Mark Andy writes:
> I find it faintly horrifying that someone feels they have to accuse
> someone else of cheating to get a rules clarification. And not only that,
> but that they must pad the accusation with things they believe are legal,
> just to get the protest committe to pay attention to the real accusation.
> I've got no idea, having not been in the sport that long, if Kevin had to
> do what he did to get the rules clarification he wanted (which it sounds
> like he didn't anyway, namely that stated specs are an ok judge of
> legality, despite production tolerances). Either way, this story
> and others about compulsory teardowns pretty much makes me feel beter
> about staying home during nationals. The consoloation that others have
> gone through a bunch of crap like this as well is hollow at best.
I'm with you 100% on this.
Kevin McCormick writes:
> Onwards to my side of the story... (lynching line forms to the right,
> mugging to the left.)
(Joining the lynch mob in the heat of the moment)
> Background - As myself and others have seen on the three groove rear Miata
> Koni's, the middle groove for the Bilstein equiped cars is low in many cases
> (I have two sets of rears that measure over 1/8th too low when NEW.) I
> won't implicate the others who have also seen this - might as well only get
> _one_ person blacklisted...
I thought the rulebook already states that some dimensional variance is
allowed for aftermarket shocks/struts, which may be "generic" to several
applications. Without the book handy, I have to ask, is the allowance for
travel only, excluding ride height? I'd have to say a reasonable person
would EXPECT some difference in ride height when you are talking gas-charged
struts, or changing between gas and hydraulic. I remember that adjustable
spring perches have to be welded at the stock height, but even with fixed
spring perches, some reasonable variance can be expected. What's needed is a
tolerance spec, otherwise its a judgement call what's okay. Basing the
tolerance on actual production examples, that is, large enough to include
90 - 100% of the replacements on the market as legal, would make sense.
If it's really important to have a tolerance, then it has to meet the spirit
of the rule, which is that wear items can be replaced with whatever the
aftermarket offers as a "stock" replacement part.
<snip>
> the effect
> that I'd hoped to accomplish was to get a clarification on using an
> aftermarket manufacturer's 'word' (Koni's) that their setting is correct. I
> know, write a letter - been down that path for another issue with less than
> satisfactory results.
You're not the first person to say this, and I sympathise. Its funny how
we pay dues to the sanctioning body, but a ruling by the paid staff of that
body (Howard) is not considered official. Okay, that would undermine the
authority of the volunteers on the advisory committees and board, but the
fact that they're volunteers is the common excuse for not responding or
ruling. Its a catch 22, and the irony is that our dues and sanctioning fees
are "officially" not enough money to cover even this level of service.
Phooey.
Or maybe we shouldn't expect such minutia to be etched in stone, and rely on
the P.C. to make a judgement call when a competitor believes there's a
problem. There's a thought. :^)
<snip>
> I am happy with the
> clarification that they provided - they 'got' my reasoning (I think). Oh,
> yeah, the perches were .050 low - in the noise of the measurement technique
> used.
So your aim is to clarify that some range of variance in ride height caused
by aftermarket struts/shocks is allowable if the strut manufacturer's
installation instructions are followed, but you chose a car that didn't have
a non-stock ride height as the object of the protest?
I think that was the first mistake. You might have succeeded in getting a
useful clarification if you'd installed one of your own sets of rears which
you measured as >1/8" too low, and got someone to protest YOU. Then you'd
have a case where there IS a "legal" change of ride height, you would have
had your defense prepared in advance, and you would have put nobody else at
risk.
This brings me to the second mistake, which was to lodge this
"clarification" protest against someone who had no idea it was coming. It
is despicable to put anyone who you know has a legal car through the
psychological torment of a protest unless they are a willing confederate.
<snip>
> To close with, I know that many are disappointed in my actions - and I
> understand that. What disappoints me are those that I considered friends
> who did not ask for my side and made assumptions.
I agree 100%. Unfortunately, your explanation has given me enough rope to
make a noose. I wonder if the loss of your protest fee is any consolation
to Katie. I hope that the adage "what does not kill you makes you stronger"
applies to Katie, and she gets a bit of personal growth out of the
experience, and I guess the same applies to Kevin. Let me be clear,
holding a grudge serves no purpose, and the pain was for nothing if the
larger question is not answered.
Wow, I didn't realize how high this horse is, I'd better get down now before
I hurt myself.
--
Jeffrey D. Blankenship Senior Technical Consultant
jblanken@itds.com ITDS - TRIS
neon enthusiast #478 Champaign, IL, USA
|