God-like SCCA Stewart Position

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Daryl DeArman

The issue I see is how do you get somebody involved with enough intimate knowledge of the class without that somebody having the appearance of bias, or conflict of interest?

---

Simple: you don't have one person. When I raced with NASA, our class (Camaro-Mustang Challenge) had a national board of directors made up of a representative from each of the NASA regions, who was elected by the racers in that region. That board was responsible for all rules issues for the class. At regional events, the regional representative was responsible for assisting the tech staff with class inspections. It was basically like an SCCA ad hoc committee except we had actual rules-making authority for the class, with some oversight by the national office. It is a very effective system because it combines an element of democracy with the benefits of a benevolent dictator when necessary. :D

That is not how this steward understands the rule. This steward understands the rule to mean that Club Racing will both assign the CCC and designate the classes subject to CCC oversight.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Marty Nygard

The interesting thing about this new position is the actual GCR language
[SIZE=1] 5.11.3. Class Compliance Chief (CCC)
When assigned to an event by the head of Club Racing or his designate, the CCC works with the event technical staff to provide consistent compliance checking across all the events in designated class/es. Decisions made by the CCC regarding compliance are non-protestable.
[/SIZE] Does not include the Motion language "(initially for SM, but could be for SRF or any class in the future)". This CCC person could show up at your next event and decide to check any or all classes, presumably at his discretion.
M

---

To add a couple of additional insights on the comments above

Quote:

---

3) Could the CCC program just be a way to allocate the additional cost of greater SM compliance scrutiny across all competitors? Maybe it was assumed that SM competitors were not going to accept more compliance fees when what they have been paying does not seem to provide an effective service.

---

Not really. The initial, limited use of a CCC (for SM at a couple of early season Majors) will be funded by the Club. If these experiences are positive and the SM community accepts the concept, the CCC program will likely be expanded to additional Major and regional races in SM, undoubtedly with a class-specific compliance fee to fund the effort.

Quote:

---

The interesting thing about this new position is the actual GCR language
5.11.3. Class Compliance Chief (CCC)
When assigned to an event by the head of Club Racing or his designate, the CCC works with the event technical staff to provide consistent compliance checking across all the events in designated class/es. Decisions made by the CCC regarding compliance are non-protestable.
Does not include the Motion language "(initially for SM, but could be for SRF or any class in the future)". This CCC person could show up at your next event and decide to check any or all classes, presumably at his discretion.

---

The proposal was deliberately generalized so if the concept is valid it could be applied to other classes without BoD action (and to not single out SM as a compliance problem :) ).

There are no specific plans at this time to apply the CCC concept to other classes. If a need arises and there is competitor interest in additional compliance, a CCC can be appointed for other classes. In my mind. it is unlikely to be applied to any open wheel class.

HTH

Terry

As a national tech inspector and having spent 7 years as the chief of tech in F2kCS and F1600CS let me shine a little sunshine on some statements above.

In the pro series it was routine to randomly inspect cars finishing deep in the pack.

After inspecting a little over four hundred F2000 and F1600 finishers per year we discovered some interesting statistics in our records. The facts showed overwhelmingly that there were many more infractions at the rear of the field than among the podium finishers... for 7 straight years.

In discussions with GT1Vette about these results he relayed an opinion he had heard over the years. "The front of the pack must be cheating like hell, because I'm cheating and I can't catch them." :)

I have rarely heard great competitors complain about tough tech inspections, even when we didn't get out of impound for many hours. Many told me it just added verification to their victory.

[QUOTE=Purple Frog;458924]As a national tech inspector and having spent 7 years as the chief of tech in F2kCS and F1600CS let me shine a little sunshine on some statements above.

In the pro series it was routine to randomly inspect cars finishing deep in the pack.

After inspecting a little over four hundred F2000 and F1600 finishers per year we discovered some interesting statistics in our records. The facts showed overwhelmingly that there were many more infractions at the rear of the field than among the podium finishers... for 7 straight years.

In discussions with GT1Vette about these results he relayed an opinion he had heard over the years. "The front of the pack must be cheating like hell, because I'm cheating and I can't catch them." :)

I have rarely heard great competitors complain about tough tech inspections, even when we didn't get out of impound for many hours. Many told me it just added verification to their victory.

[/QUOTE

The best complient you can get is to be torn down because you won. We will take that any race!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Purple Frog

After inspecting a little over four hundred F2000 and F1600 finishers per year we discovered some interesting statistics in our records. The facts showed overwhelmingly that there were many more infractions at the rear of the field than among the podium finishers... for 7 straight years.

---

The question is were the infractions intentional? Were they cheats? or lack of budget to full vet their own cars?

Basically as the great Fred Clark has told me many times, as posted in the Series operations trailer;

It is the responsibility of the competitor to bring a legal car to impound.

This is motor racing not new millennial kids sports. No one else is blame but the competitor.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Purple Frog

It is the responsibility of the competitor to bring a legal car to impound.

This is motor racing not new millennial kids sports. No one else is blame but the competitor.

---

While true, not many competitors buy an engine from a pro-builder and then proceed to completely disassemble it to verify compliance. That's part of what they paid for.


The competitor still needs to be held accountable.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Daryl DeArman

While true, not many competitors buy an engine from a pro-builder and then proceed to completely disassemble it to verify compliance. That's part of what they paid for.

The competitor still needs to be held accountable.

---

And in the SM case I'm surprised there haven't been any lawsuits against the engine builders. Well, none yet :rolleyes:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Daryl DeArman

While true, not many competitors buy an engine from a pro-builder and then proceed to completely disassemble it to verify compliance. That's part of what they paid for.


The competitor still needs to be held accountable.

---

My concern is mainly with the fact that I can not dissemble parts of my ESR or SRF to verify compliance due to SCCA Enterprise seals. Yet the competitor (me) will still be responsible for the compliance inside of these items.

Because those are sealed engines, that says they are not going to be opened. Enterprises is guaranteeing their legality with the placement of those seals.

You are right Mr Frog, but I think you are making his point. Your posted rule...

It is the responsibility of the competitor to bring a legal car to impound.

...needs an asterisk next to it for the exception mentioned (sealed engines). Are there other exceptions?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cgscgs

You are right Mr Frog, but I think you are making his point. Your posted rule...

It is the responsibility of the competitor to bring a legal car to impound.

...needs an asterisk next to it for the exception mentioned (sealed engines). Are there other exceptions?

---

Someone should write a letter to the CRB on this.

I certainly do not disagree with the comments just previous to this.

However, we also must expect competency, organization, and leadership from SCCA and their officials. None of these changes would change what happened at this year's Runoffs.

The SM issue was a political stand-off between two "camps" of people with opposing views on blueprinting "standards". The little guys ambushed the big boys. It certainly had been brewing for a while and was ignored by people who could have sorted it out, especially once the initial protests were filed. Why weren't all the cars impounded and why was an unteched car declared the winner, for example.

The FV issue was just incompetent, arrogant, poorly equipped tech people with no direction who got themselves into a mess they could not get out of. Eventually, it was dark, everyone had left, so they declared it official and went home. By accounts, had Fred Clark been there and organizing the group, the results likely would have been as on track. I have not yet met anyone who believes that the top-3 cars were all illegal.

Some situations are just going to get messy and ugly. Good leadership minimizes the impact to hi-profile events. I don't see how this new position accomplishes that.

Our events are run by volunteers. It takes a good amount of luck to win these major events both on and…. off the track. Maybe more people should learn to accept that.

Brian

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by problemchild

Why weren't all the cars impounded and why was an unteched car declared the winner, for example.

---

The procedures don't require that all finishing cars be impounded. Not sure what you mean by "all the cars weren't impounded"....


As to the an "unteched" car being declared the winner. Happens at most every SCCA race around. Okay, so this wasn't just any old SCCA race. Fact is that the system is such that the highest finisher that doesn't fail is the winner. Opposed to the highest finisher that passes tech.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Daryl DeArman

The procedures don't require that all finishing cars be impounded. Not sure what you mean by "all the cars weren't impounded"....


As to the an "unteched" car being declared the winner. Happens at most every SCCA race around. Okay, so this wasn't just any old SCCA race. Fact is that the system is such that the highest finisher that doesn't fail is the winner. Opposed to the highest finisher that passes tech.

---

I'm saying that some SCCA official should have understood that there was a major technical issue going on and it would be prudent to impound more than six cars and make sure that the eventual winner did not have the disputed modification. That seems so obvious to me that I cannot believe that it was not done, nevermind that it needs suggesting by me. Had I finished 7th in that race, I would have driven my car right out the front gate and loaded it up down the street.

I think the issues at the Runoffs were essentially politics and poor execution by officials. This new Steward position does not correct those, so if this is supposed to be anymore than a "Solution" to appease Mazda, then I don't think it will have much impact.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by problemchild

The FV issue was just incompetent, arrogant, poorly equipped tech people with no direction who got themselves into a mess they could not get out of.

---

This is absolutely not true.

1) First finisher's valve lift was way off. As the engine builder has not volunteer any facts other than to say it was a big 'mistake' on his part. He had no issue with the DQ.

2) 2nd place manifold I believe failed weight. Again, no one has volunteered the facts. Pretty hard to get the weight wrong in testing.

3) 3rd place manifold failed the horizontal tube dimension. One side by .0015 and the other by .0025. The .0015 could be considered about the tolerance of the measuring equipment, but the .0025 seems large enough to be a legitimate failure.

Brian

Two and a half thousandths.

Unless there was a highly skilled person using highly specialized measuring equipment, I defy anyone to get repeatable readings to that level of accuracy on the diameter of a manifold.

What were the calibration standards used at the track, if one is going to cut it that close.

how recently were the measuring tools checked against a standard traceable to the NBS.

I think I would, from my years of experience be highly doubtful of the two and a half thousandths over size measurement.

Not that I have a dog in this fight, just doubtful of the accuracy to that level of measuring tools in the field.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Purple Frog

Because those are sealed engines, that says they are not going to be opened. Enterprises is guaranteeing their legality with the placement of those seals.

---

Shades of the old problem where some of the SRF guys had their own seals to play with.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Steve Demeter

I think I would, from my years of experience be highly doubtful of the two and a half thousandths over size measurement.

---

Well I would have challenged it if I had been contacted about the issue during the inspection.

You have to wonder why you measure the crank, etc. with a micrometer and the manifold with a caliper when both have the same level of precision and accuracy stated in the GCR.

'An old, old rule of thumb in metrology is that the instrument you use should be ten times more accurate than the degree of the measurement. i.e. if you want to know the dimension in thousandths, the instrument should not only read-out in "tenths", it should be accurate to "tenths".'

Brian

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cgscgs

You are right Mr Frog, but I think you are making his point. Your posted rule...

It is the responsibility of the competitor to bring a legal car to impound.

...needs an asterisk next to it for the exception mentioned (sealed engines). Are there other exceptions?

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jnovak

Someone should write a letter to the CRB on this.

---

I don't think this is necessary. Having the seals intact is what defines the component as being legal, as I understand it. I've had my engine seals checked several times in impound - that's the end of the discussion on the engine. Same with shocks. Then they start taking wing measurements, to check the legality of other items.

Keep in mind that Enterprises can confiscate a winning engine for inspection and testing, and they have done so in the past. If they find that you altered it and faked the seals, it won't be a light penalty:

Quote:

---

Should the impounded unit(s) be found illegal, the following penalties will be imposed:
1. Disqualification from the event.
2. A fine of $250.00.
3. $500.00 testing fee plus freight charges paid to Enterprises.
4. Competition privileges will be suspended immediately, and the suspension will continue for a minimum of thirty (30) days after the date when all fines and costs are paid in full and the license is received by the Chairman SOM or the SCCA Topeka Office.
5. For a second illegal drive train offense, the competitor will be permanently disqualified from further Enterprises Formula Car competition.

---

Yes, it looks like a hole in the rules, but I think it's adequately handled, at least for FE.

On second thought, are you suggesting that the competitor should not be responsible for the legality of sealed components?

It never fails to amaze me how folks, who are hundreds or thousands of miles away, can speak with such authority regarding generally unknown facts.

As the builder of the vee engine that crossed the finish line first, I can say with complete confidence that the tech personnel were above reproach. As I said before, both the FV guys I worked with are mechanical engineers with many years of prep and racing their own cars. Not only did they do everything in their power to arrive at a positive solution, in my case, they did go out and secure alternative measuring equipment to confirm their own devices.

Subsequent inspection showed the dial indicator I use to set lift had a slightly bent shaft causing inconsistent zeroing. I'm not sure how one measures "way" off but in this case the variance was less than 2%. Certainly not, in my opinion, to have altered the results of the race, just like .001 or .0025 on a manifold wouldn't either. But, a number is a number, just like getting DQ'd for weighing 1024 pounds.

Having not been a part of prior year inspections, I can not, nor will I, comment on whether the results would have been different with Fred Clark or anyone else. That's just ludicrous. I will say that the 3 engine builders involved have not forgotten how to build legal engines during the past year.

No one thinks that one volunteer scrutineer will have all the answers for all the classes. That's one reason why there is a protest procedure in place for competitors. SCCA can not be held responsible if the racers cannot, or do not want to use the process. That's why the decision was made to establish a compliance checking position in the Majors program. It will be on a class by class basis, as requested by specific classes, and paid for by the classes effected. Much like SRF and FE, it is anticipated that SM will be the first class.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by budawe

I'm not sure how one measures "way" off but in this case the variance was less than 2%.

---

2% on a .354" lift is .007"… that is "way" off on a race engine. .001-.002 is close. You are still not stating the extent of the error, how many valves were off, etc.

This is not cheating because you are a Board member or good guy? You setup at least three engines for the Runoffs and you never noticed that the valve lifts were changing on you for no apparent reason?

Brian

HardingFV32,

You are out of line.

Budawe admitted that his equipment was defective. Inconsistent zeroing on a dial indicator could easily lead to that error.

Remember that it must be moved and rezeroed on every valve.

.

Your comment is beyond the bounds of civil conversation.