Club, 2CVers.... or maybe just straight to Trevor Williams for this one....
Can someone please explain to me how 4 cars can be found to be underweight at the end of today's race and have no sanction applied? According to my reading of the blue book, these cars should be excluded as a minimum, from the event and not just the first race. Furthermore there is the option to apply a points deduction equivalent to 2 race wins.
I'm actually not even aware who all four drivers are so I hope this post will be received in the spirit intended. When looking to spend money preparing a car for the 24hrs I am concerned that rules that are quite clear (on this particular subject at least) are either not consistently applied, or apparently completely ignored.
What is the precedent from this? Is it ok for competitors to field an underweight car?
N
I'm not going to comment on this, as I was an official of the meeting, other than to suggest that perhaps Mervyn might want to explain what happened in Snails Pace rather than on an open forum.
I would however suggest you re-read the Blue Book section again, as your understanding of the penalty that is applied for technical infringements, specifically the meaning of the word Event, is incorrect.
Sorry if this isn't what you wanted to hear
Cheers
Trevor
Odd
It stated quite clearly in the programme that the championship is to be held over 9 rounds at 5 events? therefore surely Nick has a point about what the event is.. Or is this another area where the BARC wording contradicts itself?
Don't quite understand Trevor's preference for clarification (eventually) in Snails Pace rather than debate in 'an open forum'. Sounds as if Nick's concerns deserve a proper airing. Given the intense competition for championship points any suggestion that they might have been unfairly acquired (the merest suggestion) requires quick and decisive action. Surely?
Frank
Read my post... I will not comment on this as I was an official of the meeting. I do know what happened, so does Mervyn. In my opinion, better done via snails pace. You can debate this to your hearts content on here, but I will respectfully remind anyone who is a MSA licence holder of the Social Media Guidelines....
In my opinion, any competitor who was under the minimum weight was very lucky!! And at least three of them that I know of were told that on Saturday evening.
Shorty, put your real name on here and I will reply to your post. If you won't post your name, I will refer you back to the Blue Book....
Mervyn has told me he has no idea why or how the competitors escaped penalty. It's a black and white rule. just like the one on gear knobs.
Shorty btw is actually his real name.
Alec, you had to start discussing my nob again :-\
You mean lucky, Trevor, in the sense that they broke the rules and got away with it? Allegedly, of course, bearing in mind social media guidelines...
Alec, with all respect to Mervyn, in my opinion either he is being a little economical with the truth or you have misundertsood him! It was explained to him by the Clerk of the Course.
I am not prepared to go into print with the details of what I know happened, but will gladly explain what happened, and the processes that should have happed to anyone who wants to hear them.
Also Alec, eligibility exclusions are not always as black and white as you appear to believe, again, reading the pertinent section of the Blue Book would show you that!
Frank, in words of one syllable..... Yes! Though one of them would have had a reasonable argument for not having the penalties applied!
Trevor
Alec
In that case....
The penalties available to the Clerk of the Course for technical eligibility are covered by C.3.5.1a to C3.5.1c
The 2CV Championship Regs state that for infringements of the technical regs, the provisions of C3.5.1a and b will apply. They also state that for more serious infingements the provisions of C3.5.1 c will also apply.
3.5.1. Unless the regulations for a Championship
specify a different penalty, any Competitor in a Race or
Kart Championship whose vehicle is excluded from the
results in accordance with 3.1.1 or 3.1.2, will be subject
to the following Championship penalties. These will be
applied whether the Championship is for Drivers,
Entrants or manufacturers.
(a) The event will be counted as one of the events
contributing to their total Championship score
and
(b) The Competitor will be excluded from the event,
forfeiting all Championship points, prize money
and other awards and
(c) The Competitor will forfeit a total of points equal
to those obtained from two first places, even if
this penalty results in a minus total of points.
For the definition of the word "event" you have to look at section B of the Blue Book, namely
Event. A single activity with its own results or one part
or round of a series of events comprising a
Championship. It may comprise: free practice and/or
qualifying practice sessions; heats and a final; or be
divided in some similar manner.
The reason why you would normally be excluded from just the results of the one race are to allow you the chance to recify the non conformance and potentially compete in the second race at the meeting.
Since I was one of originally 6(or 7?) cars pulled and only made it above the limit by the silliest of margins(scale varied between 0.0 and 0.5 above legal) in the 2nd weighing I am surely also entitled to stating my opinion.
At the time I found it highly unlikely that so many 2CV's would be underweight and a downright shame if it would lead to exclusion of anyone, but in retrospect(yes yes, having gotten off the hook its easy to say) rules are called rules for a reason, else the whole book should be renamed to "technical racing guidelines".
[removed at chairman's request]
I find it odd that the race-director did not get called in, or that the scrutineers made sure a very thorough examination and re-calibration of the scales was performed, but that is obviously all within the discretion of the person(s) responsible for the technical sign-on? There is now a precedent set for the future, which is not very nice...
Having said this, on the 2nd weighing on Sat afternoon my car was 656-656.5 kg, on Sunday morning(ie car untouched from previous evening) we put in almost precisely 8 litres of petrol = 5.8-6 kg then rolled down to the scales and(incl helmet) did the whole thing again. Now the scales showed 664-665.5 DEPENDING on how the car was aligned within the white markers. Ie if the car was always within the white stripes but angled slightly different the weight shown went apart with as much as 1.5 kg...not to mention that if the weighing was correct on the Sat, then an added 6kg would mean that the car should've weighed in at 662-662.5 so something is/was definitely iffy with said scales.
For me the logical conclusion is that ones car should never to be closer to the limit(if pre-weighing and extrapolating) than 3-4 kg's, else you may find yourself being a very UNlucky person the next time we all get pulled onto the scales.
Christer
Christer,
Your last sentance is the best piece of advice I hve read regarding the car's weight...EVER!! Thank You!
However, I must correct you on a few mattesr regarding your exclusion from the race last year..
1) Paul R was NOT IN ANY WAY involved with the decision to exclude you. In fact, as far as I remember, he was attending a wedding!!!!
2) It does not matter whether the infringement is performance enhancing or not (as I have explained elsewhere)
3) Your ineligibility was dealt with in accordance with the Blue Book, and the decision to exclude was taken by a senior International Clerk of The Course.
On the subject of calibration of the scales, they are callibrated and the prescence of an in date certificate is always checked for at the start of the meeting
Cheers
Trevor
Trevor
Absolutely agree with you and I understand the definition of the word event. I have no problem with any of that. What isn't clear is your statement that eligability exclusions aren't black and white. There cannot be a rule clearer.
I am quite confident that the competitors underweight were underweight unknowingly (this was certainly the case for me in respect of Christers car. Almost very embarassing) but it's inexcusable.
The rule is the rule. 3.5.1b and if one is found to be illegal one must take the appropriate penalty.
If we the club feel the penalty is too harsh then we can change that within our regs. I have no problem with that either. The problem i have is The club or the BARC failing to enforce the rules. Thats all. They aren't my rules I just compete within them.
And unlike you (with your gear knob) if I was beaten by a car that i knew to be illegal i would not protest it. However if a car is found to be illegal by the scrutineer i expect it to receive the appropriate penalty.
Perhaps i'm too old fashioned.
P.S your 3 points to Christer (that is his real name too)
I agree and you are spot on with all of them.
Alec
Give me a call on 07889 647270
Its not my place to explain here the whys and wherefors as to what did or didnt happen.....
My point here is that if Paul R., Phil M. or Mark T. would have been present also this year I am fairly sure the weight-issue would have turned out differently than it did, since neither is one who hesitate to step in and will not back down, the social consequences be ........
What I am most curious about is what will be the lessons learned for the club from this incident? Since right now there is a very obvious uncertainty introduced for the future ie : will the uncertainty remain unchanged, will the book be re-written giving some guidelines on acceptable exceptions(ie fix ABCD before next race, ELSE get DQ) or will there be much more strict controls during scrutineering to ensure less likelyhood of tech. infringements?
Imho the least desirable option is to move forward without some change(s) compared to current situation.
This being clubracing and me being swedish I lean to have some soft interpretation(as done this WE) also written down to make sure its then explicit ie -> "In case of minor infringements these can be taken up for an immediate majority vote amongst all active participants".
I think I may have heard my name mentioned somewhere so perhaps this is a good moment as your chairman to put the record straight.
I can only say to all of you that I was very perturbed to be told after the race on Saturday that some cars had been scrutineered, found to be underweight and that no penalty had been applied. I did not hear this directly from any MSA official and so I took this up with the Clerk of the Course personally as soon as I could. He was not aware of any scrutineering reports to this effect and told me he would investigate. Later a deputy clerk telephoned me and told me that he had investigated the matter and he considered he could take no further action at the circuit. He did not tell me why the scrutineer or scrutineers concerned had not reported their findings to him although he did say that without written reports and given that the cars had already left parc ferme he could do nothing more. In other words (just in case there is any doubt) I was aware that no report had been made but not the reason why. I asked him if it was possible to extend the time for individual protests so that an aggrieved driver could make a protest and I was told he could not do that. It is true that I have heard talk around the paddock as to the reasons why this debacle seems to have occurred but in the present situation repeating them or placing any formal reliance upon what is nothing more than hearsay would in my opinion be inappropriate and damaging to any proper investigation.
One competitor in particular has approached me and suggested that I take it on myself to issue the penalties which the alleged offences would have merited. As members will be aware none of your board nor myself as chairman have power under any rule to issue race penalties of any kind. Given our proximity to the competitors it is almost incredulous to suggest that we should do so nor is it my style to approach these things with all guns blazing but without knowing all the facts.
I have also been asked in an email to confirm in front of witnesses that I did not try to intervene or influence the decision as to whether the findings of the scrutineer were reported or not to the Clerk. I would like to thank Alec as reigning champion for his concern to ensure the rules are properly applied and for the opportunity to state that I have indeed intervened and tried to use as much influence as possible to get a proper report sent through to the Clerk so that the correct and appropriate action can be taken. I can however also say that I have not spoken to any of the scrutineers about the incident nor do I know any of them.
Neither myself nor your board are happy with the explanations that we have received from BARC or the MSA officials and on the suggestion of the Clerk of the Course we have asked the Championship Stewards to convene, investigate fully and to take such action as they deem appropriate using the powers available to them. I trust that this will prove to the members that we take these matters extremely seriously and will pursue them when necessary.
Naturally a board member will post any developments as they occur.
If however you have any comments you would like to make please email me directly at
[email protected]
Mervyn
Thanks for posting that! If my comment in any way inferred that you were not being truthful in what you told Alec, be assured that was never my intention!
Lets hope that it gets sorted out whatever the outcome is!
Cheers
Trevor
Are there reliable facilities to weigh cars at Brands Hatch?
There used to be one there. I think it was at the Clearways end of the back of the pits where they do noise tests. Not sure - it was a long time ago, but someone else may remember.