Bottom line is this: When a question arises there has to be a way for PC to
determine what was originally on the car (things legally not original are
covered in the rulebook).
It's not a Prepared issue. It covers all cars in all classes, including
Modified.
But in this 21st century world, it can no longer be *required* of the
protestee that he provide documentation. The manufacturers have just made it
untenable or even impossible in many situations. Spending 4-figures on
documentation, and then keeping up with all the updates, is just beyond
reason. Most of us will never need it, and those of us who might will have
spent $1500 to answer a $50 question. This is a 1970s rule in a
new-millennium context. When this rule was written, "fast communication"
meant you subscribed(!) to regular mailings of minutes from the BOD, Comp
Board and SEB, so you got them earlier than publication in SportsCar
provided.
Thus the rule should now strongly *encourage* (but not require) acquisition
of documentation. And aftermarket documentation (Haynes, Chilton, etc.)
would be acceptable, but subject to being challenged (factory documents
trump aftermarket if there is a conflict).
But it must be recognized that often the most reliable source may simply be
to take the car to a dealer and have the "experts" there prove or disprove
the point. Protests may take longer since it could mean waiting until Monday
(or later: "Gee, we're booked through next Thursday"). In such cases,
protestor AND protestee should be required to remain until the inspection
can be done -- or at least, if one must wait, both must wait. If protestee
cannot wait, he must be willing to accept an adverse decision (kinda like
refusing teardown). If the protestor cannot wait, he cannot expect everyone
else to work on his behalf while he waltzes off, so the protest becomes
moot. The responsibility must be equal.
--Rocky Entriken
----- Original Message -----
From: "Rick Cone" <rickcone@bellsouth.net>
To: "Steven J Miller" <sjm@us.ibm.com>
Cc: <autox@autox.team.net>
Sent: Monday, March 01, 2004 2:06 PM
Subject: Re: Subject: Re: shop manuals
> The point is it can't *ever* be the primary responsibility of the
protestor to
> come up with the documentation.
>
> If you were to look at the cost of the manual in relation to the entire
> autocross budget for the life of that car, and its very small.
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Steven J Miller
> To: Rick Cone
> Cc: autox@autox.team.net
> Sent: Monday, March 01, 2004 3:01 PM
> Subject: Re: Subject: Re: shop manuals
>
>
> Rick Cone wrote:
> >IMHO, if you can't provide the manual, then you should be *required* to
> pay
> >the costs to take the car somewhere (dealer) and the cost for the
dealer
> to
> >identify the legality.
> >In many cases it would be cheaper to front the $100/hour for an hour to
> >figure out some measurements then it is to pay $800.00 for a manual.
>
> You may be right, but I'm sure that those of you whose cars are under
> warranty would not really like to take your car to the dealer for this.
>
> I can see it now:
> Autocrosser: "Hi. I'm autocrossing my car. Can you prove to these guys
that
> the widget is within specs".
> Dealer: "You're doing what! Hey Joe, call the manufacturer and have this
> guy's warranty voided".
>
> So, in the big picture, it may be very expensive to go that route.
>
>
> Steve
|