Who's job is it anyway?

M

Mike Cox

New member
I was having a conversation with a tech official at our driver's school Sunday and the topic of rules came up and whether a certain car was in violation of the rules.

The car in question (1st gen RX7) had his headlights removed and the headlight covers sealed off with metal. The official I was talking to stated that he didn't feel that this gave the car a performance advantage therefore he considered it to be legal.

I then questioned him on the legality of removing the glass window and mechanicals of the window in the driver's door(of a car without Nascar bars)and was again told he was OK with that and wouldn't allow a protest of that either.

To which I questioned him to show me in the GCR where this was legal to do. After looking in the GCR and were unable to find the passage that allowed this (headlights) I asked him, "when did he become the offical in charge of deciding what was or wasn't legal".

It seems to me that this "tech" official (and possibly others) was instead of following the rulebook, was interjecting his own opinion as to what was written.

If we have rules written and one of the rules is, "if it doesn't say you can do it, you can't do it", then why do we have officials going beyond the rulebook and deciding cases outside their realm of authority?

Maybe I missed just the memo in Fasttrak?

Mike
 
If you think someone is cheating, you should protest him or her, and allow the SOM's to determine the outcome. It is clearly NOT the tech inspector's area to decide on such things - for him to actually do something, he has to bring the item to the attention of the stewards, who then have to file an RFA (Request for Action), which is essentially the same thing as a protest. It's a lot of paperwork, and is rarely done, particularly at a regional, by a tech inspector.

For something so obvious as this, I'd probably just go have a chat with the competitor in question, who probably doesn't even realize that his modification is against the rules.

YMMV, of course.

Chris Camadella
ITS Porsche 944S
 
That's disturbing news.

I'd have sought out the SOM.

If I didn't get satisfaction there I'd probably send a letter to Topeka.


------------------
George Roffe
Houston, TX
84 944 ITS car under construction
92 ITS Sentra SE-R occasionally borrowed
http://www.nissport.com
 
it's not the competitor I'm concerned with. I know how to handle that situation. It's the statement by the tech inspector that HE doesn't feel it gives the car an advantage and therefore HE feels like it isn't illegal.

You can believe that at a regional race, this problem will take on a whole different light but at the time of the discussion (at a driver's school), it was just that, a discussion.

Now my question is , since when do the tech inspectors decide what gives or doesn't give a car an advantage?


[This message has been edited by Mike Cox (edited July 19, 2004).]
 
They don't. They are there to check the safety items. It's up to the competitors to protest that. The SOM will be the one who makes the decision. He/She might solicit the advice of Tech, but it is still his/her decision.

------------------
Bill
Planet 6 Racing
bill (at) planet6racing (dot) com
 
Geo,

Which part is the disturbing news? That's not how it works? For the SOM's to get involved with a particular issue, you have to file a protest, and put up your $25. Then, they make a ruling on the matter.

If you simply go ASK them (the SOM's), they might possibly tell you their opinion (but just as likely not), but nothing counts until either a protest or an RFA has been filed, which are essentially the same thing. That's what the rules say. Refer to section 6.11.4 for info on an RFA.

If you look under 6.18.1.C, you'll see that the tech guy can report to the Chief Stew that a car doesn't meet the rules - and then the CS can file an RFA (see above). This isn't true, BTW, of safety rules - the tech guy CAN disqualify a car for not meeting the safety rules, but that's not the case here.

Sending a letter to Topeka won't do anything either, unless the SOM's have decided, you don't like their decision, and you have provided additional information to the appeals board, information that the SOM's did not have available to them (section 15.5).

None of this stuff is my opinion, per se - it's just how the system works, according to the rules. At regionals and drivers' schools, it's sometimes done a little more casually, but it's how it's supposed to work just the same.

BTW, you can also protest the actions of the tech guy if you don't like them for some reason - but again, you have to put up your $25 and put it in writing for the SOM's to decide. But this guy, aside from just plain being wrong, didn't do anything outside his authority. It's not (necessarily) his job to police the cars for legality, only safety. Whether or not he would 'allow' a protest of something has nothing to do with him, it only has to do with the SOM's, and they have to pay attention to every protest that is filed within the guidelines spelled out in the rules.

Cheers,

Chris Camadella
ITS Porsche 944S
 
***The official I was talking to stated that he didn't feel that this gave the car a performance advantage therefore he considered it to be legal.***

This Tech Offical needs some learning. I would love to do some ILLEGAL lightening of the front of my ITA/7 1st gen RX-7. & put the weight in an advantages place. This Tech Offical is total wrong.

***It's not (necessarily) his job to police the cars for legality, only safety.***

It may not be his/her job to police the cars for legality but it sure as hell is his/her responsibility to understand the rules & the advantages of someone lighting a car in one place & puting the weight in another place.

Mike, this sounds like another one of those deals where it's up to the competitor to do the first talk with the car driver/owner & take it from there.

Have Fun
wink.gif

David
 
Mike,
You know what HAS to be done. I guess you've just been a little busy with the Doc lately and haven't had time to fill out the paperwork.
smile.gif
I'm not surprised that the vehicle was brought back out like that.

See you in August.

Jim
 
boy this kind of stuff is frustrating. I love scca and I am both a driver and an official. Yes the tech inspector was mistaken and he very well may have been taught that his job is to look for safety problems not class legality, but if you decided that the driver needed to be protested he would not even be part of the process. his opinion is no more binding than asking your wife. everyone is wrong once in a while. this was his day.
one of the things I teach my friends about navagating scca is if you got an answer you did not like, you probably asked the wrong person.
dick patullo
 
Funny I should read this today. I just smashed the front end of my car yesterday and shattered the glass headlights. Yes, they were taped, but because of the impact the tape was torn and half the light spilled out on the track in large and small glass pieces. Since the concrete barrier was very near the corner it went on the racing line I'm sure. Now, I have to replace the light assemblies, and luckily I have a spare car to scavenge from. Speaking about safety issues, wouldn't putting sheet metal in place of the glass lights be more safe than putting in glass? I can see that the current rules don't allow it, but I would be perfectly fine with changing the rules to not only allow but encourage this. I suppose some people run their cars in 12 hour enduros so need the lights, but there are far less of those races.
 
Jim, you know the car, I was just seeing how the tech people are gonna react when I drop the hammer.

You wouldn't believe all that happened. You had to be there to see it all, but it was entertaining to say the least.

He even came over looking to pick a fight or something with Buddy. I'd have paid $29.95 for the pay-per-view to see that one. I figured one hit, one splat and we'd all be going home for the duration.

Typical I guess anyway, the tech people have no clue in as far as the finer points that we discuss here. Guess we have to be on our toes and make sure we are prepared.

Call me
 
I guess the bottom line for me is that most SCCA officials need to understand that they represent the club. Most racers don't know WHO to ask specifically, but they can usually find SOMEONE that is working the event.

Having said that, it would be great if people who didn't make the decisions, could say so. I get asked many questions about classifications and rules as a member of the ITAC. I always end or preface my comments on DECISIONS by making sure the person knows that the CRB and the BoD are the people who are ultimately responsible.

I have no problem with a tech inspector expressing an opinion like the one above. I DO have a problem with them 'disallowing' a protest they wouldn't even be involved in. If this was a newbie, he may have thought he was SOL on the entire process.

Speak only of what you know - and point people in the right direction when you don't.

AB

------------------
Andy Bettencourt
ITS RX-7 & Spec Miata 1.6
New England Region R188967
www.flatout-motorsports.com
 
Originally posted by Mike Cox:
...........The car in question (1st gen RX7) had his headlights removed and the headlight covers sealed off with metal. The official I was talking to stated that he didn't feel that this gave the car a performance advantage therefore he considered it to be legal.

I then questioned him on the legality of removing the glass window and mechanicals of the window in the driver's door(of a car without Nascar bars)and was again told he was OK with that and wouldn't allow a protest of that either.......Mike
Click to expand...


What we have here is a classic issue that arises in many organizations, especially volunteer driven ones. And the solution needs to be systematic.

The guy was flat wrong in all dimensions. First he was passing judgement where he should be assisting in a rulebook reading, and second, he was not following proper protocols, by directing the cometitor to the proper procedures and officials..

One of our problems in SCCA is the lack of qualified volunteers....many of us drivers are capable of performing in a number of official capacities, but for various reasons, we don't. The result is that many regions must accept whomever steps up to the plate willing to put in a long day in the hot sun dealing with surly, rushed competitors, all for a free meal, a few waters and some tap beer.

I see a number of solutions.

One, the scope of training needs to address the protocols of the position. I believe this is being addresed, to some degree, by SCCAs "Leadership" training.

Second, we as drivers need to step up and put in some time at the track out of our cars. I know of a driver who spends a few days a year aiding the tech guys. He is one of those "voice of reason" guys, and his little comment here and there go a long way to help tech run efficiently and give competitors a good tech experience.

Part of what the regions management should do is know the guys and gals that volunteer their time to staff the events, and pair those with known issues, such as the tech guy you mention, with an appropriate foil.



------------------
Jake Gulick
CarriageHouse Motorsports
ITA 57 RX-7
New England Region
[email protected]
 
Originally posted by ChrisCamadella:
Which part is the disturbing news? That's not how it works?
Click to expand...

Well shoot. I must confess ignorance. Thank you for setting me straight. Until tonight I did not know the correct process for protests. Good on one hand I guess and certainly bad on another.


------------------
George Roffe
Houston, TX
84 944 ITS car under construction
92 ITS Sentra SE-R occasionally borrowed
http://www.nissport.com
 
There has been some angst regarding protests about certain IT competitors amongst racers I know. They planned to file a technical protest, wrote up the paperwork, wrote the check, and the chief of tech said he "would not allow the protest". They dropped it. I'm talking about 30 year SCCA veterans with many technical protests under their belts, not newbies like me. So I'd guess there's some gray area (and maybe politicking) between the process defined in the GCR and the reality of the situation. But hey, I'm a newbie (still on my Novice license). What the hell do I know.

------------------
Doug "Lefty" Franklin
NutDriver Racing

[This message has been edited by CaptainWho (edited July 20, 2004).]
 
I don't know where that happens - I hope it doesn't happen too frequently!

As others have said, the Chief of Tech has nothing to do with mechanical protests, really. You write up your protest (and the Chief Stew has a nifty form for you to fill in for this purpose), and you give it and your money to him (the Chief Stew).

HE then contacts the SOM's, who read your protest, and start evaluating it. Generally speaking, there are three or so SOM's at a a typical regional race, and they decide your protest as a committee. No Chief of Tech about it, unless they ask for his opinion, which they may or may not consider.

Don't forget that you do have to file your mechanical protest BEFORE the race per GCR 13.3.A

Cheers,

Chris Camadella
ITS Porsche 944S
 
Originally posted by ddewhurst:
***The official I was talking to stated that he didn't feel that this gave the car a performance advantage therefore he considered it to be legal.***
Click to expand...

If you refer to Section 13.4, the last paragraph reads, "In the event a car is found to be in non-compliance, a claim that the non-compliant item(s) offer no performance advantage shall have no influence on any ruling."

So, in other words, it doesn't make any difference if there was a performance advantage or not. It either meets the rules as written, or it doesn't...

Cheers,

Chris Camadella
ITS Porsche 944S
 
***Originally posted by ddewhurst:***
***The official I was talking to stated that he didn't feel that this gave the car a performance advantage therefore he considered it to be legal.***

Chris, when you start being a "I know the ONLY answer to the rules person" you need to start with facts. ddewhurst did not do the above original post stated so by you.
wink.gif


Have Fun
wink.gif

David
 
also most drivers do not know that the chief steward can not refuse the protest. he must give it to the chairman of the som. only the chairman can deny the protest for cause (like you filed it to late)
dick
 
While this thread has raised and discussed important issues, I think the mindset of the specific tech official is revealed in Mike's first sentence: "I was having a conversation with a tech official at our driver's school Sunday ...." First, it was a "conversation" and his attitude might have been different if he had perceived it was a serious accusation that was leading to a formal protest. Second and perhaps most important, it was a drivers school not a race. Many students arrive at their first school w/ a newly-built car, a borrowed car, a rented car, a shared car, etc. They have gone to considerable trouble and expense: getting their Novice Permit, maybe buying a suit, helmet, etc., renting a car, travelling a long distance, etc., etc. At least here in the Mid-South Region we are going to bend over backward to allow the guy to get his school in even if his car might not be legal in every respect for competition (as long as it is safe). (I wonder how many of us got caught at our first race this year by the 2-year harness rule but were allowed to get by?) On the other hand such newbies often are relying on the tech inspectors to point out problems w/ their cars, and the inspectors should at the very least identify infractions, maybe make a Log Book notation, and (if it's not a safety issue) tell them to have it fixed by the next event. Yea, I know the rules are the same for schools and races but I don't have a problem w/ a little slack being cut in the former. Imagine the first impression a novice would get of the SCCA when he shows up all bright eyed and bushy-tailed for his first school and is sent home for not having headlights. :-( Now when it comes to a real race, it's a different matter. JMHO
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top