Time yet again for another one of Greg’s treatises...
Let me start out by expressing my personal support for the 5 guys that got together and protested Shane's car. I support them not because I think Shane is cheating (I don't know the car) or because I don't like Shane (I've never met him). Rather, I support these 5 guys because they recognized a conflict – at least within themselves – and used the existing SCCA system to resolve that conflict.
I encourage anyone watching this thread to take a moment and read another thread that we just went through a few weeks ago. We discussed cheating and ideas to stop it:
http://forum.improvedtouring.com/it/Forum2...TML/000670.html
In that thread I believe that we all came to the semi-agreement that, short of a sea change within SCCA Club Racing, the only way we can stop cheating is to self-police via the vehicle protest system. This is the way the vehicle legality system is designed to work, and that's what these guys did.
Unfortunately, by design the SCCA self-policing and protest system requires an adversarial relationship, and most people are not interested in creating such an atmosphere. The problem with that mindset is that
the adversarial relationship was already there, based on competitors thinking – rightly or wrongly - that Shane was cheating. Thus, the only thing that changed with the filing of the protest was that the previously-latent conflict was brought to the fore.
As I understand it, and as Tim noted, the competitor was contacted 'off line' and offered the opportunity to get the issue out in the open via a dyno session (as Serra and Blaney apparently did), but this opportunity was not taken. Fine, that's his prerogative. However, the result of that missed opportunity was that the conflict was neither addressed nor resolved, leaving only two options: ignore the conflict and hope it goes away, or address it via the protest system.
Is there anyone here that really thinks it would have (or should have) been ignored and hoped it would go away?
I also applaud the manner in which this protest was done. As Jake noted, they were not on a 'windshield washer bottle crusade.' Instead, they made a list of tangible, quantifiable items that would have had a significant affect on the car's performance. They also worked to offer a fair financial bond that would agreeably cover any and all expenses involved in scrutinizing these items. They worked as a group to minimize the financial risk to any particular protesting individual (removing one major barrier to protests), and they did it outright and in the open without trying to hide their intentions or agendas. The competitor was notified in a timely manner (they even tried to let him know the evening before instead of springing it right before the race) and they didn't go bragging about it to all who inquired (hell, it was like pulling teeth to get any info from anyone!!)
Unfortunately, it appears from rumors at the track and discussions on this board that the ScruCrew was not prepared for such a protest. Can anyone
really be surprised by this? When was the last time
any engine was torn down at a Regional event in the Northeast? Why would/should you expect the scrutineers be prepared for such an event? Where is there a requirement for any region/division to own, always have available, and have the skills to use hundreds of dollars of measuring tools for an engine tear-down? How many of our volunteers are mechanical engineering types that even know how to read a vernier scale? (No offense intended, I'm just pointing out it's not a prerequisite, nor should it be). I have the tools and experience, but I damn sure ain't gonna bring that kind of stuff to the track.
I suggest that this failure is one of the system rather than the individuals or scrutineering teams, because we as a whole first, require overt competitor action (a protest) to generate action on a vehicle; second, do not protest to such an extent as a general guideline; and third, are not prepared to deal with such protests on a daily basis. I think it's wholly unfair to blame this on the scrutineers, because if we started doing more of these protests then they will come prepared for it. But, if we're not willing to do it, why bother bringing hundreds of dollars of setup and measuring tools, leaving them vulnerable to theft and/or damage? Alternatively, if the system itself were active in protesting engines (rather than relying on competitor protest) then the system would require the presence of these tools.
In hindsight, in this case I suggest what we should have done is accept that the tools are unavailable, that the skillsets may not have been available, and that these kind of inspections should have been brought to those that posses the requisite hardware (such as a Honda dealership).
Finally, I am not involved in what happened last weekend nor privy to what inspections may be ongoing, but I strongly doubt that the car was "released" from impound without having all requisite inspections completed or without particular inspections being waived by the protesters. It's quite possible that the inspectors could not produce the required tools and requested/suggested that some items be waived, but I am certain this thing was done "by the book" to the best of everyone's ability. I'll let the guys involved comment at their leisure.
So, in short, I think the only "cloud" over this incident is a realization that we have a flawed vehicle legality system that requires the presence of an adversarial relationship between competitors to function, resulting in an atmosphere that suspects cheating by default, generally refuses to address it due to the social and financial risks involved, and then when addressed is not immediately capable of resolving it. The one good thing about last weekend is that the ice has been broken, and I hope that this will clear the way for more such protests in the future, with the same attitudes of cooperation that these guys offered, so we can go about our way enjoying the racing instead of "wondering" if someone is legal.
This is the way the system is supposed to work. If you don't like it, start writing letters, because without membership input it will never ever change.
Greg Amy
Cam timing - maybe offset key(s).