136 replies to this topic

[Sacslider]

While depth of tech is a great thing deterence is also highly effective. Add a simple line stating that any broken seal or dyno over 115 will result in a ban from SSM for 12 months and loss of all points in the current year. It is a regional class so rules could be easily adjusted. How ever this should not be made retro active, no matter how much it should be.

Matt- I understand your anger and frustration. When the class rules last changed I decided that the class was not for me as I saw several ways around the existing rule set. While the current rules are better I still believe I could circumvent them to my own advantage, meaning anyone else could also.

[Juan Pineda]

Brian,

Thanks for your time on this matter. Some additional questions/thoughts for your consideration:

1) Is all this correct? The officials unilaterally decided not to pursue the non-compliance. The owner of the car was never even contacted to find out if they would protest a DQ. The dyno numbers were not disclosed, so he left that day not knowing that his car was non-compliant. And presumably he is still in the dark as the public information does not indicate which car had the 121 reading.

2) The rules are not written very well. They forgot to include the sentence about the dyno --- the raison d'etre of the class. That doesn't make the rules invalid. EVERYONE understands the purpose of sealing was to maintain the dyno setting. If the dyno setting is not maintained, the engine is out of spec and non-compliant. There is plenty of backup documentation like what Philip posted. Non-compliance is grounds for DQ.

3) The GCR 6.10.6 specifically says that track records are maintained for races and not qualifying. There is no obstacle from an SCCA legal point of view to rescinding the SSM qualifying record if the record setting car was the non-compliant one. Maybe this would be a small fix, but if nothing else is done, at least this would give SSM racers hope of setting some record in the future.

This situation is exactly like a poorly written contract. Lawyers deal with this all the time. They don't just accept nonsensical results. They look at backup evidence and establish the intent of the parties, even if the wording was flawed. This is a reasonable approach to take to address this problem. The region should not give up so easily on this.

I noticed that you didn't reply to my post yesterday. Did you miss that one?

Thanks!
-Juan

[Brian Ghidinelli]

Anyway, what we did agree to, in the spirit of improving transparency and increasing competitors' confidence in the process, is to publish the parts of the MCE contract that specify the sealing procedure and specifications; and here they are:
...

Can you tell me why we wouldn't have a protest and appeal procedures case for DQ, based on the info above?
I see no spirit, just the process, which was followed, but was not made public at the time.

John, thanks for quoting Tam's email - I think this is what is throwing people off. As it states, that is the contract between SFR and MCE. It is NOT the rules that racers compete under as part of a race weekend. The rules are exclusively the GCR and the Supplemental Regulations.

Despite how obvious the intent of the class is, because the HP/TQ limits were in the MCE contract and not in the Supplemental Regulations and the seals on the motor were not broken (nor anything else found out of spec), the car was technically compliant. This is why no protest was filed - you can't "go to court" without an infraction or rule to cite.

That's all there is to say about the issue. Those are the facts, why what happened did and what we've changed to improve the class going forward. There won't be any retroactive action unfortunately.

PS to John: no, you would not have to protest, tech would file a Request For Action and the Chief Steward would initiate a Chief Steward's Action against the car/driver if he/she felt it was valid. It's still a protest, it's just an official against a competitor instead of the more familiar competitor-to-competitor type.

PS to Juan: your post yesterday didn't seem to have a question in it but hopefully this addresses your post from today.

[Juan Pineda]

PS to Juan: your post yesterday didn't seem to have a question in it but hopefully this addresses your post from today.

Brian, From my post yesterday:

"Car numbers should be published with the dyno numbers. The 121HP car should be public. Until that happens, all three drivers that day are suspect, and that is not fair to the two that were playing within the rules.

What is the necessity for any secrecy here?"

And I'll ask directly a second question: who dyno'ed at 121HP?

-Juan

[Ron Alan]

Ron, I don't like the dyno result any more than you. Perhaps even less as it exposes a mistake. However, you need to read the rules and understand the protest and appeal procedures. Spirit and intent are not rules. You can't DQ someone on spirit. You can, however, be penalized for filing an unfounded protest (see GCR 8.3.2).

Think of this from the tech officials perspective for a moment: you're in tech and you're working to do the best job possible at enforcing the rules for 250 cars in ~35 classes in 7 groups over the course of the weekend. It's a big job and SMT/SSM is - by volume - a large portion of it. Would it be professional to file a protest that you know is unfounded? Do you want to sign your name on what you know is a waste of time and money? What if you file that request for action with the chief steward, he looks at the evidence and turns you down on the spot? Would you still feel professional like you're doing a good job? You know the answer, just like I do.

Nobody on 4/10 was "lacking a pair" - on the contrary - the tech officials were the most level-headed and professional people involved.



I think folks often confuse "discussions in the paddock" with "member input". In my time on the board since last November, I do not recall receiving any member input regarding SSM rule changes. We would love to receive input on how the class could be better! If you have a considered, concrete idea, please email them to the board so we can review!

Thanks Brian for the reply. Your right, I'm not up on the procedures and personally would hope not to ever have to be! I'm definetely ignorant of who does what and in charge of whom on race days. But I had no idea that tech officials file protests as you stated? I thought competitors filed protests and tech officials checked compliance and passed on the results to the chief Steward for review and ruling...is this wrong? When cars are checked as they come off track post race...restrictor plates, fuel, weight, etc...if an official finds a problem does he file a protest? Or does he give his findings to the next level? I assume appeals come from competitors who feel they are innocent or been to harshly penalized.

At what point did an official in this case say "nothing we can do, we all thought the word "compliant" meant something but apparently not" Someone did do their homework and new the exact definition that day...I'm going to guess!?

So now I will do my homework and go read the GCR

In regards to "concrete" suggestions regarding SSM, sorry for making the assumption that a few of last years board members(and current), who participated in many disscusions on specmiata.com, where a lot of ideas to improve things were tossed around...actually discussed them at regional meetings. And I'm sure they did, but this was before your current time Brian...and of course since you've been there it was off-season until the first weekend! Welcome to the board

Thanks again for all the info...keep it coming.

Edit...for a couple of my questions answered above. (Note to self...update before you post DS!)

[Numbersix]

you know johnny ... I don't know if a poll would do any good... brian already stated nothings going to change anything ... I guess what's done is done ... it's certainly very difficult
for me since I've been worried or suspecting since near the beginning of the 2010 season that a 121hp was out there ... as far as ssm ... I think I'll stay clear for now.....
the changes are definitely damage control ... but what are they supposed to do at this point ... if we did have a poll I'd say DQ everything associated with the 121 but how
do you prove it except for video .. word of mouth and suspicion .. you really can't so their hands are tied and I understand that...
I appreciate the input craig ... the anger and frustration in my posts are about a tenth of how I really feel inside ...

[Doug Makishima]

My car was tested more than once last year, and those results are included in the disclosed listing. I did nothing to it in the off season. The seal was inspected and verified as intact at the season opener. There is a big assumption being made here that I did something to my car knowingly and intentionally to defeat the rules. I did not. I have 2 dyno sheets from before my car was sealed from two different dynos on two different days that show 117-118HP. Again, this is from before the car was sealed. Perhaps the flaw is the in the sealing and/or testing procedures.

I did contact board members (contrary to what Brian G’s. statement of no direct feedback from members) and proposed rule changes for SSM. I’ve also posted requests on the previous version of this forum to have the numbers posted. There are still many issues with this class including deficiencies in the rules and the testing procedures. And, yes, I had already decided soon after the season opener race to switch to SMT.

[Juan Pineda]

Doug,

Thanks for your post. I share your concerns about the accuracy of the detuning and sealing process. Especially when 118HP needs to be detuned down to 113. I suspect the accuracy or stability of this amount of detuning is not well understood. These are the reasons many of us don't play the SSM game.

I for one distinguish between non-compliance and knowingly subverting the rules. Consider the car that gets hit and bent to give a camber advantage. That suspension may end up being found non-compliant and DQ'ed. However that's a much different case than the guy that bends his uprights to get that advantage. In a perfect world, these two cases would be treated differently. But our world is imperfect and it is impossible to make our sport perfectly fair and distinguish every case. (Some would say that drama and overcoming the adversity is part of the fun of racing.) Better to give the benefit of the doubt when considering tech results.

The only thing I take from your compliance results is that your car had an significant advantage that weekend over its competitors. And so that weekend's results should not stand. I'm sorry if that's the way it works out. But IMHO it would be the right outcome for the sport that we all love.

I look forward to racing with you in SMT at Laguna!

-Juan

[Johnny D]

you know johnny ... I don't know if a poll would do any good... brian already stated nothings going to change anything ... I guess what's done is done ... it's certainly very difficult
for me since I've been worried or suspecting since near the beginning of the 2010 season that a 121hp was out there ... as far as ssm ... I think I'll stay clear for now.....
the changes are definitely damage control ... but what are they supposed to do at this point ... if we did have a poll I'd say DQ everything associated with the 121 but how
do you prove it except for video .. word of mouth and suspicion .. you really can't so their hands are tied and I understand that...
I appreciate the input craig ... the anger and frustration in my posts are about a tenth of how I really feel inside ...

Matt,
I originally thought of the poll when MCE did the dyno and found 121 and SFR was told but they did nothing about it, and not a problem because it was not public knowledge.

It took me a while to undersatnd what Brian had said but it all makes sence now.
The contract says that MCE reports non compliant cars and we (the drivers) expect SFR to do something about it.
That is not true. SFR only does something if the rules say that the car is non compliant. In this case, SFR hands were tide. The rules said the seals damaged or missing and nothing about HP/TQ. The car had the undamaged seals, so the car was compliant. Understand?

Doug
I can't say thoughts of you cheating didn't cross my mind. I thought SFR and MCE wasn't following the letter of the contract and rules as well. I think your a very good driver and getting the lap record shows it.

I don't think (at least for now) that Brian is going to disclose who had the 121 but appears it's yours from your great proforance that weekend that you did. To confirm that would be good.

As for your HP/TQ (if that was you). How your car increases HP/TQ to above your orig HP/TQ numbers or after the car sealed, by doing nothing, I find very interesting. Cold weather?

As you said "Perhaps the flaw is the in the sealing and/or testing procedures".

This is all water under the bridge now, I'm sure you'll do well in SMT.
See you at the track,
J~

[Viet-Tam Luu]

Since somehow my name has gotten dragged into this...

Add a simple line stating that any broken seal or dyno over 115 will result in a ban from SSM for 12 months and loss of all points in the current year.

I believe the "rules are sufficient as written".

I think it's important to emphasize that the HP/TQ limit should be applied "dispassionately".

That is, a finding of a car that is out of spec does not in and of itself imply cheating. Just like if your car is weighed and found to be underweight. Did you miscalculate your fuel needs for the race? Did something fall off your car? Did you use scales that didn't perfectly agree with the scrutineers' scales? Did you eat a bad burrito the previous night and lose more "ballast" than expected before the race? We don't know and we won't leap to the conclusion that you deliberately made your car non-compliant. All we can say is that your car was out of spec and conferred you an unfair advantage thus the reason for the DQ.

The lack of HP/TQ limits in the previous ruleset was an oversight, based on the mistaken assumption that HP/TQ would not change (or at least, increase) if seals were not broken and other rules were followed. That oversight has now been corrected.

Juan: since you seem so convinced that you could write better rules--and I don't dispute your claims--maybe you would like to help us revise them in the off-season?

[Ron Alan]

Since somehow my name has gotten dragged into this...


I believe the "rules are sufficient as written".

I think it's important to emphasize that the HP/TQ limit should be applied "dispassionately".

That is, a finding of a car that is out of spec does not in and of itself imply cheating. Just like if your car is weighed and found to be underweight. Did you miscalculate your fuel needs for the race? Did something fall off your car? Did you use scales that didn't perfectly agree with the scrutineers' scales? Did you eat a bad burrito the previous night and lose more "ballast" than expected before the race? We don't know and we won't leap to the conclusion that you deliberately made your car non-compliant. All we can say is that your car was out of spec and conferred you an unfair advantage thus the reason for the DQ.

The lack of HP/TQ limits in the previous ruleset was an oversight, based on the mistaken assumption that HP/TQ would not change (or at least, increase) if seals were not broken and other rules were followed. That oversight has now been corrected.

Juan: since you seem so convinced that you could write better rules--and I don't dispute your claims--maybe you would like to help us revise them in the off-season?

+1 My issue has not been with the driver and this is well said. The rules, lack there of, and the process is what has stirred my passion. It looks like the current change and admission of a major oversight is a step in the right direction. MANY people have made suggestions over the past year as to what is lacking and what can be improved. Unfortunately as Brian commented earlier, it wasn't done in the correct forum or setting. How about the SFR send out a email blast requesting suggestions for improvement in SSM oversight and the sealing process? Just a thought...

[Johnny D]

Hey Tam,
How's this coming along or what was the result?
We may not be talking about this now if this was implemented.
My current SMT car doesn't have 121.

I'm not sure how cut and dry the rule is if the car fails but for some reason because of weather or somethings the car is passed.
Maybe the car should held until the reason is found, rules implemented from the results.
J~

Additionally the BOD intends to look into the matter of SSM-sealed "built" engines, i.e. non-SSM "pro" engines that have been detuned by MCE to conform the SSM limits. It has been anecdotally observed that such engines sometimes do not run very well and it's possible that such engines may perform differently than other crate/stock-engine SSMs. The above procedure does not have explicit provisions for engines that start out above the HP limit and cannot be practically detuned to fall within the allowed range. We will look further into this and may direct MCE to not seal the relatively few engines that fall into this category.

[Juan Pineda]

Hey Tam,

Thanks for your post and all your work on the board and on this sticky situation. To clarify:

Juan: since you seem so convinced that you could write better rules--and I don't dispute your claims--maybe you would like to help us revise them in the off-season?

I have never said that I could write better rules for SSM, and I am not currently offering any rule changes. What I am interested in is resolving the unsatisfactory situation where a known non-compliant car has been awarded 1st place results and lap records. To call the situation a "loophole" and just say oops without giving opportunity for protest completely offends my sense of fair play. I think I am not alone.

This is not a loophole. The rules do say engines "shall be SEALED by MCE Racing" which competitors understand to mean the engines would be dyno'ed and tuned to equalize power. This is well documented in public discussion. It was certainly poor rules drafting to not define "SEALED" any further. However despite the poor drafting the competitors understood the SSM contract to equalize HP and this is why they joined the class.

So we are in a situation where no competitors dispute the fundamental rule of the class: that engines shall be SEALED [dyno'ed and tuned to equalize their HP.] Except that the officials are uncomfortable enforcing the rule because it is poorly drafted. I understand the basis for their discomfort. This situation is certainly exceptional and may very well be outside their jurisdiction. However, the officials also have a duty to allow and enable those that may want to protest the results their day in court, even if that court is at the highest level in the SCCA and outside their jurisdiction. It is only fair that the competitor side be heard as well as official decisions. I hope that you, Brian, the rest of the board, and the tech officials will give the information and guidance needed here. Even if the guidance is to point us to the next level in the hierarchy in the SCCA legal system. I understand things may fall outside some officials' jurisdiction. And to be clear I appreciate the hard work and tough decisions that all officials have put into this exceptional situation.

Do we have your cooperation here to help enable the protest side to be heard?

Thanks,
-Juan

[Johnny D]

Just throwing out the question...
Was the gas tested? That was in the rules at the time.
J~

[Viet-Tam Luu]

What I am interested in is resolving the unsatisfactory situation where a known non-compliant car has been awarded 1st place results and lap records. To call the situation a "loophole" and just say oops without giving opportunity for protest completely offends my sense of fair play. I think I am not alone.

To the extent of scrutineers' ability or opportunity to verify it, the car was compliant with the rules as they were written.

I'm not responsible for SCCA's protest rules and procedures, nor am I sufficiently knowledgeable of the same to make any comments about protests.

It's interesting how we applaud "double diffusers", "F-ducts", "blown diffusers" and other such "cleverness" and then cry foul when it's our fellow competitors who engage in similar cleverness...

[Numbersix]

So tam .. Are you making a joke of the situation ? Showing some levity ? Or as a board member just suggesting we all see which rules we can bend and how Clever we all can be for some faster lap times ?

[D Biggar]

It's interesting how we applaud "double diffusers", "F-ducts", "blown diffusers" and other such "cleverness" and then cry foul when it's our fellow competitors who engage in similar cleverness...

Tam,
From what I am gathering, the issue with many of us here (and myself at least) is not whether the 121's driver was "clever" or cheated, but rather how a car was found not in compliance, but allowed to keep finish positions/records etc. Brian has fortunately been able to fill us in on the issues of the rulebook, so we are just asking for further interpretation. If I'm totally off here, someone please correct me.

[Johnny D]

I think were trying to look above and past the rules and look at what's fair and what's good for the sport.

The rules were lacking information that was vital to keeping equality in the class.
That's what the whole class is based upon.
The board now see that mistake and is adding the rule.

The car was non compliant according to the MCE/SFR Contract.
Drivers received a lower position based on this car.
Records were set, based on being non compliant.

It all just doesn't seem right.
J~

[Viet-Tam Luu]

From what I am gathering, the issue with many of us here (and myself at least) is not whether the 121's driver was "clever" or cheated, but rather how a car was found not in compliance, but allowed to keep finish positions/records etc. Brian has fortunately been able to fill us in on the issues of the rulebook, so we are just asking for further interpretation. If I'm totally off here, someone please correct me.

The SSM part of the Supps that were in effect at the time were, in their entirety:

8. SEALED SPEC MIATA (SSM): Sealed Spec Miata is a limited preparation class. To be eligible for points, trophies and any other rewards, cars must meet all of the rules for Spec Miata T plus the following:

The engine utilized in the car for any session or race shall be sealed by MCE Racing located at Thunderhill Park, Willows, CA [530-934-3237] or another San Francisco Region designated supplier. The seals installed on the motor shall be registered by MCE Racing and shall remain intact and untampered with at all times. Any seal that is missing or damaged is grounds for disqualification from the event.

Will somebody please highlight what part of the above a car with 121 WHP but intact seals etc. is not "in compliance" with?

The MCE contract, IMO, is immaterial to the question of compliance because competitors cannot be held to the terms of the contract which is between SFR-SCCA and MCE. There may be incongruities between the MCE contract and the Supps (which could indicate a problem with the contract, the Supps, or both), but the Supps are the rules that are in effect.

Juan: it may not seem "fair" but the simple fact is that no rules were broken. As I recall you benefited indirectly by winning SMT class, which you would not have done had the SSM winner been running in SMT. Is that fair? Maybe, maybe not--but that's what happened.

[Johnny D]

Tam,
You forgot to say "Thank you for your input"
J~