Originally posted by badal:
Then where do you get a known example of a stock cam? And I said it would be "found legal". That does not mean it is legal, just that it can't be proven illegal.
Lets say you're a VW competitor, and bought out a failing dealerships part supplies years ago for your specialty repair and racing business. You happen to have a bunch of 1978 VW original equipment cams, with the original correct part number.
Your competitor does not, but needs a cam, so he goes and gets one from the dealer in 2003. As they no longer have the original, they hand him the "g grind" and off he goes.
A third competitor gets wind of this and protests him. He provides the documentation of the correct part number, and even provides your name as a source of the actual part, a new (NOS) sealed in the box cam.
The follow thru has you shipping the part to Kansas, the Stewards shipping the protested "G grind" to Kansas, where they are both run on the "Cam doctor", which as I understand it, provides the polar plot Gregg refered to.
A third cam is procured from VWNA by the independent source that does the actual testing. (This is not the standard practice, but was the procedure followed in a recent SM camshaft protest, so I feel it is appropriate) They also try to source an original part, but it appears you have purchased the last of the NOS ones.
Test results show: The cam supplied as NOS has different polar plots than the other two, which match each other. It also has a different p/n than the other two, which also have p/ns that match each other.
So, what will the decision be?
1: The protest is upheld as the G grind does not meet the specs of the original cam?
2: The protest is upheld because the G grind does not have the correct p/n stamped on it as does the original cam?
3: The protest is disallowed because the source of the original cam is not considered to be trustworthy?
4: The protest is upheld because the G grind part number is not listed as a line item in the ITCS?
All of the above?
The crux of your question is: Who does the onus of proof fall upon....the protester or the protestee? In other words, innocent until proven guilty or vice versa?
Some interesting related GCR tidbits:
In the ITCS, it states the parts that are non original ARE allowed, providing that the "Documentation of.....must be supplied to the Club Racing Board, and the ...part numbers listed ...in the specification line."
OK, fine, but it leaves out the important standard: WHO supples the documentation?
And another, in the section regarding protests, and the procedure for cam checking by the head office: 13.4.1.E.2, "A known stock example of the camshaft in question must be provided with the protested camshaft...."
Again...by whom? And how is "known" verified??
Thoughts?
------------------
Jake Gulick
CarriageHouse Motorsports
ITA 57 RX-7
New England Region
[email protected]
