given the institutional confrontation over FF wheels at Topeka, the movement of the RunOffs to Road America where horsepower & aerodynamics are king, some curious at best rules changes (and disclosures), and some as yet unknown "parity" changes, it's my sense 2009 has all the makings for a very contensious year. with that as a back drop and to better understand how things might shake out, I started looking at the Club's protest procedures to see what the "standards" are. I must not be looking in the right place because I haven't found anything that even remotely approaches "innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt to a jury of your peers". where do I find the Club's standards for arriving at decisions regarding "compliance with the GCR as currently written"???
a short hypothetical story:
assume a "no name" 2-liter Pinto shows up that clearly has SERIOUS steam on the straights compared to all the other entrys. further assume the only obvious differnce between this "no name" 2-liter and the rest of the 2-liters entered is a valve cover that appears to have an approximately quarter inch goldish coating that sparkles like
ceramics. the "no name" team if very careful about when and how the engine cover is removed and replaced so there are NO photographs or videos. a perennial front runner not accustomed or appreciative of being passed on the straight as if driving a "beater" in the slow lane on the interstate files a protest with the Stewards alledging non-compliance with 9.1.1.B.3.o {o. Non-standard rocker covers are permitted providing they in no way improve the performance of the engine.}
the "no name" team after going to extreme lengths to comply with the GCR as written is SHOCKED at being protested. concerned about the Club's track record protecting competition sensitive information AND the current "parity witch hunt", the "no name" team offers to certify that to a standard of "remove and replace" there is NO performance improvement from their valve cover. the technical folks, not apprecitive of being lumped in with the politicians and folks that talk too much, require the "no name" team to remove the valve cover and send six members of the staff to monitor the removal. detail examination of the valve cover reveals a stock Ford stamped metal valve cover with what looks to be about a quarter of an inch of Home Depotish insulation foam and a multi-layer airbrush paint job that looks just like ceramic. after a short discussion in the shed, the valve cover is declared compliant with the GCR as currently written. not unexpectedly, there's nothing but smiles in the "no name" paddock; the
perennial front runner still not happy with being passed as if driving a "beater" appeals the decision at the track and protests the methodology employed by the Stewards openly wondering "how anyone can assess differential performance by inspection".
A. the valve cover was just a diversion like used by illusionists to divert attention from the unusually lumpy exhaust system under the silica tape insultation.
B. the valve cover was just a transparant grade school pychological warfare ploy to divert the competition's attention from the usual tasks required to prevail on the track.
C. A & B
D. removing an unmodified Ford valve cover and replacing it with the valve cover in question yielded NO horsepower; the "no name" team had back-to-back dyno sheets in hand showing no difference (175.0 to 175.0 no other changes)! using some far out vibra-acoustic physics that's still not completely understood, when they reduce the ignition advance fifteen degrees, increase the fuel jet two sizes on both the primary and secondary of the Weber, and run the cam straight-up there's another 15 HPc with the modified valve cover that can't be replicated with the stock part.
E. all of the above
F. none of the above
who gets to decide using what standard how intrusive and how much data is required to demonstrate compliance with the GCR as currently written in responce to a fishing expedition masquerading as a protest ??
who gets to decide using what standard how many people are provided access to a competitor's competition sensitive / Private data disclosd to demonstrate compliance with the GCR as currently written in responce to a fishing expedition masquerading as a protest ??
who gets to decide using what standard how much of a competitor's competition sensitive / Private data (dyno data, analysis, pictures, part numbers, ......) disclosd to demonstrate compliance with the GCR as currently written in responce to a fishing expedition masquerading as a protest must be retained by the Club ??
what is the relative value of competitor supplied Competition Sensitive / Private data compared to unsupported assertions of non-compliance by either a competitor or Club official ??
thorny questions to be sure, particularly in a time when there are some (both in and out of the compliance determination business) that believe the Zetec "parity" bar should be set by the best measured Pinto.
the illustrative story has NO basis in fact and is NOT related to or modeled on real competiotors/officials; it was created solely to facilitate what I view as a needed discussion about a subject almost surely to come up this year.
Art
artesmith@earthlink.net