24 replies to this topic

[Tom Sager]

I think John gave you a clear explanation of the enforcement challenge with respect to the ideas being presented in this thread.  How many 38 mm restrictors have been found to be 50 mm?  How do you determine intent without an admission?

There have been some enlarged or removed restrictors discovered in tech.  Not many but some.  I don't think there can be any doubt about intent in either circumstance.  I suppose someone could say that their restrictor plate was missing because they forgot to re-install it or that their crew forgot to install it, but either way the infraction is the same.  I don't know if we should be in the determining intent business. 

 

Varying penalties based on the nature of the infraction seems to make sense though.  Someone whose car is 5 pounds underweight after a race should be penalized less than someone whose car is 50 pounds underweight or has no restrictor plate or has an illegal sway bar.  A cylinder head with 1 valve or seat out of compliance should be penalized less than 1 which has all 16 out of bounds. 

 

I do appreciate you and John weighing in here and after reading so many of the posts in the other thread and in this one, it seems like as a racing community many of us SM drivers need to brush up on the GCR and not necessarily the SM section but the rest of it. 

[dstevens]

One of the issues with the governance structure of SCCA is that the bureaucracy of the enforcement overrides common sense or good judgement.  I think this is one of those times.  In Steyn's case the parts were intentionally modified against the rules in order to obtain a performance advantage.  Period.  End of story.  Arguing intent is a non sequitur argument.   The cuts were obvious and outside the normal tolerance of wear.  If I take a swing at at guy in the paddock with no provocation are you going to wonder what my intent is?  You should be calling the cops or at the very least a long term or permanent bounce.

 

If something like this happened (obvious modded parts, though fights are enforced similarly) in regional Nascar the offender (as well as the owner of record though at that level they are usually one in the same) would get a suspension.  No abstract arguments or tortured discussion about intent.  Part is out of compliance, is not supposed to have any mods and is obviously modified. This doesn't usually apply to crash damage though it has to be clear the part was damaged in the wreck that took the car out.  Even more harsh for engine seal compliance.   A kid and his dad had a fake seal on an engine they say they bought second hand.  Both bounced for a full year.  The engine was confiscated and not returned. (you don't have to let them take it but if you don't you are gone for good)  If you disagree you can appeal and state your case.

 

Instead there is a system where if you refuse tech you get suspended but if you go through tech and get caught with a blatant cheat you get three chances before you get bounced.   I didn't intend to run a stroker 1.6 with the programmable ECU in SM, it just had those parts in it.  See?  No ill intent...

[FTodaro]

A couple of thoughts, but first let me establish my credentials.

 

Before becoming a steward, I was the driver representative for one of the run groups at Summit Point.  On one or two occasions, I took a driver aside for a private chat and suggested that he see to the legality of the <part> on his car.  That was enough to make the <part>, or the car, go away.

 

As a steward, I have dealt with many compliance situations.  In some cases, it was clear that the driver was unwitting and/or clueless (i.e. there was no intent).  In a few cases, there was intent to cheat.  In at least two of the latter, it was not clear whether the driver was party to the cheat.

 

I have never really understood why someone would want to “win” with a non-compliant car.

 

Lest you think that I am mushy on enforcement, I hold the record for handing out the most one-year suspensions in the last 15 years, perhaps in SCCA history.  I am fair-minded, but not a soft touch.

 

So, thoughts:

 

1.  It is very often difficult or impossible to establish intent.  “Blatant cheating” sounds impressive, but is very difficult to define or describe.  As Peter pointed out, unless someone acknowledges cheating, or you catch him adding weight after crossing the scales, you really cannot decide on his motives.

 

2.  The incident that triggered this thread (and the earlier one) carried some heavy consequences for the offender.  He lost a Runoffs podium, he will see himself listed forever in the results as DQ, and he suffered a major hit to his reputation.   I understand that opinions may vary, but I see him severely punished.

 

3.  I am, in general, not in favor of mandatory penalties.  The range of circumstances is simply too great, and motivations too unclear, to support them.

 

The penalty guidelines do a very good job of producing consistent outcomes for commonly occurring offenses.  When coming to assign a penalty, I, and every steward I know, start with the guidelines.

 

4.  The purpose of a penalty is two-fold:  first, to punish and/or correct the behavior; and, second, to discourage similar acts.  I believe that the penalty in this case meets both those tests.

 

Penalties should be proportionate and on a scale.  If you hang someone for shoplifting, what do you do for murder?  Club Racing rules provide for cumulative consequences.  However, I doubt very much that the offender in this case will ever again deliberately present a non-compliant car.

I cannot disagree with anything you have said. I simply raise the question based upon the direction of the comments in the other thread. My only point, we are quick to change the rules to allow the cheat, we should give other end of the equation a look too. 

[Peter Olivola]

There have been some enlarged or removed restrictors discovered in tech.  Not many but some.  I don't think there can be any doubt about intent in either circumstance.  I suppose someone could say that their restrictor plate was missing because they forgot to re-install it or that their crew forgot to install it, but either way the infraction is the same.  I don't know if we should be in the determining intent business. 

 

Varying penalties based on the nature of the infraction seems to make sense though.  Someone whose car is 5 pounds underweight after a race should be penalized less than someone whose car is 50 pounds underweight or has no restrictor plate or has an illegal sway bar.  A cylinder head with 1 valve or seat out of compliance should be penalized less than 1 which has all 16 out of bounds. 

 

I do appreciate you and John weighing in here and after reading so many of the posts in the other thread and in this one, it seems like as a racing community many of us SM drivers need to brush up on the GCR and not necessarily the SM section but the rest of it. 

 

Recommended.

[Johnny D]

As long as everyone is writing letters...

 

https://www.crbscca.com/

 

J~