Runoff Tech Concern

[problemchild]

If a car fails tech on one of the early qualifying days, SCCA tech does not require that car to be flagged for retech after subsequent qualifying sessions. This could result in that car taking pole position then being DQ'd in the race. So the misplaced car gets the pole glory and prizes, then is misplaced in the race, and can effect the final outcome of the race. It also prevents the driver of that illegal car from being able to win the big prize.

There is no formal process to monitor cars that fail tech and ensure they correct their issue. I believe there should be. If there are tech people out there who are working at the Runoffs, please make sure this happens informally, atleast in FF and FC (our classes ).

Thanks!

[Messenger Racing]

Agreed - common sense to see that it is corrected if continuing to participate although not sure what that would look like if a major disassembly was required for each verification............

[problemchild]

I have been told that tech has the power to do this, and often does, but it is not part of the formal process.

So if the chief of tech for a particular class forgets, gets busy, cannot be bothered, gets tired (late in day), or other reason develops, it may slip through the cracks of the system. Like every part of the Runoff event, there is a lot of stress in the tech tent, especially as the final qualifying ends, so I am not attacking anyone over the matter, but believe that the integrity of the event requires someone to remember to follow up on previously DQ'd cars.

[Dave Gomberg]

Most (not all) failures during qualifying are underweight and non-compliant fuel.

Clearly, there is no need to require an underweight car to be reexamined (the driver is free to come reweigh).

Fuel failures can be corrected without taking the car out on track; the fuel test team advises the driver how to achieve compliance and retests of the fuel in the car are always available.

Other non-compliant items found during qualifying are re-checked where it makes sense, but ultimately it is the competitor's responsibility to bring the car back for rechecking.

(BTW, all qualifying failures result in loss of qualifying times for that day.)

Dave Gomberg
Assistant Chief Steward for Tech

[Roland V. Johnson]

Dave are they still doing complete engine inspections on all winning cars?

[problemchild]

This is getting side tracked.

I am referring to when a car is DQ'd from an early Q session because of a non-compliant component, then never gets a followup check in subsequent Q sessions before starting the race from the time in the later session. This affects other competitors who can have their races affected by incidents or just hard racing from the car/driver, who then gets DQ'd from the race because the component was still found non-compliant.

Surely no one is arguing that tech should not have rechecked that car in subsequent Q sessions? It would have protected all the drivers in the race, including the driver that was DQ'd from the race.

[problemchild]

Dave are they still doing complete engine inspections on all winning cars?

No, they have a hit list of selected items to check. This may include engine disassembly but only the items on the hitlist are inspected for compliance.

Considering the number of classes and the specific expertise of the volunteer tech people, this seems like a reasonable compromise. The "top secret" hitlist is pretty predictable, which is both good and bad.

[Roland V. Johnson]

Thanks Greg. Sorry for side tracking your topic. When I worked Tech in 1990 things were a bit different. If you won you could be sure that you were taking home your engine in boxes, among other things.

[Dave Gomberg]

1. Complete engine tear downs are done in certain classes, but not all. (In some classes, the only things to check are displacement and restrictors because everything else is essentially free. Displacement can be checked without disassembly of the engine.)

2. Post-qualifying, no invasive inspections are done because it might not be possible to put things back together in time for the next session. Those items checked (e.g. wing dimensions, camber) are easily re-checked and will be if the competitor brings the car back to Tech after correcting the problem. We had a case where an incorrect engine map was found post-qualifying. The competitor had another map installed, but failed to bring it back for a re-check. It failed again post-race. Ask yourself whether Tech should have chased the competitor down and demanded to do a re-check.

Dave

[problemchild]

Ask yourself whether Tech should have chased the competitor down and demanded to do a re-check.

No, he did not need to be "chased down."

Yes, he should have been added to the impound list for subsequent Q sessions. He should have been impounded regardless, but the fact that he set pole time certainly warranted being impounded after being non-compliant in the previous session.

I am not trying to rehash previous mistakes. I am trying to improve the process so SCCA does a better job next time. That Dave defends the process when it failed, is why the process struggles to improve. Dave could also have said "That is a good idea. I will talk to our people and see if we can improve the process".

Every non-compliant car in a race has the potential to change the outcome of a race, and the results of many other racers/customers. My suggestion that previous non-compliant cars be automatically flagged for subsequent impounds, regardless of reason, seems like a reasonable request.

[Dave Gomberg]

OK, after this, I'm finished with this. The competitor knew his map was incorrect. He was told to fix it. He was told he could come back for a re-check. He didn't. He trusted someone else.

Dave

[problemchild]

OK, after this, I'm finished with this. The competitor knew his map was incorrect. He was told to fix it. He was told he could come back for a re-check. He didn't. He trusted someone else.

Dave

I am sincerely sorry to hear that Dave. There were 25 other drivers in that race that had the expectation that their competition was legal and had passed through the SCCA tech process without issue. Having someone with influence trying to improve the process would be helpful.

[John LaRue]

Greg - FWIW I think that you make a valid point and I will bring it to the attention of the tech group at the final call preceding Runoffs. What they do with it from there is left to the Runoffs Tech stewards. There are a million moving parts to this organization, some of which make sense to me, others which don't. Given that it runs on the backs of volunteers it is pretty good, but can always use improvement. Open ears and minds will help. Thanks for the idea!

[reidhazelton]

If someone is found non-compliant, wouldn't it be easiest just to take their tech/registration sticker in tech when they are found non-compliant? Without it, they cannot get back to the grid and they will have to come back to tech, found compliant, and get their sticker back. Seems to me a car that isn't compliant wouldn't get a sticker to begin with, so a car that is found non-compliant shouldn't be able to keep the tech sticker.

Making them go through tech again after a qualifying session is an after-the-fact approach. You want to be sure the car is compliant before it goes on track, not after. This also eliminates the need for tech to go chase after a car and coordinate who needs to get impounded.

[John Nesbitt]

If someone is found non-compliant, wouldn't it be easiest just to take their tech/registration sticker in tech when they are found non-compliant? Without it, they cannot get back to the grid and they will have to come back to tech, found compliant, and get their sticker back. Seems to me a car that isn't compliant wouldn't get a sticker to begin with, so a car that is found non-compliant shouldn't be able to keep the tech sticker.

...

This used to be the case at the Runoffs, at least when I was a tech steward 10 or so years ago. As you write, it is an extremely simple and effective way to verify that a non-compliance is corrected.

The one exception might be fuel. Correcting fuel can be a process involving multiple iterations. The fuel testing group is very helpful in terms of guiding people through the process for resolving their fuel. I am not sure that it is worth clogging tech, which is typically very busy, with cars coming to have fuel tested when a fuel sample will do just as well. (You need the car present if you have pulled the tech sticker. Tech will not simply hand out stickers.)

Invasive items are not checked pre-race. Things like fuel, weight, wing height etc. can easily slip out of compliance after passing tech. At the end of the day, as Dave Gomberg points out, drivers are completely and unconditionally responsible for their car's compliance. If in doubt, a driver can bring his/her car for checking. Ultimately, it is his/her responsibility to present a compliant car.

[Lyngengr]

OK, after this, I'm finished with this. The competitor knew his map was incorrect. He was told to fix it. He was told he could come back for a re-check. He didn't. He trusted someone else.

He didn't trust anyone, he didn't know. And he should have checked it.

It is ridiculously easy to check the T2 or PE3 maps, the latter being far easier. The Pectel software won't run on a Win10 or newer computer, so you have to have a Win7 or Win95 computer and the appropriate cable. The PE software will run on a modern computer, but you have to make sure you have the same version of software as the ECU.

But really, knowing it was the Runoffs, and tech will be checking maps, it would be proactive to have all your ECUs checked by tech BEFORE the qual sessions. Armington and I did that at Indy, tech came over to our paddock space and checked all of our ECUs. I knew mine were compliant, but still, it doesn't hurt to have tech tell you.