Hawthorne Potest - Que Pasa'

A few years back, I was crewing at the RunOffs for a top 3 AS car - so we were impounded. We were given an area in which to work, and told to remove multiple parts. The inspectors measured displacement, cam lift, and even valve seats, after we (the crew) did the requested teardown. While in impound, we also were protested. We were further instructed to pull the trans, and they counted gear teeth.
Bottom line, we, the crew, did all tear down with our own tools, and inspectors only did measurements.

------------------
Dave Youngren
NER ITA RX7 #61
 
So is the protest over with and was he found in compliance? I would also like to give the region a $200.00 donation to help buy the correct tools and to have them at all the races.

Jeff Leone
 
You can’t expect the “crew” to tear the car down if protested by another party in club racing. For me, I am the crew. And I certainly do not have the tools or know how.

I would be interested in learning more about this…of course I’m interested in hearing what the end results are but for right now just generic questions. What happens to the car being protested until the conclusion is made? Does the driver bring it home minus the missing parts?

Is the driver responsible for putting it all back together? If found in compliance, do they get to have someone of their choice install it at an agreed upon price?

In a protest, if there are several items that were included does it only take one item no matter what it is (i.e. washer bottle, horn, ect) to make the protest decision? If the cam, piston, fly wheel, and horn were protested and inspected, would it only take one item such as a missing horn to cause the person being protested to lose the case?

A bond of $XX is paid by the people protesting. If they win obviously they get there money back. Does this also mean that the person found guilty has to pay this amount? Further, do they pay this amount then still have to put it back together?

What does the bond cover? I would imagine it covers the disassembly, checking of parts for compliance and reassembly?

I know…lots of questions here.

------------------
Dave Gran
NER #13
'87 Honda Prelude si
NOW ITB!!!
 
Dave,
Sounds like you're very worried about being protested??? Is there somthing we should know??
biggrin.gif


"NOW ITB!!!"

Great, another car that's going to whip up on me!!
mad.gif



------------------
Jeff L
#74 ITB GTi
 
Dave,

I will take first stab at it, and anyone out there please correct what I have wrong:

"What happens to the car being protested until the conclusion is made? Does the driver bring it home minus the missing parts?"

I believe they try to get the protest done at the event, if not, the car goes home minus the parts being protested.


"Is the driver responsible for putting it all back together? If found in compliance, do they get to have someone of their choice install it at an agreed upon price?"

The protest 'bond' is the cost it would take for someone to make everything the way it was prior to the protest.


In a protest, if there are several items that were included does it only take one item no matter what it is (i.e. washer bottle, horn, ect) to make the protest decision? If the cam, piston, fly wheel, and horn were protested and inspected, would it only take one item such as a missing horn to cause the person being protested to lose the case?

Yes, but protests must be VERY specific. i.e. Saying someone is cheating, is not a protest, stating that they have a lightened flywheel, here is the stock flywheel weight, etc...is a valid protest

A bond of $XX is paid by the people protesting. If they win obviously they get there money back. Does this also mean that the person found guilty has to pay this amount?

No, there are no financial penalities to the protestee is found guilty.


Further, do they pay this amount then still have to put it back together?

Putting it back together is one of the penalties.


What does the bond cover? I would imagine it covers the disassembly, checking of parts for compliance and reassembly?

The bond only covers the reassembly, or as I stated above, putting the car back to the condition it was in before the protest.

All--did I miss anything?


Regards,
Alan
 
Jeff...so you mean I shouldn't instal that turbo unit I've been developing? Sure, blow my plans right open.

But why not take things away from this protest and learn from it? Of course you have to assume I'll be on the other side. I saw that illegal non-OEM 1/100003 lighter light bulb.
smile.gif


I'm really looking forward to ITB for many reasons especially after talking with Ray and others a few months ago about the group.

Looking forward to seeing you out there next year.

------------------
Dave Gran
NER #13
'87 Honda Prelude si
NOW ITB!!!
 
Just some minor, possibly semantic, corrections.

First, grab your GCR and read 13.4, "Protests Against Cars."

The protest fee is agreed upon in advance, and should be based on industry standard practices (typically, a Mitchell or manufacturer's flat rate.) The bond is supposed to be set in order to cover the entire expenses of disassembly and reassembly, including standard expected parts such as gaskets.

Depending on the number of items protested (assuming it's greater than one), the bond can be "apportioned" for each process. This apportionment allows the bond to be either forwarded to the protestee (if found legal) or returned to the protester (if found illegal) up to the point of withdrawel. For example, if your throttle body and pistons were protested, and the throttle body was found to be legal, then you get that portion of the bond; if the protester chooses to continue then the games is still on for the pistons.

Now, as to who does the tear-down, traditionally it's done by the protested entrant, driver, and/or crew. However, except where required by Supplementary Regulations (such as at the Runoffs) there is NO REQUIREMENT that it be done at the track and/or by the entrant/driver. Given that the bond is supposed to be sufficient to cover these costs, the entrant can arrange for the vehicle to remain under the auspices of the SOM and be transported to an agreed-upon repair facility for the required disassembly. There it can be disassembled and inspected. The primary reason that it's traditionally done by the entrant is for convenience and financial reasons: if it's found to be legal the entrant keeps the fee, but if it's found illegal the entrant will be forced to pay the repair facility for the work.

Edit for clarification: If the entrant does the work and the car is legal, (s)he keeps the protest bond. If a repair facility does the work but the car is illegal, the entrant has to pay the repair facility for the work.

If the system works as designed, the protested LEGAL entrant will be of no lesser situation than before (and could, potentially, be in a better situation with a check in hand, especially if they were about to tear down anyway). However, if found ILLEGAL, the protested entrant will have a box full of parts, a DQ, and possible further sanctions depending on severity.

Greg


[This message has been edited by grega (edited October 05, 2004).]
 
What Greg said....

Dave- If you were protested you would have the option of performing the teardown work yourself, or if you feel that isn't in your best interest, you may use the bond to have the work performed by an independant third party. The bonds amount is discussed with both parties. In this most recent case, the amount was derived by Snap -On rates, with enough to cover new parts, etc. The geographic area is also taken into consideration. If you feel that the amount isn't sufficient, you may negotiate, or remind the officials of items that may have been overlooked.

The bond moneys are actually held in escrow until such time that the protest has been decided, and the (I think this is accurate) appeal period has passed. If there is an appeal on the actions of the officials, I am told, it could, in rare cases, affect the final resolution of the bond amount.

In terms of sanctions against the protested driver in the event the car is found to be out of compliance, it depends on the severity of the infraction, and the number of infractions, among other factors. The Stewards set the penalties based on established guidelines. (And yes, there are sanctions for a driver that refuses teardowns)

In a perfect world the bond would return the situation to the exact place it started, but I doubt that it is always the case. In some cases, as Greg mentioned, the protestee makes out as the engine was due for a rebuild anyway. In other cases, such as a rotary, it will really hurt the protestee, as the rotary will never make the same HP until it is significantly broken in. The cost of breaking (we can't go tearing around the neighborhood for hours at 7K rpm, can we?), the motor in is many track sessions, and the resultant expenses in tires, etc. But hopefully, the system averages out ok, most of the time.

In regards to the result of this protest, the final results will not be known for a number of weeks.

------------------
Jake Gulick
CarriageHouse Motorsports
ITA 57 RX-7
New England Region
[email protected]
 
So what exactly was protested? No one has mentioned that yet. I'd like to know since it's been discussed here. I normally don't ask about stuff like this because it's allegations and such but a formal protest was filed and it's being discussed in a public forum now. So, spill the beans.

steve
 
remove

[This message has been edited by Tom Blaney (edited October 09, 2004).]
 
I'm not sure how much light to shed on the situation at this point as it is still ongoing.

Five ITA drivers formed a group to look into some specific items on the Hawthore car. It was a logical, and good faith protest. Protest Steward Terry Hanushek (sp?) called it "a well written and proffesional protest".

On Edit: I will say this.....IF the goal was to have Shane disqualified from the event, the protest would have been handled much differently. First, it would have been submitted an hour before the race as the GCR allows, and secondly, there would have been additional items on the list that were easy slam dunk, black and white illegalities. But the protest group chose to ignore those, as they felt that the items, while not really acceptable, were not responsible for the cars performance, and were therefore inappropriate)

It was designed to determine the basic mechanical parameters of the engine, but in an easy to perform manner. The officials were notified in advance, and the tools required were common and basic.

More than that I can't comment on, as the discovery period is ongoing. We expect the final results of the protest phase to be returned in approximately two weeks.

I will let the other guys weigh in with their comments if they so choose, but to go into much more of the specifics at this point is probably unwise.

------------------
Jake Gulick
CarriageHouse Motorsports
ITA 57 RX-7
New England Region
[email protected]

[This message has been edited by lateapex911 (edited October 07, 2004).]
 
Tom,
I looked up some result from LRP. It looks like the times seem closer.

August 6-7, 2004
Shane Hawthorne Honda CRXSi 1:02.018*
===================================================
Date: 6/14/2003 Track: LRP
Tom Blaney 1:04.294
===================================================
June 17, 2004
Tom Blaney 1:03.605
===================================================
09 August 2003 Lime Rock Regional (1.53 miles)
Shane Hawthorne 1:03.607 Honda CRX Si/yellow/red
Tom Blaney 1:02.708 Honda CRX Si/white/black
===================================================
10 August 2002 Lime Rock Park
Tom Blaney 1:03.235
Shane Hawthorn 1:04.525
 
removed

[This message has been edited by Tom Blaney (edited October 09, 2004).]
 
Is it possible he was running a slug motor like I am now. 120,000 totally stock head and internals. I hope to be gaining 2 sec a lap by next year with a new motor and a little more suspension work. So will I be viewed as doing illegal things because I picked up so much time over the winter? Not trying to pick fights or be a wise ass. Just lookinbg at things from the other side of the coin.

------------------
Crazy Joe
#7 ITS
Nissan Sentra SE-R
 
The funny thing about this is that if you are driving at 100% of the cars capability, 20+ more HP ain't gonna get you 2 seconds at LRP.

From the outside, this looks like it was handled in a very professional manner from the Protestor's standpoint. Congratulations to all.

AB

------------------
Andy Bettencourt
ITS RX-7 & Spec Miata 1.6 (ITA project)
New England Region R188967
www.flatout-motorsports.com
 
For many of us, driving at 100% of the car's capability isn't something we accomplish each time we race, due to a lot of circumstances (despite a belief at the time of "there's nothing left in the car"). Many other factors can change, without the engine being altered, that will contribute to being 2 seconds a lap faster at LRP.
The three fast corners require confidence and experience to learn just how fast they can be taken safely. Fresh tires also play a big role, as well as seemingly minor suspension adjustments that improve the handling and feel of the car. Exit speed from the Uphill, Westbend and the Diving turns all help/hurt a lap more than a few HP. If you are braking or lifting before any of these turns, there may be substantial room for improvement.
I realize I'm not running in IT currently but I belive my example is valid. Since 1998 I haven't improved my best time in my 914, until last weekend. The engine peaks within 10 hp of what it did back then and I was able to run consistently and comfortably in the 1:01s during my race Saturday. That is compared to a previous best of 1:03.1 which I have rarely even come close to in the years between. It took that long for me to have the "complete package" and I am now confident I can run even faster without further changes to the car.
My point is that an unexpectedly fast car isn't necessarily the result of the engine being beyond spec.
That said, I will be interested in the outcome of this protest because of all the talk I hear/read about cheating and the need for drivers to control it.
I am pleased that it was a group effort and maybe more guys will look into this as a way to keep others honest.
smile.gif


------------------
Chris Foley
www.tangerineracing.com
 
Good points, of course, Chris.

I know that my car is capable of more, no doubt about it! I just need the neurons between my hands and feet to function better and....

I think what Tom is trying to say is that sure, sudden drops are possible, but not common. You mentioned that your time hasn't dropped in about 6 years or so, and I can tell you that I have seen you at Lime Rock a lot of times in the past 6 years.

The sharp end of the ITA class spends significant time at Lime Rock and behind the wheel as well. Serra rarely misses a test day, has data aq on his car, and if he ever quits racing, I am selling my Hoosier stock fast! And Blaney has been racing in SS, Prod and now IT for eons...(sorry Tom!)

Your time dropped about 1.5 seconds, which is a huge drop at the front of the grid. Shanes drops were greater, netted him a lap record, and he did it while only making occasional appearances at the track. There were other factors as well that led to the decision, of course.

So, the consensus was that we wanted to ask the question....do a little fact finding. Quietly, in ITA, there has been a movement amongst the frontrunners to run legal cars, and when that happens, those who have bent over backwards have an interest to be sure the rest of the guys are clean as well.

Shane seems like a good guy, a "shoe" to be sure, and if the result is that he was within compliance, he should consider this a "badge of honor".

If the process is followed, and the Stewards do thier job correctly, it can work to the protestees favor, earning him the respect of his peers.

------------------
Jake Gulick
CarriageHouse Motorsports
ITA 57 RX-7
New England Region
[email protected]
 
I like Jake's spin, "a badge of courage" and "respect of his peers" on this issue. It will be intersting to hear the final results.

I've known Shane since 1997, when I met him after he read a news piece in our local paper about my racing efforts. He expressed an interest in racing and I had pointed him towards an EMRA TT event. He did well right out of the box in a 1st Gen CRX. I spoke with Shane off and on about his motor through out this season, and he says he's clean, claims he races everytime he gets behind the wheel of a car to hone his skills, whether that be on the street or track, (be careful out there Shane). On the other hand Anthony S is my mentor in this sport and introduced my to racing, and Jake I met through an "in car video" through a friend who possesed the tape. I hold all these racers in the highest regard. They all have been helpful and supportive to me in many ways.

My disappointment regarding this issue is that it appears NYR was unable/uninterested to "properly" respond to the protest with the correct equipment. My understanding is the car should remain in impound until the "proper" inspection with the "correct" equipment is performed, that's also what the bond is about. Once you release the car from impound before the tests are done properly you loose control of the situation, and that's happened. I am also under the impression that issues appearing to have merit regarding the protest, were being ignored or minimized (ie: serial number scratches reading illedgible). If that's the case what's up with that?

I know that private conversations took place regarding this car, and driver(s) encouraged Shane to meet this issue head on, off-line. Serra, similiarly was "privately" being challenged by other drivers concerning his car and privately conducted inspections and dynos for those concerned drivers. Anthony also passed the scruntiny of the ARRC after finishing in second place last year and breaking a track record at "Road A" a track he never ran. I think the group effort reagarding the protest was proper, since these drivers had questions regarding the car. We have to remember this is not an attack on Shane, NYR, or SCCA, only the proper way to conduct business "publically" whan questions need to be asked that can not be answered "privatelly".
I'm not sure what the answer is. I think if we police ourselves in private as "gentlemen racers" we avoid public scrutiny. I do think it is wrong to think "cheater" every time we see a fast car/driver, although I understand the temptation, (we all think we all cheat, right?). At the end of the day it would be my hope that ALL of us learn a little something from this protest.
If our leaders are reading, what should we hope for regarding testing equipment for tech?
My only regret is that this issue has cast a bit of cloud over scrutineers in our great organization after we all received a really nice T-Shirt from NYR. Didn't anyone like the "T"?

Tim Klvana
ITC #11
 
Crazy Joe – Well you have some logical answers to how your times would be lowered. But I hear ya. Hopefully I too will be able to lower my times a little bit next year (I better if I have any hopes of getting at all near the front of B!). Let me ask you this - if a driver half kidding asked how you reduced your times, would you have an issue giving them some background on what you did? Last year you ran a bone stock motor with 120K miles, did suspension work, ect. I think if the person can substiante it, it will at least lessen any doubts people have.

My thoughts are that if I am totally legal, I wouldn’t have a problem with someone else taking a look at my car. Unfortunately I don’t have any top secret legal tricks to gain much of a performance advantage. L Basically like what others said was done with Anthony’s at some point in time.

------------------
Dave Gran
NER #13
'87 Honda Prelude si
NOW ITB!!!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top