136 replies to this topic

[Sacslider]

I believe the "rules are sufficient as written".

I disagree. If I know that I will go to jail for 5 years in state prison for robbing someone at gunpoint I will feel a much stronger deterence from doing so than if I know I will get in trouble. Stating a guideline penalty for a major infraction of the rules has a much stronger effect than threat of getting disqualified.

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...

In a world of profesional motorsports I would agree with you. When your statement is applied to a true development class then I would still agree. When your statement is applied to a SEALED SPEC class with incident that has occured I find it disturbing and inappropriate. The owner of a racecar has the ability to develop his car within the rules. In a dyno'd and sealed class I do not believe anyone can say that development would apply to a 7% increase in horsepower over other competitors.

[Kyle Gayman]

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.

As a 19 year old UC Davis student with midterms, finals, and girls on my mind, I don't have much time to follow the threads on here or to chime in. However, after skimming through this thread for a little while, I came across this statement. Viet-Tam Luu, I do not know you--but that, my friend, is a childish, ad-hominem statement. Juan does not deserve such a remark.

And now back to calculus.

Kyle

[Juan Pineda]

It all comes down the namesake of the class, the term SEALED. This term is used in two senses in the Sups. Here is one use in the sentence I like to call the Fundamental Specification for SSM:

"The engine utilized in the car for any session or race shall be SEALED..."

The meaning of SEALED here is that the engines are "tuned for equal power levels." Elsewhere "seal" refers to a physical tamper proof device. Among the SSM competitors, there is is no misunderstanding about the requirement for equal power levels. Actually it's the promise of parity that is the big attraction to the class. Unfortunately, no one told the stewards what SEALED means. Big omission.

So we are in the curious position where all the competitors are in sync about the Fundamental Specification of the class, but the stewards cannot understand it because the definition of SEALED has been omitted.

One view is that if the English doesn't fully explain the rule, then it can have no force. Another view is that given the missing definition for SEALED and the common understanding among competitors about the meaning, that it makes more sense to offer an interpretation to fill in the blanks. There is certainly a lot of documentation to support the understood meaning here. My view? I would offer the latter approach. We are not machines. We do not have to execute a nonsensical program and end up useless with gibberish on a blue screen. We are human and have some intelligence and common sense. Let's use it.

If you are thinking this is a far fetched argument, it's actually frequently used to resolve nonsensical wording in contracts. A common understanding between parties takes precedence over nonsense. However it is yet to be seen how well this argument will be received by the SCCA stewards. An additional complication is whether the GCR allows for a protest at this delayed date. This is uncharted territory.

One request: does anyone know where I can get copies of the 2008 through 2010 sups? Maybe someone has them on their hard drive?

Thanks,
-Juan

[Ron Alan]

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

No reason to continue defending the region...an error in wording or lack there of has already been established.

Please consider by definition what the class is...SEALED(HP!!!!!!!)SpecMiata

SSM=113hp+/-1.5hp=compliance

121hp at a "COMPLIANCE" check would be........you guessed it "NON-COMPLIANT"

Please don't come bach with "by definition then a car with 105hp would be non-compliant" because this car isn't going to set a track record!

Emotions aside and based on how are system works, Doug is innocent of any wrong doing because nothing was found or reported or probably even looked for. I and most here are not trying to establish guilt...why I gave Tam's first response a thumbs up because he used the word "dispassionate" However it got there what was not in compliance was the car...and to allow a track record to stand when this has been established is ludicrous.

Juans post #53 sums up my thinking and desired outcome exactly. I hope Tam and Brian aren't speaking on behalf of the entire region and saying no one will listen if a request of the board is presented to look into
this further and see what can be done.

Girls????

Edit...Oh geez...I did it again...everythng Juan said above +1
and I think I saw this reasoning on Judge Judy the other day when she called a defendant a moron who had no common sense..LOL (I'm not calling anyone a moron but I liked the common sense part!)

[Viet-Tam Luu]

I disagree. If I know that I will go to jail for 5 years in state prison for robbing someone at gunpoint I will feel a much stronger deterence from doing so than if I know I will get in trouble. Stating a guideline penalty for a major infraction of the rules has a much stronger effect than threat of getting disqualified.

Define "major infraction"?

Being, say, 1 hp over the limit is roughly equivalent to being 10 lbs underweight. Would you call being 10 lbs underweight a "major infraction"? Or having an exhaust measure 1 dBA over the allowed limit? Or track width 1/4" too wide?

To me a "major infraction" implies intent to gain an unfair advantage or use underhanded tactics. Being out-of-spec in and of itself is not proof that anybody tried to cheat.

The primary purpose of the new HP/TQ limit rule is not to catch cheaters, it is to make futile development work that might run up costs in what is intended to be a cost-contained race class.

In a world of profesional motorsports I would agree with you. When your statement is applied to a true development class then I would still agree. When your statement is applied to a SEALED SPEC class with incident that has occured I find it disturbing and inappropriate. The owner of a racecar has the ability to develop his car within the rules. In a dyno'd and sealed class I do not believe anyone can say that development would apply to a 7% increase in horsepower over other competitors.

As I said above, that's why the new rule is designed to make any such development pointless--at least with regards to engine power.

As for the semantics of "Sealed", first of all I'd point out it's just a name (if you prefer, call SSM "Spec Spec Miata"--SM with more specs). The term "sealed" as applied to sealing of the engine means only that the engine is tested and tuned to within a specified window of HP/TQ and seals are applied. "Sealing" makes no guarantees about what the engine may do subsequently--over time it will lose power due to wear and tear, but there are other natural effects that can cause an engine to gain power too. And there are the parts that are not sealed or not controlled by the SSM rules... All of which goes to say that sealing does not, as it turns out, guarantee that engine output can't be subsequently altered. (Which, I'll acknowledge, is what some of you have been claiming all along.)

With the new rule, none of that matters. In fact one could argue that the HP/TQ limit makes sealing itself unnecessary; practically speaking of course that's not true for a number of reasons.

A competitive racer is always trying to maximize his or her advantage within the rules, and our region is never lacking in competitive racers. You might argue that they may be going against the "spirit" of the rules and I might agree, but you can't enforce "spirit", you can only foster it through positive relationships with your fellow competitors.

[Brian Ghidinelli]

Juans post #53 sums up my thinking and desired outcome exactly. I hope Tam and Brian aren't speaking on behalf of the entire region and saying no one will listen if a request of the board is presented to look into this further and see what can be done.

Unfortunately no amount of rehashing the original complaints of this thread, which have been thoroughly explained, changes the fact that the car with 121hp was compliant under the rules as they were written.

As I told Juan yesterday via private email, he is welcome to contact a steward such as Jim Rogaski or Gary Meeker who are well versed in the SCCA protest system. Any member may protest any other member. The board has no influence or control over your actions.

@Craig - in the GCR, along with protests, is an explanation of what the possible penalties are. The list ranges from a simple fine or reprimand on up to expulsion from the SCCA. I think that is pretty severe:

7.2. RANGE OF PENALTIES
In increasing order of severity, the range of penalties is as follows:
A. Fine ($1-$99)
B. Reprimand
NOTE: A reprimand against an SCCA member shall be noted in his
license file.
C. Fine ($100-$249)
D. Loss of event points
E. Fine ($250)
NOTE: All fines must be in whole dollar amounts only.
F. Loss of Time, Lap, or Finishing Position
G. Probation of competition privileges
1. Length of Probation
Probation may be up to 12 months; or it may be specified as a
number of SCCA Club Racing event days or SCCA Club Racing
event sanctions.
2. Term(s) of Probation
A driver on probation may be restricted to competing in his Division; limited to competing in certain types of levels of events; or
required to perform specified event related activities, including
attending an SCCA Drivers’ School. Participating in SCCA Practice
Days or SCCA events that are not sanctioned by SCCA Club Racing
will not fulfill probation.
3. Violation of Probation
Failing to comply with the probation terms may result in further
penalties assigned by a review committee appointed to hear the
violation, by Driver or Official Review, or by the SOM at the event
where the violation occurs.
H. Disqualification
An entrant, driver, or car may be disqualified from an event. Rights to
awards in the competition are automatically forfeited.
I. Suspension of license privileges
General
SCCA license privileges for a driver, crew, or official may be suspended
for a period of time not to exceed 12 months. A license holder whose
privileges are suspended must immediately surrender his license to the
Chairman of the SOM, review committee, or Court of Appeals. While
the suspension is effective immediately, the suspension period does not
begin until the license, as well as any imposed fine, is received by the
Chairman of the SOM, review committee, or the National Office.
A member whose Competition License has been suspended shall
not participate in a Club Racing event using any other grade or form
of competition license. When the suspension is the result of a noncompliant vehicle, the infraction shall be noted in the Vehicle Logbook.
The suspension document for a Competition License holder will note
whether a member whose license privileges have been suspended may
participate in further Club Racing events in another capacity using
another type or grade of license.
J. Loss of accrued points
A competitor may be penalized all points accrued during the current
season.
K. Expulsion from SCCA
A member may be expelled from the SCCA as provided in the SCCA
Bylaws

[Johnny D]

Guys, MCE has a contract to test the car to be compliant or not. The rules should reflect that.

As craig has mention if the car is non compliant you're penalize. It could be that simple.

IMO, it may not be that simple due to weather conditions or some other factor.
So I suggest if a car is found non compliant, that it be held to find out what made it non compliant. Then a penalty can be issued or not.

As for the 121 car, this car could effect the points outcome at the end of the season.
J~

[Ron Alan]

[size="2"]Unfortunately no amount of rehashing the original complaints of this thread, which have been thoroughly explained, changes the fact that the [i]car with 121hp was compliant under the rules as they were written

I get it and got it...just wanted you to say it a few more times



What I find ironic is I don't think anyone has posted that is SSM this year...other than Doug who has stated he will be SM from here out. I'll throw in my towel as I'm not even sure who I'm fighting for

The region can feel good about allowing this track record to stand as we now have been told no rules were broken and the car was compliant...lets all sing "Peace in the Valley"

I'm tired...

[Timothy]

Why has a dyno run been part of the compliance check, if not to provide a basis for compliance/non-compliance?

[Numbersix]

Hey ron .. I'm glad you posted ... I was in ssm all of last year and had to compete with the 121 all year which was obviously futile ... as doug himself stated that he'd done nothing to the
car in the offseason so I'm believing that it was producing the same 121 all of last year ... not sure where all my other former and current ssm buddies are but that's cool ... to each their own ...
maybe they're working on developing their formula one miata's in the wind tunnel or a some underground dyno shop or maybe a secret aircraft paint facility ... who knows

[Viet-Tam Luu]

Why has a dyno run been part of the compliance check, if not to provide a basis for compliance/non-compliance?

An excellent question!

Answer #1: the fact that a dyno run could not provide a basis for compliance/non-compliance was an oversight, now corrected.

Answer #2: dyno testing allowed us to monitor how well (or not) the rules in place were working. I.e. as long as the results showed cars not exceeding their original specifications, then the seals etc. were doing their job. Then we found a car that dyno'ed in outside the original specs, yet no rules had been broken, so clearly adjustments to the rules were needed--and made.

[Ron Alan]

An excellent question!

Tam,

Your sarcasm is insulting to all who have posted up seriously and showed concern. And considering your position I would describe an earlier remark of "childish" as very accurate in this situation. I'd let this slide if you were just another shmo like me. Moving on...again

[Johnny D]

Tam,

Your sarcasm is insulting to all who have posted up seriously and showed concern. And considering your position I would describe an earlier remark of "childish" as very accurate in this situation. I'd let this slide if you were just another shmo like me. Moving on...again

I think the queestions was excellent assuming Timohty was new and asking how SSM worked.

Some of the comments on asking what a major infraction is, Disfusers, ITS verbage, in this class, concerns me.
J~

[Viet-Tam Luu]

Tam,
Your sarcasm is insulting to all who have posted up seriously and showed concern.

No sarcasm intended, I really was glad someone asked, because I'd pondered that very same question earlier.

Spec Racer Ford has sealed engines and no dyno testing. So Timothy's question was actually more profound than you would think at first glance.

[Johnny D]

Tam/Brian,
You do understand we are asking/proposing for additional rules?
I know this isn't the correct channel but a comment would be good.

I'll list them if needed.
J~

[Steve Holifield]

So let’s all remember why we are racing: We race for fun…and a $10 trophy…and our reputations.

Just saying the simple solution here is for the driver of the 121hp to do the right thing and fix the problem without going through the SCCA legal process. We all know that the car was over power. Doesn’t matter how it got there but the car did not belong and was non-compliant. The only reason the win was awarded was because of a “loophole.” Is a win based on poor wording truly a win? Surely the SCCA would have no objection to an honorable driver DQing himself based on information discovered at a later date.

It’s kind of like a situation during a race where one driver gains an unfair advantage over another by inadvertent contact and then later gives the position back. We have seen examples of that at the front of our field. That’s the right thing to do. No different here.

[Viet-Tam Luu]

Some of the comments on asking what a major infraction is, Disfusers, ITS verbage, in this class, concerns me.

... because? You didn't feel my comments were legitimate?

You do understand we are asking/proposing for additional rules?
I know this isn't the correct channel but a comment would be good.

I understand, but I don't agree additional rules are needed; it's important not to overcorrect. Time will tell...

In other words, "thank you for your input."

[Johnny D]

So let’s all remember why we are racing: We race for fun…and a $10 trophy…and our reputations.

Just saying the simple solution here is for the driver of the 121hp to do the right thing and fix the problem without going through the SCCA legal process. We all know that the car was over power. Doesn’t matter how it got there but the car did not belong and was non-compliant. The only reason the win was awarded was because of a “loophole.” Is a win based on poor wording truly a win? Surely the SCCA would have no objection to an honorable driver DQing himself based on information discovered at a later date.

It’s kind of like a situation during a race where one driver gains an unfair advantage over another by inadvertent contact and then later gives the position back. We have seen examples of that at the front of our field. That’s the right thing to do. No different here.

Big +1

[Johnny D]

... because? You didn't feel my comments were legitimate?

Just not in the realm of this class.
J~

[Brian Ghidinelli]

I'll list them if needed.

Please do send me a private email and I will bring them up with the board. We thought we had a rule to address the situation but didn't so we've made that immediate adjustment. We're open to further improvements for the class but 10 new rules that have the same effect as the recent change may not be necessary either.

@Matt - you were not racing 121hp "all last season" - the car was both sealed and compliance checked (and that data is in the list at the beginning of the thread) and was within the limits of the class. I want to keep things factual as best we can.