Howdy,
On Thu, 11 Mar 2004 Ghsharp@aol.com wrote:
> As long as we're using Porsche as an example, since they and other mfrs
> are becoming less and less inclined to give out what they consider to be
> "proprietary information", you might not get an answer by asking the
> dealer to look it up, whether you paid for his time or not. They're
> certainly not legally obligated to give you an answer AFAIK, even if
> you're the car owner (since you're not paying them to repair the car).
> In any case, doing it this way means you're sure to add time into the
> protest process, whether you eventually get the answer you need or not.
Sure. Though of the two options (1, being able to get the FSM or 2,
convincing a dealer to help) I'll bet you'll have more luck with the
dealer. And of course we have this very same issue for many or most of
our protests anyway, since that $2k FSM still doesn't have the info we
need...
If we're gonna start talking about what the manufacturer is legally
obligated to provide a car owner, I bet we'll be into a whole new area of
issues. Is the manufacturer legally obligated to tell you if a part
number comes from a particular car? I wouldn't think so, but I can't say
that I know for sure.
> And Rick is right, IMO...it WILL deter some people from protesting, which
> chips away at the way our competitor-policed system works. And I don't
> think throwing up our hands and saying "we know there's lots of cheating
> going on anyway" justifies radically changing the system unless we know
> for certain that changing it has more benefits to everyone than it adds
> pitfalls.
Well, I don't recall "throwing up our hands and saying..." entering into
this. Rick's initial point seemed to be that risk of protest was a big
part of why people don't cheat now. My point was that while risk of
protest might be a factor, there must also be something else since the
occurance of protests on a percentage basis is so small as to not be much
of a deterrant at all.
This, of course, completely ignores that we're not talking about doing
away with the protest system, we're merely talking about how the
minimum documentation that protest might need would be provided. I'd
submit that if (for instance) a $100 increase in the cost of the protest
stops you from protesting, then you must not have been very interested in
protesting anyway and stopping you isn't a particularly bad thing.
> Don't get me wrong, I don't have a problem with asking the SEB to
> revisit this rule. But IMO depending on having the dealer "look it up"
> as a general rule if the protest requires documentation has lots of
> potential problems involved with it.
I agree. But, in our example of a $2k FSM or one that isn't available at
all, the dealer looking it up seems to be more likely to be the better
choice (to me, obviously).
And we do have other options other than just the dealer. For instance,
the SCCA could buy a copy of the Mitchell service package:
http://www.mitchell1.com/products/repair.asp
(I just happen to be familier with this one, there are others). I've used
this system for BMW's and Toyotas. I have no idea if the BMW data matches
the factory stuff (:-) but it certainly matched (and exceeded) the Bentley
manual I had. The Toyota diagrams appeared to be directly from the parts
cd's that I illegally own as well.
Maybe Rocky's proposed solution isn't the answer. But neither is the
current system, since it requires some competitors to spend an exhorbitant
amount of money to get a manual while others, who can't buy a manual at
all, are forced to run "illegally" (and even if they get a pass, the
protest system in the manual breaks down immediately). It also, by
definition, requires a high amount of "overlap of documentation"... which
even in the case of a $100 manual is an opportunity for us to help our
current competitors.
Mark
|