American Sedan Forum

American Sedan Forum (http://s91730302.onlinehome.us/forums/index.php)
-   American Sedan General (http://s91730302.onlinehome.us/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=2)
-   -   I think Tom got screwed in T2 (http://s91730302.onlinehome.us/forums/showthread.php?t=3301)

Scott Sanda 09-25-2013 05:26 PM

I think Tom got screwed in T2
 
For what it's worth, AS issues aside, I just watched the end of the T2 race about a dozen times.

I did not see Tom pinch Matt Pullano into the grass or the wall. Unless there is something I am missing in the short period missing when they were exiting 14.

Initial contact looked like Matt moving into Tom, when there was enough room for him to continue straight. It also looked like Tom slowed down, especially when Matt got a bit in front and went sideways.

Unless I'm missing something, that mess should not have been put on Tom to the tune of a suspension.

Should he have moved left to create more gap after the initial contact?

MarkMuddiman 09-25-2013 09:51 PM

I'm with you on that one.

Pullano turns left into Tom 3-4 times going up the straight.
Tom didn't give any ground, but he left more than a car width of pavement.
Dirty pavement, but it was still "racing room."

If that had happened anywhere but directly under S/F at any other race, there probably wouldn't have been a DQ or suspension.
Smells to me like the stewards are trying to avoid a bad image for the club.

Unless, of course, there was previous contact in 14 or evidence we can't see in the footage that Tom was shouldering to the right up the straight.

AS_74 09-26-2013 01:21 AM

You are correct
 
Hey I'm glad someone gets it. That's probably as bad a ruling as I have seen. Wait, did I say seen. No, they wouldn't show be the incident either. I knew what I remembered, and yes I was hit first, second, third ect. Until I lifted and he locked in my right front wheel.

I had planned on protesting Matt but there was an RFA already so I figured I would save the money, and he would get what he deserved.
Since I had bigger fish to fry didn't bother to appeal. Actually I had a big fish frying me. I hope when wise people see this they make it right. If not it wasn't worth the money or time.

A side note to some of the treatment I received at the runoffs.

The CRB added a very large list of changes after the racing season, to take affect Aug.31ish . The runoff results would have been different in many classes.

But it was extremely wrong to all who compete all year long to have major or any change just before the runoffs and after the racing season had ended. I found in the Operation manual this violated the very rules that are there for all to follow, including the CRB. This made it up the chain and all were Not passed in the next fastrack with the exception of a few. One I know of was the 100 lbs taken off the Porsche in T2 after the July 1 deadline. I could have protested that but I figured I would let that one go.He still ran I'm sure 100 light at the runoffs. I'm sure there were more that had an advantage. And for all that, they showed me.

Mark, can you comment as an engineer, about the damage to the boosters while being measured. And what about a spec. that only comes from a third party website, and not the factory. Thanks Tom

Scott Sanda 09-26-2013 07:41 AM

Tom,

I didn't post that as an opportunity for you to guard house lawyer the AS issues. I posted it to say I thought the fault for the T2 crash was placed incorrectly.

Personally, I think you cheat your ass off and finally got caught. All your protestations of innocence and conspiracy just make it look worst.

In car showing you didn't turn your wheel would exonerate you pretty easily.

You could also have asked for the speed cast video. I'm fairly certain the raw take from the turn 14 camera follows you all the way through 14.

You didn't appeal a suspension when it looks to be pretty easy to prove innocence? Then again, 6 month suspension is essentially meaningless, since it ends before your season starts.

Sparky 09-26-2013 12:39 PM

Ask for video you say....
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Scott Sanda (Post 31339)

In car showing you didn't turn your wheel would exonerate you pretty easily.

You could also have asked for the speed cast video. I'm fairly certain the raw take from the turn 14 camera follows you all the way through 14.

You didn't appeal a suspension when it looks to be pretty easy to prove innocence? Then again, 6 month suspension is essentially meaningless, since it ends before your season starts.


In car video ended shortly and did not get the last several laps in either race. Tom did ask for video and was refused. He was told it wasn't available. :banghead:


Don

jimwheeler 09-26-2013 12:49 PM

I am pretty sure the on line video is switched live and what goes on the web is all they have. They don't think they record all cameras continuously for later editing. So, whatever was on the broadcast would be all there is.
wheel

Sparky 09-26-2013 12:58 PM

Agree or Disagree
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by jimwheeler (Post 31345)
I am pretty sure the on line video is switched live and what goes on the web is all they have. They don't think they record all cameras continuously for later editing. So, whatever was on the broadcast would be all there is.
wheel

Jim,

According to the SpeedcastTV video, did Tom drive into Matt or did Matt drive into Tom?

MarkMuddiman 09-27-2013 02:30 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by AS_74 (Post 31337)
... about the damage to the boosters while being measured. And what about a spec. that only comes from a third party website, and not the factory.

I've got several opinions about these situations.
There are a lot of poor practices going on.

First, a rule that just says "no modifications" is at best naive. A good rule will have dimensions that can be measured objectively and reliably and not rely on how various people think things should look or feel.

Second, if the manufacturer of a part won't publish a specification, the sanctioning body shouldn't write a requirement around it. If the manufacturer isn't controlling to the spec it can't be the basis for a good rule.

Third, third-party tools shouldn't be used without tracability to, or certification by, the manufacturer of the part (i.e., Holley). At the very least, the sanctioning body bears the responsibility to establish and verify the tool dimension, taking into account the manufacturer's tolerances and quality control. I don't know that SCCA has not done this. I would like for these situations to be published.

If the numbers published by BLP for the booster length are to be believed, I interpret the relatively large range (+/- 0.010") as implying that this dimension is not a controlled specification by Holley, but only a "typical" range for an as-produced part.
A go- or no-go- gage would be designed to be slightly greater/smaller than the spec dimension, but the sanctioning body will not publish this number to keep people from trying to work to the tool instead of the spec.
In Formula SAE, we specify an air intake restrictor ID and use no-go gages. We do not tell the teams the exact dimension of the gages. Part of this protects the organizers and insectors from variation between the multiple gages used around the world. Even the gage has a tolerance, and this tolerance has to included in the competeitor's advantage (in this case the gage sould be shorter than the spec and gage tolerance).

Assuming the 0.720 +/- 0.010" IS a controlled dimension, the no-go gage could be as large as 0.709". If 0.705" is the BLP tool dimension, then I don't blame anyone for bouncing the parts.

As far as damaging the part in an attempt to measure:
This is an extremely unfortunate result of the realities of the real world.
The gage needs to have a hard finish and square edges to maintain it's dimensions. When the part being measured is considerably softer than the gage there is always a chance of leaving witness marks on the part. If any of the various people that attempt to use the gage are not sufficiently experienced or careful, the chance of damage increases. Its not good, but it happens at every level. I've seen it happen in TransAm, CART and F1.
Again, if the BLP gage is 0.050" shorter than the -0.010" tolerance, any part that goes in (even with slight deformation that I'd estimate at 0.001-0.002") would reasonably be considered out of spec before the damage.

Go- or no-go gages are good tools for production line acceptance, and easy for un-trained operators, and can be easier to get a robust indication when a laboratory measuring device can't fit or will not be tolerant of the field environment. These gages can wear with use, and suffer damage and dimensional changes if mis-handled. But a qualified operator using a calibrated tool to take measurement of the dimension is the best practice. Unfortunately, in our world of volunteers and limited club budgets and multiple regions means that go- no-go gages are generally the most robust methods.

jimwheeler 09-27-2013 08:45 AM

Back to the T2 discussion. I was in impound and didn't see the crash. I also haven't seen the video. Like a lot of these deals, witness reports vary from, "Tom should be banned for a year" to " it was the other guy's fault". When they put the race back on the speed cast site, we can all decide for ourselves whether he got hosed, or not.

Scott Sanda 09-27-2013 09:33 AM

Race was there yesterday, last race of the afternoon


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 01:09 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.