Howdy,
On Wed, 10 Mar 2004, Mark Sirota wrote:
> The point you're missing here, as have many in this discussion, is that
> the official manufacturer's service documentation is not the be-all end-all
> solution to resolving protests.
>
> It is the *minimum* documentation that the protestee must provide. If it
> does not include the necessary information, then the burden of proof shifts
> to the protestor.
I think most people in this discussion actually do understand that. What
we're discussing is what that minimum documentation standard (prior
to an actual protest occurring) should be.
> What many people (with Rocky as their champion) seem to be proposing is
> that there should be no minimum requirement.
Pretty much, prior to the protest.
> In terms of the burden of proof, this could mean two things:
> (1) The initial burden still lies with the protestee. With whatever
> documentation he can muster, he must try to convince the PC that
> his car is legal. Additional time would have to be allowed for
> that documentation to be found. This is a considerably greater
> burden on the protestee than we have today, and also slows the
> process.
Its a considerably greater burden than having to obtain an unobtainable
factory manual? Or a $2k one? Hardly. In fact, for most _competitors_
(rather than protestees) this will never even come up given our protest
frequency.
Note also that you're implicitly assuming that the FSM (that minimum
documentation you're allowing the protestee to go get) will be usefull
during the protest. In many (I hesitate to say "most" even though I think
its likely) cases the FSM isn't needed at all or doesn't have the
documentation required to determine the outcome of the protest anyway!
(Note that you also don't typically need to get the FSM to determine
this... You can certainly assume for instance that a protest over a non
stock bobble strut or whatever won't be solved by an FSM since FSM's don't
have part numbers...)
> (2) The burden lies at all times with the protestor. As many have
> pointed out (with Charlie as their champion), this will likely sound
> the death knell of the competitor-enforced system that we have today,
> one of the tenets of the sport. The burden (and cost) to the
> protestor would be too great, and many protests against cars that
> happen today might not happen at all.
You're jumping to conclusions here, but whatever. Once again you ignore
that the burden currently shifts to the protestor for anything past the
FSM anyway and that many/most of our protests aren't resolved with the
FSM.
How about a 3rd choice (and the one that Rocky has been promoting).
Encourage competitors to obtain FSMs (in the same manner that
documentation over and above FSMs is currently encouraged now). In the
event of a protest, the protestee is responsible for obtaining
documentation up to the basic factory service information (I hesitate to
call it a factory service manual, since that doesn't exist in some cases)
_if_ the PC deems it necessary to resolve the protest. The PC may decide
that Alldata info, Haynes info, the Grassroots clipping, or whatever is
enough and not need to see an FSM. Any costs involved in this effort are
covered by the protest bond. If documentation over and above the basic
factory service info are required, the burden shifts to the protestor as
it does currently.
If the protest is upheld, bond is returned to the protestor just like
today. If the protestee is proved legal, the protestee gets the bond just
like today.
> Both of these seem bad, the former less so than the latter. Is there
> some other happy outcome?
>
> In any case, I urge you all to consider the issues surrounding burden of
> proof, time required to resolve protests, and effects on the competitor-
> policed aspect of our sport when making your proposals.
In reality, vs. these made up situations, I tend to expect that FSM's will
still be around the event site for many, perhaps even most, cars. As has
been pointed out, FSM's are pretty handy to have! :-) In these cases, if
an FSM is required, someone will get on a PA and say "hey, we need a
humpmobile 45 manual, anyone got one?" and three people will step up. In
the case where the car is a Porche or Subaru or BMW, maybe those people
have a Haynes manual. If the PC looks at the Haynes and decides it isn't
good enough, then they head over to the dealer.
Note that all of this is different from the current situation _only in the
cases where the FSM would resolve the protest_. Which, as we've all seen
& experienced, probably isn't the majority of the protests anyway. And
protests themselves are pretty damn rare.
So, in that very specific set of circumstances, this new way of doing
things might be slightly less time efficient as the current way.
Balance that against the cost of FSM's for 800 competitors (assuming some
dual driver cars) at an average cost of $100 ea (estimating on the lower
side I think). That's $80k at nationals. Factor in the unreasonable
demands the current rule puts on the poor unfortunate bastard that has the
temerity to want to drive a Porche. Factor in that rules that ignore 5%
of competitors aren't acceptable (yes, the 5% is pulled outta my butt).
That equation to me is a no brainer. Accept slightly less efficency for
the 5 competitor protests at nationals and save the $80k and heartache
about unobtainable manuals. Heck, I'd probably lean that way with just
the $80k factor!
Mark
|