At 10:59 AM 9/25/02 -0400, J. Brett Howell wrote:
>Alan,
>
>I think you described the appropriate mechanism or box that should be
>used to measure the width of said formula car. This is the procedure
>described by those in charge of enforcing these rules in the National
>club racing circles according to the (admittedly) second-hand
>information I have received. This is also the process used to verify the
>width of at least three known-to-be-completely-legal cars of which I am
>aware. In fact it was stated that if the "tits" of the tires touch the
>box then it is too wide (for that reason some competitors actually take
>the time to pick the "tits" off all the tires).
For future reference, where in the rule book does it state that the "tits"
of the tires affects the width measurement?
>
>The method of measurement of the car in question was a measure of the
>difference between the width of the car and the width of a trailer upon
>which it sat (not perfect, but can infer the car's ability to pass
>through the described box). There were measurements taken to ensure that
>the trailer was square. IIRC the width of the car as measured from
>right-most point to the left-most point (not including the tits of the
>tires :-)) was greater than the max stated in the rulebook.
Just curious, but was the car on a trailer or in a trailer?
Is the right-most point to the left-most point measured at the same end of
the car?
Why not just measure the car? Or am I just missing it?
>
>As I have stated many times, I do not believe that any of these
>competitors were intentionally trying to gain a competitive advantage,
>but rather that their complacency, and the complacency of the majority
>of the class, has resulted in new-to-the-class competitors seeing this
>as a stamp of approval on not complying with all the rules.
>
I agree, if no rules are checked and they see an illegal car, then they
think that it is ok to do. Knowing the rules and having your car set to
the rules is important and a way to win any protests that may come your way.
>I feel the protest committee made the correct call given the information
>available to them at the time, and I also think that the protestor was
>not entirely unsatisfied with the result - that the class of formula
>cars has received notice that it needs to make sure its cars comply with
>the formulas. If I implied that the protest committee was cognizant-ly
>remiss, negligent, or unfair, then I profoundly apologize. I think it
>handled its responsibilities with the utmost attention to the spirit of
>the rules and the situation (and having reread my response I can clearly
>see how it could be interpreted as a slam of the committee.very sorry,
>that was not my intention).
>
>My point in my previous response was, and still is, that the competitors
>of the class who are claiming that they were protested on weenie issues
>and were not given any advance notice are overlooking several facts: 1 -
>that they were given advance notice that their cars were not compliant
>and that if these non-compliances were not fixed they would be
>protested, 2 - that it is the competitor's responsibility to ensure that
>his/her car complies with the rules and that receiving advance notice
>from a competitor before a protest is a gratuity not a requirement, and
>3 - that the rules do not provide another means for policing compliance
>with the rules other than the protest process so people need to not be
>surprised that it is used at the National level.
>
>I personally have no dog in this fight other than having been privy to
>the other side of the story and feeling a responsibility to my friends
>to ensure that people understand both sides.
>
>J. Brett Howell
>www.PebbleMotorSports.com <http://www.pebblemotorsports.com/>
Gary Kramar
'89 F440 FM
/// unsubscribe/change address requests to majordomo@autox.team.net or try
/// http://www.team.net/mailman/listinfo
/// Partial archives at http://www.team.net/archive
|