compliance dertimination standards ???

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

That's a pretty sexy hypothetical question.:) Methinks you may be building a straw man there.

The answer to all hypothetical questions about the mechanical protest process is: If you are sufficiently concerned about the compliance of one of your competitors, you can file a mechanical protest. Check section 8.3.3 of the GCR for the procedure, and controlling authority. It will answer your questions.

It's hard for me to imagine a profitable 'fishing expedition masquerading as a protest'.

First, when you file a protest, you must specify in detail which items you are protesting, citing GCR sections, and you must post a bond sufficient to accomplish the necessary teardown, inspection, and reassembly.

Second, the protestor doesn't get to observe the teardown/inspection - only the protestee, SOM, and scrutineers can.

So, you can't just say, "Here's 50 bucks, let's take his engine apart and see what's inside."

Read 8.3.3. It's all there.

One could be concerned about the confidentiality of the data after the protest is all resolved. All that shows up (usually) in FASTRACK is the result e.g. compliant or not, but, in grey areas, one has to be concerned about where the data goes and for the most part, I'd assume the cat was out of the bag. I don't recall any confidentiality standards for scrutineers.

Hate to have to sign NDAs though........

tilting at windmills...

In the tech shed I'm not asking for any competitors "private data". I don't care what their "private data" says. And, if it's at the Runoffs, it doesn't require another competitior to protest, nor post a bond,for me to pull your flywheel and weigh it.

F.

All this hyperbole is not an issue unless one gets into the top 5 at the Runoffs. ;) Then... if they do have the "secret" for making a 170 hp pinto within the GCR rules, they better had patented it before they get to Elkhart Lake. :)

Art,
We have run a no name pinto engine over the years, we also regularly paint parts of the car in the trailer with Home Depot red. As is known by all in the SE region we have been cheating since 2005. But now I'm pissed off we only have 168HP!
OBTW we have no data only an oil and water gauge with a mech. tach.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jim morgan

...we also regularly paint parts of the car in the trailer with Home Depot red.

---

You too, eh? It's hard to beat $7.25/qt for good durable race car paint! :thumbsup:

Jim-

you're sure right about talent, it's tough to compete successfully against talent. it's even tougher to compete against talent combined with natural gifts, competing against talent, natural gifts, and your eye watering lump in back with the Home Depot accents sounds like an almost insurmountable challenge.

that said, those of us without either talent or natural gifts are left with only the details and systematic work. and like the old addage says, the devil is in the details. a closer look at BOTH the corny story above and the Club's compliance determination procedure will find material details missing!!

175 is a number without units specified so we are left to assume or guess if the performance is being reported in corrected horsepower (HPc) or uncorrected horsepower (HP or HPu). while Florida probably isn't one of them, there are places (particularly at this time of the year) at or near sea level that have cold very dry air and occasionally unusually high barometric pressure. I can tell you from first hand experience that seeing 3-5% subtracted from the number on the screen to arrive at HPc is almost enough to make a grown man cry! fuel is not specified so given the Club's new dielectric constant only criteria for fuel, did the the "No Name" team use some of VP's compliant "rocket fuel" or regular name brand racing gasoline or aviation gasoline or ..............? no way to tell with certainty but it's not a secret that VP's previous offerings were worth 3-5% with the appropriate jetting and ignition timing with willing engines. oil temperature and the oil used are not specified and that's a far bigger deal than most people appreciate. I've measured +5 HPc on a 1600 FF between 180F and 200F with top of the line oil from a major well known supplier no other changes. if they've found a ultra-light drag racing oil that will stand-up to 250F there's probably at least that same ~3.5% between 200F and 250F. water temperature is also not specified and also a problem. while testing a 1600 FF engine I have seen the water temperature dropped from 180F to 140F maintaining oil temperature at 200F on a mid-western dyno and 5 HPc suddenly appear no other changes (~3.5%). the dyno used and the type of testing done is not included. 50 rpm/second sweep or 100 rpm/second sweep or 200 rpm/sweep or some step variation or some number of dwells; we have no way of knowing with certainty and it makes a difference comparing "No Name" numbers to numbers in our heads!! last but not least, the exhaust system used is not specified as either dyno facility or customer. based on a sample of three NOT including the facility I use, testing of my 1600 exhaust exhaust has shown variations in performance on the order of ~3.5% between dyno facility exhausts and state-of-the-art hardware.

so at the end of the day with everyone telling the truth, the "No Name" team could have as little as 175 / (1.05 (HPc) x 1.05 (VP) x 1.035 (oil) x 1.035 (H2O) x 1.035 (exhaust) or 143.2 HPc on Sunoco 111 using 20wt synthetic oil at 200F, water temperature at 180F, and the dyno facilities exhaust (exactly what you'd expect an iron head Pinto to get got making in public givien the environment)................................ the vibra-acoustic performance gain was reported in HPc so that's "probably" true making their bottom line number with the funny valve cover 158.2 HPc.

G. the valve cover was just a diversion like used by illusionists to divert attention from the trick aerodynamic drag reductions being hidden in plain view...................... drag horsepower does go as the cube of the car's speed and 1% of a BIG number is still worth chasing!!

the "No Name" team, like the Club with it's compliance determination procedures, clearly has more work to do before running into Jim's combination of talent, natural gifts, and the eye watering performance in back with Home Depot accents..............


Art
artesmith@earthlink.net


ps:

John - me thinks, given your insight, you've been there and done this more than once!!

[quote=jim morgan;
OBTW we have no data only an oil and water gauge with a mech. tach.[/quote]
And a pretty damn good test pilot. Thank You.

And since when did "chinky" become no name??? There are more names for him then we can remember

John, test pilots are supposed to do lap times within a second of the race driver. Therefore, we will no longer be needing your services as test driver...

Aren't we paying to club race for bowling trophies?

BOWLING TROPHY'S ! !

Your region must be rich. Out here, it's over sized subway tokens.

But at other places we get engraved acrylic desk top clocks and really neat stuff :thumbsup:

the point to the story now that the "parity thread" has cooled for the time being........

the Frog, perhaps anticipating where this story was likely to end as is his nature, has hopped ahead and staked-out compliance verification of flywheels.

9.1.1.B.3.c The flywheel shall be a standard component or the approved alternat Elite-001. The minimum weight is 14.4 lbs. with the ring gear. The flywheel may be machined to achieve minimumweight. Spot machining to achieve balance is permittd. Flywheel bolts are free and locating .................

while light years better than 9.1.1.B.3.o, 9.1.1.B.3.c would not have been my first choice for a rule to determine compliance with. rules with vendor part numbers are problematic, the Club has no drawings, change control authority, or contract to assure things with the same part number stamped on them are all the same. folks in the "tech shed" therefore have no drawings or access to the Club's "master" to compare with the item being examined.................................


how does any rational person "inspect" for compliance with 9.1.1.B.3.o??? <<<<<<<<


9.1.1.B.3.o Non-standard rocker covers are permitted providing they in no way improve the performance of the engine.

first, what is engine performance? and second, what is the measurement accuracy required to comply with "in NO way" ?? is engine performance instantaneous torque anyplace between idle and redline?? .... is it average torque between two unspecified rpm's?? ...... is it instantaneous horsepower measured/computed anyplace between idle and redline?? .......is it average horsepower between two unspecified rpm's?? ........is it brake specific fuel comsumption, the NASCAR boys and the EPA think fuel mileage is important?? .......is it maintenance interval for valve lash adjustment?? ......is it service life for the engine when tested to an unspecified torque and rpm profile?? .....is it the brand of deodorent or mouth wash used by the driver/engineer/owner that morning??

given the Club didn't pay for, specify, supervise, or monitor the testing that is the basis for the recent "parity" changes, if there's test data required to demonstrate compliance with the rule when someone determines what it says and documents it in the GCR for all to use, it doesn't take a rocket scientist to determine who paid for the testing!! that being the case and given history, in my mind it's more than reasonable to expect the Club to have written standards for: quantity of data required; who is provided access to the data and for what purpose; what the data can be used for, if anything, other than compliance verification for the situation in question; and the requirements for protection of data retained by the Club.

Art
artesmith@earthlink.net

Art,

I know you are pointing out apparent flaws with subjective rules...

But, I'll play along--- a "non-standard" rocker cover affects performance or "us racers" wouldn't have changed it. It is against our nature to hang parts on our cars to make them slower. Now, how in the heck you measure, argue or defend that it changed it in "any way" is a whole 'nother can of worms.
Which, I guess is your entire point.

If it is 1 gram lighter it lowered the center of gravity ;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Quickshoe

If it is 1 gram lighter it lowered the center of gravity ;)

---

But then you could argue that affects the performance of the car not the engine. ;)