Special Stage Forums banner

1 - 8 of 8 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
221 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
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)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
803 Posts
All this stuff has already been figured out in the rest of the world.

you should allow class conformance protest to happen at any time up to 30 minutes after the beginning of the 'post-event scrutineering', and the 'post event scrutineering' should be in a 'final MTC parc ferme' and should be effective upon MTC check in, with the scrutineering starting up to 10 mins after entry. And at this place, scrutineers can also check anyone, for anything, whenever they want.

but require competitor protests to be $25 non-refundable fee and MINIMUM $500 bond, not required on the spot (owed after the fact, under penalty of license sanction), returnable if protest is upheld, then no lame protests, and no lame 'protest by proxy (i.e. official)', and no lame 'hey I got booted for what so and so is also doing'. And on top of all that, with the 'final MTC parc ferme', no one can 'get out' of being checked at any time. And so there is more checking in general, which should reduce the need for protesting.

But generally speaking, down south you guys REALLY DO spend too much time on this, given that its such a convoluted system. It should be cleaned up, so that it is less time consuming, less mindshare consuming, and less of concern in general. People are generally class conformant, and if they aren't, they will be caught. Just make it so, instead of making it an obsession for everyone all the time. Or just run 3 classes, g2/O/g5 :)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
901 Posts
I didn't think the tech inspectors had been checking for class legality this year, that it wasn't in the rule book that they need to do so.

It would be great if they checked for PGT, GN, and P class legality, but that pre-supposes an unbiased, educated tech inspector consistently teching cars across the board.

:)

I do, however, like the CRS stock class and performance stock class idea, of a pre-event, post-tech/registration meeting for everyone to check everyone else's car for legality in a mass herd. And the meeting is mandatory, and if you don't show up for it you get booted to the next available class, usually G2.
 

·
eating dust taking photos
Joined
·
3,740 Posts
Its not consistent but its being done. Jeremy's cross drilled rotors is an example. I know of one team that went to Cog with a supposed PGT car but they had unknowingly gone out of copliance on a control arm I beleive so they switched to open, were doing pretty good in a 90% PGT O class car.
 

·
L1 !!! HPR into HPL
Joined
·
951 Posts
I have followed this thread and was confused because it states that the scrutineer does not need to check for class legality. I have finally found the paragraph within the current 2004 regs which seems to state differently, and I quote:

"At each event, this logbook must be presented at Scrutineering with the
signature of the driver/entrant for that event in the space provided. The
Scrutineer, during technical inspection, will note any deviations found
regarding both safety and legality. If a waiver for the event is permitted
the duration of the waiver must be noted and complied with by the
competitor. If a car is protested during an event, the results of this
protest must be noted."

Note the requirement to note any deviations found regarding both safety and legality. While it doesn't state class legality, I am assuming that is pricisely what it means.

This quote is on page 41, section 6.1.A, fourth paragraph. If my interpretation is correct, scrutineering is required to check for class legality and note any deviations in the car's logbook.


David Weiman
rallydave at pobox dot com
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
221 Posts
Discussion Starter #8
>
>This quote is on page 41, section 6.1.A, fourth paragraph.
>If my interpretation is correct, scrutineering is required
>to check for class legality and note any deviations in the
>car's logbook.


At Maine we had a record in our log book to fix rotor issue by next event. At LSPR they checked in tech that this had been done.

My point in posting is to say that I appreciated the efforts that SCCA had put into scrutineering for class legality. I hope that rally america will continue to do this at future events, as the alternatives to this method (open hood policy, or protests) are not as effective.

PatR had a good point about a Parc Ferme at the final MTC. With the proper tools and one or two techs, all cars or at least the top 3-5 of each class could be checked very quickly for restrictors, cats, and a variety of other easy to identify class legality issues. (all cars could be held, so that if some of the top 3-5 were found illegal, the others could be teched if they move up in position)

At maine we were given a list during parc expose that told us what would be teched if we finished in the top 3. I believe for PGT it was Brakes, Restrictor, and shop manual, as well as cat check.

I would suggest to Rally America that they should keep going with this system, as it was a very cost effective way to enforce class legality. It may not catch everyone but it takes the burden off of competiors.....for very little cost per competitor.

Jeremy
 
1 - 8 of 8 Posts
Top