I quit reading net mail about a year ago, as I found I liked
autocrossing and autocrossers better in it's absence. My just-turned 16
year old, with a DSP project in the shop, reads it carefully, and
amazingly hasn't become discouraged - yet. (The garbage about Topeka
right after the Nationals came close, but he's still enthused in spite
of what he reads here. Incredible.)
Ryan frequently discusses, forwards or points out things that he feels
may be of interest to me. I can normally allow those items to pass
without comment - especially as the participant base on the 'net has
shifted significantly to the newer autocrosser - but a couple of issues
raised recently by a disgruntled D/P competitor cannot pass without a
few words of opinion from the other side.
Kendall Jones complains that his protest, based on 2nd-day impound
observations, was not accepted by the Nationals Protest Committee - and
further claims that the committee was "pleased and relieved" to deny
acceptance. and could "offer no explanation or clarification".
It must be added here that Kendall was accompanied to the Protest
Committee by his co-driver and former SEB member, Chuck Sample.
Chuck knows the rules very well, and is especially well-versed in
Prepared Category preparation and competition.
The simple fact remains that neither Sample nor Jones bothered to even
examine the Imbeau car in impound on Thursday. When questioned about
this omission, both stated that their own performance in the first day's
competition was so poor they saw no need.
To expect SCCA's committees, boards and rules-makers to change
long-standing rules to compensate for their admitted omission makes NO
sense at all.
They simply did not meet their obligations as competitors. Period.
To raise
this issue after 3.5 months tells me that Mr. Jones still doesn't
understand the procedures. The sour grapes inherent in the claim that
the PC was "pleased and relieved" to deny the protest is as far from the
truth as is his understanding of same: I assure all of you that this
would have been the easiest protest we faced, as you'll recall a bit of
excitement in CSP and F/M that day!
Mr. Sample understood the situation well - having served on the SEB
and the inherent AC tasks that accompany the seat. He too felt that the
PC should consider the protest under extraordinary circumstances - those
being that he and Jones failed to examine vehicles during Thursday's
impound!
Jones claim that he has no axe to grind in this circumstance rings a
bit hollow. Yes, he would have no gain (i.e., trophy) had the protest
been accepted and C. Imbeau thrown; however co-driver Sample did stand
to get a trophy one spot higher. Disingenuous claim at best.
The PC carefully and fully explained the situation to Jones and
Sample; however it was clear that they felt an exception should be made
for them.
The issue of the purpose of 2nd day impound was also discussed: The
PC told Sample & Jones that if they felt that the Imbeau head had been
changed after the first-day's competition, we would hear the protest.
Neither could make that claim, obviously.
Which is exactly one of the purposes to impound cars on both days: To
allow competitors to have some assurance that the vehicle ran in the
same
(observable) legal trim on each course of the competiton.
Baby Grands:
I sat and watched the BG cars run on the National's South course; also
observed them at the Central Division Pro event at Grissom AFB earlier
in 1998.
1.) To make the assumption, after extraordinarily short observation,
that these cars fit well into D/P is premature.
A.) Although driven by skilled competitors, a one-event one
course "trial" is hardly enough to assure that the vehicles were
prepared and driven at their best. We have seen time and time again
that many vehicles take not days or weeks but years to reach their full
potential.
B.) Never has this been more evident than in G/S at Topeka this
year: Most have accepted the late Type "R" classification because one
didn't win!
Do you really think that the potential of either the Acura or the BG was
realized in such a short time??
C.) In both cases, as with most vehicles, it will be a year or
two before the full potential of the BG (and the Type R!) is realized.
2.) IMO, there are significant safety issues with the BG. Most of us
present at the Pro in Indiana saw the bottoms of the vehicles more than
once.
3.) Folding this car into DP may appear attractive to the current
residents, but won't their English Pride be Punctured if the BG cars
start taking most of the trophies at the big events? (See 1.C.)
Mixing apples and oranges, in ANY autocross class, is a huge
mistake.
4.) And as Bruce Dickey has said - if we're going to look at vehicles
of this type, we'd be far wiser to consider the Legends cars: the
installed base and
track record are huge positives; rules continuity and preparation specs
are far more likely to remain available given the sheer numbers.
(But where to class the Legends? Even if the ill-advised adoption of
the BG by D/P proceeds, the precedent is established to make these weird
combinations. Given the spec tires, the Legends would likely fall into
D or E Stock, I'd guess. That ok with everyone??)
Regards and Happy New Year to all,
Roger (Ohio) Johnson
|