lateapex911
Super Moderator
A protest story….a bit long.
Many of you are not aware of a recent protest action in the NE division. It has been discussed in the NE section of IT.com under the heading of “Hawthorne Protest”. I suggest some background reading. I warn you also that this write up is not a short one, but even at this length, there is more.
First, some general comments. I am writing this summation for a number of reasons. , I promised all a full disclosure, and as we have discussed the entire protest procedure here on the site, I think this protest is one that will shed a lot of light on the workings of the system and the procedure. Hopefully this will provide insight for those who haven’t been there before.
Second, I will be disclosing all the facts, and there are some issues that are not pleasant. We are all human, and we all make mistakes from time to time. This BBS is well known for rational discussion, and I hope inflammatory comments will be kept under check. There is no need to trash the protesters, the protested, nor the officials involved in the procedure.
In this post I will outline the actual proceedings and process, and in the following post I will make some observations and comments on what went right, what went wrong, how we as competitors can best use the system, and how the system can be improved. I invite all to comment accordingly, and feel free to ask questions of items I have overlooked.
That said, some background. Five ITA drivers (alphabetically, Tom Blaney, CRX, Ray Lee Chee, Acura Integra, Jake Gulick RX-7 {and ‘recording secretary’ of the protest}, Richard Hunter, Acura Integra, and Anthony Serra, Acura Integra) protested Shane Hawthorne’s CRX, on a variety of items at the NARRC Runoffs at Lime Rock Park in CT. As background, Serra finished 2nd at the ARRCs last year and set fast race lap. Blaney has been around racing in SS, Pod, and now IT. He and Serra trade race wins.
On Friday after qualifying, we went through final discussion as to whether to move forward with the protest or not. After finalizing the decision, I was chosen to contact the Chief Steward and discuss the process at about 3PM. Dick Patullo acted as advisor during this stage. The Chief Steward sent us to the Drivers Liaison, Stan Rider, who outlined the procedure and the timing of the protest. He stressed that the paperwork be submitted ASAP so that the tech officials could prepare. He also inquired as to whether any of our party had any discussions with Shane. We had. Shane is more of an occasional competitor than the other front runners, and his times showed a large drop at the very fast end of the curve that raised eyebrows. He is a good driver to be sure. But it was felt that the way his times were set, and how the car ran on the track was suspect. Certain clues as to the fuel used hinted at engine issues as well. Three members of the group discussed his performance on one occasion or another, and the talks netted a feeling that the story didn’t jive. In the end, it was felt that the competitors in the class have spent significant time and money to create legal and fast cars, and wanted assurance that all cars at the front were clean.
With the proper forms, we set about defining the protest. Once we defined the exact parameters we submitted the paperwork along with the fees. It was then discovered that a group may not protest. It must be an individual. Ergo, my name was used.
This set the wheels in motion, and the SOM in charge of the protest, Terry Hanushek, as well as the Head of Tech, Richard Welty were summoned to the tower after Welty’s duties in tech were finished, and we sat down to establish the exact parameters of discovery that we were requiring. This is an important part of the procedure. For example, we protested the rear tires protruding enough that the tread was visible from a vertical position above the rear quarter, and listed the GCR rule and defining technique as our standard. We also protested a number of items in the engine.
I should note here that this protest was thought out, and designed to be as “efficient” as possible. We didn’t want to tear the entire engine apart, but we wanted to pull the head and define as much of the engine as possible. In doing it this way we felt that the burden on tech was manageable, and the protest was reasonable as it was interested in significant performance enhancing issues, rather than minor details that may have been illegal but wouldn’t be dramatic performance enhancers. Throughout the process, our thrust was to conduct a “fair and well intentioned” protest. We felt that as the ITA cars were in Group 1, that this weekend would be ideal from a scheduling standpoint as well.
In the meeting we defined our standards for the teardown using the factory shop manual to provide the proper part numbers and specifications for the parts we were protesting. We also used the GCR to provide pertinent ITCS specs. During this process, Terry Hanushek worked methodically from item to item to come up with an exact list that tech would use to determine compliance. It was obvious that he was concerned with being fair, and exact. We also provided standard shop rate information to be used in determining the bond. We offered all the proper tools to be used to measure the parameters we protested, but due to obvious conflicts of interest, we were told that our tools could not be used in any way. We left the meeting assured that the tools would be available and that a proper teardown location had been arranged. By this time, Shane had left, and was not able to be informed.
The following morning Terry met with Shane, and discussed his options. He could withdraw, and be sanctioned per the GCR (6 mo. suspension, and a $250 fine), perform the disassembly himself, or a third party could do the work and be paid thru the bond. The bond amount was discussed with him as well, determined to be fair, and he chose to do the work himself. Terry met with me and set the bond amount at $800, which included the fees, the labor, the cam check fee, as well as shipping, and restocking costs for the cam. We paid the amount in cash, and it was sent to the national office to be held in escrow until the end of the appeal period.
I am told that the car was under SOM observation from the time the protest was lodged until the tear down was completed.
I am also told that due to a communication problem, the location that was to host the teardown was unavailable, and that the decision was made to conduct it in Shanes paddock area. We also heard requests over the PA for anyone with engine measuring tools to come forward.
At the end of the day, we met with the protest committee to discuss their findings. Terry began by stating that the SOMs only had to meet with me, but as a courtesy, he allowed the other protesters to sit in. (All were there except Blaney)
The rulings:
1- The tires were judged to be in compliance. This surprised our team as they protruded excessively, but the procedure involves rolling the car though talc to define “tread”. As the car was a lightly loaded front driver, and the rears have 2 or 3 degrees of camber, only a portion of the tire is in contact with the pavement at static rest. Significantly less that what most would consider the “tread”.
2- The bore was measured via a micrometer at the top, and “t” gauges further down, which were then measured. The bore was in compliance. The proper bore gauge was unavailable.
3- The deck showed no signs of visual modification and was judged to be in compliance.
4- The head thickness was measured using a micrometer and was in compliance, and the judgment was made that it was un-modified in terms of combustion chamber shape.
5- The pistons were examined and were determined to be of a non stock origin. There were no part numbers visible, as there would be with stock Honda parts.. During the process, it was related to us by Terry that Shane admitted they were not factory, but he said that they were of stock specifications, although he didn’t know the source. A digital picture was taken as there was no known good example of a stock piston available.
6- The SOMs and Tech person were unable to CC the required volumes as we required, to determine compression ratio. Therefore no calculation of existing compression ratio was possible. They made the judgment, however, that compression ratio was in compliance due to the fact that neither the head, nor the block showed signs of modifications, and the measurements that they had taken were in line with specs.
7- The protest also listed the throttle body. Our requirements were that it have the stock part number, and show no signs of modification. (there were no dimensions available in the FSM) It was found to have illegible part numbers, but was determined to be in compliance because it appeared old, dirty and stock.
I would be remiss if I didn’t note that there was some heated discussion through this findings report.
At the end, I wanted to cover a couple of issues.
First, I suggested that the determination of the compression ratio was invalid as it assumed that the pistons met stock specifications. I was told that the pistons appeared to be the same as in the FSM, and that they appeared stock. I asserted that the line drawing that was being referred to wasn’t an engineering drawing, and that it was likely a “generic” rendition of a typical piston. I was told that the decision was made, and stood.
Second, I wanted to re-examine the throttle body issue. I asked what options existed. Terry began to outline the procedure where a stock throttle body could be obtained, and comparisons made, but he was stopped by Sarah, who stated that the part had been released, and no further discussion could be made. I noted that that was most unfortunate, as I felt that there was a possibility that another ‘old’ throttle body from a higher performance model could have been substituted. Again, I was told the decision was final.
I was informed that this was a meeting to relate their findings, that they were entertaining discussion and questions as a courtesy, and that the findings were final, and only subject to appeal. I was asked for two decisions: Did I (we) still want to send the cam to Kansas, and did I want to pursue matching the digital picture of the piston with a stock example. After private discussion with the others, I said yes to the first, and at first I thought the piston picture comparison was a waste of time, but did it after being reminded that gross differences would be obvious.
Subsequent findings:
The camshaft was put on the “Cam Doctor” in Topeka by Jeremy, and checked against a digital file he has and was determined to be stock and within compliance.
The digital picture was taken by Kathy Barnes (NER RE and SOM) to a Honda dealer, and a stock part was ordered. Upon comparison, a Honda Technical rep signed an affidavit stating that the piston pictured was not of stock configuration, and was in fact a domed piston, and was not in compliance..
That completes the items that were protested. Due to the non compliance of the piston(s), the protest was upheld. The protest fee, along with the bond amount that was apportioned to the teardown aspect of the procedure will be returned to the protesters once the appeal time window is over, and Shane will be sanctioned. The penalty was determined by the stewards to be disqualification from the event. Terry indicated that discussions with Shane resulted in the understanding that Shane was not informed as to the contents of the motor by his engine builder. The stewards felt that the disqualification, the cost of motor re-assembly, and the stigma of a guilty verdict were sufficient penalties.
(Edits for proper paragraphing)
------------------
Jake Gulick
CarriageHouse Motorsports
ITA 57 RX-7
New England Region
[email protected]
[This message has been edited by lateapex911 (edited October 18, 2004).]
Many of you are not aware of a recent protest action in the NE division. It has been discussed in the NE section of IT.com under the heading of “Hawthorne Protest”. I suggest some background reading. I warn you also that this write up is not a short one, but even at this length, there is more.
First, some general comments. I am writing this summation for a number of reasons. , I promised all a full disclosure, and as we have discussed the entire protest procedure here on the site, I think this protest is one that will shed a lot of light on the workings of the system and the procedure. Hopefully this will provide insight for those who haven’t been there before.
Second, I will be disclosing all the facts, and there are some issues that are not pleasant. We are all human, and we all make mistakes from time to time. This BBS is well known for rational discussion, and I hope inflammatory comments will be kept under check. There is no need to trash the protesters, the protested, nor the officials involved in the procedure.
In this post I will outline the actual proceedings and process, and in the following post I will make some observations and comments on what went right, what went wrong, how we as competitors can best use the system, and how the system can be improved. I invite all to comment accordingly, and feel free to ask questions of items I have overlooked.
That said, some background. Five ITA drivers (alphabetically, Tom Blaney, CRX, Ray Lee Chee, Acura Integra, Jake Gulick RX-7 {and ‘recording secretary’ of the protest}, Richard Hunter, Acura Integra, and Anthony Serra, Acura Integra) protested Shane Hawthorne’s CRX, on a variety of items at the NARRC Runoffs at Lime Rock Park in CT. As background, Serra finished 2nd at the ARRCs last year and set fast race lap. Blaney has been around racing in SS, Pod, and now IT. He and Serra trade race wins.
On Friday after qualifying, we went through final discussion as to whether to move forward with the protest or not. After finalizing the decision, I was chosen to contact the Chief Steward and discuss the process at about 3PM. Dick Patullo acted as advisor during this stage. The Chief Steward sent us to the Drivers Liaison, Stan Rider, who outlined the procedure and the timing of the protest. He stressed that the paperwork be submitted ASAP so that the tech officials could prepare. He also inquired as to whether any of our party had any discussions with Shane. We had. Shane is more of an occasional competitor than the other front runners, and his times showed a large drop at the very fast end of the curve that raised eyebrows. He is a good driver to be sure. But it was felt that the way his times were set, and how the car ran on the track was suspect. Certain clues as to the fuel used hinted at engine issues as well. Three members of the group discussed his performance on one occasion or another, and the talks netted a feeling that the story didn’t jive. In the end, it was felt that the competitors in the class have spent significant time and money to create legal and fast cars, and wanted assurance that all cars at the front were clean.
With the proper forms, we set about defining the protest. Once we defined the exact parameters we submitted the paperwork along with the fees. It was then discovered that a group may not protest. It must be an individual. Ergo, my name was used.
This set the wheels in motion, and the SOM in charge of the protest, Terry Hanushek, as well as the Head of Tech, Richard Welty were summoned to the tower after Welty’s duties in tech were finished, and we sat down to establish the exact parameters of discovery that we were requiring. This is an important part of the procedure. For example, we protested the rear tires protruding enough that the tread was visible from a vertical position above the rear quarter, and listed the GCR rule and defining technique as our standard. We also protested a number of items in the engine.
I should note here that this protest was thought out, and designed to be as “efficient” as possible. We didn’t want to tear the entire engine apart, but we wanted to pull the head and define as much of the engine as possible. In doing it this way we felt that the burden on tech was manageable, and the protest was reasonable as it was interested in significant performance enhancing issues, rather than minor details that may have been illegal but wouldn’t be dramatic performance enhancers. Throughout the process, our thrust was to conduct a “fair and well intentioned” protest. We felt that as the ITA cars were in Group 1, that this weekend would be ideal from a scheduling standpoint as well.
In the meeting we defined our standards for the teardown using the factory shop manual to provide the proper part numbers and specifications for the parts we were protesting. We also used the GCR to provide pertinent ITCS specs. During this process, Terry Hanushek worked methodically from item to item to come up with an exact list that tech would use to determine compliance. It was obvious that he was concerned with being fair, and exact. We also provided standard shop rate information to be used in determining the bond. We offered all the proper tools to be used to measure the parameters we protested, but due to obvious conflicts of interest, we were told that our tools could not be used in any way. We left the meeting assured that the tools would be available and that a proper teardown location had been arranged. By this time, Shane had left, and was not able to be informed.
The following morning Terry met with Shane, and discussed his options. He could withdraw, and be sanctioned per the GCR (6 mo. suspension, and a $250 fine), perform the disassembly himself, or a third party could do the work and be paid thru the bond. The bond amount was discussed with him as well, determined to be fair, and he chose to do the work himself. Terry met with me and set the bond amount at $800, which included the fees, the labor, the cam check fee, as well as shipping, and restocking costs for the cam. We paid the amount in cash, and it was sent to the national office to be held in escrow until the end of the appeal period.
I am told that the car was under SOM observation from the time the protest was lodged until the tear down was completed.
I am also told that due to a communication problem, the location that was to host the teardown was unavailable, and that the decision was made to conduct it in Shanes paddock area. We also heard requests over the PA for anyone with engine measuring tools to come forward.
At the end of the day, we met with the protest committee to discuss their findings. Terry began by stating that the SOMs only had to meet with me, but as a courtesy, he allowed the other protesters to sit in. (All were there except Blaney)
The rulings:
1- The tires were judged to be in compliance. This surprised our team as they protruded excessively, but the procedure involves rolling the car though talc to define “tread”. As the car was a lightly loaded front driver, and the rears have 2 or 3 degrees of camber, only a portion of the tire is in contact with the pavement at static rest. Significantly less that what most would consider the “tread”.
2- The bore was measured via a micrometer at the top, and “t” gauges further down, which were then measured. The bore was in compliance. The proper bore gauge was unavailable.
3- The deck showed no signs of visual modification and was judged to be in compliance.
4- The head thickness was measured using a micrometer and was in compliance, and the judgment was made that it was un-modified in terms of combustion chamber shape.
5- The pistons were examined and were determined to be of a non stock origin. There were no part numbers visible, as there would be with stock Honda parts.. During the process, it was related to us by Terry that Shane admitted they were not factory, but he said that they were of stock specifications, although he didn’t know the source. A digital picture was taken as there was no known good example of a stock piston available.
6- The SOMs and Tech person were unable to CC the required volumes as we required, to determine compression ratio. Therefore no calculation of existing compression ratio was possible. They made the judgment, however, that compression ratio was in compliance due to the fact that neither the head, nor the block showed signs of modifications, and the measurements that they had taken were in line with specs.
7- The protest also listed the throttle body. Our requirements were that it have the stock part number, and show no signs of modification. (there were no dimensions available in the FSM) It was found to have illegible part numbers, but was determined to be in compliance because it appeared old, dirty and stock.
I would be remiss if I didn’t note that there was some heated discussion through this findings report.
At the end, I wanted to cover a couple of issues.
First, I suggested that the determination of the compression ratio was invalid as it assumed that the pistons met stock specifications. I was told that the pistons appeared to be the same as in the FSM, and that they appeared stock. I asserted that the line drawing that was being referred to wasn’t an engineering drawing, and that it was likely a “generic” rendition of a typical piston. I was told that the decision was made, and stood.
Second, I wanted to re-examine the throttle body issue. I asked what options existed. Terry began to outline the procedure where a stock throttle body could be obtained, and comparisons made, but he was stopped by Sarah, who stated that the part had been released, and no further discussion could be made. I noted that that was most unfortunate, as I felt that there was a possibility that another ‘old’ throttle body from a higher performance model could have been substituted. Again, I was told the decision was final.
I was informed that this was a meeting to relate their findings, that they were entertaining discussion and questions as a courtesy, and that the findings were final, and only subject to appeal. I was asked for two decisions: Did I (we) still want to send the cam to Kansas, and did I want to pursue matching the digital picture of the piston with a stock example. After private discussion with the others, I said yes to the first, and at first I thought the piston picture comparison was a waste of time, but did it after being reminded that gross differences would be obvious.
Subsequent findings:
The camshaft was put on the “Cam Doctor” in Topeka by Jeremy, and checked against a digital file he has and was determined to be stock and within compliance.
The digital picture was taken by Kathy Barnes (NER RE and SOM) to a Honda dealer, and a stock part was ordered. Upon comparison, a Honda Technical rep signed an affidavit stating that the piston pictured was not of stock configuration, and was in fact a domed piston, and was not in compliance..
That completes the items that were protested. Due to the non compliance of the piston(s), the protest was upheld. The protest fee, along with the bond amount that was apportioned to the teardown aspect of the procedure will be returned to the protesters once the appeal time window is over, and Shane will be sanctioned. The penalty was determined by the stewards to be disqualification from the event. Terry indicated that discussions with Shane resulted in the understanding that Shane was not informed as to the contents of the motor by his engine builder. The stewards felt that the disqualification, the cost of motor re-assembly, and the stigma of a guilty verdict were sufficient penalties.
(Edits for proper paragraphing)
------------------
Jake Gulick
CarriageHouse Motorsports
ITA 57 RX-7
New England Region
[email protected]
[This message has been edited by lateapex911 (edited October 18, 2004).]
