October Fastrack

If we looked at the proportion of "intended protests" that get derailed either before they become "official protests," I think we'd be a little disappointed at the number. Looking only at protest processes that I've directly witnessed, way to many have been "managed" or manipulated in some fashion. Sure - at the end of a season, there are only a very few cases of this across the country but we have so few actual protests in Regionals that I believe it's meaningful. Heck - it might well be part of the reason we DO have so few protests.

K
 
Yes officials should not be preventing a driver from filing a protest, but for god sake we need to have a little backbone. I am not going to be too hard on a steward that tells a driver why he would prefer I not file one but I have to have a little fortitude in this as well. I have only filed one driver to drive protest in my life (for crashing me out). In that case no one tried to talk me out of it (they know me, and my mood was not good) but I understand that they would want to make sure I understand the entire situation, we need to take some responsibility for the process.
In addition I would bet many protests are poorly written or have unrealistic expectation of the outcome.
Steward: and what would be the desired outcome of this protest for you.
Driver: I want him to be cowering under his trailer and crying like a little girl.
 
It should have never gotten to the point that 1stGen had to file a protest, the car should have never been issued a tech sticker if it had a non-compliant cage. You want to file a protest, file it against the person that issued the tech sticker or the person that signed off on the annual tech inspection.

Kirk's right on the money w/ this one. Having stewards intervene in these types of issues is not a good thing.

And if you want to talk about liability, if the driver of said car had been involved in an incident w/ another car, and the other car (or driver) sustained damage or injury, the person issuing the tech sticker, as well as the steward who discouraged the protest would be on the hook.

If the person issuing the tech sticker / annual doesn't know the rules enough to know that the cage is non-complaint, then they shouldn't be in that position (and spare me the whole 'but they're volunteers' rhetoric, you still have to be competent at what you volunteer for).

And the lack of consistency on the steward's part is a real problem. If he sent others home for the same, or similar violations, and allowed this person to race, he should have his license pulled.
 
That is a reasonable position Bill, but remember that it was a legal cage last year. No one said the Tech worker did not know it was noncompliant. My guess is the steward gave him a fix by next race. It is okay to take a hard line stance on enforcing the new cage rule but just don’t argue in the next thread we need to be more user friendly.
 
That is a reasonable position Bill, but remember that it was a legal cage last year.[/b]
Click to expand...
As were the cages in the cars that were sent home from earlier events by the same officials???
 
As were the cages in the cars that were sent home from earlier events by the same officials???
[/b]
Click to expand...

Thank you Gary.

Not trying to take a hard line Dick, so please don't make it out like that. It's about officials and their inconsistent interpretation and application of the rules. You want to talk about user-friendly, that's the place to start. And it's no excuse for a tech official to not be up on major rule changes like that. I'm fine w/ the 'fix it by next race' approach, but give everyone that same benefit of the doubt.

You want to talk hard line and non user-friendly, I saw tech inspectors busting people's chops at the first race of the season about fuel test ports, the year that those were mandated. By the same token, I've seen tech inspectors that didn't know the rules. The main one that comes to mind is what constitutes and attachment point, the tube or the plate. I had an inspector tell me he wasn't going to issue me my annual because I had too many attachment points on my cage, because I had multiple tubes going to the same plate. This was a car that was given an annual, at the same track, w/ the same cage, the year before. The guy got to the point of almost being belligerent, and I had to pull out the GCR and show him the rule. What made it even worse, was that I had to insist that we look at the GCR. He didn't want to look at it, and didn't want to hear anything other than it was one tube per plate.
 
There is room for both opinions here. I like the 'flexibility' of the tech staff to allow someone to run with 'last years cage' and a 'change by next event'. We all want to have fun and we need to bend here and there.

BUT, when the same staff has sent people home in previous weeks for the same violation, it becomes very strange.

THEN, an official protest comes in. End of story. End of nice guys. By the book. Maybe a small attempt to explain the position of allowing him to run but based on the recent history of bouncing similar situations, the protest needed to be the main priority.

We are all human but it's also nice to see common sense prevail more often than not. I am lucky in that I get to run in a region where CS is the rule, not the exception...so maybe my expectations are high.
 
Wait a minute, Bill

... the car should have never been issued a tech sticker if it had a non-compliant cage. You want to file a protest, file it against the person that issued the tech sticker ...[/b]
Click to expand...

and

... the person issuing the tech sticker ... would be on the hook[/b]
Click to expand...

and

If the person issuing the tech sticker / annual doesn't know the rules enough to know that the cage is non-complaint, then they shouldn't be in that position.[/b]
Click to expand...

rub me a little bit the wrong way, but maybe you're not completely aware of Tech's operating procedure per the club's published Scrutineer's Manual and the GCR. The Scrutineer that issued the tech sticker would have no reason to look at the cage if the car has a current, valid, annual stamp in the logbook, and no tech notations entered since that annual inspection. Per the GCR, 5.9.2.B: Minimum inspection for each event thereafter (after the annual inspection, that is) shall consist of reviewing the Vehicle Logbook. If it is in order, a Tech sticker shall (emphasis mine) be issued.

It isn't the guy who issued the sticker's fault. It looks to me like he did what he was supposed to do. Who ever did the annual, well, that's maybe a different story.

OK, I'm not smart enough to quote two different people in one reply, so this is from Andy B:

I like the 'flexibility' of the tech staff to allow someone to run with 'last years cage' and a 'change by next event'. We all want to have fun and we need to bend here and there.
[/b]
Click to expand...

I don't know what the Divisional Administrator for Tech in your division (Bill Etherington?) allows, Andy, but I absolutely don't allow the scrutineers (including myself) in RMDiv this kind of latitude. For one thing, there isn't anything in the GCR or the Scrutineer's Manual that permits it.

Jeremy told me some time ago: Tech is like Fox News -- We report, you decide. The 'you' in this case is the Chief Steward.

Also, as Bill mentioned, there is the liability issue. I can just hear the widow's lawyer: "Am I to understand that you allowed the deceased to race his car with known safety issues?" :018:

AFAIK, only the CS can allow a non-compliant car on course, and I like it that way.

And the lack of consistency on the steward's part is a real problem. If he sent others home for the same, or similar violations, and allowed this person to race, he should have his license pulled.
[/b]
Click to expand...

I'd have a hard time disagreeing with that, but I wasn't there. I will say that I've seen it in the past, and it really ticks me off.
 
Update: This was the cars first event of the year so it did not have an annual inspection prior to this point. The chief of tech did inform the chief steward of the event about the non-compliant cage and it was her decision to let him run. As I said I did not want the guy DQ'ed I, just wanted to point out to the stewards that they need to be consistant about applying the rules. I agree that it should have been noted in the logbook to fix before the next event and maybe it was. I did not see the logbook. They should have accorded that to the other cars earlier in the year also. That was my point.
 
... just wanted to point out to the stewards that they need to be consistant about applying the rules. ...
[/b]
Click to expand...

Exactly - right back to "protest the official's decision." But let's get real here: How many of us are willing to set themselves up for the kind of scrutiny THAT'S going to generate? (See also, "racing is supposed to be fun"). :)

K
 
just wanted to point out to the stewards that they need to be consistant about applying the rules.
[/b]
Click to expand...

Each Steward is an individual and interprets rules and the GCR differently. That is why you can protest one of the Stewards and it goes to the SOM, which is comprised of multiple Stewards. If you had two different Chief Stewards for these two events, you may have different opinions.

This is why we have the protest/appeal process -- It is not perfect, but it is better than some. (see post about NASA's penalty on a different thread).

Jason Benagh (Steward in Training)
 
This is why we have the protest/appeal process -- It is not perfect, but it is better than some. (see post about NASA's penalty on a different thread).[/b]
Click to expand...
Which thread is that in, Jason?

Thx! Stan
 
Ty,

Please don't edit out the parts where I said "the person that issued the tech sticker / annual" and then say that it's not on the person that issued the tech sticker. I tried to cover both cases (annual and no annual). I know that if the car has an annual w/ no notations in the log book, that the tech inspector at a subsequent race isn't going to see the car. If it was given an annual w/ a non-compliant cage, then the liability falls back to the person that issued the annual.

But, based on the info that came to light after both of our posts, it seems that the car didn't have an annual, and the the chief steward was the one that allowed the car to run. He'd be the one on the hook in that case. There are some things that just should not be given a pass, because of the potential liability that they open up. Non-compliant cages, out of date belts, out of date helmet, etc. I really don't understand why someone that's really supposed to know better would open themselves up like that.
 
Each Steward is an individual and interprets rules and the GCR differently. That is why you can protest one of the Stewards and it goes to the SOM, which is comprised of multiple Stewards. If you had two different Chief Stewards for these two events, you may have different opinions.

This is why we have the protest/appeal process -- It is not perfect, but it is better than some. (see post about NASA's penalty on a different thread).

Jason Benagh (Steward in Training)
[/b]
Click to expand...

Jason is correct... I hate inconsistancies especially when you have different stewards with different "corrective actions" between race groups and/or different events within region, but it does happen, and when it does protest it and bring it to the SOM where multiple people can try to make a reasonable and fair decision... I have personally done it, others have done it and Stewards have even done it to each other in my presence!

Raymond "NASA was looking good, but it stll hasn't got anything on SCCA" Blethen
 
Wow. All this hubub because I thought it was no big deal to have another torquey ITB car, since we already have some. :dead_horse:

TGIGRTW!
(thank God I'm goin racing this weeend)
 
Ty,

Please don't edit out the parts where I said "the person that issued the tech sticker / annual" and then say that it's not on the person that issued the tech sticker. I tried to cover both cases (annual and no annual). I know that if the car has an annual w/ no notations in the log book, that the tech inspector at a subsequent race isn't going to see the car. If it was given an annual w/ a non-compliant cage, then the liability falls back to the person that issued the annual.
[/b]
Click to expand...

I did that edit, Bill, because I wanted to emphasize the separation of the two processes, not to slant your words to better attack you. I can, looking back now, see why you would take it that way, though. Sorry 'bout that.

What I was trying to illustrate with that post, was the difference between the annual inspection process and the event tech process, especially to maybe a newbie, who may not understand the difference, and probably hasn't read and understood the entire GCR.

During the Runoffs last year I heard there were a number of people pissed off at me because of the occasional inconsistency of penalties for technical infractions in SM. Others were quick to point out that we, tech that is, have nothing to do with penalties and that those offended should direct their dissatisfaction elsewhere. What all that tells me is that many racers have incorrect ideas about how the club operates and, unfortunately, tech tends to get dumped on for things which we have no control over.

For that reason, I tend to take every opportunity to get the word out that we're not the bad guys. Well, not always anyway.
<_<

But, based on the info that came to light after both of our posts, it seems that the car didn't have an annual, and the the chief steward was the one that allowed the car to run. He'd be the one on the hook in that case. There are some things that just should not be given a pass, because of the potential liability that they open up. Non-compliant cages, out of date belts, out of date helmet, etc. I really don't understand why someone that's really supposed to know better would open themselves up like that.
[/b]
Click to expand...

Me either.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top