Like Tom says, seems like inspectors often have "suggestions" at tech. I
think the
log book has helped things as I have heard "I'd like to see this changed next
time
you run" and had it noted in the log book. This has given me time to do a proper
job, rather than jury-rig something on the salt just to please an inspector. I'd
rather "fix it than fight it" unless I thought it was just plain ridiculous
(this
has never happened) Also, I have never been given a "pass" on an item thought
to be
a real hazard. The closest was my first inspection. I had been told no seat
brace
would be needed as one of the horizontal roll bars was only 2" from the seat
back,
and thus, could not possibly tip over backward in a crash. WRONG! Flunked tech
with
admonition "don't bring it back until it's fixed" Well, a pre-dawn raid on a
Wendover grocery store's trash (?) pile provided a bread rack with 1" box
steel. A
borrowed drill moter, handful of nuts & bolts and a few muffler clamps solved
the
problem (although the seat seemed to grow Mickey Mouse ears) Point here is
follow
the book as best you can and there will be fewer problems in the tech line. Be
wary
of any advice that starts out "don't worry about that....." As for personal
interpretations by inspectors, I have never seen ANY racing organization that
didn't
have opinionated tech inspectors . Personally, I have found SCTA and USFRA
inspectors to be critical, but fair. With a production car there is a lot less
room
for interpretation (yes, I DO door panels!) than a streamliner. Case in point,
a few
years ago, a well-known streamliner pilot-tech inspector said "I don't mean to
insult you, but this looks like a street car" Exactly the point of Production
class.
Ed
C/GT #128
"Thomas E. Bryant" wrote:
> Skip,
> I have to jump in here.... I haven't been through many inspections that
> haven't made me aware of some shortcomings in my car. This is one
> advantage of having many different inspectors view the vehicle. Each
> person looks a a car in a little different way, consequently, a
> different item caught, or suggestion made. Most generally the
> suggestions make sense, though I have had some that I didn't agree with.
> Suggestions are just that, suggestions, not law.
>
> I have been on the rules making committees, it is a tough job. I think
> that it is impossible to make rules that are clear to everyone.
> Personally I believe that quality inspectors are the answer. Also the
> log is a very useful addition to our sport. Most suggestions and
> infractions of the rules (unless they are major items) are logged and
> the entrant is given time to address the problem.
>
> I am not sure I understood the comment about oxygen. If you are
> suggesting breathing oxygen in the race car, I have a better suggestion.
> George Fields had a system that brought in air from outside the vehicle
> into his helmet. A much safer idea. In case of a fire, oxygen can become
> a major concern. I understand that oxygen was a major contributor to the
> death of Bob Herda, years ago, involving fire.
>
> Tom,
>
> Skip Higginbotham wrote:
> >
> > Hi Team,
> > Well, I have read all the rulebook comments and I'm really going to put my
> > foot in it now.
> > I have a basic problem with the rule book.
> >
> > The problem that I have is that it is designed to give the inspector too
> > much latitude in interpretation. Further, changes that are made to it do
> > not tend to clarify or definitize areas that cause problems during
>inspection.
> >
> > As a result (I think), for three inspections in a row, I get complained to
> > about things that aren't even in the rule book and on top of that some
> > inspectors who wouldn't design a streamliner that way I did try to
> > influence future changes or additions to be made the way they currently do
> > things in another association (type of racing). Interpretations include
> > disapproval (verbally) of: Halon in the cockpit; steel rings around lug
> > bolts for steel wheels; warning about my helmet which is much stronger than
> > many that are allowed to run, etc. In most of this, no notes were placed in
> > the log book! And no changes were made to the "book". The exception was
> > Oxygen breathing systems. That was put in the book. Never mind that
> > addition of oxygen to the drivers body at a density altitude of 6 to 8
> > thousand feet makes perfect medical sense.
> >
> > I do not want to complain and complain and not do something....so.....
> >
> > I would like to join in the rules making process and participate in
> > clarifying every section of the "book" to make it easier for the inspector
> > to do his/her job. And somewhere along the way make it possible for a car
> > owner/builder to have a fighting chance of making it through inspection at
> > a Bonneville meet without unnecessary heartburn. Necessary heartburn caused
> > by not meeting the rules, as written (not just as interpreted) is just fine.
> >
> > I guess that the door panel discussion just made me flip!
> >
> > Dan, can I help somehow?
> >
> > Skip in central Texas, (where the heat may have finally gotten to me).
> > I'm trying to be productive here!
|