OK JBH,
If you were and are so certain that the car did not conform to the rules,
why did you not file an appeal regarding the decision? This posting
has the aroma of decaying wine fruit.
As a member of the PC that has been enjoined against public discussion
regarding the deliberations of the Committee, I can't tell you what our
procedure was for checking the car. But I will tell you that is was well
thought out and agreed upon by all the members of the PC. The disposition
of that protest speaks for itself.
Suppose you tell us exactly what procedure, (short of constructing a "box"
that you are so fond of suggesting as a measuring instrument) you would
recommend be used in such an instance?
BTW, "box" would be an inadequate way of describing an environment
capable of providing a nearly absolute judgment of legality in this case.
More appropriate would be: "Two flat planes, vertical in position and
parallel, spaced 58" apart, taller and longer than the vehicle being checked,
and attached perpendicularly to a horizontal plane at the bottom, on which
the
vehicle would rest."
Suppose you also tell us what calibrated system you used to determine the
basis for your suspicion/complaint about the vehicle in question? Eyeball?
Please......
Alan Sheidler
> Date: Tue, 24 Sep 2002 09:49:11 -0400
> From: "J. Brett Howell" <jbrett@pebblemotorsports.com>
> Subject: FM Protests...again (was: Service Manauls)
>
> John,
>
> Since you chose to bring this up on a public forum I will respond
> publicly as well.
>
> You obviously do not recall, but in impound at the 2001 Nationals you
> were specifically told by this year's protestor that your car was too
> wide and that you needed to fix it before coming back. The fact that you
> chose not to heed that advice is your problem. And by the way, you may
> want to try rolling your car through a 58" wide box as is the proper way
> to check width.I think you may find that you were given a break by this
> year's protest committee (not that you were intentionally trying to gain
> an advantage, but that you may be gaining an advantage unintentionally
> because you have not been diligent in assuring your car is compliant and
> that the protest committee did not go to the proper length to check your
> car).
>
> Likewise one of the other of this year's "FM protested" was told by this
> year's protestor in the 2000 and 2001 impound that he needed to read the
> rulebook and make sure his car complied with _all_ the rules because the
> protestor could see several non-compliances just looking at the car.
>
> If someone tells me that they can tell me that my car is non-compliant
> just by looking at it, and that I will eventually be protested if I do
> not bring it into compliance, I will read through the rules and check
> the dimensions of my car to make sure it complies with everything. If I
> don't find the non-compliance I will ask for help because I want to be
> legal. There are only a couple pages in the GCR specific to F500s, so it
> is not really that much to read and check. The fact some did not
> allocate the resources to ensure compliance may not have directly
> resulted in a performance advantage, but at the very least it allowed
> them to spend more resources on tuning, testing, practicing,
> concentrating, etc.
>
> My point is, it is every driver's responsibility to ensure that his/her
> car is compliant, and it is his/her competitors' responsibility to
> police that compliance. That is the way the rules are specified. If
> someone tells you that your car is not compliant then they are being
> nice. If you don't make any changes and they protest you, that is
> playing by the rules. At this level you need to be prepared for this
> IMHO.
>
> J. Brett Howell
> www.PebbleMotorSports.com <http://www.pebblemotorsports.com/>
/// unsubscribe/change address requests to majordomo@autox.team.net or try
/// http://www.team.net/mailman/listinfo
/// Partial archives at http://www.team.net/archive
|