Shameful conduct by SCCA officials at Road Atlanta

[aerobullet]

I first joined the SCCA in 1972. Last Saturday at Road Atlanta was the first day I was actually ashamed to be a member of the club.

Laura Hayes won the first Hoozier Super Tour Major of the weekend. At impound the tech inspectors erased her victory with an alleged violation of the tailpipe/rear bodywork clearance so absurdly minor (1/8”) that it was laughable. This was not done under protest from any competitor. For whatever reason, the Tech Inspector arbitrarily decided to strictly enforce this non-performance specification. My first race in Formula Vee was in 1976. Since that time I’ve never even seen this even measured, much less penalized in such Draconian fashion.

After protest the Stewards of the Meet upheld the penalty (moved to last in class, loss of points and times). They actually had the nerve to say that they were only doing this for her own good, reason being primarily that they were preparing her for even worse things to come!

Don’t think this will happen to you? Think again. Forget to put your vehicle weight on the side of the car? Is your body 1/8” above the bottom of the intake manifold instead of totally covering it? Do your motor cooling ducts only bend 85 degrees instead of the required 90? It’s all at the whim of the tech inspector.

In the end this action had nothing to do with performance or competition. It was an exercise in power for its own sake by people unworthy to wield it.

For all you, “the rules are the rules” people, save your breath. I’m not interested in your nonsense. With actions like these SCCA does not deserve the loyalty of young, promising drivers, or their money, or their participation.

[TimH]

The only consolation is that Laura (and everyone else) knows what she really did. Congrats to her.

[R. Pare]

What rule exactly did she supposedly violate? So far, I don't see anything in the GCR that says anything about a bodywork/tailpipe clearance spec.

[Westroc]

I know of her and have never even been in FV. Is it any surprise that we find people who usually are not accustomed to managing authority misusing it when they are granted it. Why ON EARTH do we have a rule that only states a firebottle must weigh 5lbs and as long as the thing is current it's OK. A EMPTY bottle weighs 5lbs! And they enforce this?. Is there really any reason to debate the safety aspects here??? They are incapable of enforcing that let alone some minor BS tech item like this. Glad I am so.... done with it all.
The ABSOLUTE max that actually BENEFITS the group would be to note the logbook. But you need more gray matter than existed here.

[John Nesbitt]

What rule exactly did she supposedly violate? So far, I don't see anything in the GCR that says anything about a bodywork/tailpipe clearance spec.

I was not there; I cannot offer any insight. It might be worth reaching out to Steve Pence, Race Director. He is very approachable.

The posted Saturday results reference GCR 9.1.1.C.5.D.1. - length of tailpipe beyond bodywork.

FWIW, I have seen this item in tech plans.

[Farrout48]

9.1.1.C.5.D. Allowed Modifications
1. Replacement of standard exhaust system with any exhaust system terminating one (1) to three (3)
inches behind the rearmost part of the body.

So, we have a Scrutineer making a determination that this means 1.000 to 3.000 +/- 0.000 inches. We all know that bodywork on a FV is so rigidly attached that it cannot move during the course of a race - right? There is nothing like trying to take a measurement from an unstable platform when the tolerance is less than 0.125".

Even the wording of this requirement is faulty. Whatever happened to the use of the words "shall" which does require absolute adherence to a requirement? This is just another example of an "absolute" requirement that has nothing to do with performance enhancement. In another discussion, how is "standard exhaust system" defined? Does the "standard exhaust system" have to meet the 1-3 inch rule? I could not find any discussion of the exhaust system in the FV section.

We all know that the GCR is made up of a lot of "requirements" that have survived down thru the years and nobody can even remember why they were created in the first place. The GCR does need a thorough scrubbing but we realize the enormity of this endeavor. It is a herculean task. That is why much of it needs to be viewed with a healthy measure of common sense. Let us worry about the things that create an unfair performance advantage like the size of a SIR rather than Does your rain light work after a dry race?. I am not trying to demean the members of the CRB, FSRAC, etc. Their job is one that most people do not want. Maybe SCCA needs to spend a few $$$$ to have an independent professional team of automotive engineers and technical writers review the GCR?

A few years ago, SCCA instituted a program designed to remove the barriers and to make things simple. Maybe SCCA forgot the application of common sense part?

[Daryl DeArman]

For all you, “the rules are the rules” people, save your breath. I’m not interested in your nonsense. .

Maybe this unpopular decision should be the impetus to get rid of rules that folks don't want enforced. Put that book on a serious diet.
The GCR didn't get to be 700 pages overnight. Don't make rules you don't plan on enforcing and enforce the rules you have.

Giving folks discretion as to what they want to enforce and what they don't, can smell too much like a witch-hunt and/or favoritism. The 2014 RunOffs had some FV drivers lose some Q times over same exact infraction.

Maybe it got there as a safety item. . . somebody run into the back of a Formcar with a 7' long tail pipe mounted helmet high?

[Speed Sport Engineering]

This is actually a very common thing they check because it's simple and unfortunately often catches people out. At the 2014 runoffs there were a few loss of qualifying times from this rule. It was made even worse there by the inspectors rejecting the age old practice of welding a small extension tab on the collector to meet the 1" minimum. Several that lost times met the 1" minimum, but because they did that with a tab welded onto the collector, they were not compliant. All hell broke loose over that.

I'm sorry Laura had this happen.

[FVRacer21]

In football, the oposing team has the right to decline a penalty, albeit to their benefit, but it always amazed me that in the SCCA, an official, with no skin in the game can make a decision in the absence of a formal protest.

Admittily I am influenced my the story of the driver who lost a national championship ( not in FV) by .0001 of an inch, just because a tech inspector brought a micrometer cabable off measuring that accurate. We don’t have to bring up the manifold debacle of a few years back....

i hope Laura files an appeal and is supported by the other drivers in the race, that this is a cosmetic rule and if they did not see the reason to protest, then she should have gotten off with a warning to correct for next race.

on the other hand I would protest a 10” extension

ChrisZ

[problemchild]

I really hate to be the voice of reason .....

But .....

Of all the shameful things that SCCA people have done to their customers, sorry members, declaring an illegal car illegal seems to be a minor deal. I certainly agree that a warning was the appropriate response, but no one has disputed that the car was illegal. This rule has been in place for decades, and is blatantly ignored by many FV competitors. Considering that this was not a newbie Formula Vee racer, there is no reason why the car should have been illegal. 1-3" is a pretty large window for variance. While the SCCA people may have been overly oppressive, the competitor was in the wrong.


The GCR is full of stupid rules.
I don't think that requiring the exhaust to exit at the rear of the bodywork is a stupid rule. Clearly, a spec was provided at some time to prevent some Smokey Yunick type from doing something sneaky. It is a pretty wide variance to meet.

If people want to change a rule ..... write a letter ...... blah, blah, blah.
Until then, respect the rulebook, and rules that will not inflict any financial sacrifice to meet.

In the interest of context, Allan, who started this thread, sells the body panels that were used on the car that were not correctly interfacing with the exhaust used on the car.

[Darren Brown]

So how would you measure the Vortechs that have the curved exhaust pipe. They way I checked mine when I bought the car was measuring to the back of the pipe where my arrow is pointing, which was 2.5". Now I am wondering. The wording of the rule is termiantes, in measuring something with that term I assume that means to the point there is nothing else to measure.

Thanks
Darren

[Farrout48]

There already is a FV requirement for the car length including exhaust tailpipe to meet a minimum and maximum length 9.1.1.C.2.

The requirement being discussed applies only to the modification non-standard exhaust where the Standard Exhaust does not appear to be defined. But the overall length does apply.

I could postulate that the 1-3" requirement is to ensure that the tailpipe sticks out of the bodywork by that amount. Cannot find that sort of a requirement stipulated in the FV section. But I do not know if such a 1-3" exhaust clearing the bodywork exists or ever did. Does the 1-3" requirement apply to the Standard exhaust?

I am just a old Mechanical Engineer who used to write and approve the sort of documents where being specific, consistent, and thorough from page 1 to page 1000 was necessary. The FV sections of the GCR appear to be an area that could benefit greatly from a intensive review.

Do any of the long time FV people know the genesis of this 1-3" requirement and what is supposed to correct or assist?

[Daryl DeArman]

it always amazed me that in the SCCA, an official, with no skin in the game can make a decision in the absence of a formal protest.

Interesting perspective. I found it amazing that somebody had to actually file a formal protest before anything would happen.

The lowest and highest levels of racing do it completely different.

[Daryl DeArman]

Do any of the long time FV people know the genesis of this 1-3" requirement and what is supposed to correct or assist?

Making sure it terminates outside of the bodywork is a safety issue, making sure it doesn't extend too far outside of the body work is also a safety issue. Perhaps there's some performance/aero concerns as well, but I have no doubt the 1-3" range was just a "good enough, we aren't going to the moon" arbitrary range.

As to .0001" measurements. . . maximum/minimums are lines in the sand, there should be zero tolerance beyond those measurements. How close we decide to make go is up to us. One ounce underweight is still underweight. Otherwise, what's the purpose of drawing a line if you don't intend on the line being the limit?

[BorkRacing]

Making sure it terminates outside of the bodywork is a safety issue, making sure it doesn't extend too far outside of the body work is also a safety issue. Perhaps there's some performance/aero concerns as well, but I have no doubt the 1-3" range was just a "good enough, we aren't going to the moon" arbitrary range.

As to .0001" measurements. . . maximum/minimums are lines in the sand, there should be zero tolerance beyond those measurements. How close we decide to make go is up to us. One ounce underweight is still underweight. Otherwise, what's the purpose of drawing a line if you don't intend on the line being the limit?

Tolerances are because consistency across multiple measuring devices is impossible (or too troublesome to accomplish).
We know dyno measurements differ enough that we tolerate a couple HP discrepancy.
I doubt the tech official who measured to 0.0001 tolerance couldn't replicate the same measurement twice in a row.
An ounce underweight may be an ounce overweight the next time on the same scale.
Yes, the rule is a line in the sand, the tolerance is there to allow measurement error/variance.

BTW I liked the metal tab solution to the rule. It fit the wording of the rule but probably not the intent or spirit of the rule.

Robby

[Hardingfv32]

1) Stop all the whining. Major events are the highest level of competition in SCCA. Arbitrary allowances by Tech are not allowed... or wanted.

2) As far as FV rules go this is as simple as it gets. Very accessible and easy to measure. For this reason it is very common to find it a Tech post session checklist.

3) Cooler heads and a sharp crew chief would have focused on the tolerance of the measurement to win this protest. I the case of 1" the tolerance would be .501" or 1.499". The tolerance is found in the first unstated decimal point (to the right?). I hope that is stated correctly.

If the facts are stated correctly, they thus had .25" to spare.

Brian

[Farrout48]

Regarding the DQ for something that was not a protest - in the SouthEast, Scrutineers usually generate a couple of things to check on each class in impound (top 3 cars in class usually unless an impound all situation). It is not always something performance related. In some classes like P1 and P2, they have to get creative to find something measurable to check. In P2, they can always check the restrictor size. Sometimes they check rain light operation or kill switch.

In one race at Sebring, my battery failed on the last lap so I coasted past the S/F in the pit lane and into impound. In impound I could not power anything especially the rain light they wanted to see operate. My response was that my battery just failed and my electronics, rain light, starter, etc were inoperable. I also said that I understood if they had to DQ me. The Scrutineer chose the common sense path to not DQ me.

At a Majors, my restrictor "measured" less than the required size using a handheld digital caliper. The GCR does not specify a tolerance on the restrictor size which could be taken as less is just as bad as more. After some discussion, they decided that being smaller than required was satisfactory given that it constituted a performance degradation. Again, the Scrutineers applied the common sense approach.

[Bob Wright]

Rules are incredibly hard to write and take massive amounts of time to do correctly. If there was supposed to be a tolerance, or tech discretion, it would or should have been stated in the rules.

A number of years ago at NHIS, tech brought in the entire FC class after qualifying (probably 15+ cars, mostly VDs) and measured the height of the rear wing (95cm). Almost every car failed, some by as little as 2mm. It turned out the VD factory was not making the rear wing end plates to SCCA spec, and almost no one realized it, or checked. The result, as it should have been under the rules as written, was everybody lost their qualifying times. Logic says everybody should have been told to go fix the wing but tech did not have the ability to say that under the circumstances. On hindsight, tech should have quietly gone around and told the competitors to check their wings, rather than host a "gotcha" in the tech shed which made everyone seriously unhappy.

My point is you have to abide by the rule as written. What might be better is to give the chief of tech some discretion for situations as above, but like anything else, that also has its unintended consequences.

[Daryl DeArman]

Tolerances are because consistency across multiple measuring devices is impossible (or too troublesome to accomplish)

Maximums and minimums by definition, do not have a tolerance. If the measurement is to be 1" - 3", the minimum is 1", the maximum is 3". Not .999" and not 3.0001". If there is a measurement stated as 88mm +/- .25mm, then the minimum and maximums are 87.75mm and 88.25mm. Repeatability and accuracy of the measuring tools, and skill of those measuring are all things the competitors need to be concerned with when deciding how close to push it.

[J Leonard]

My point is you have to abide by the rule as written. What might be better is to give the chief of tech some discretion for situations as above, but like anything else, that also has its unintended consequences.[/QUOTE]

Like upsetting the person that adjusted their wing to legal height.

[stonebridge20]

Rules are incredibly hard to write and take massive amounts of time to do correctly. If there was supposed to be a tolerance, or tech discretion, it would or should have been stated in the rules.

A number of years ago at NHIS, tech brought in the entire FC class after qualifying (probably 15+ cars, mostly VDs) and measured the height of the rear wing (95cm). Almost every car failed, some by as little as 2mm. It turned out the VD factory was not making the rear wing end plates to SCCA spec, and almost no one realized it, or checked. The result, as it should have been under the rules as written, was everybody lost their qualifying times. Logic says everybody should have been told to go fix the wing but tech did not have the ability to say that under the circumstances. On hindsight, tech should have quietly gone around and told the competitors to check their wings, rather than host a "gotcha" in the tech shed which made everyone seriously unhappy.

My point is you have to abide by the rule as written. What might be better is to give the chief of tech some discretion for situations as above, but like anything else, that also has its unintended consequences.

That was 1995. I remember it well since it's not every race almost an entire class want's to hang a tech inspector right there in impound.

[Darren Brown]

All true about the rule as written and very easy to measure on a straight pipe coming out of the body work.

Look at my photo above of my current exhaust that uses a 90 degree. My way of measuring the car is and has been legal.

However what determines what the "termination" (term used in the rules) is of the tail pipe? When measuring to the body work I interpret it as the any part of pipe furthest away from the back edge of the rear body work. In my case the back side of the pipe at the bend is 2.5".

Am I looking at that wrong? Don't wan't to get bounced at hallett next week. I am going to reach out to Rick Harris and see about a clarification.

Darren

[Hardingfv32]

[QUOTE=Daryl DeArman;580059]Maximums and minimums by definition, do not have a tolerance. /QUOTE]

'Absolute' min/max specifications do not have tolerances. GCR 9.1.1.C.5.D.1. - length of tailpipe beyond bodywork, is NOT an absolute specification.

The tolerance in this case is close to 1/2".

This was/is a protest that can be overturned in you stay on task and ignore all the hand waving.

Brian

[Rick Kirchner]

Rules are incredibly hard to write and take massive amounts of time to do correctly. If there was supposed to be a tolerance, or tech discretion, it would or should have been stated in the rules.

A number of years ago at NHIS, tech brought in the entire FC class after qualifying (probably 15+ cars, mostly VDs) and measured the height of the rear wing (95cm). Almost every car failed, some by as little as 2mm. It turned out the VD factory was not making the rear wing end plates to SCCA spec, and almost no one realized it, or checked. The result, as it should have been under the rules as written, was everybody lost their qualifying times. Logic says everybody should have been told to go fix the wing but tech did not have the ability to say that under the circumstances. On hindsight, tech should have quietly gone around and told the competitors to check their wings, rather than host a "gotcha" in the tech shed which made everyone seriously unhappy.

My point is you have to abide by the rule as written. What might be better is to give the chief of tech some discretion for situations as above, but like anything else, that also has its unintended consequences.

Atlanta region pulled that one at the SARRC in 2017. Caught out the slowest guy in the class and DQ'd him. Unless you are running nationals all the time, those little compliance things are pretty much left for granted/assumed they are part of the car design. You can get tripped up by switching tire brands, making a rake change, not getting the setup weights just right when doing an alignment, and then the wing is just a tad high.

[Hardingfv32]

[QUOTE=Darren Brown;580063]Look at my photo above of my current exhaust that uses a 90 degree. My way of measuring the car is and has been legal.

Yes, your interpretation is valid. Yes, Tech could use a different 'interpretation' of 'termination'. This is just the politics of tech inspection. You would just end up fighting it out under appeal. At a minimum, Appeal is going to find that 'termination' needs further definition in the future, but let your interpretation stand for this appeal.

Brian

[Bruce Livermore]

Wow, this might be a first. I'm going to agree with Greg and Brian and at the same time and about the same thing!

Those that have stated above that there is no tolerance when upper and lower limits are specified are correct. So 1/8" below the lower limit is illegal. Period. You have a range of 2 inches to hit and be legal. Hit it. It's not hard. In fact either the car/bodywork designer or the car preparer have to be trying hard not to hit that big a tolerance. This is not an issue of measurement tolerance catching someone out.

So why do people try hard to hit the lower limit? Because they're trying to make the bodywork as long as possible for aero but are limited by both the car overall length rule (again an absolute limit because it is specified by an upper and lower limit) and that pesky 1-3 inch exhaust rule since the exhaust is part of the car overall length.

I've seen (and frowned at) a few solutions to this self inflicted "problem" such as a movable tab that could be extended to "meet" the 1-3 inch exhaust extension rule and then rotated back to "meet" the overall car length rule. Clever yes. Legal? I should hope not. If so, then let me just remove my collector while you measure over length and put it back on while measuring for the 1-3 inch extension... So if welding on a tab puts the car over the length limit, then it is not the "obvious, easy solution" either. If it does not put the car over length then it might be legal today, but probably shouldn't be for the reasons below (my opinion only for what it's worth).

Even I wasn't around FV when the 1-3" rule came into play but I agree that the 1" minimum is for driver safety: to reduce the risk of CO poisoning while driving at least and possibly for fire hazard as well. Knowing someone who was nearly overcome by CO while driving an open car on track at speed and threw up into his helmet, I can tell you this is no joke. It could kill you. Imagine being in your car at speed and suddenly being unable to see or breathe. Given the creative aero designs we see in FV this is a very reasonable safety rule.

Still, there is room for clarification of the 1-3" rule (as there almost always is with every rule). However, this rule was not on our agenda at the last major FV rules rewrite (of 2009, I think?).

1st, defining "terminate" would help. From the CO and fire hazard safety standpoint, terminate should mean the point where exhaust gases are first released from the exhaust system, not the most rearward part of the exhaust (though they can of course be the same). But I doubt that this is how it is being measured now, thus the tabs sometimes passing muster. This could/should be clarified and would answer the question raised about the bent exhaust as pictured above on the Vortech.

2nd, better defining bodywork might be useful in this case, and probably others as well. In fact it's tricky to define bodywork as it was when we were dealing with the rear aero wraps on rear suspension components a few years ago. For instance, on my car (well not mine any more...) the rear "bumper" is well below, but basically flush vertically with the exhaust termination while the bodywork "end" is well within the 1-3" rule (as long as you remember to install the rear side plates ).

3rd, "standard" within the FV rules usually refers to those parts that came on an original VW Type 1 as specified at the beginning of the FV rules. So in the case of an FV exhaust it is pretty meaningless and could be removed.

BTW, when I once had my qualification results thrown out because my car was 1/8" too long, I spent a few hours overnight with a belt sander shortening, reglassing and repainting the nose so I'd pass tech after the race the next day. I guess I was just lucky that they were checking length post qualification so I had the chance to fix it.

Bruce

[Bruce Livermore]

[QUOTE=Hardingfv32;580066]

Maximums and minimums by definition, do not have a tolerance. /QUOTE]

'Absolute' min/max specifications do not have tolerances. GCR 9.1.1.C.5.D.1. - length of tailpipe beyond bodywork, is NOT an absolute specification.

The tolerance in this case is close to 1/2".

This was/is a protest that can be overturned in you stay on task and ignore all the hand waving.

Brian



Brian

Well, now I'm going to disagree. Listing a range as 1 inch to 3 inches by definition sets two absolute limits to the measurement. The tolerance allowed is in the space between the limits, not beyond.

Bruce

[Farrout48]

All true about the rule as written and very easy to measure on a straight pipe coming out of the body work.

Look at my photo above of my current exhaust that uses a 90 degree. My way of measuring the car is and has been legal.

However what determines what the "termination" (term used in the rules) is of the tail pipe? When measuring to the body work I interpret it as the any part of pipe furthest away from the back edge of the rear body work. In my case the back side of the pipe at the bend is 2.5".
Darren

As an engineer who is a Divisional scrutineer, first one has to accurately determine the most rearward part of the bodywork. This might require a plumb-bob and straight edge, etc. Assuming that the rear edges of your bodywork are in the same plane and also perfectly perpendicular to the ground might not be a smart thing to do. As you are toward the middle of the 1-3" band, it probably does not make a difference for you but worth checking. If you closer to the 1" or 3" boundaries then it might make a difference. The way the rule is written, where the tailpipe terminates should be defined as the most rearward part of the tailpipe (i.e., there is tailpipe forward of that point but nothing after it). You should also check the min/max length of your car (couple of plumb-bobs). That is just one scrutineer's opinion which means it carries no weight. Get hold of the Chief of Tech for your Division and ask for a ruling in writing.

Anyone know the procedure used to measure the FVs at Road Atlanta? It might be grounds for a protest.

[John Nesbitt]

With the caveat that these are general thoughts, and not specific to the Road Atlanta incident:

1. Compliance Penalties

Stewards use a set of standard penalty guidelines (see attached). These are guidelines only, and circumstances may alter the actual penalty. However, stewards follow most of the time.

For a simple non-compliance (as opposed to cheating), the standard is loss of times before the race, and move to last after the race. At a Regional, for something safety-related, the outcome might well be a logbook entry. At the Runoffs, post-race, any non-compliance will attract a DQ.

2. Protest and/or Official Action

One suggestion is to manage compliance only via protest. This does not conform with the stated preference of most drivers. The strong message that we receive from drivers is that they want more compliance checking, not less.

3. How the Process Works

Every event has (or should have) a tech plan – a list of post-session compliance checks for each race group. The Chief of Tech drafts the plan, considering the event, entry numbers, the size/skill of his team, and the time/tools available.

He presents the draft to the Chief Steward, they discuss it, and the Chief Steward approves the final plan. In impound, scrutineers measure cars following the plan. The Chief of Tech reports any non-compliance to the Chief Steward, or his delegated Tech Steward. The steward then decides what action, if any, to take.

The Chief of Tech cannot assign a penalty.

4. GCR Fuzziness

The GCR is almost 75 years old. The FV and FF rules are 50 years old. Given the nearly monthly changes, inconsistency and cruft have crept in. If you come across something, report it to the CRB; they are generally very good about fixing these things.

5. GCR Complexity

In general, everything in section 9 Cars and Equipment, both general and specific, relates to performance or safety, and presumably is there for a reason. (The GCR is similar to a building code. It evolves with experience. I can go through the GCR and point out the incident that triggered a certain rule.)

Spec lines depend on category type – restricted classes have far more specific rulesets than unrestricted classes. Classes like FV and FF are restricted, so it is no surprise that there are detailed restrictions. Again, these should all be performance or safety factors.

6. Relaxing a Rule

Be careful what you ask for. Suppose you change 1”-3” (in this case) to 1”-10”. You still have a hard limit. Changing to something like, “no hazard to other cars” makes it a subjective rule.

The builder and driver/crew are supposed to be on top of compliance issues.


7. Protest and Appeal

The best (and perhaps only) way to protest or appeal a non-compliance penalty is to impeach the measurement process. Was the scrutineer properly licensed? Did he follow a valid procedure? Were the tools accurate?

The Tech Steward or Chief Steward should have verified these before taking action. The Court of Appeals has a strong history of supporting penalties as long as the event officials followed and documented the correct process and assigned a penalty within their powers.

In this case, it might be worthwhile to compare 9.1.1.C.5.D.1. with App. G.2. (Measurement Standards).

Arguments based on severity of penalty seldom succeed unless the penalty is wildly out of whack (e.g. a suspension for being 5 pounds underweight). Arguments based on no performance gain never succeed.

[problemchild]

What a bunch of rhetoric about nothing.

"FV 101" is if you change your bodywork or exhaust, you need to check this dimension for legality.
Anybody selling FV exhaust systems or FV bodywork should remind their customers of this rule on delivery.

For experienced FV racers or venders to be party to this DQ, there is no one to blame but themselves.

Whether ignorance or laziness, this issue recycles itself every few years, usually to noobies. No rule changes or clarifications are necessary. Just measure it, then trim/extend either exhaust or body panel to be legal.

[Hardingfv32]

Well, now I'm going to disagree.

I am always up for learning something. The application of the word 'absolute' has never been clear to me as applied in the Measurement Standards section (GCR page 142-143).

1) I thought it might only apply to the 13 items (sentences?) listed.

2) Or, that 'absolute' was implied only when the word min or max was used in specific specification.

How should this section be interpreted?

Brian

[FVRacer21]

Interesting perspective. I found it amazing that somebody had to actually file a formal protest before anything would happen.

The lowest and highest levels of racing do it completely different.

Let me clarify - if we had a professional tech squad with laser tools and templates and we agreed that their word is gospel (NASCAR, F1) then we have no problem - but note they tech BEFORE the race and very rarely after the race - unless cheating with collapsing springs, bending spoilers etc.

The SCCA uses volunteer tech inspectors (except for the traveling compliance team for Enterprise cars - which are spec already..) and just like drivers can make mistakes, these officials - and I include the SOM - also can make mistakes.

The yearly tech inspection has turned into a quick safety check and not much more. The SCCA has biased itself to driver protests to keep the playing field level. You cannot have it two ways.

And let me throw in another example - could the tech inspector check all the rain lights after a dry race and disqualify someone if it did not work? On the other hand, during a rain race, I think it would be proper to black flag a driver whose rain light was not working. A little proportion is what is missing sometimes.

ChrisZ

[FVRacer21]

Making sure it terminates outside of the bodywork is a safety issue, making sure it doesn't extend too far outside of the body work is also a safety issue. Perhaps there's some performance/aero concerns as well, but I have no doubt the 1-3" range was just a "good enough, we aren't going to the moon" arbitrary range.

As to .0001" measurements. . . maximum/minimums are lines in the sand, there should be zero tolerance beyond those measurements. How close we decide to make go is up to us. One ounce underweight is still underweight. Otherwise, what's the purpose of drawing a line if you don't intend on the line being the limit?

This situation is something like this - maximum valve diameter 1.250 So I take my calipers or micrometer and measure 1.250. Someone else comes along and measures 1.2501 because he can. What is it was 1.250000001?

One ounce underweight is tough if the scales have a tolerance of +/- 6 oz. How many times have I seen cars weighed back to front, front to back and gotten multiple different readings. In case this close, I would have Tech post the information (why is seem to be a secret?) and deal with it if someone wants to protest it?

The problem is that when something like this comes out, many regional tech inspectors (not in the NE ) go on a tear.

Of course for the rest of the year you can bet no FV will be afoul of this rule.

ChrisZ

[FVRacer21]

Just for fun - how do you rule on this:

9.1.1.C.5.D. Allowed Modifications
1. Replacement of standard exhaust system with any exhaust system terminating one (1) to three (3)
inches behind the rearmost part of the body.


ChrisZ

[Hardingfv32]

This situation is something like this - maximum valve diameter 1.250 So I take my calipers or micrometer and measure 1.250. Someone else comes along and measures 1.2501 because he can. What is it was 1.250000001?

The problem is that when something like this comes out, many regional tech inspectors (not in the NE ) go on a tear.

ChrisZ

1) The tolerance rule indicates that for an 'absolute' measurement there is a .000" tolerance. No indication that a 4th decimal position is considered.

2) How do you imagine that other tech personnel would ever here about this topic? Is there some kind of SCCA tech forum?

Brian

[Hardingfv32]

Just for fun - how do you rule on this:

9.1.1.C.5.D. Allowed Modifications
1. Replacement of standard exhaust system with any exhaust system terminating one (1) to three (3)
inches behind the rearmost part of the body.


ChrisZ

Assuming the 1-3" rule is met this would be fine. But remember the tail section has certain length/location requirements and there is also the max car length requirement.

Brian

[Daryl DeArman]

This situation is something like this - maximum valve diameter 1.250 So I take my calipers or micrometer and measure 1.250. Someone else comes along and measures 1.2501 because he can. What is it was 1.250000001?

You don't get to use your measuring devices to demonstrate compliance. If tech measures 1.2501 on something that specifies 1.250 as the maximum in the class preparation rules, then it exceeds the maximum.

One ounce underweight is tough if the scales have a tolerance of +/- 6 oz. How many times have I seen cars weighed back to front, front to back and gotten multiple different readings. In case this close, I would have Tech post the information (why is seem to be a secret?) and deal with it if someone wants to protest it?

Why put the onus on a fellow competitor to protest when something costs nothing to tech and is non-invasive? Either you meet minimum weight or you don't.

[/QUOTE]

[Daryl DeArman]

Just for fun - how do you rule on this:

9.1.1.C.5.D. Allowed Modifications
1. Replacement of standard exhaust system with any exhaust system terminating one (1) to three (3)
inches behind the rearmost part of the body.


ChrisZ

Interesting. Depends on how you wish to define terminate.

One could argue that it means where something extends no farther than, or physically ends. Another could argue that the exhaust system doesn't terminate until the exhaust gases exit the system.

[FVRacer21]

Interesting. Depends on how you wish to define terminate.

One could argue that it means where something extends no farther than, or physically ends. Another could argue that the exhaust system doesn't terminate until the exhaust gases exit the system.

To me this is a case where a diagram is worth 1000 words. The question of the proliferation of curved pipes ( up/down or sideways) needs to be defined if we are going to start disqualifying people for the measurement.

As I think how to rewrite the rule, it starts getting complicated. Now this started with a claim that the problem was 1/8 of an inch - I assume it was too short rather than too long. I do not agree with the tang fix but assume a ring would be sufficient - maybe. Even a hose clamp if that close?

Chris Z

[problemchild]

To me this is a case where a diagram is worth 1000 words. The question of the proliferation of curved pipes ( up/down or sideways) needs to be defined if we are going to start disqualifying people for the measurement.


Chris Z

This is a very simple issue. A diagram is not required. Your diagram above is just trolling, as that exhaust would not fit within the other tail length and max bodywork rules. A car got disqualified because it was illegal. People will learn to read the rules and make sure their cars are legal. Lesson learned. Move on.

This class needs to stop wasting hours and days and years of volunteer efforts by ignoring this kind of BS and focus only on cost-saving measures that will help keep more racers racing more often. The last thing that this class needs is committees and boards reworking rules like this. I expect more people have wasted more time discussing this topic already, than it would take to make every FV in North America compliant with the current rule.