As I have been working to build my car in a manner that is compliant with the rules I have been alternately encouraged and discouraged by the comments of fellow competitors. The folks that I have encountered typically seem to fall into two main groups. The members of the first group work hard to develop their cars to their potential within the parameters established by the GCR, and actually ENJOY the challenge of being competitive AND legal. The second group is the group that says “everyone cheats” and, for that reason, cheat themselves. I’m disappointed by the number of times I have had someone say this to me. I recently sent an email enquiring about a “fast” car that was for sale and explicitly asked if the car was legal. The off handed response was, “All the fast cars in IT are illegal.” As a fairly new participant who is sinking a bunch of time, money and effort into the legal development of my race car this sent me into a bit of a tailspin where I questioned the investment I am making when I know that someone can make the same or greater gains with an illegal cam and pistons. I would really love to know that there are some contingencies at play working to keep things legal. As I read through the dialogue on here about all the conflict and emotion that arise from protesting someone else’s car, I can see why it would be something that most folks would hate to do. Pitting one driver against another has its own set of contingencies that would cause most to avoid protesting another car unless you were absolutely sure that there was non-compliance. Since no one really has the ability to examine another race car (and in many instances lack the expertise to know what they are looking at if the car is unfamiliar) it just seems unlikely that this is a truly effective way to inspire compliance among participants. It’s been my experience that the best way to handle a compliance situation like this (i.e., where non-compliance is not immediately obvious) is with RANDOM testing. You could simply draw a car number (or a few car numbers) out of a hat after the last Saturday afternoon on track session at each event and subject those cars to a “reasonable” inspection (e.g., cam, fuel, track width, etc.). Basically, the inspection could inspect whatever can be inspected without tearing things apart in a way that might be too difficult to put back together. Sure, illegal components could be added after the Saturday inspection, but somehow I doubt it (if for no other reason than it’s pretty easy to observe someone dropping in a new cam at the track).
Heck, I would be willing to be a part of a group of drivers that voluntarily participate in something like this. To make it more positive we could all throw $20 into a pot so that the “randomly” selected cars/drivers not only get inspected, but they get to split the “pot” too. It might make it less aversive if the driver dealing with the inspection gets $100 for his/her trouble. This could “encourage” other drivers to participate. I think just the ongoing presence of activity like this would begin to exert the kind of “pressure to comply” that we want at the track. At the very least, folks will know that “everyone does not cheat.” I think things like this will be the only way that we are going to get more folks to take compliance seriously.
OK, why is this a terrible idea?
Heck, I would be willing to be a part of a group of drivers that voluntarily participate in something like this. To make it more positive we could all throw $20 into a pot so that the “randomly” selected cars/drivers not only get inspected, but they get to split the “pot” too. It might make it less aversive if the driver dealing with the inspection gets $100 for his/her trouble. This could “encourage” other drivers to participate. I think just the ongoing presence of activity like this would begin to exert the kind of “pressure to comply” that we want at the track. At the very least, folks will know that “everyone does not cheat.” I think things like this will be the only way that we are going to get more folks to take compliance seriously.
OK, why is this a terrible idea?
