Post by phlash on Mar 12, 2024 19:50:04 GMT -7
Occasionally, a member will bring up the fact that the teching of cars never seems to be a priority, or indeed even implemented anymore. Rules are written but never checked for compliance.
By and large, our races are run without much attention brought to this aspect. Is this due to a lackadaisical attitude? Is there any forethought given to the approach and planning for the process?
Would the overall membership rather not be bothered by it anyway? Is there a prevalent attitude of “Run what ya brung” and just enjoy the experience?
In any instance, answers are required.
First and foremost, we as a group which comprise both the elected officers and overall membership, must come to an understanding and ultimately an agreement, for what can realistically and practically be expected. Overall acceptance is of paramount importance.
At the most basic level, when addressing compliance to rulesets that define each class that the club runs, a consistent implementation of the ‘tech process’ should be adhered to. This basic process takes time to complete satisfactorily. The amount of 'run time' for each class during a race meeting necessitates additional time reserved for the ‘teching’. That alone will add (depending upon the number of participants) a significant amount of time, despite what anyone may tell you. When the previous committee was active, only a small percentage of the classes were actually consistently teched. I could see the very same thing happening again, and it is more a function of human nature, rather than ultimate complacency. When we perform repetitive regimens (teching) over the course of a series, we tend to become inured to the process, indicating compliance has already been examined and achieved at least a few times - - thus possibly missing key elements, - - or infractions in subsequent events.
One conciliatory suggestion was voiced, stating that perhaps only the ‘podium finishers’ should be subject to tech, post-race. Would that satisfy the 7th place finisher who thought that maybe the 6th place he was fighting for, was possibly achieved with an ‘illegal car’? That answer would never be known. This precept, though well-intentioned, is ultimately flawed. Every position up to last place is fought for and deserves the same consideration of ‘legality’.
Enforcement must be equal, and that includes the entire field of entries.
BASIC FRAMEWORK
To enforce rules unilaterally, we must first agree to the methods used when accomplishing the teching or inspection process. Comments have been made at recent race meetings, regarding performing either ‘body-off or body-on’ inspections. Let us therefore address and examine, both the benefits and deficiencies of either option.
‘Body-Off’
BENEFITS - This allows for the most comprehensive and complete inspection of an entrant’s car that can be practically expected. This allows for easier access to and inspection of the pinion and axle gears, as the exact tooth-count can be ascertained. The motor itself can be assessed for compliance. If the need ever arose, a tachometer could be utilized to ensure any ‘RPM’ limits that may be imposed, are indicated as such. Intimate inspection of all axles, bearings, bushings, wheels, tires, motor-pods, chassis integrity, guide and braids are ensured. Even the car body is open for inspection, to ensure the cockpit and driver adhere to the requirements, as well as ensuring that body-mounts and wheel/tire openings are not modified.
LIABILITIES - Due to the nature of this ‘intimate’ inspection, one could legitimately resist what would appear to be an overly-invasive measure to inspect for mandated-parts adherence. While thorough, this process also compromises any ‘performance secrets’ that may have been employed by the entrant. Weight composition and distribution would be among the most apparent and compromising disclosures. Any other imaginative measures that are still within the rules would also be discovered and relinquished. And while not of great concern, yet legitimate nonetheless, the body-screw mounts are weakened with each disassembly. Would that aspect alone disqualify the 'body-off' process? Probably not, but the aforementioned compromising of one’s personal ‘IP’ would certainly be detrimental and effectively undermine their own propects over the course of future competitive events. To make matters worse, they have effectively surrendered their ’secrets’ to their competition. The only way to mitigate this would be for an accomplished, knowledgeable, informed and trustworthy non-participant to carry out this exhaustive inspection process themselves. An even greater time-consuming endeavor!
‘Body-On’
BENEFITS - This allows for a more time-efficient process to undertake a moderately effective assessment of compliance. Obvious components such as chassis/track clearance, fenderwell/tire clearance, and guide/braid adherence can all be observed and accepted or disqualified. In cases where the axle gear is accessible and if applicable, the tooth-count can be determined by it’s color code. The time required for each car inspected is reduced significantly when compared to the ‘body-off’ option, yet time must be allotted nonetheless. This allotment must be factored into the time restrictions for each race meeting, regardless of how many “qualified inspectors” are carrying out the teching process.
LIABILITIES - A significantly diminished assessment of many pertaining parts related in the ‘body-off’ inspection process. Gear and ratio inspection is severely compromised with certain cars, due to the chassis construction and motor layout. While the axle gear may be accessible in certain layouts, it may be impossible to access or assess the tooth-count of the pinion gear matched to it. Most of the components only accessible with the body removed, are not always going to be identifiable within such confining restrictions and limitations. This process has built-in limitations that must be understood before accepted as standard practice. Any deviation from the accepted practice would require extraordinary justification for pursuing the alternative method. Perceived bias can not, and should never be implemented as an acceptable form of justification.
PRACTICALITY
I’ve tried to delineate and explain these methods, allowing for any arguments that may arise. The time is appropriate for the RMSCC membership to address and comprehend the ramifications of complying and enforcing rules written for specific purposes. The ultimate goal is to agree upon an acceptable method that is both promising, yet practical in its implementation.
Please share any thoughts or insights.
By and large, our races are run without much attention brought to this aspect. Is this due to a lackadaisical attitude? Is there any forethought given to the approach and planning for the process?
Would the overall membership rather not be bothered by it anyway? Is there a prevalent attitude of “Run what ya brung” and just enjoy the experience?
In any instance, answers are required.
First and foremost, we as a group which comprise both the elected officers and overall membership, must come to an understanding and ultimately an agreement, for what can realistically and practically be expected. Overall acceptance is of paramount importance.
At the most basic level, when addressing compliance to rulesets that define each class that the club runs, a consistent implementation of the ‘tech process’ should be adhered to. This basic process takes time to complete satisfactorily. The amount of 'run time' for each class during a race meeting necessitates additional time reserved for the ‘teching’. That alone will add (depending upon the number of participants) a significant amount of time, despite what anyone may tell you. When the previous committee was active, only a small percentage of the classes were actually consistently teched. I could see the very same thing happening again, and it is more a function of human nature, rather than ultimate complacency. When we perform repetitive regimens (teching) over the course of a series, we tend to become inured to the process, indicating compliance has already been examined and achieved at least a few times - - thus possibly missing key elements, - - or infractions in subsequent events.
One conciliatory suggestion was voiced, stating that perhaps only the ‘podium finishers’ should be subject to tech, post-race. Would that satisfy the 7th place finisher who thought that maybe the 6th place he was fighting for, was possibly achieved with an ‘illegal car’? That answer would never be known. This precept, though well-intentioned, is ultimately flawed. Every position up to last place is fought for and deserves the same consideration of ‘legality’.
Enforcement must be equal, and that includes the entire field of entries.
BASIC FRAMEWORK
To enforce rules unilaterally, we must first agree to the methods used when accomplishing the teching or inspection process. Comments have been made at recent race meetings, regarding performing either ‘body-off or body-on’ inspections. Let us therefore address and examine, both the benefits and deficiencies of either option.
‘Body-Off’
BENEFITS - This allows for the most comprehensive and complete inspection of an entrant’s car that can be practically expected. This allows for easier access to and inspection of the pinion and axle gears, as the exact tooth-count can be ascertained. The motor itself can be assessed for compliance. If the need ever arose, a tachometer could be utilized to ensure any ‘RPM’ limits that may be imposed, are indicated as such. Intimate inspection of all axles, bearings, bushings, wheels, tires, motor-pods, chassis integrity, guide and braids are ensured. Even the car body is open for inspection, to ensure the cockpit and driver adhere to the requirements, as well as ensuring that body-mounts and wheel/tire openings are not modified.
LIABILITIES - Due to the nature of this ‘intimate’ inspection, one could legitimately resist what would appear to be an overly-invasive measure to inspect for mandated-parts adherence. While thorough, this process also compromises any ‘performance secrets’ that may have been employed by the entrant. Weight composition and distribution would be among the most apparent and compromising disclosures. Any other imaginative measures that are still within the rules would also be discovered and relinquished. And while not of great concern, yet legitimate nonetheless, the body-screw mounts are weakened with each disassembly. Would that aspect alone disqualify the 'body-off' process? Probably not, but the aforementioned compromising of one’s personal ‘IP’ would certainly be detrimental and effectively undermine their own propects over the course of future competitive events. To make matters worse, they have effectively surrendered their ’secrets’ to their competition. The only way to mitigate this would be for an accomplished, knowledgeable, informed and trustworthy non-participant to carry out this exhaustive inspection process themselves. An even greater time-consuming endeavor!
‘Body-On’
BENEFITS - This allows for a more time-efficient process to undertake a moderately effective assessment of compliance. Obvious components such as chassis/track clearance, fenderwell/tire clearance, and guide/braid adherence can all be observed and accepted or disqualified. In cases where the axle gear is accessible and if applicable, the tooth-count can be determined by it’s color code. The time required for each car inspected is reduced significantly when compared to the ‘body-off’ option, yet time must be allotted nonetheless. This allotment must be factored into the time restrictions for each race meeting, regardless of how many “qualified inspectors” are carrying out the teching process.
LIABILITIES - A significantly diminished assessment of many pertaining parts related in the ‘body-off’ inspection process. Gear and ratio inspection is severely compromised with certain cars, due to the chassis construction and motor layout. While the axle gear may be accessible in certain layouts, it may be impossible to access or assess the tooth-count of the pinion gear matched to it. Most of the components only accessible with the body removed, are not always going to be identifiable within such confining restrictions and limitations. This process has built-in limitations that must be understood before accepted as standard practice. Any deviation from the accepted practice would require extraordinary justification for pursuing the alternative method. Perceived bias can not, and should never be implemented as an acceptable form of justification.
PRACTICALITY
I’ve tried to delineate and explain these methods, allowing for any arguments that may arise. The time is appropriate for the RMSCC membership to address and comprehend the ramifications of complying and enforcing rules written for specific purposes. The ultimate goal is to agree upon an acceptable method that is both promising, yet practical in its implementation.
Please share any thoughts or insights.
