--On Tuesday, March 9, 2004 6:05 PM -0500 Charles <golden1@britsys.net>
wrote:
> 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!
The point you're missing here, as have many in this discussion, is that
the official manufacturer's service documentation is not the be-all end-all
solution to resolving protests.
It is the *minimum* documentation that the protestee must provide. If it
does not include the necessary information, then the burden of proof shifts
to the protestor.
What many people (with Rocky as their champion) seem to be proposing is
that there should be no minimum requirement.
In terms of the burden of proof, this could mean two things:
(1) The initial burden still lies with the protestee. With whatever
documentation he can muster, he must try to convince the PC that
his car is legal. Additional time would have to be allowed for
that documentation to be found. This is a considerably greater
burden on the protestee than we have today, and also slows the
process.
(2) The burden lies at all times with the protestor. As many have
pointed out (with Charlie as their champion), this will likely sound
the death knell of the competitor-enforced system that we have today,
one of the tenets of the sport. The burden (and cost) to the
protestor would be too great, and many protests against cars that
happen today might not happen at all.
Both of these seem bad, the former less so than the latter. Is there
some other happy outcome?
In any case, I urge you all to consider the issues surrounding burden of
proof, time required to resolve protests, and effects on the competitor-
policed aspect of our sport when making your proposals.
Mark
|