At the last two rallies we have competed in there have been tech inspector(s) checking cars usually top 3 in class for class rule compliance post event. (We got a big time penalty for having cross drilled rotors at maine....We did not read rules carfully prior to the event and as we had no spares, and could not source them up there we ran the event in PGT and payed the price for having illegal parts on the car)
Is Rally America planning on continuing this? It seems like it is the most effective way to enforce class rule compliance.
With the complexity of different class rules and the variety of cars that run in each class, it seems like an overwhelming task for each team to become familiar with the rules for themselves and all other competitors. (for P and PGT it requires being familiar with what is stock for each different car entered)
Protests are available if you feel like someone is breaking the rules, but usually must be filed before the event. This requires teams that wish to protest to become familiar with other competiors cars pre event, and file a protest post a bond etc. Protesting can be expensive too and this deters them from being filed, by teams on a tight budget. (I know you get your bond back if protest is upheld...so maye this is null point)
Is there another way to approach this? I like the idea of checking for compliance at the event by a series tech inspector...as it keeps competitors honest, and within the rules. It also does not place the burden on the competitors. Hiring a tech to come to events should be relatively cheap, especially when the cost can be passed on to competitors.....(maybe a few dollars per entrant)
Ideally we would all be following the rules to the letter in the first place, but this is not always the case. As above we had illegal brake rotors on the car at Maine. Our fault completely and we deserved to be penalized as we were. Ignorance was no excuse we should have read the rules closer. Since this incident we have spent a lot of time reading rules and getting clarifications from SCCA tech...so that we can have a legal PGT car.
I would like to think that if I had a problem with someones car I could just talk to them about it and see if there was just a misunderstanding or ignorance of the rules if an understaning could not be gained perhaps the series tech could be consulted, or a protest filed. And likewise for other competiors with our car, if someone has a question about our car I would hope they would feel free to ask.
In classes like PGT and P no team should have very little to hide from other competitors, especially under the hood, since most everything is supposed to be "stock", so why not have an "Open Hood" policy during Parc Expose since there should be nothing to hide.
I guess I am rambling a little but I think my question is is RA going to continue to Class compliance checks?
If they are not, is there an effective way that we can have something like an "Open Hood" policy so that competitors can work together to keep each other within the rules? (I have not mentioned group N as I am not familiar at all with the rules for that class, but it has been suggested that the above ideas could pertain to Group N as well)
Jeremy Wimpey
PS I would like to think that no one would want to cheat, but it has been pointed out to me several times that there are class legality issues that are ignored. (maybe due to a misunderstanding of the rules, or possibly out of ignorance...but still not within the rules)
Is Rally America planning on continuing this? It seems like it is the most effective way to enforce class rule compliance.
With the complexity of different class rules and the variety of cars that run in each class, it seems like an overwhelming task for each team to become familiar with the rules for themselves and all other competitors. (for P and PGT it requires being familiar with what is stock for each different car entered)
Protests are available if you feel like someone is breaking the rules, but usually must be filed before the event. This requires teams that wish to protest to become familiar with other competiors cars pre event, and file a protest post a bond etc. Protesting can be expensive too and this deters them from being filed, by teams on a tight budget. (I know you get your bond back if protest is upheld...so maye this is null point)
Is there another way to approach this? I like the idea of checking for compliance at the event by a series tech inspector...as it keeps competitors honest, and within the rules. It also does not place the burden on the competitors. Hiring a tech to come to events should be relatively cheap, especially when the cost can be passed on to competitors.....(maybe a few dollars per entrant)
Ideally we would all be following the rules to the letter in the first place, but this is not always the case. As above we had illegal brake rotors on the car at Maine. Our fault completely and we deserved to be penalized as we were. Ignorance was no excuse we should have read the rules closer. Since this incident we have spent a lot of time reading rules and getting clarifications from SCCA tech...so that we can have a legal PGT car.
I would like to think that if I had a problem with someones car I could just talk to them about it and see if there was just a misunderstanding or ignorance of the rules if an understaning could not be gained perhaps the series tech could be consulted, or a protest filed. And likewise for other competiors with our car, if someone has a question about our car I would hope they would feel free to ask.
In classes like PGT and P no team should have very little to hide from other competitors, especially under the hood, since most everything is supposed to be "stock", so why not have an "Open Hood" policy during Parc Expose since there should be nothing to hide.
I guess I am rambling a little but I think my question is is RA going to continue to Class compliance checks?
If they are not, is there an effective way that we can have something like an "Open Hood" policy so that competitors can work together to keep each other within the rules? (I have not mentioned group N as I am not familiar at all with the rules for that class, but it has been suggested that the above ideas could pertain to Group N as well)
Jeremy Wimpey
PS I would like to think that no one would want to cheat, but it has been pointed out to me several times that there are class legality issues that are ignored. (maybe due to a misunderstanding of the rules, or possibly out of ignorance...but still not within the rules)