Who is responsible? Suddenly this is two questions.
Who is responsible for finding it, collecting it, presenting it to the PC?
Gotta be the protestee. He should be more knowledgeable about his car, and
what to ask of whom to get the right answers.
But, who is responsible for the costs incurred as a result of the protest?
It has to be the loser of the protest. It does not matter if the cost is the
price of a gasket, shop time for engine reassembly, or the cost of acquiring
documentation. The cost of the protest is the cost of the protest and in any
protest the protestor by filing his protest obligates himself to cover its
cost if the protestee is proved legal.
It is probably going to cost more to protest a pricey car or even to
protest a newer car -- everything costs more. If the potential protestor
avoids protesting the Ferrari or the Porsche because of the protest cost
(whether parts, labor or whatever) then that's his decision. Should we then
forbid Ferraris and Porsches from competing because it costs too much to
protest them? Newer cars have all kinds of plumbing, valves, sensors, chips,
computer stuff, etc., that my car does not have. These are all protestable
items. Should they be prevented from competing because there is more there
to protest raising the potential cost of protests?
The cost is what it is, always has been, must always be.
Let's take your final drive example. Just for fun, let's make it the final
drive of a Boxster. Let's assume it is ultimately legal. What makes more
sense:
1) Protestor pays $100 of shop time for the local Porsche dealer to look it
up?
2) Ten Boxster owners each buy $2100 worth of documentation on the off
chance one of them might get protested someday?
$100 or $21,000? Which makes more sense? No, they can't buy one book and
share it. Who says the owner happens to be there that day? It doesn't even
make sense for SCCA to buy the book for reference, because they (we!) would
have to do it again for next year's model, and then it may be 10 years, and
a few dozen Boxster drivers go through the event, before even one gets
protested on that final drive ratio (or anything else).
Limit the cost to what is needed to answer the question, and do not require
(but continue to *encourage*) everyone to have to spend money to own
something the huge majority of them will never need.
All this was not a big deal 30 years ago when everything was on paper, in
one book, and available for <$100 (even at 1970s prices). It is a big deal
when documentation comes in so many different formats, is hugely more
complicated, that even if printed takes a whole bookshelf, and costs in a
4-figure range assuming the manufacturer will even let you have it.
--Rocky Entriken
----- Original Message -----
From: "Rick Cone" <rickcone@bellsouth.net>
To: "Rocky Entriken" <rocky@tri.net>; <Ghsharp@aol.com>;
<autox@autox.team.net>
Sent: Friday, March 05, 2004 11:05 PM
Subject: Re: Subject: Re: shop manuals
> >>BUT, the thing about including documentation cost in a protest bond does
> not
> mean the protestor has to buy the whole book (or for some cars, the whole
> collection) for the protestee. It only needs to cover the cost of finding
> out the details about the protested item.<<
>
> I still disagree. The question comes down to, *who* is ultimately
> responsible for the documentation. That still has to be with each driver.
> If they are protested and don't have it then they should front the bill to
> come up with it. Any deviation shifts financial burden to the protestor,
> and weakens our competitor policed sport.
>
> For example... a protest on final drive or gear ratios...
>
> We can relatively easily figure final drive ratio for each gear at the
> protest shed. Probably don't even really need a bond for it. So the cost
> of that protest is just the protest fee and the protestor could get it
back
> based upon the P/C. If we go with your route and they don't have the
> book... Then in addition to the fee we have to cover the cost at the
dealer
> to look it up.... Could be cheap, or they may charge you an hours time....
> This all of a suden adds enough coplexity that it may discourage the
> protestor from filing paper. If that happens the entire process is
weakend.
>
> Rick
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Rocky Entriken" <rocky@tri.net>
> To: <Ghsharp@aol.com>; <autox@autox.team.net>
> Sent: Friday, March 05, 2004 7:41 PM
> Subject: Re: Subject: Re: shop manuals
>
>
> > For some it may deter, for some not. Depends on how deep the pockets
are.
> >
> > BUT, the thing about including documentation cost in a protest bond does
> not
> > mean the protestor has to buy the whole book (or for some cars, the
whole
> > collection) for the protestee. It only needs to cover the cost of
finding
> > out the details about the protested item.
> >
> > Someone protests that the head of that Ferrari has been illegally
milled.
> > The question is, what is the stock thickness? Maybe you have to go to a
KC
> > Ferrari dealer to find out. He charges $100 to look it up. Protestor
bond
> > has to cover that. Protestee has to pay the dealer for his time (it's
his
> > car, so he pays the up-front expenses). If the head is legal, protestee
> gets
> > repaid from the bond. Exactly the same as if the question required
> removing
> > that head and a new gasket was needed to replace it. Protestee buys the
> > gasket (he may even have a spare on hand). If legal, the cost of that
> gasket
> > is covered by the protestor's bond.
> >
> > Also, as is current practice, if the bond required is set by the PC at
> $1000
> > and the cost ends up being $100, the protestor, even if he loses, still
> gets
> > the other $900 back.
> >
> > The whole point is to change the documentation rule (for all classes,
not
> > just Prepared) so that 1) drivers are not REQUIRED (but *are*
encouraged)
> to
> > possess documentation; 2) protestees are given time to gather necessary
> > documentation, 3) cost of such gathering -- not the whole book, just
what
> is
> > needed to answer the question -- is covered by the bond, which is paid
> only
> > if the protestee wins the protest. It remains the protestee's job to
> gather
> > the documentation, but recognizes that, for example, a $2100 16-volume
set
> > is an unreasonable demand. Especially if all he needs is page 86 from
Vol.
> > 7. Some places, he could get that for a dime (photocopy cost).
> >
> > The several 2002 Nationals protests in which documentation may have
played
> a
> > part raised questions about:
> > * valve clearance
> > * OEM adjustment hardware
> > * head thickness
> > * gear ratios
> > * OEM clutch/flywheel
> > * differential shims
> > *shock mounting points
> > *suspension adjustment range
> > * removal of trim
> > * modification of heater system
> >
> > To answer any of those questions only the documentation relating to that
> > point is needed. Protestor is not buying the protestee a free shop
manual.
> > Just covering the protestees costs to prove his legality (assuming, of
> > course, that he turns out to be legal). I used 2002, BTW, because there
> was
> > only one such in 2003.
> >
> > Also, as someone else pointed out in an example, best available
> > documentation prevails. If someone's widget is protested and protestee
> comes
> > up with an article from Grassroots Motorsports saying that's how the
> widget
> > should be installed, fine. Then it's on the protestor to come up with
> > something better (on appeal, probably), say a Chilton's manual that says
> > something else. But then the protestee might have found Factory
> > documentation by then to support his view. Factory docs are the ultimate
> > authority. They do not need to be the only authority.
> >
> > --Rocky Entriken
> >
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: <Ghsharp@aol.com>
> > To: <autox@autox.team.net>
> > Sent: Thursday, March 04, 2004 8:45 PM
> > Subject: Re: Subject: Re: shop manuals
> >
> >
> > > In a message dated 3/4/2004 9:02:16 PM Eastern Standard Time,
> > rocky@tri.net
> > > writes:
> > >
> > > > If you were to protest that Ferrari, or that Mazda, for some engine
> > > > illegality requiring teardown, it would probably cost more to rear
> down
> > and
> > > > rebuild that Ferrari engine than that Mazda engine -- but you pay
> that
> > cost
> > > > only IF you lose the protest. It would be no different regarding
> > > > documentation cost.
> > > >
> > >
> > > But will a 4-figure bond amount to cover teardown AND documentation
> > > deter people from even filing a protest in the first place? How can
you
> > > be certain that you're going to win the protest? We've seen people
that
> > > have convinced themselves that a competitor is illegal, then the
protest
> > > process vindicates the protestee. How many people will be willing to
> > > gamble their money? That's already what happens now in some cases.
> > >
> > > Putting the burden of coming up with the necessary documentation on
> > > the protestor is not a good solution, IMO. I agree that we should
> explore
> > > ways of avoiding requiring people to shell out >$1,000 for a set of
> > factory
> > > manuals that they may never use, but I don't think this is a good way
to
> > > do it.
> > >
> > > As I see it, the protest process outlined in the rulebook tries to
> balance
> > > the financial burden as equitably as possible; requiring the posting
of
> a
> > > bond tends to discourage frivolous protests, and when there IS a
protest
> > > that requires a teardown involving some amount of money, the person
> > > on the losing end of the protest has to bear the financial burden.
And
> > > IMO, expecting a competitor to pay for documentation for another car
> > > in his class is just as unfair as some feel it is to require that
people
> > > have the documentation for their own car.
> > >
> > > GH
|