I very much agree that the protest system that the SOLO has is great. When I
say that the protest fee is minuscule, I mean that it is very small price to
pay to put an end to systemic cheating and complaints of cheating.
Think about it. We all quibble about intentions and letters of rules. And
there are a LOT of gray areas, just like any legal or racing system. But it
isn't like anyone truly believes that the SCCA "management" encourages,
condones, or even allows cheating to continue. The whole idea is foreign to
SOLOII competition.
And that is a wonderful thing.
- -doug miller
I was of that mind set until the Phoenix Tour. I am aware of two (2)
issues came up at the event that were "gray" area issues. One in STS and one
in GS. Protests were filed to force SCCA to better define each "gray area",
because we were informed that this would force SCCA to make a determination.
I'm not sure of the outcome of the STS item, but in GS the protest was over a
Harness bar attached to the frame at the rear strut pillars in a Mini S. The
rules specifically stated that a harness bar must be attached to the B pillar,
and serve no other purpose. Separate from the fact that it was not attached to
the B pillar, how anyone could believe that a ~ 1 inch tube welded to a
mounting plate, and bolted directly to the frame serves no other purpose is
beyond my comprehension, be it at the B pillar or anywhere else.
The drivers were found in violation, but allowed to keep their
placements, as the car was "not fully prepped". Had it been "fully prepped",
it would have done "better", so therefore the advantage received was less than
the advantage of a fully prepped car. Personally I thought that answer was BS,
but the point we wanted to make was made, that the part was illegal. We were
told that the protest would be published so that all Solo competitors would be
aware of the decision, and eliminate what the owner of the car felt was legal
due to ambiguity.
The reason I disagree with the statement about not condoning or
allowing cheating, is if you were not a GS competitor at Phoenix, you would
have no Idea such a protest was upheld. We were promised that if we filed the
protest, and it was upheld, that it would be listed in the Official Results,
and as such would become a defacto rule. To date, I have not seen publication
of this ruling anywhere, have any of you????
So since it has not been published, I assume it is still a gray matter
issue, and open to a new interpretation by a future National event protest
committee. I bring this up, because I hear that he has continued to use the
bar at his local events because they don't care, and also under the argument
that SCCA has not "officially" determined that it was illegal. I noticed that
he is signed up for the San Diego National Tour. If he shows with it again, do
we once again need to file a protest, for something previously found illegal?
If so, what the point if this must be repeated at each and every event.
--
Cynthia & Craig Naylor
Naylor & Naylor
ph/fax 858-679-3754
E-mail - Magazine@pacbell.net
|