For some it may deter, for some not. Depends on how deep the pockets are.
BUT, the thing about including documentation cost in a protest bond does not
mean the protestor has to buy the whole book (or for some cars, the whole
collection) for the protestee. It only needs to cover the cost of finding
out the details about the protested item.
Someone protests that the head of that Ferrari has been illegally milled.
The question is, what is the stock thickness? Maybe you have to go to a KC
Ferrari dealer to find out. He charges $100 to look it up. Protestor bond
has to cover that. Protestee has to pay the dealer for his time (it's his
car, so he pays the up-front expenses). If the head is legal, protestee gets
repaid from the bond. Exactly the same as if the question required removing
that head and a new gasket was needed to replace it. Protestee buys the
gasket (he may even have a spare on hand). If legal, the cost of that gasket
is covered by the protestor's bond.
Also, as is current practice, if the bond required is set by the PC at $1000
and the cost ends up being $100, the protestor, even if he loses, still gets
the other $900 back.
The whole point is to change the documentation rule (for all classes, not
just Prepared) so that 1) drivers are not REQUIRED (but *are* encouraged) to
possess documentation; 2) protestees are given time to gather necessary
documentation, 3) cost of such gathering -- not the whole book, just what is
needed to answer the question -- is covered by the bond, which is paid only
if the protestee wins the protest. It remains the protestee's job to gather
the documentation, but recognizes that, for example, a $2100 16-volume set
is an unreasonable demand. Especially if all he needs is page 86 from Vol.
7. Some places, he could get that for a dime (photocopy cost).
The several 2002 Nationals protests in which documentation may have played a
part raised questions about:
* valve clearance
* OEM adjustment hardware
* head thickness
* gear ratios
* OEM clutch/flywheel
* differential shims
*shock mounting points
*suspension adjustment range
* removal of trim
* modification of heater system
To answer any of those questions only the documentation relating to that
point is needed. Protestor is not buying the protestee a free shop manual.
Just covering the protestees costs to prove his legality (assuming, of
course, that he turns out to be legal). I used 2002, BTW, because there was
only one such in 2003.
Also, as someone else pointed out in an example, best available
documentation prevails. If someone's widget is protested and protestee comes
up with an article from Grassroots Motorsports saying that's how the widget
should be installed, fine. Then it's on the protestor to come up with
something better (on appeal, probably), say a Chilton's manual that says
something else. But then the protestee might have found Factory
documentation by then to support his view. Factory docs are the ultimate
authority. They do not need to be the only authority.
--Rocky Entriken
----- Original Message -----
From: <Ghsharp@aol.com>
To: <autox@autox.team.net>
Sent: Thursday, March 04, 2004 8:45 PM
Subject: Re: Subject: Re: shop manuals
> In a message dated 3/4/2004 9:02:16 PM Eastern Standard Time,
rocky@tri.net
> writes:
>
> > If you were to protest that Ferrari, or that Mazda, for some engine
> > illegality requiring teardown, it would probably cost more to rear down
and
> > rebuild that Ferrari engine than that Mazda engine -- but you pay that
cost
> > only IF you lose the protest. It would be no different regarding
> > documentation cost.
> >
>
> But will a 4-figure bond amount to cover teardown AND documentation
> deter people from even filing a protest in the first place? How can you
> be certain that you're going to win the protest? We've seen people that
> have convinced themselves that a competitor is illegal, then the protest
> process vindicates the protestee. How many people will be willing to
> gamble their money? That's already what happens now in some cases.
>
> Putting the burden of coming up with the necessary documentation on
> the protestor is not a good solution, IMO. I agree that we should explore
> ways of avoiding requiring people to shell out >$1,000 for a set of
factory
> manuals that they may never use, but I don't think this is a good way to
> do it.
>
> As I see it, the protest process outlined in the rulebook tries to balance
> the financial burden as equitably as possible; requiring the posting of a
> bond tends to discourage frivolous protests, and when there IS a protest
> that requires a teardown involving some amount of money, the person
> on the losing end of the protest has to bear the financial burden. And
> IMO, expecting a competitor to pay for documentation for another car
> in his class is just as unfair as some feel it is to require that people
> have the documentation for their own car.
>
> GH
|