Further to Steve Panas' posting regarding his resignation, and the subsequent post by Nick Roads where he states he wasn't aware of the protest, I think I should publish the reasons behind the action I took at Snetterton. So, below is what I have sent to Richard Hollis for inclusion in the next Snails Pace.
Protest by Trevor Williams against Whitwell Motorsport: Reg 5.7.1 line 3 – "Removal or addition of material in the induction and exhaust ports is permitted"
The basic facts are that since the first races of the season at Silverstone there as been discussion between various people about Whitwell's and others cylinder heads. Not being an engineer, other people within the club explained what was thought was being done to the cylinder heads. My immediate thought was that, if true, this was in breach of Technical Regulations 5.1, namely, the "catch-all" regulation, namely "it should be clearly understood that if the following texts do not clearly specify that you can do it you should work on the principle that you can not."
Over the following weeks, I had further discussions with a few members of the club regarding this matter, and I looked at the specific regulation regarding cylinder heads (Reg. 5.7.1, line 3). At our races at Cadwell Park (during the evening of 30th May 2009) I mentioned my interpretation of the regulation to Phil Myatt (as Tech Rep) and he subsequently raised my concern with both the Technical Committee and the Board. My understanding of the outcome of these discussions is that the Board chose to do nothing about my concerns, and, apart from Phil, in his capacity as Technical Representative, didn't even contact me to discuss the matter.
The Board saw fit to ask "off the record" legal opinion on the meaning of the regulation, and on the basis of that opinion, believed that even if a protest was successful, an appeal to the MSA would find in the appellants favour. I am also led to believe that the board approached our Championship scrutineer and asked him to get the MSA's opinion on the matter. By these actions, the board reinforced my belief that the cylinder heads breached regulation 5.1.
Phil suggested that the affected teams should be allowed to run in the 24 Hour Race with their (now illegal) engines but with a significant weight penalty. I was prepared to accept this compromise, but the teams all believed that they were legal. Basically, they and the Board were saying "protest, because we believe we will win!".
Both Phil and Aubrey were put in a difficult position by me raising my concerns, Phil because he could benefit in the championship, and Aubrey because he has been using a Whitwell engine all year.
Two weeks before the 24 Hour Race, I contacted Steve Wood, (our scrutineer) to raise my concerns with him directly. This was the only time I discussed my concerns with any race official that I knew would be on duty at the event.
Why did I choose Whitwell as the target of the protest? Because they were the only team I could be near 100% certain would be running the illegal heads. Nothing more! I could quite easily have chosen one of the other teams I am led to believe were running the illegal cylinder heads.
What involvement did Steve Panas have in my protest? Absolutely none!! It was always my decision to lodge a protest as I felt the regulations were being broken. All Steve did was ask that I don't lodge the protest at the end of the race in order to save confusion over the result. I told him that it was always my intention to lodge the protest after the start of the first qualifying session, in order to force a decision before the start of the race, and if successful to allow enough time for the affected teams to rectify the illegality or take a weight penalty.
If any members of the Whitwell team have a problem with me being a member of this club, then that is their problem, not mine. Use a car that complies with the regulations.
I have for a long time joked that there are a few technical regulations that a competitor could protest another on, for instance, the regulation that states the font, size and colour of the driver's names. If the names don't comply, any protest would be successful and result in exclusion. True, but even I consider that would be incredibly petty as what possible advantage would that give one competitor over the other?
However, if I believe that a competitor is gaining an unfair advantage by breaching the Technical Regulations, I will ALWAYS do something about it. We are meant to be playing on a level field!!
Also, below is the exact wording of my protest
The cylinder heads of competitor number 84 in the 2CVParts.com Championship are in breach of Technical Regulation 5.7.1 Permitted Modifications line 3, namely, "Removal or addition of material in the induction and exhaust ports is permitted.", and Technical Regulation 5.1, namely, "The following Technical Regulations are set out in accordance with the MSA specified format and it should be clearly understood that if the following texts do not clearly specify that you can do it you should work on the principle that you can not"
The grounds for this protest are as follows:
The regulation as written allows for removal or addition of material
The competitor has added material to the ports and removed material from the ports which is a breach of regulation 5.7.1
Regulation 5.7.1 does not clearly specify that the competitor can do both removal and addition of material, and therefore by doing both the competitor is in breach of regulation 5.1