Just so everybody is clear: There was no protest of the non-compliant rev limiter. Mr. Marchand was disqualified by the SOM, based on a Request for Action from the Tech Steward. Mr. Marchand chose not to appeal that judgment.
Just so everybody is clear: There was no protest of the non-compliant rev limiter. Mr. Marchand was disqualified by the SOM, based on a Request for Action from the Tech Steward. Mr. Marchand chose not to appeal that judgment.
John Nesbitt
ex-Swift DB-1
ok i gotcha
howd they tech you after the race? was it the same machine that didnt work earlier?
then who appealed it, why were we all waiting for 5 hours??
I recall JM's chip having a problem after qualifying too, it didnt work and someone wiggled it and it somehow worked
its sound slike tech dg'ed him but the som had to sign off on it.
Juan,
You had an equipment failure. Not able to set a rev limiter chip is a failure of the chip or the MSD box. This failure is not unlike having a gear strip teeth or an apex seal warping. I told you what the tech official told me.....I know this situation is embarrassing and frustrating for all of those involved. Your father and my father were both present at this race and we both wish things would have been played out different. It sounds as though you tried to correct the problem but did not find a resolution in time for the race. As hard as it sounds to do, proper action would have been for you to delay the victory ceremony until the rev chip was checked out. You have always raced me clean and seem to be a talented driver. The correct decisions in life are not always the easiest.
Everyone else,
Thank you for all of the PMs I have received congratulating my Championship win. Juan has been dragged through the mud enough on this issue. No amount of bantering is going to change anyone's mind(least of all mine) on this issue. Lessons learned and new season is beginning just around the corner.
I made the data available to the SCCA upon their request to try to find more information. The data was not going to apply to anything on our rules so then it was not considered. Showing my data here is public scrutiny, I have made this via for anger to vent, finger pointing and everyone to feel better and express how they feel. I did not showed to Road America with a non compliant car, a part failed which was deemed non compliant after the race.
I agree Darryl, I dont even want to look at this thread anymore and I didnt want to respond.
there are a lot of eyes and ears in the tech building so if something is going on the word gets out.
if its true that the limiter had a problem after qualifying then its evident that this was a problem that had existed for days before the race. why didnt it get sorted out when JM went testing and dyno tuning at Gingerman on friday and saturday???
they used the same machine they used earlier, the same looking machine, i dont know if they have more than one.
Originally Posted by Mike42
The sequence of events was as follows:
1. Following the race, the scrutineers (Tech) examined the podium cars. They found a non-compliant rev limiter in the first-place car.
2. Tech delivered a technical report to the tech steward which described the violation.
3. The tech steward filed a Request for Action (RFA) with the Stewards of the Meeting (SOM), requesting the court to investigate the reported violation. (Since many actions at the Runoffs end up in front of the Court of Appeals, we very often deal with non-compliances via RFA in order to speed the process to the Court of Appeals.)
4. The SOM held a hearing, reviewed evidence, interviewed parties, deliberated, and then rendered a judgment, disqualifying Mr. Marchand.
5. Mr. Marchand had a time window in which he could appeal the judgment. Very close to the end of that time, he decided not to appeal, and instead retrieved his car.
6. In the meantime, Tech proceeded with a more intensive inspection of the (now former) second-place car, in anticipation of its promotion to first place.
Most of these steps proceed in sequence, take some time, and allow a period of time for review/appeal before going to the next step. No official was dragging out the process. In fact, they tried to do it as expiditiously as possible, while still respecting all participants' rights.
(There are two distinct groups in the Tech building. The scrutineers (or Tech) establish the tech plan and conduct inspections. They report any non-compliance to the tech stewards, who take official action (e.g. immediate penalties or referral to the SOM).
John Nesbitt
ex-Swift DB-1
John,
isn't the time limit to appeal 1 hour?
Juan retrieved his car 5 hours after the race.
the more intense inspection of Darryls car was finished long before we were released.
Yes, the appeal period is 1 hour.
However, there are a number of sequential steps, each of which takes a chunk of time.
For example, I have conducted any number of SOM hearings. These typically take 2-3 hours from start to finish.
John Nesbitt
ex-Swift DB-1
I accept the findings after race impound. I never appeal or protest the SCCA decision, they have the best personel in place and I have never been mistreated by anybody within the organization. A ruling was made that I had no chance of overturning, the chip either passes or not. The chip failed and that in turn made my car non compliant. I cannot protest or appeal any decision made against my faulty non compliant rpm limiter.
everybody post there rd america videos!!!!!!!!!!!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VCqLISJ8XIU
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote