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
----- Original Message -----
From: <Smokerbros@aol.com>
To: <autox@autox.team.net>
Sent: Monday, March 08, 2004 5:19 PM
Subject: Re: Subject: Re: shop manuals
> In a message dated 3/8/04 1:42:55 PM Pacific Standard Time, rocky@tri.net
> writes:
>
>
> > Burden on the protester? The protester creates the burden by filing the
> > protest. The whole point it is that it has to be WORTH that burden. If
the
> > protester is ultimately correct, then obviously it IS worth that burden.
But
> > we want that burden to be part of the protest. It should not be easy to
> > accuse someone.
> >
> Okay, here I go disagreeing with Rocky, again... I'm not convinced that
it
> "starts" with the accuser. Sometimes it starts with a vehicle which
appears
> faster than it should be. Make it harder to protest, and the penalty for
> cheating (due to the possibility of getting caught in the first place)
goes down. I
> really don't like that concept. What I've seen in Nationals protests (I
> think I've served on over 10 years worth, plus 3 years as Impound Chief
and 2
> years on the Appeals Committee) is this:
>
> Stock Category protests usually arise when one driver of a particular
model
> of car is significantly faster than other drivers in the same model, and
> someone thinks something is wrong with that car, or else the protest is
along the
> lines of the allowed modifications and whether they meet the rules, as
compared
> to the OE part (say, Miata shock absorber perch height or spring length).
> Most Stock protests need some form of documentation as to what is the
stock
> specification, and the FSM is the first place to start looking. More than
a few
> good drivers have been exonerated by the Protest process, showing that
they are
> merely outdriving the competition. "Yes, he's bumping the rev limiter
where
> no one else is, because he's getting out of the corners 5 mph faster!"
>
> SP protests sometimes start with stock specifications that are not allowed
to
> be changed (such as camshaft specs, compression, etc.), but a lot of them
> have to do with whether the allowed modifications are within the rules.
Again,
> the FSM is the starting point in some (but fewer than Stock) cases.
>
> I don't think I've seen an ST or SM protest, but they would probably be
> similar to SP...
>
> Prepared protests are seldom over the remaining items that are required to
be
> original for the model of car (internal engine dimensions, wheelbase, and
new
> for 2004, minimum track dimension). So, the FSM becomes less important,
yet.
> But depending on the protest, it could be meaningful...
>
> Modified protests (even D and E) would almost never be settled by FSM
> documentation.
>
> So, unless the rules for burden of proof are changed, part of vehicle
> selection is going to be the cost of documentation. Compete in a car with
expensive
> documentation? Well, it was your choice to compete in that car... How
should
> those rules change? Write the SEB...
>
> Charlie
>
> Until the rule is changed
|