GpN Protest at Wild West
1 - 20 of 20 Posts
>>What was the outcome of the GpN protest at Wild West we kept
>>hearing so much about?
>
>Utecht was found legal.
Not to pick on Mark, but did not the FIA Grope N scrutineer declare all the Grope N cars illegal in his "seminar" earlier this year? How many cars changed from then to now? How many now would pass a REAL FIA scrutineering? Does anybody REALLY care if Grope N cars are legal or not?
>>hearing so much about?
>
>Utecht was found legal.
Not to pick on Mark, but did not the FIA Grope N scrutineer declare all the Grope N cars illegal in his "seminar" earlier this year? How many cars changed from then to now? How many now would pass a REAL FIA scrutineering? Does anybody REALLY care if Grope N cars are legal or not?
Joined
·
2,798 Posts
>>What was the outcome of the GpN protest at Wild West we kept
>>hearing so much about?
>
>Utecht was found legal.
>
>Utecht and Mitchell agreed to decide things on the stages
>(no paper hanging) at POR (um, lspr).
OK, let me repeat, for those of us who were not at WW, but are interested in this topic, what were the details of the protest?
I went to Sno*Drift early to be at the GrN meeting and made an audio recording of that meeting that I made available through specialstage, so, even though I am not in a GrN car, I clearly have an interest in this topic.
BTW, what was the outcome of the appeal for the GrN tie-breaker at Ojibwe?
alan
>>hearing so much about?
>
>Utecht was found legal.
>
>Utecht and Mitchell agreed to decide things on the stages
>(no paper hanging) at POR (um, lspr).
OK, let me repeat, for those of us who were not at WW, but are interested in this topic, what were the details of the protest?
I went to Sno*Drift early to be at the GrN meeting and made an audio recording of that meeting that I made available through specialstage, so, even though I am not in a GrN car, I clearly have an interest in this topic.
BTW, what was the outcome of the appeal for the GrN tie-breaker at Ojibwe?
alan
>
>BTW, what was the outcome of the appeal for the GrN
>tie-breaker at Ojibwe?
>
The appeal by Sptizner was denied and the fee forfeted. The result stands as a tie.
Group N at LSPR should be fun to watch (but not to be part off), 2 points between them with serious money on the line ($25K and a test with Subaru for first, $12,500 for second).
>BTW, what was the outcome of the appeal for the GrN
>tie-breaker at Ojibwe?
>
The appeal by Sptizner was denied and the fee forfeted. The result stands as a tie.
Group N at LSPR should be fun to watch (but not to be part off), 2 points between them with serious money on the line ($25K and a test with Subaru for first, $12,500 for second).
Joined
·
1,385 Posts
RE: GpN Protest at Ojibwe
Thanks for the refreshing news.
Thanks for the refreshing news.
I read the protest, the SCCA Steward's opinion and the event Stewards' decision (there were three stewards at Wild West). Since I can't recall all the excrutiating details, I offer this likely flawed synopsis:
Mitchell appealed Utecht's usage of certain parts in his Variant Option (VO), namely STi forged control arms, STi gear sets and a mechanical differential.
At issue was the question of whether or not these various components were eligible as a particular VO. Mitchell thought no, Utecht thought yes.
Apparently the Stewards, after overnight consultation with the FIA Technical Delegate in Australia, agreed with Utecht. No teardown required. End of protest, fee is forfeited.
...back to the stages for the outcome on this one.
Cheers,
Bill Westhead
edited for spelling
Mitchell appealed Utecht's usage of certain parts in his Variant Option (VO), namely STi forged control arms, STi gear sets and a mechanical differential.
At issue was the question of whether or not these various components were eligible as a particular VO. Mitchell thought no, Utecht thought yes.
Apparently the Stewards, after overnight consultation with the FIA Technical Delegate in Australia, agreed with Utecht. No teardown required. End of protest, fee is forfeited.
...back to the stages for the outcome on this one.
Cheers,
Bill Westhead
edited for spelling
Joined
·
730 Posts
>OK, let me repeat, for those of us who were not at WW, but
>are interested in this topic, what were the details of the
>protest?
As posted on the official notice board, the protest listed several specific items. Those that could be checked without disassembly were checked and found to be in compliance. The protestor was given the option of posting an additional bond for the cost of disassembly, inspection, and reassembly, to verify the internal items. He declined to do so.
The allegations were:
A) STi brakes fitted to the car as a VO (Variant Option)
B) STi gear ratios as a VO
C) Mechanical rear diff as a VO
D) Article 251 forbids the combination of several VO's of turbo, brakes and gearbox
E) Alloy control arms instead of steel
F) Car is homologated as WRX, not an STi
G) Roll cage not meeting homologation requirements
The findings were:
A) The brakes were found to be as per homologation, and not STi brakes fitted as a VO.
B) The protestee stated that the gear ratios were fitted under a single VO, which is legal. Without disassembly this couldn't be confirmed, but it's no different from what the protestor claimed.
C) The same was true of the rear diff (single VO).
D) There was no combination of several VO's of turbo, brakes or gearbox.
E) The control arms were as per the homologation.
F) All of the above items were checked against the WRX homologation
papers (A5621), not STi.
G) Cage is in compliance with Article 253, 8.1 to 8.3, and therefore
doesn't have to be homologated.
>are interested in this topic, what were the details of the
>protest?
As posted on the official notice board, the protest listed several specific items. Those that could be checked without disassembly were checked and found to be in compliance. The protestor was given the option of posting an additional bond for the cost of disassembly, inspection, and reassembly, to verify the internal items. He declined to do so.
The allegations were:
A) STi brakes fitted to the car as a VO (Variant Option)
B) STi gear ratios as a VO
C) Mechanical rear diff as a VO
D) Article 251 forbids the combination of several VO's of turbo, brakes and gearbox
E) Alloy control arms instead of steel
F) Car is homologated as WRX, not an STi
G) Roll cage not meeting homologation requirements
The findings were:
A) The brakes were found to be as per homologation, and not STi brakes fitted as a VO.
B) The protestee stated that the gear ratios were fitted under a single VO, which is legal. Without disassembly this couldn't be confirmed, but it's no different from what the protestor claimed.
C) The same was true of the rear diff (single VO).
D) There was no combination of several VO's of turbo, brakes or gearbox.
E) The control arms were as per the homologation.
F) All of the above items were checked against the WRX homologation
papers (A5621), not STi.
G) Cage is in compliance with Article 253, 8.1 to 8.3, and therefore
doesn't have to be homologated.
Mark's car was originally built for Doug Havir to run in PGT. However, we built the car with group N in mind. The cage was built to meet FIA general cage requirements. When Mark purchased the car we helped him to convert and maintain it to run in group N by supplying parts and technical support over the course over the last year or so. With the exception of the gear set, we had input on every major part that was installed on the car.
In looking at the protests that were filed, it seems to me that even the most basic familiarity with the Subaru homologation papers would have prevented the protest from being filed in the first place. For one, the aluminum control arms are part of the original homologation and therefore it would be illegal to run WITHOUT them. Same with the brakes. The LSD and the ratios are outlined in separate, individual, VO's. and are not dependent on use with each other or any other parts. Makes you wonder what might be illegal on the "other guy's" car if he isn't even familiar with these rules.
It should be noted that Mark is running at a serious disadvantage to his competitors that are running full STi spec. cars....it is no surprise to see them looking for excuses as to why they are getting soundly beaten by someone in a base model WRX.
--Dave
RalliSpec
www.rallispec.com
In looking at the protests that were filed, it seems to me that even the most basic familiarity with the Subaru homologation papers would have prevented the protest from being filed in the first place. For one, the aluminum control arms are part of the original homologation and therefore it would be illegal to run WITHOUT them. Same with the brakes. The LSD and the ratios are outlined in separate, individual, VO's. and are not dependent on use with each other or any other parts. Makes you wonder what might be illegal on the "other guy's" car if he isn't even familiar with these rules.
It should be noted that Mark is running at a serious disadvantage to his competitors that are running full STi spec. cars....it is no surprise to see them looking for excuses as to why they are getting soundly beaten by someone in a base model WRX.
--Dave
RalliSpec
www.rallispec.com
Yeah Mark has had to fight extremely hard just to be where he is now....so perhaps poor choice of words. But with a 50-75hp deficit against his closest competitor you cannot knock the effort he has put forth.
I guess I should also mention that I did not intend to accuse anyone else of cheating (seeing as how I got an irate phone call within 10 minutes of posting). It was more of an observation rather then an accusation. To be honest I don't think there is a single group N car running at this time that can be said to be in 100% compliance with the rules under really close scrutiny. Most of this is a result of unfamiliarity with the rules or ignorance as to the proper parts to be used. I think the important thing is to concentrate on those blatant infractions that might be providing a competitive advantage. Things such as having the proper turbo, gear ratios, etc. Hopefully the scrutineering will improve on that end of things.
Its my opinion that only those competitors who have total confidence in their own car's legality should even consider protesting another car. Perhaps that is why some competitors were adding A/C compressors mid-event.
--Dave
RalliSpec
I guess I should also mention that I did not intend to accuse anyone else of cheating (seeing as how I got an irate phone call within 10 minutes of posting). It was more of an observation rather then an accusation. To be honest I don't think there is a single group N car running at this time that can be said to be in 100% compliance with the rules under really close scrutiny. Most of this is a result of unfamiliarity with the rules or ignorance as to the proper parts to be used. I think the important thing is to concentrate on those blatant infractions that might be providing a competitive advantage. Things such as having the proper turbo, gear ratios, etc. Hopefully the scrutineering will improve on that end of things.
Its my opinion that only those competitors who have total confidence in their own car's legality should even consider protesting another car. Perhaps that is why some competitors were adding A/C compressors mid-event.
--Dave
RalliSpec
RE: GpN End of Season Result
>What is the tie-breaker should Shane and Mark end up on
>equal points?
Section 9.1.A, last paragraph:
In case of ties in final points standings, they will be resolved according to each competitor's record of 1st place finishes, then if necessary, the number of 2nd place finishes, then if necessary, the number of 3rd place finishes, and so on, down to 10th position. All events entered will be considered for tiebreakers.
BW
>What is the tie-breaker should Shane and Mark end up on
>equal points?
Section 9.1.A, last paragraph:
In case of ties in final points standings, they will be resolved according to each competitor's record of 1st place finishes, then if necessary, the number of 2nd place finishes, then if necessary, the number of 3rd place finishes, and so on, down to 10th position. All events entered will be considered for tiebreakers.
BW
Joined
·
717 Posts
RE: GpN End of Season Result - Tie-breaking?
That's right.
Utecht/Secor have 1 win, 4 2nds, and 1 3rd.
Mitchell/Donnelly have 2 wins, 2 2nds, and 2 3rds.
Utecht/Secor have a 2-pt lead going in to the final round, with the top 6 places paying 10, 6, 4, 3, 2, and 1 point.
This should be a great battle. I'd love to see it all fought on the dirt and pavement of Michigan, with legal cars, rather than on protest paper.
Each team totally controls their own destiny in that a win clinches it. Another interesting factor may be the other entries in GpN, but I doubt that'll make a difference. I doubt these teams will be bumped down to 3rd and 4th, where the point difference is only 1, so I suspect the winner between these two at Lake Superior will be the champ.
Mitchell/Donnelly will win any tie-breaker. The only way a tie-breaker will come into effect is if they finish 2-3, 3-5, 4-6 (Mitchell/Donnelly ahead, of course), or with Mitchell/Donnelly 5th and Utecht/Secor worse than 6th.
That's right.
Utecht/Secor have 1 win, 4 2nds, and 1 3rd.
Mitchell/Donnelly have 2 wins, 2 2nds, and 2 3rds.
Utecht/Secor have a 2-pt lead going in to the final round, with the top 6 places paying 10, 6, 4, 3, 2, and 1 point.
This should be a great battle. I'd love to see it all fought on the dirt and pavement of Michigan, with legal cars, rather than on protest paper.
Each team totally controls their own destiny in that a win clinches it. Another interesting factor may be the other entries in GpN, but I doubt that'll make a difference. I doubt these teams will be bumped down to 3rd and 4th, where the point difference is only 1, so I suspect the winner between these two at Lake Superior will be the champ.
Mitchell/Donnelly will win any tie-breaker. The only way a tie-breaker will come into effect is if they finish 2-3, 3-5, 4-6 (Mitchell/Donnelly ahead, of course), or with Mitchell/Donnelly 5th and Utecht/Secor worse than 6th.
1 - 20 of 20 Posts
Join the discussion
