Just to stir up the fires of discussion a bit while we are on the subject,
I'm wondering just how much
useful (to settle protests) info is actually even in the FSM? In these days
of R&R, especially for warantee work, how many specs are actually needed by
the dealer's service center, the intended "audience" for the FSM. Does the
factory need to tell the dealer what the stock head thickness and max safe
deck milling spec is, or does it say if the head is warped, just replace it?
After all the manufacturer is in the replacement parts business, NOT in
machine shop work. Does the factory care if the dealers know what the OEM
combustion chamber volume is? He may not even know how to measure it! Does
it specify the valve diameters or material? what about the injector nozzle
flow rate or
pattern? I've never seen cam lift and duration specs in a FSM. The FSM for
our car says that if there is cylinder bore wear or damage, replace the
block, does that mean I can or cannot bore the cylinders as allowed in the
SCCA rule book? There are no part #s in the FSM, how do I prove or disprove
a part is the one the car came with if protested? I doubt the dealer or
anyone short of the factory can tell you what the OEM suspension spring
rates are supposed to be for any given car/model/pkg. I could go on and on
with examples of performance enhancements (without even touching electronic
enhancements) that could be made without being able to be proven or
disproven legal with the FSM or by the dealer, my contention being is that
we are required to
own/use a flawed (for the purpose) document as our "bible" to live or die
by. Discuss!
----- Original Message -----
From: Rocky Entriken <rocky@tri.net>
To: <Smokerbros@aol.com>; <autox@autox.team.net>
Sent: Tuesday, March 09, 2004 5:07 PM
Subject: Re: Subject: Re: shop manuals
> I don't see that much disagreement there, Charlie. In fact, that's
valuable
> insight.
>
> I might ask, however, how many when buying a car even think to ask what
the
> shop manual costs? How many even think of that as a purchase item at that
> time. They're thinking "this car is gonna be fun to drive" not "what if I
> get protested?" Remember, at the time of purchase -- especially a new
Stock
> car -- the thing is dead legal.
>
> I acknowledge your point that "sometimes it starts" with a suspicion.
> Indeed, I'd agree that the great majority may start that way.
>
> Nevertheless, there are a number of points going on here.
>
> 1. FSM documentation, which was the norm 30 years ago and a very
reasonable
> thing, has ceased to be so. The reason is all on various manufacturers,
not
> only the differing media they use but also their policies of either
> overpricing or making it unavailable to the general public. As a result,
it
> is no longer reasonable to conclude that a competitor's lack of such
> documentation is reason to conclude his protested item is illegal. IOW, it
> makes no sense in this day to require him (and his thousands of fellow
> competitors) to spend $2000 on the off chance someday he may have to
provide
> the answer to a question that can be answered for $100. Or maybe (likely,
> even) less. It is an expense that benefits almost nobody -- not the
> competitors who mostly will never need to provide that documentation, not
> even the manufacturers who don't even want to sell it. Solution: if a
> question comes up, give him time to get the answer; It does not need to be
> answered immediately. Result: hundreds of thousands of dollars saved by
> *all* competitors, small amounts spent by an individual competitor only
when
> necessary.
>
> 2. A protestee given time to assemble documentation must of necessity
agree
> to his car being impounded of the PC feels it is necessary. I'd suspect
that
> often measurements of a suspect part could be recorded and the car
released,
> but that would be up to the PC. Refusal to submit to impound would be
> parallel to refusal to submit to teardown. Protestee loses.
>
> 3. Other documentation may well be quite satisfactory. Someone's example
of
> a clipping from Grassroots Motorsports may be a bit on the far end, but it
> IS documentation. However, its standing would probably be easily trumped
by
> something more authoritative, such as an aftermarket (Haynes, Chilton,
etc.)
> repair guide. And factory documentation is always the top suit. With other
> sources available, some very good some perhaps less so, it is unreasonable
> to demand that only one source (very expensive if even available) may be
> offered. Better is to allow several but with the recognition that "better"
> documentation will prevail. Result: More sources for both protestor and
> protestee, and again usually a considerable financial saving. Charlie,
your
> point of how the FSM becomes less a prime source as you step up the
> categories is valid. But consider that "documentation" does not always
mean
> FSM. I have my FSM (so this is not a personal issue for me), but for my
> GCR-legal Prepared car the documentation of choice is more likely the
> rulebook. In the big BM protest/appeal last year the documentation that
> settled it was the GCR language. I could see someone with a FF in C Mod or
> an Atlantic in B Mod referring to something from the factory that made
those
> race cars, but more likely the FCS. I could see someone with a SP car
15-20
> years old relying on his Chilton book. The key word here is
"documentation"
> not "factory." While the FSM would be the BEST place to look, simply
because
> of availability and cost it may not be the first place. Depending on the
> issue, it may not even apply and so that expensive FSM may be just
> superfluous.
>
> 4. The question of who pays is really a separate issue. The documentation
> rule can be liberalized to permit a protestee time to assemble the
> documentation, and to permit more sources, without changing the
> responsibility of the car owner to provide it (even if he is innocent!).
> Frankly, I see the cost of researching a car spec -- mostly in the classes
> that are closer to stock configuration -- to be minimal. We've been
tossing
> the number $100 around as the ballpark cost for a hour of some
dealership's
> shop time. Most of the time that "research" may just take a few minutes --
> especially if the guy looking it up is a dealer's service rep accustomed
to
> working on the cars rather than some PC members essentially unfamiliar
with
> both the car and the layout of the documentation. If I am going to protest
> you on an item that requires a bond, how much will that bond be? $100?
$500?
> I have seen protest bonds even in 4-figures. Will it be enough to deter me
> from protesting you even if I know in my heart you're illegal as hell?
> (Rhetorical question: we're not even in the same class.) If I'm willing to
> put up $500 bond, will $600 deter me if you add in the cost to research
the
> spec at the dealer? Remember, that bond would basically cover looking up a
> page, not buying the book! Essentially, it has always been that if a
> protestor, by filing his protest, causes the protestee some out-of-pocket
> expense to defend himself, IF the car is legal the protestor pays that
> expense. All I'm saying here is that if the protestee's out-of-pocket
> expense includes a cost for researching a spec, IF he is legal that is
just
> part of the cost covered by the protestor. Look at it from the point of
view
> of the LEGAL protestee. He has been forced to spend money that he'd not
have
> needed to spend but for the protestor's action. It has always been that
> being forced to spend money to defend your legality is not fair
(especially
> for those "more than a few good drivers" who have been exonerated by the
> process), it is no more fair just because the cost includes research
> expense. It is no harder to protest, but the process and the cost should
> reflect 2004 reality not 1974 reality.
>
> However, that item need not derail the other parts of a proposed change
that
> would save big bucks for thousands of competitors and make the
documentation
> requirements more fair and realistic for all.. Theoretically we can talk
> about how the need to acquire documentation costing a couple thousand
bucks
> would deter competitors from even participating at a
> Divisional/Tour/Pro/National level, and that would be bad. More likely is
> that the individual would participate anyway, but if protested would find
> himself naked of documentation and be DQd for lack of paperwork than for
> actually being illegal. When the manufacturers have made acquiring that
> documentation so difficult and expensive, that is no longer a reasonable
> rulebook position.
>
> It's a 1970s rule -- at basic a good rule -- that needs revision to work
in
> a 21st Century context
>
> --Rocky
|