NOTE: w/ regard to the Nationals results, I have no stake in the
outcome of the appeal. (My) Ron finished ahead of both drivers
in the subject car.
Katie (with whom I often agree) said:
>Oh the painful, twisted irony. Please listen to my torrid tale.
Ah, the soapy intro. Where's the organ music? :-)
>It was just a few years ago, when I remember sitting under this tarp, all
>these D and E Mod competitors and me, after two days of competition. The
big
>controversy at that time was Jim Gallagher's Lotus, and its placement of
its
>engine in the passenger seat.
You left out the part about the frame modifications which had been
performed in order to reposition the engine thusly. The rules require
that the original frame be kept in the passenger compartment
area, and Gallagher's car was missing some of the pieces from the
passenger-side footwell area. The protestor had done an extremely
thorough job of documenting his position. This is not to disparage Jim,
simply to add a few facts to the topic.
> Jim McKamey was our leader, self appointed
>probably, as he was not a competitor, as we all sat, with our questions,
for
>a select panel of SEB members, including Kathleen Barnes, Karen Babb, and
>Ron Flier, the latter two, as we know, now strong DM competitors.
Is this intended to infer some prescient Conflict of Interest problem? :-)
Flier
was driving BM and headed for retirement, and as I recall I was pretty
contented with AP.
>Well, the irony is, I remember Chris Bernard, who won D Modified this year
>(congratulations to him, should he ever read this, by the way), described
>his car to the panelists, asking for a clarification, which was, "Is my
car
>legal, or is it not?" It was kind of a yes or no question.
This is hardly the first time the SEB has not been willing to issue an
on-the-spot
ruling; see also Gary Milligan, weights for Sevens, 1982 Nationals. And no
doubt a host of others. The Board has the right to want to (a) see any
applicable paperwork, and/or (b) inspect a car directly, and (c) do their
own
research, before reaching a conclusion. They are not obligated to issue a
ruling,
or even an opinion, in a hurry, in a public forum, when it will probably
only serve
to provide fodder to those looking to attack them.
>You see, the D and E Mod rules are very confusing. You can read and
discuss
>them forever, and never really figure out what they mean. A car's legality
>often times depended on the mood of the year, and possibly the alignment
of
>the stars.
I disagree; the major requirement for understanding is to read _all_ of the
applicable rules, not just one's favorite sentence or phrase taken out of
context. 16.1.K, for example, and the items it references. Or ALL of
16.1.A. One
does have to know the meanings of frame, subframe, belly pan, etc. But
there is no need to be Brian Beckman. If you don't read it "creatively",
or with
an eye to trying to find an interpretation which justifies something you
want
to do which is probably illegal, the book usually works.
>The panelists stared into space or were ignoring him or thinking about
what
>to wear later that night, I don't know. His question was never answered.
It
>was a very frustrating time, as we were all tired and smelly, and time
would
>have probably been better spent in a shower.
I remember it differently; we were uncomfortable with attempting to issue
a ruling or opinion based on what was known at the time. I will not go
into
details of Chris Bernard's car (he drove stunningly well, BTW, and even
before he won there were guys in the class standing around saying "If
it can't be me, I hope it's Bernard."), but I recall where he was coming
from
and I think that there was discomfort with either side of the supposedly
"yes or no" answer without further investigation.
Bottom line; there are always more facts than those on the surface.
KCB
Wondering why I'm stupid enough to wade into this mess again...
|