2009 Ann. Tech. Insp.

[Joe Foering]

As Matt R. pointed out, who better should know the legality of a car than the drivers competing against it in class.
I firmly believe that it is the responsibility of the entrant to be able to prove the eligibility of his car for the class he enters. He should be able to prove that his vehicle is in compliance with the TTR and GCR and/or SOLO SPEC. Book.
Our emphasis in Tech. has been SAFETY- compliance with and meeting the safety specs as outlined in the TTR; we will answer questions about classing if asked, but, again, our primary focus is safety..
I am often amazed by the fact that many people obviously have not read the TTR (or the GCR or SOLO SPEC. Book for that matter). When it has been suggested on this site that people read the rules (and then ask questions), people have complained like it was asking too much!
My recollection of the incident at Duryea about the non-compliant car was that people wandered about the pits complaining about the cars' illegality, but NO ONE filed a protest in a timely manner even though advised to do so. That's what the protest proceedure is for!
Tech Inspectors for the most part do not have the time nor the training to become full scrutineers.
Since there seems to be a concern about proper classing and you want tech to get involved, as Chief Tech. Insp., I choose to read Section 9.2.1.A- "Eligibility for class entered - ..." to be the responsibility of the entrant. The entrant must prove to the tech. insp. that his vehicle is eligible for the class he enters and that the car is compliant with the TTR, GCR, and SOLO Rules. He can do so by showing the insp. -through the use of the proper rule books- that his car is "legal".
If Tech is going to get involved in seeing that a car is in its' proper class, the entrant will bear the burden of proof (have your proof handy in case you're asked to produce it). Any feedback on this?
Joe Foering , Chief Tech. Inspector
Racer

[mrevilracing]

Hey Joe!!! Glad to hear you're back. I trust you 2 had a wonderful time.

As far as the above mentioned comments.....I'm thinking......the head shaking can commence.....

[gdh57]

As far as the incident at Duryea goes, Joe's description is inaccurate. The other competitor in question was approached by the others in his class about the legality of several items. His response was that he was fully aware he wasn't legal, but that he wasn't competitive in the class he was legal for, so he chose another class where he could be competitive. He indicated that he wasn't going to do anything to correct the problem. So the other competitors in his class discussed the issue between themselves to try to decide what to do, and finally, with great reluctance, decided to file a protest.

When the event officials were approached with the protest, it was delayed until 30 minutes had passed, at which point they said it was too late, and that a protest had to be filed within 30 minutes of the end of the event. So no protest ended up being filed.

At no time was anyone from the tech inspection team approached or expected to have done anything about the problem. The only people involved in the discussion were the other members of his class and the event officials. There was no milling around the pits trying to decide what to do.

At the next event, the competitor in question was embarrassed by the entire thing, and voluntarily moved to a class he was legal for. He also apologized to everyone in his class during the original incident, or at least those he could find at that next event.

Grace

[dspgti]

Thank you Grace for your actual accounting. I thought it went something like that and it always bothered me that it wasn't addressed correctly. That is why I brought it up again. So, now we are all getting educated on the actual rules and procedures. Those are the kind of things that drive some people away. Let's not let it happen again.

Dave Y

[Rich Rock]

What the guy said to me when he was approached about his too-large wheels and tires was something like "Hey I'm not winning the class, what's the big deal?" My response was something like "well you may not be winning, but you are beating some people, and depriving them of the points they are trying to earn. Didn't seem to matter to him.

We gave him until the end of the event to reclassify himself and when we learned that he had left the event without doing that, we decided to file a formal protest. But, 30 minutes had passed since the last run of the day, and at that time everyone believed that we had missed the official deadline.

I was involved because I was running in that class (GT-3) co-driving Carl Hindman's VW. Thanks again, Carl!!!

Rich Rock

[Joe Foering]

I remember speaking with both Rich Rock and Dave Yeager about the Porsche in question and the fact that a protest should be lodged, but I seem to remember a reluctance to file a protest... (these conversations occurred around the start line at the end of the day). When, finally, that decision was made, it was too late. I have no recollection of officials being tardy about accepting the protest. There is a proceedure for filing a protest, i.e. in writing, by a class member, and with a $25 dollar fee- refundable if the protest is upheld (based on Matt Rowe's recent post on "protests", I don't believe this proceedure is still in effect). There were more people aware of the problem than is believed. There has always existed a reluctance to file formal protests, but little reluctance to talk about real or suspected "illegalities". Resolving a problem before it is necessary to file a protest is always better, but, sometimes this can't happen. Whether it is a situation of "people living in glass houses..." or simply not wanting to come forth and file the protest, I don't know... In past discussions on this forum about protests, there was, on the part of some, an inference that there was an antagonism towards those who would file protests. Matt Rowe, in his posting, appears to be encouraging people to be forthcoming with their concerns. Let us see what this season brings.