Karen C. Babb writes:
>
> Michael Butler writes:
> >
> > In 1992, a certain CS 914 was grossly illegal. It had solid motor =
> > mounts, was
> > missing a heat exchanger, the spring perches were too low, and it was =
> > missing
> > a 20 lb piece of insulation. The owner of this car had been confronted =
> > about
> > these illegalities in previous years, but chose to do nothing about it. =
>
> Whoa! Let's try that again. I saw the appeal on that one, and the only
> issue I can recall was a twelve (12) pound piece of insulation. No motor
> mounts, no spring perches, nada. If you're going to use that instance
> as an example, please back up the allegations of other items. The only
> issue the SEB looked at was the insulation pad. Don't slam us for some
> items which the Protest Committee may have addressed but weren't covered
> in any appeal. Don't slam anybody for second-hand information or items
> which were not challenged or inspected. Get the facts straight, please.
Okay, 12 lbs. And it's true, the other items weren't on the original
protest. Why? Because, the understanding then was that 1 protest fee gets
you 1 protested item (of course, since then we've seen these incredible
fishing expedition protests which I detest). Also, the understanding was
that any significant illegality gets you DQ'd.
I'm not saying that 2 seconds for 12 pounds is a light penalty -- in fact,
it seems quite harsh. In particular, I'm not criticizing the Appeal
decision. My difficulty with this situation was that the
policy (or at least, the perception of a policy) changed significantly
(i.e., the number of protested items per protest and flexibility of penalties
imposed) without prior announcement or discussion.
> > Another CS car was protested in 1992. A Miata had the rear Koni spring =
> > perches
> > in the wrong position -- it was disqualified.
>
> Actually, that Miata was "caught" in Impound. The car was clearly lower
> than its brethren in class, and while the owner maintained that the
> perches had been put that way by the dealer, the bottom line was that
> he was low. Not just 1/4", either. The Stock rule is pretty clear
> about the suspension having to stay the same. Lowering is pretty clearly
> a performance issue.
I'm not trying to justify an illegal car. I'm just trying to point out
a situation where misinformation about the process caused the "less
illegal" car to be punished much more severely than the egregious case.
> > If penalties are to vary with the severity of the crime, the SEB needs =
> > to publish
> > its policy. This policy should then be followed by the protest =
> > committee to
> > prevent gross inconsistencies.
>
> An article for Sports Car is in work. Problem is, the two of us trying
> to put it together have rather diametrically opposed philosophies and
> haven't met in the middle yet.
I look forward to this.
Michael Butler
|