Autocrossing & Roadracing Suspension Setup for Track Corvettes, Camber/Caster Adjustments, R-Compound Tires, Race Slicks, Tips on Driving Technique, Events, Results
Sponsored by:
Sponsored by:

2010 SCCA ProSolo Finale & Solo Nationals-Lincoln, Ne

Thread Tools
 
Search this Thread
 
Old 10-14-2010, 11:18 AM
  #61  
TedDBere
Melting Slicks
 
TedDBere's Avatar
 
Member Since: Jun 2002
Location: Charleston South Carolina
Posts: 3,070
Likes: 0
Received 4 Likes on 4 Posts

Default

Originally Posted by bartekb93
Where can one find official findings of the protest appeal committee?
It'll be posted in a future Fastrack publication. I'm interested to hear what happenned.

Not the way I wanted to move up two positions...but hard to argue that running a wider front tire isn't a performance enhancement.

My guess, and it's just a guess, is that the fender was pushed out due to the running of the 285s, not to make room for them. 285s apparently rub on the front of a GT3, but if you're willing to put up with the rubbing to win why can't you run them? I guess the liner not being connected or inserted into the fender lip was used to to prove something had moved on both sides of the car.

We'll learn more when the Fastrack is posted.
Old 10-14-2010, 12:20 PM
  #62  
Solofast
Melting Slicks
 
Solofast's Avatar
 
Member Since: Aug 2004
Location: Indy IN
Posts: 3,003
Received 85 Likes on 71 Posts

Default

Originally Posted by TedDBere
My guess, and it's just a guess, is that the fender was pushed out due to the running of the 285s, not to make room for them. 285s apparently rub on the front of a GT3, but if you're willing to put up with the rubbing to win why can't you run them?
Rolling of fender lips for additional tire clearance has never been allowed in SCCA stock classes. Doesn't matter how it got there (whether tires did the modification or the owner did it, it doesn't matter) the fender lips were apparently not the same on this car as it was delivered from the factory. End of story. Pretty simple protest and an not a chance in #eLL that the protest would have not have been upheld. I've worked protest at nationals a number of times and we'd have booted the car in a minute. Sorry, but the guy who bothered to appeal this was wasting his time from the get-go.

When we dq'd cars for obvious things like this, we carefully explained to the violator what he did wrong and explained is appeal rights but then candidly let him know what his chances were for a successful appeal. Seldom did anybody appeal and in the 5 years that I did protest at nationals we were overturned on appeal only once.

If it wasn't a measurable performance advantage, we often assessed a penalty in time or simply upheld the protest, but found that the infraction wasn't a performance gain and let the results stand. The person was told not to come back with the infraction and that was pretty much it. The results were published so that everybody knew that wasn't allowed and we moved on. To get disqualified the infraction had to be both an advantage and it had to be pretty blatant. IMHO this was both and frankly I'm suprised that it got this far.
Old 10-14-2010, 04:40 PM
  #63  
waktasz
Pro
 
waktasz's Avatar
 
Member Since: Jun 2008
Location: Philly region SCCA
Posts: 583
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts

Default

Stupid Porsche owner. Sucks for GJ to have to lose like that. He would have placed well regardless.



Quick Reply: 2010 SCCA ProSolo Finale & Solo Nationals-Lincoln, Ne



All times are GMT -4. The time now is 11:42 PM.