I'd not heard this part of the story yet. The alternate turbo will be pulled. Replaced with a new spec alternate turbo or have to go back to the original turbo?

[Greg Amy]

So, they were bounced for an illegal TIR?

Eventually that car was, but the TIR issue was not related to this specific turbo compliance issue.

Replaced with a new spec alternate turbo or have to go back to the original turbo?

Next Fastrack will have the final answer on that one.

- GA

[Z3_GoCar]

Eventually that car was, but the TIR issue was not related to this specific turbo compliance issue.


Next Fastrack will have the final answer on that one.

- GA

Ah, so the car bounced for it's TIR mounting wasn't this one, even though it's turbo wasn't the correct altnernate turbo. Thanks Greg.

James

[Greg Amy]

No, it was the same car, but the two issues - incorrect TIR and "not-scrutineer-able" turbo - were coincidental, unrelated.

As far as we know it was the correct alternate turbo, given we had no way to confirm its authenticity. But because we cannot confirm its authenticity, I understand the CRB will remove it as an allowable alternative turbo.

Capiche?

Fastrack will have the final word.

- GA

[Ron Earp]

GA said:

We had a situation at the Runoffs this year regarding a protest on a turbocharger. Competitior protested that the turbo was modified. Protestor could not obtain a new turbo to compare it against, because the turbo was no longer available as a new part. Protester contacted the original turbo supplier and had them ship, directly from them to SCCA at Road America, two warranty-returned turbos from that car for visual and dimensional comparison; those parts even had tags with the original VIN that they came from. SCCA Court of Appeals did not accept those as valid comparative parts.

The SCCA would not accept those turbos as OEM new? If not, then the SCCA has set the bar so high for acceptable OEM parts that the protest system cannot work. Most of the cars we race do so with NLA parts. If we have no parts that are acceptable as stock for a protest situation then we can't prove someone is using illegal parts. Not good.

[Greg Amy]

The SCCA would not accept those turbos as OEM new?

They were not OEM new parts.

As I understand the situation -- and please note, I was not officially involved in this protest in any way, everything I have is second-hand, and public info AFAIK... -- the car in question was a Mazdaspeed Miata M2 turbo engine, installed in an M1 chassis. This engine was a Mazda USA design, where Mazda USA installed turbocharger systems on the cars at the Cali port after arrival from Japan prior to shipped to dealers. This turbo system was sourced from Callaway. Same thing happened from the Mazdaspeed Protege 5 turbo: it was a port-installed turbo system, sourced from Callaway.

Couple years or so ago, the CRB approved for STU the installation of the turbo from the Mazdaspeed Protege 5 onto the Mazdaspeed Miata. The car in question at the Runoffs was using the Protege turbo.

Car in question was protested at the Runoffs for turbo modifications; protester contacted Mazda directly to have them ship an OEM new turbo to Road America. Protester was told by Mazda that the turbo was no longer available new, but that Callaway was the oe manufacturer. Protester contacted Callaway directly and asked for one of those turbos new, as installed onto the Mazdaspeed Protege 5; protester was told that the turbo was NLA new, but they had two warranty returns from Mazda.

Warranty return parts are used parts that Callaway accepted/requested back from Mazda after Mazda replaced them on street cars under their warranty (Mazda does not keep used/warranty parts, especially if they are not the source for them). These parts were replaced by the dealer, sent back to Mazda, and Mazda sent them back to the supplier, Callaway. These are the used parts - shipped from Callaway, not Mazda - that were presented to SCCA as comparable inspection items, that were subsequently declined by SCCA as acceptable comparative parts.

My personal opinion: this was the correct move. These were used parts, and there's no way to know what failed on them or why, or what may have been changed in the process of port installation, driving, dealer replacement, sitting on dealer warranty shelf, back to Mazda, and back to Callaway, so forth.

Had they been brandy-new replacement parts from Mazda? Great, they're acceptable. And I compliment the protester's resourcefulness in attempting to find a suitable comparative part. But in this case the whole "chain of custody" thing is lost and there's really no way to know for absolute certainty the validity against which they would be comparing the competitor's installed part.

Capiche?

And in Improved Touring, given we have cars as old as half a century competing, it *is* a very high standard against which to assure compliance with the regulations. But is the community willing to take a stand and start de-listing cars that are older than a reasonably-accessible age? I suggest not. Alternatively, is the community willing to accept generic-dimension alternate parts allowance for items that are basically un-scrutineer-able (such as allowing XX size valve lifts and YY size throttle bodies and open rods, cranks, etc)? Again, I suggest not.

So, you're in a bit of a pickle with no way out of the barrel.

- GA

[quadzjr]

hmm.. I sure hope it does not come to that, though I know it could easily be done if the person wants to go that route.

So if anybody knows anybody in the CFR or other regions going to the turkey trot, more specifically ITB, to let them know that we are trying to change for the better. You can give my contact info as well.

[jjjanos]

And in Improved Touring, given we have cars as old as half a century competing, it *is* a very high standard against which to assure compliance with the regulations. But is the community willing to take a stand and start de-listing cars that are older than a reasonably-accessible age? I suggest not. Alternatively, is the community willing to accept generic-dimension alternate parts allowance for items that are basically un-scrutineer-able (such as allowing XX size valve lifts and YY size throttle bodies and open rods, cranks, etc)? Again, I suggest not.

So, you're in a bit of a pickle with no way out of the barrel.

- GA

I believe I gave a map for the way out, people just didn't want to crawl through the dirty hole.

[Greg Amy]

I believe I gave a map for the way out, people just didn't want to crawl through the dirty hole.

It's a clever idea, I like it. But, as was inelegantly responded afterward, it's not realistic. SCCA just doesn't have those resources, either technically or manpower.

So the beat goes on.

- GA

[jumbojimbo]

It's a clever idea, I like it. But, as was inelegantly responded afterward, it's not realistic. SCCA just doesn't have those resources, either technically or manpower.

So the beat goes on.

- GA

Hey, just because it's not possible doesn't mean we shouldn't do it. Oh wait, I thought I was at work for a moment there.

[Knestis]

GA said:

We had a situation at the Runoffs this year regarding a protest on a turbocharger. Competitior protested that the turbo was modified. Protestor could not obtain a new turbo to compare it against, because the turbo was no longer available as a new part. Protester contacted the original turbo supplier and had them ship, directly from them to SCCA at Road America, two warranty-returned turbos from that car for visual and dimensional comparison; those parts even had tags with the original VIN that they came from. SCCA Court of Appeals did not accept those as valid comparative parts.

The SCCA would not accept those turbos as OEM new? If not, then the SCCA has set the bar so high for acceptable OEM parts that the protest system cannot work. Most of the cars we race do so with NLA parts. If we have no parts that are acceptable as stock for a protest situation then we can't prove someone is using illegal parts. Not good.

Somewhere along the line - about the point when stewards evolved to not have vertebrae, I think - the evidential standard for a finding of "out of compliance" went from "beyond a reasonable doubt" to "absofarkinglutely positive." Afraid to piss anyone off, the officials let the paddock lawyers (not you, Jeff) prevail.

Go to any local yokel stock car track and there will be a guy who makes judgment calls. "Nope. Clever but not legal. Go fix it." John Bishop was legendary in IMSA for doing the same thing. NASCAR Cup does it...

We, on the other hand, have created a situation where even the tiniest sliver of doubt is enough to result in acquittal - or dropped charges. "HAH, HAH! You can't PROOOOVE that it's not right so it IS RIGHT!!!" (See also, "tech shed legal.) If we could collectively shift our expectations to something more reasonable, we wouldn't have so much cheating.

But then, looking at evidence, we are a culture that frankly likes to cheat.

K

[jjjanos]

It's a clever idea, I like it. But, as was inelegantly responded afterward, it's not realistic. SCCA just doesn't have those resources, either technically or manpower.

So the beat goes on.

- GA

I think you overstate the resource requirements.
Engines don't need to be torn-down at the track. (The two mechanicals I've seen for internals involved towing the protested car to a shop to be torn down in an environment that allowed the engine to be put together for the next day's race)
Dynos aren't that far from most tracks and if the dyno pull gives you an engine below what the process says, why bother with the rest of the protest? The guy might be cheating, but he's not even getting as much as he could from a legal motor.

[quadzjr]

I think you overstate the resource requirements.
Engines don't need to be torn-down at the track. (The two mechanicals I've seen for internals involved towing the protested car to a shop to be torn down in an environment that allowed the engine to be put together for the next day's race)
Dynos aren't that far from most tracks and if the dyno pull gives you an engine below what the process says, why bother with the rest of the protest? The guy might be cheating, but he's not even getting as much as he could from a legal motor.

So for the cars that are under process power.. even with 10/10ths builds.. do we get to cheat to get up to process power?

[Knestis]

Ironically, that kind of approach is behind much of the broo-hah-hah currently being dealt with in ITB, derived largely out of pockets of full fields in the mid-Atlantic and NE.

Some guys cheated, other guys cheated just enough to compete with the cheaters, and a kind of cheaty detente was achieved. As long as nobody went TOO fast, everyone was fine with it. They were all more or less illegal, but some came with relative deficiencies that were made up by marginally bigger cheats. The (not so) Great Realignment codified that status quo around the most popular options (read, "competitive," the "Bogey cars") as cars were assigned weights that locked them into competitive parity - based on cheated-up power.

Whoops.

Along comes the Process and we discover that it creates impossible tangles to try to rectify those baked-in mistakes. The ITAC tries. Panic ensues. The Craptastic Compromise Cha Cha continues for several more years...

K