Jump to content

Race Report from the OK Corral (that's Hallett!)


Guest ChumpCar
 Share

Recommended Posts

Guest ChumpCar

Greetings, Chumps!

It's our first report from Hallett Motor Racing Circuit! The weather is PERFECT! There's a light, cool breeze coming in from the south blowing over the green, rolling hills of North-Central Oklahoma. The current temp is 80 degrees and we're expecting a high of 90 degrees today. Tonight it's supposed to dip to 69 degrees (quite comfy!), with 91 the expected high tomorrow. Not a cloud in the sky and we're rolling the cars off pre-grid RIGHT NOW!

Eighteen cars are taking the green... and we have 111 drivers participating. It's a 24-hour race, so most teams increased their rosters from the minimum 4 drivers to 5-6... with a couple of teams bringing 8 drivers to share the driving. The cars range from SHO Taurus to Volvo 740 to Opel Sedan. And, yes, we have two (2) EC cars in the race! That's the new "Exception Class" where we allow non-crap can cars to come and see what ChumpCar is all about. One of our EC cars is a Spec Miata and the other is an ITE RX-7. They should find a great mix of cars to run with on this demanding, technical 1.8-mile track. Eleven turns, most are slightly cambered, with lots and lots of elevation changes... and REALLY late apexes that open up into fast exits. The small-bore cars with a good power band should do very well at this track.

We're on yellow lap # 8 before the start (we had a car drop an exhaust pipe on the track on yellow lap #2... geez! gotta clean that up!) , so I would anticipate that the green is going... to... come... out... right... about ---

NOW! GREEN FLAG AT 12:05PM AND WE ARE RACING AT HALLETT MOTOR RACING CIRCUIT!

Okay, everyone start singing...

Oklahoma, where we're all goin' racing through the night.

Where the brakes smell sweet,

When you're going in deep.

And you're blinded by some damn headlight!

Oklahoma...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Hi-Tech Redneck

I made coffee for everyone. My court ordered community service is now complete.

Many thanks from the tower, get back Joe-Joe!! High octane, leaded, hard core, truck driver grade, coffee, awesome!! Good stuff!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest caseyz

Hey John, Can you please explain (with details) why the #1 care was claimed?

Yes John please do explain. Since you probably won't get a straight answer I will fill in the details as I was crew for the #1 car and a driver in the #69, same team same cars. The cars in question were in no way spec miatas. I race them with SCCA at nationals and build them so I know them very well. Both the 1 and the 69 are without a doubt the biggest chunks of mazda junk that ever had the fortune of seeing a race track. Both cars had stock (and leaky) 150K plus motors in them, tranny's, etc. They were missing hoods, bumper covers, trunk deck lids, etc. The 69 also had a very blown shock that we didn't know about till we got out in the race. The 1 car had a mazdaspeed sway bar and some terrible POS aftermarket shocks the previous owner had installed. Those items were deemed out of bounds and the 1 car was assessed a 12 lap penalty before the race began.

The drivers for the 1 car were all SCCA national level drivers in SM and other SCCA classes. One of the drivers is a prior track record holder in SM at Hallett. The 69 car had three relatively inexperienced drivers and me. I was asked to stand in for a driver who fell ill the day of the race. The long and short of this story is that the 1 car had two things going for it. The first thing was an outstanding group of drivers. Two of the drivers have several thousand laps at Hallett as it is their (and my) home track and we have been racing there 10-12 times a year for several years. The second thing the 1 car had going for it was luck. They didn't crash, and nothing on the car broke. We were concerned about a CV Boot that decided to break, but we had no spares so we just carried on. The 69 car on the other hand had several problems. During the evening at a scheduled stop the same individual that DQ'd and attempted to claim the 1 car decided that "our lights were too bright". He refused to let us run the two forward facing halogen lights mounted on the bumper. Therefore we had to use two fog lights and two halogens aimed out to catch the apex. We told him it was dangerous to not run forward facing lights but he would have none of it. He said we could only have 4 lights and the two that actually worked were too bright. Never mind the fact that half the field had more than 4 lights (just as bright) and nothing was done about it. The lack of lighting contributed to me putting the 69 into the tire wall hard in T1 about 1AM. It took us 18 laps to get it back together. The 69 car also had a clutch slave cylinder failure at about 6:30 AM and it took us about 45 minutes to try to fix it and we ended up running the rest of the race in 3rd gear because we had no clutch.

Now to my point above. The 1 car got lucky and had no mechanicals. Further, I turned similar lap times to the 1 car in the 69 but there was no action taken against the 69 car, just the 1. The reason given for DQ'ing the 1 car was that it was "too fast". Never mind a similar driver in the 69 posted the same times. It just so happened that the one car had a better overall driver line up and no mechanicals. Also, the decision to DQ the 1 car was against the advice given by the chump car head of tech at the track. He said he had been trying to tell them they were wrong since 8am. The race director wanted none of that. We also offered to tear down the motors ourselves and produce any parts they wanted for inspection. Again, the race director wanted none of it. If he says it is "too fast" then that is it. All evidence to the contrary even when we offered to do the work for him.

Finally, as evidence of the fact that the 1 car was "too fast" the race director offered up that the SM lap record at Hallett was a 1:33.2 and therefore if our times were close to that we must be cheating. Never mind the fact that SM's broke that record at Hallett about 6 years ago. The current SCCA track record for SM is actually in the 1:28's, way faster than the track record he stated but provided no evidence of. I even offered to pull up mylaps.com on my phone to show them the official SCCA results and records. Again, he wanted nothing to do with it. The fact of the matter is an uninformed and arbitrary decision was made because it just looked bad to have a car win by 60 laps.

Now, regarding the "claim". Our team was informed that not only had the 1 car been DQ'd but that it was being claimed as well. Note there was no reason for the claim other than it was "too fast." Note that they did not attempt to claim the 69 car even though it ran similar times with me driving the car. Of course we in the 69 were also 60 laps down due to our mechanical issues.

Something else to note is the "just a big jerk rule" isn't in play here. Our team owner has promoted Chump car to many drivers. He has even gone to the extent of going to lemons races to try to recruit people. Also, we never had the opportunity to be a "Big jerk" as the 1 car was black flagged at hour 23:45 and before our owner/driver had a chance to say anything he was informed that the car was DQ'd and it was being claimed.

Lastly, to make sure what happened next is clear, I want to lay it out. We were faced with our car being essentially stollen from the team with no recourse or buying it back for $1500. I wouldn't have paid anyone $250 for that total POS. Nothing on the car is anything anyone would ever build a real race car out of. It was junk. Therefore the team elected to take the car from impound and put it back on the trailer and take it home. Please note at no time did any official ask us to stop or attempt to prevent us from taking it. You should ask Chump Car why that is...

The awards ceremony was after all this mess and even though the 69 car podium'ed none of the drivers elected to be awarded the trophies as we all considered the race as being fixed. We were promoted to 2nd after the 1 car was DQ'd and we knew it was a sham and knew that we only deserved 3rd place. None of us wanted to be associated with a race that was fixed.

I know many of you are probably thinking we are just a bunch of cheating SM drivers and we got what we deserved. I have no way to disprove that as there was zero due process and we were not allowed to present any evidence to prove otherwise. For those that may think that I just caution you to not do a really good job (or get lucky) in a Chump car race. You will be DQ'd and they will attempt to take your car. I hope no one else has to go through this as it ruined what was a fun weekend for a lot of people.

In case this post is deleted I will shortly be posting a follow up (with the same text) at specmiata.com.

Feel free to ask any questions here and I will answer to the best of my ability.

Thanks,

Casey

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Greetings gang, from the IT7 (not ITE!) RX-7 in the EC class (ESMF Racing). We had a TREMENDOUS TIME this weekend! Not having done a lot of endurance racing we prepped as best we could but obviously have a lot to learn from our normal sprint race routine. Hats off to the Chumpster staff for welcoming us and making it work.

To answer a few comments, the EC class cars this weekend were among the fastest out there..................when we weren't fighting stupid stuff we should have thought about before dipping into the endurance arena. Our transponder had problems on the warm up laps and we did not get it resolved till 15 laps down. The unit has worked flawlessly for three years including two recent race weekends over this summer. Whooda thunk it! Also my POS-7 is an EC class car in theory only, having more in common with the typical chumpcar vehicles than my fellow brand "S" competitors. My good buddy Krekster, told me to just take the glass out and run it as a chumpcar. He was right it seems. Also if you check the updates during the first six hours we were constantly making positions with every driver change. When the car was on track (!) we had no issues with moving up the leaderboard and had our hopes set high.

Then it got dark................................................

And every little thing started to unravel! We ended up losing an o-ring seal on one of the rotor housings ending our race at 4:30 this morning.

We'll be back for sure!!!!!!! This is too much fun to keep to 500 dollar crap cans!!!!!! John and Eric, I'll preach the gospel as best I can to "those other guys" and see if we can keep this EC thing going!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Lastly, to make sure what happened next is clear, I want to lay it out. We were faced with our car being essentially stollen from the team with no recourse or buying it back for $1500. I wouldn't have paid anyone $250 for that total POS. Nothing on the car is anything anyone would ever build a real race car out of. It was junk. Therefore the team elected to take the car from impound and put it back on the trailer and take it home.

Casey

WTF!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In case this post is deleted I will shortly be posting a follow up (with the same text) at specmiata.com.

Feel free to ask any questions here and I will answer to the best of my ability.

Thanks,

Casey

Why post to the Spec Miata forum? they aren't Chumpcar - seems like sour grapes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest caseyz

Why post to the Spec Miata forum? they aren't Chumpcar - seems like sour grapes.

I think if you had been through what our team went though you would feel like sour grapes as well. The reason I posted it there is that site is a community of several thousand racers that also race Chump Car, Lemons, etc. People like to get feedback from those they know and trust regarding different racing organizations.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Roger Bryan

A 60 lap lead IS extreme.... BUT not being there its impossible to fathom how that happened.

Well lets put it this way 5 really good drivers (with a lot of track experience at Hallett in alot of different cars) racing against people (probably 60%) that had never been there and then they let people race that have no racing experience (probably 20%) at all and then couple that with doing it at night! 60+ plus laps was EZ even with a Crap Can Miata. Roger and yes I was one of the sour grape ones and damn proud of it!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks for the detailed response John!

We had a blast!

As for the miata.. I guess I am no expert but it was an extremely clean car. As for the rest of the items.. The car was superloud making impossible to get any sleep. Don't you know it is quite time after 10pm :)

I have mixed feelings about allowing the team to take the car home, however I am glad a standard has been set.

Ryan Rusher

Driver - Car #28

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest krisdahl

These are the facts that were weighed, discussed and used towards a decision that resulted in a claiming action against the #1 General Yee Racing Miata.

I totally agree with the decision.

I'm sorry, but you simply can not find a running 1999 Miata for $500. I know because I've been looking for several years. It is pretty hard to find a running Miata motor alone for $500.

If you can get a 1999 Miata even for $650, I'll take two.

Cheating can also be controlled by more aggressive claiming--why not allow competitors to claim, but at a higher amount? I'd support a mandatory claim of the winning car. Or mandatory claim of any car finishing the top 3 in two or more events. This works in a lot of circle track racing (hornets, etc.).

I agree it sounds like sour grapes of the #1/#69 team. If the car supposedly not even worth $250, why not jump at the chance to take the money? It just doesn't add up. How about some documentation? Where was the car advertised? Pictures of the busted-up and broken down parts of the car?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest caseyz

Good day to all. We've just gotten packed up and some of us are at the airport and some of us are on the road to Putnam Park, thus the delay in getting a post on the Forum. I'll give you the facts as ChumpCar saw them, without any additional commentary.

* The car-in-question (car #1) was described by its owner as a 1999 Mazda Miata (1.8L) that the team stated they purchased for $650.

It was not a 99. Both cars were NA cars, one a 1.6 and one a 1.8. You don't even know what year the car was! The car received a technical and safety inspection and was assessed a penalty AT THAT TIME. You have yet to explain why the first penalty was changed.

* The team entered a second car (#69) which, I believe, is a 1995 Miata (1.8L) that ran with ChumpCar at Texas Motor Speedway. At TMS, the #69 car received penalty laps for SM suspension components. When the car was presented to ChumpCar at Hallett, ChumpCar noted that all SM components had been removed from the car (replaced with stock components). We congratulated the team for making the right move and removing the performance enhancing pieces that originally raised the value of the car well-over $500. In its current stock format, the #69 received no penalty laps.

Incorrect. The 69 was a 93' 1.6 not a 1.8. Again, please explain the discrepancy.

* The issues, problems and mechanical failures detailed by the team regarding the #69 car are not in question in this discussion, nor have they anything to do with the claiming action against the #1 car.

Again you have no command of the facts. The issues with the 69 show that IF the car had not had mechanical issues it may have been many laps ahead as well. You are not addressing that point.

* When the #1 car was reviewed in technical inspection, it was found to have aftermarket shocks, springs, bars and full-chassis bushings. These items were noted on the tech sheet. When asked about the car's engine, the team manager responded that the engine was "completely stock, with over 150,000 miles on it." Due to the suspension components, the car was cited with 12 penalty laps... which the team manager was not happy with and made that fact known to ChumpCar.

But the team accepted your terms and served the penalty. Again, why was that penalty not enough?

* That the cars were "missing" the hoods, bumpers, deck lids, etc... is NOT in question; however, these items were not missing because they were in advanced stages of rust, wear or age. Rather, the items in question were removed by the team to reduce weight. Generally, the bodywork, paint and condition of the #1 car was better than most daily-drivers.

Many other cars at the event had the same items missing and none of these cars were claimed.

* During the race (and even BEFORE the (stock) #69 car had transmission issues) the #69 car was consistently turning laps 5-6 seconds slower than their sister car, the #1 car.

Again you are not addressing the point that 3 of the 4 drivers on the 69 turned slower times. Drivers who had never been to the track before and had limited experience just like many other drivers in the field. The point you are neglecting to address is the same car that you seem to deem as inferior turned similar times to the 1 with a driver of similar experience. To further make this point, the 69 car turned 1:37's running in THIRD GEAR ONLY Sunday morning. That time was faster than I believe any other car on the track (besides the 1). Are you suggesting the 69 car had some advantage by running in 3rd gear? Or could it be that an experienced driver with a lot of track time at Hallett just may know how to make a car fast even when at a disadvantage? Again, you assessed no penalty against the 69 and have yet to offer an explanation for that.

* An "EC-class" Spec Miata, owned by Hallett Motor Racing Circuit and driven by track personnel (who are well-familiar with the circuit), was running 2 seconds a lap slower that the #1 car.

You are correct. That car was not a well prepped SM, the drivers were not national level drivers, and they had problems from the get go. We even attempted to find parts for them and supplied an alternator if I remember correctly.

* The #1 car made up their 12 penalty laps somewhere between hour 4 and 5, and set fast race lap (1:34) during hour 5. The car, again, set fast race lap during the early night run around 8:00pm (1.33).

Are you familiar with track and air temperatures and their effect on tire adhesion and engine performance? Anyone with any racing or car prep experience would expect the fastest lap in the cool of the evening before the sun goes down.

* An additional fact was noted when a timing sheet from the most recent SM race held at Hallett was produced. That timing sheet noted the winning SM car (in that race) turned fast race lap at 1:32 (on shaved Toyo's). Second through fourth place were running within one second of each other, running 1:33's-1:34's. (Again, the #1 car turned a 1:33 and was consistently running 1:34-1:36 throughout the race... this on 190-200 DOT treadwear tires -- not the softer, shaved Toyo's as specified for SM. Tire professionals estimate that this difference, alone, is worth 2 seconds a lap.)

Assuming you are referring to the COMMA SM race in August did you ask about the track and air temperatures on that day? The temperatures were probably 25 degrees warmer due to the extreme heat this month. The cars always slow by several seconds in the heat of the summer. If you review SCCA spring and summer national results over the last few years you will see the same pattern.

* The #1 car finished the race 67 laps ahead of second place, which means that the car was actually 79 laps ahead when you include the 12 lap penalty that the car made up.

Yes it did. Where your logic breaks down is the only explanation for that must be cheating. Again, you have not shown sufficient command of the facts at hand to make this assertion. You have relied on implications and have zero hard facts to prove otherwise.

* ChumpCar weighed the fact that the cars in positions 2-5 were within a "reasonable" proximity of one another, both with and without bonus/penalty lap inclusion. This accentuated the disparity of the lead car.

Reasonable in what regards? DId you take into account driver experience, reliability, etc? If so please explain how you came to this conclusion.

* The issue with the headlights was that the #1 car had a total of six (6) headlights and wanted to use all 6, which is against ChumpCar rules (Section 4.7.1.2.1. -- "All cars must be equipped with headlights. Headlights may be OEM or aftermarket. No car may have more than four (4) headlights. No single headlight shall exceed 60W for H3 or H4 bulbs, or 35W for H.I.D. bulbs." Of those six lights, ChumpCar questioned the power rating of two lights and asked that they be aimed lower, pointed to the track, as per Section 4.7.1.2.5. -- Headlights must be aimed properly, such that all light is directed at track level. Cars with improperly aimed or blinding lights will be black-flagged and penalized. " The team manager was not pleased with ChumpCars requirement to use only 4 lights, nor pleased with having to re-aim their headlights. No other car entered or racing in the event at Hallett had more than four headlights. Three other cars were cited with poorly aimed headlights requiring adjustment.

You did not address the fact that you disallowed the serviceable forward facing lights on the 69 car even when the team told you the wattage of the bulbs and they were within the rules. What you actually did was stand in front of the car and say "these are too bright, you can't use them." Again, this is your subjective opinion and another instance where you ignored the facts presented and substituted your opinion.

* An additional issue was raised with regards to the noise level of the #1 car, as well as three other cars on the track. ChumpCar officials worked with the #1 team to better define the placement of the dB meter and the readings of the meter. Originally, the team was cited for 97 dB. After moving the meter to meet the request of the #1 car team manager, the noise level was actually reduced -- to 95dB, which is still in excess of ChumpCar rules, Section 4.14. Noise Limit -- "ChumpCar’s basic noise limit FOR ALL EVENTS is 92dB @ 50 feet from the track. Certain events may impose a tighter noise restriction – check all event supplemental rules. Excessive noise will result in a black-flag and required repairs prior to being re-admitted to the race. A second offense will result in disqualification and removal from the event." ChumpCar continued to monitor and work with the #1 team on noise level readings.

Again, you are not telling the truth. The sound meter was setup less than 25 feet from the track and I personally stood there and watch the meter bouncing half the field. Yet you only choose to bring action against the 1 car. One we clarified the rule with the technical staff it was determined that the meter was supposed to be 50 feet from the track and it was relocated as such, both the 1, the 69, and all the other cars that had been over were then within an expectable range.

* The team was notified of the claiming action per ChumpCars rules (Section 1.3.5. Claiming Race). The process of claiming the car was done in conjunction with Section 1.3.5.1. -- "The act of “claiming†any car shall occur within 15 minutes from the final checkered flag of the weekend’s event. Notification shall be issued in writing by a ChumpCar official to the Team Manager (or other representative) of the claimed vehicle. Payment of the $1,500 claiming fee by ChumpCar for the claimed vehicle shall be issued with service of the written claim notice." ChumpCar presented the team with the appropriate payment; however, the team refused the service process and loaded the #1 and #69 cars into their transporters. Regardless of what the team may claim (as far as having the cars stolen from them, without recourse or the ability to buy the cars back), the #1 team would have had the option to bid on their car... had the claiming process been completed, as per the rules. However, as the team avoided the claiming action, and as ChumpCar officials will never escalate an already tense situation, ChumpCar elected to allow the team to remove the cars from the facility.

The situation was only tense due to your poor judgement and command of the facts. I find it telling that you were unwilling to discuss any of these things at the track and choose to find an audience that you think will buy your version and your story.

These are the facts that were weighed, discussed and used towards a decision that resulted in a claiming action against the #1 General Yee Racing Miata.

Please also address the comments of the technical director and ask him to post here. What you are saying and what multiple witnesses heard him say are completely at odds. He seemed to be a knowledgeable individual. You would be well served by seeking his counsel in the future to avoid this type of situation...

John Condren

ChumpCar World Series, Inc.

Let's just take these one at a time...

Good day to all. We've just gotten packed up and some of us are at the airport and some of us are on the road to Putnam Park, thus the delay in getting a post on the Forum. I'll give you the facts as ChumpCar saw them, without any additional commentary.

* The car-in-question (car #1) was described by its owner as a 1999 Mazda Miata (1.8L) that the team stated they purchased for $650.

And this was known to you at the time the car was presented. The car received a technical and safety inspection and was assessed a penalty AT THAT TIME. You have yet to explain why the first penalty was changed.

* The team entered a second car (#69) which, I believe, is a 1995 Miata (1.8L) that ran with ChumpCar at Texas Motor Speedway. At TMS, the #69 car received penalty laps for SM suspension components. When the car was presented to ChumpCar at Hallett, ChumpCar noted that all SM components had been removed from the car (replaced with stock components). We congratulated the team for making the right move and removing the performance enhancing pieces that originally raised the value of the car well-over $500. In its current stock format, the #69 received no penalty laps.

Ok...

* The issues, problems and mechanical failures detailed by the team regarding the #69 car are not in question in this discussion, nor have they anything to do with the claiming action against the #1 car.

Again you have no command of the facts. The issues with the 69 show that IF the car had not had mechanical issues it may have been many laps ahead as well. You are not addressing that point.

* When the #1 car was reviewed in technical inspection, it was found to have aftermarket shocks, springs, bars and full-chassis bushings. These items were noted on the tech sheet. When asked about the car's engine, the team manager responded that the engine was "completely stock, with over 150,000 miles on it." Due to the suspension components, the car was cited with 12 penalty laps... which the team manager was not happy with and made that fact known to ChumpCar.

But the team accepted your terms and served the penalty. Again, why was that penalty not enough?

* That the cars were "missing" the hoods, bumpers, deck lids, etc... is NOT in question; however, these items were not missing because they were in advanced stages of rust, wear or age. Rather, the items in question were removed by the team to reduce weight. Generally, the bodywork, paint and condition of the #1 car was better than most daily-drivers.

Many other cars at the event had the same items missing and none of these cars were claimed.

* During the race (and even BEFORE the (stock) #69 car had transmission issues) the #69 car was consistently turning laps 5-6 seconds slower than their sister car, the #1 car.

Again you are not addressing the point that 3 of the 4 drivers on the 69 turned slower times. Drivers who had never been to the track before and had limited experience just like many other drivers in the field. The point you are neglecting to address is the same car that you seem to deem as inferior turned similar times to the 1 with a driver of similar experience. To further make this point, the 69 car turned 1:37's running in THIRD GEAR ONLY Sunday morning. That time was faster than I believe any other car on the track at the time (besides the 1). Are you suggesting the 69 car had some advantage by running in 3rd gear? Or could it be that an experienced driver with a lot of track time at Hallett just may know how to make a car fast even when at a disadvantage? Again, you assessed no penalty against the 69 and have yet to offer an explanation for that.

* An "EC-class" Spec Miata, owned by Hallett Motor Racing Circuit and driven by track personnel (who are well-familiar with the circuit), was running 2 seconds a lap slower that the #1 car.

You are correct. That car was not a well prepped SM, the drivers were not national level drivers, and they had problems from the get go. We even attempted to find parts for them and supplied an alternator if I remember correctly.

* The #1 car made up their 12 penalty laps somewhere between hour 4 and 5, and set fast race lap (1:34) during hour 5. The car, again, set fast race lap during the early night run around 8:00pm (1.33).

Are you familiar with track and air temperatures and their effect on tire adhesion and engine performance? Anyone with any racing or car prep experience would expect the fastest lap in the cool of the evening before the sun goes down.

* An additional fact was noted when a timing sheet from the most recent SM race held at Hallett was produced. That timing sheet noted the winning SM car (in that race) turned fast race lap at 1:32 (on shaved Toyo's). Second through fourth place were running within one second of each other, running 1:33's-1:34's. (Again, the #1 car turned a 1:33 and was consistently running 1:34-1:36 throughout the race... this on 190-200 DOT treadwear tires -- not the softer, shaved Toyo's as specified for SM. Tire professionals estimate that this difference, alone, is worth 2 seconds a lap.)

Assuming you are referring to the COMMA SM race in August did you ask about the track and air temperatures on that day? The temperatures were probably 25 degrees warmer due to the extreme heat this month. The cars always slow by several seconds in the heat of the summer. If you review SCCA spring and summer national results over the last few years you will see the same pattern. Further the tires were not shaved Toyo's they were Hoosier SM6's from the COMMA weekend.

* The #1 car finished the race 67 laps ahead of second place, which means that the car was actually 79 laps ahead when you include the 12 lap penalty that the car made up.

Yes it did. Where your logic breaks down is the only explanation for that must be cheating. Again, you have not shown sufficient command of the facts at hand to make this assertion. You have relied on implications and have zero hard facts to prove otherwise.

* ChumpCar weighed the fact that the cars in positions 2-5 were within a "reasonable" proximity of one another, both with and without bonus/penalty lap inclusion. This accentuated the disparity of the lead car.

Reasonable in what regards? DId you take into account driver experience, reliability, etc? If so please explain how you came to this conclusion.

* The issue with the headlights was that the #1 car had a total of six (6) headlights and wanted to use all 6, which is against ChumpCar rules (Section 4.7.1.2.1. -- "All cars must be equipped with headlights. Headlights may be OEM or aftermarket. No car may have more than four (4) headlights. No single headlight shall exceed 60W for H3 or H4 bulbs, or 35W for H.I.D. bulbs." Of those six lights, ChumpCar questioned the power rating of two lights and asked that they be aimed lower, pointed to the track, as per Section 4.7.1.2.5. -- Headlights must be aimed properly, such that all light is directed at track level. Cars with improperly aimed or blinding lights will be black-flagged and penalized. " The team manager was not pleased with ChumpCars requirement to use only 4 lights, nor pleased with having to re-aim their headlights. No other car entered or racing in the event at Hallett had more than four headlights. Three other cars were cited with poorly aimed headlights requiring adjustment.

You did not address the fact that you disallowed the serviceable forward facing lights on the 69 car even when the team told you the wattage of the bulbs and they were within the rules. What you actually did was stand in front of the car and say "these are too bright, you can't use them." Again, this is your subjective opinion and another instance where you ignored the facts presented and substituted your opinion.

* An additional issue was raised with regards to the noise level of the #1 car, as well as three other cars on the track. ChumpCar officials worked with the #1 team to better define the placement of the dB meter and the readings of the meter. Originally, the team was cited for 97 dB. After moving the meter to meet the request of the #1 car team manager, the noise level was actually reduced -- to 95dB, which is still in excess of ChumpCar rules, Section 4.14. Noise Limit -- "ChumpCar’s basic noise limit FOR ALL EVENTS is 92dB @ 50 feet from the track. Certain events may impose a tighter noise restriction – check all event supplemental rules. Excessive noise will result in a black-flag and required repairs prior to being re-admitted to the race. A second offense will result in disqualification and removal from the event." ChumpCar continued to monitor and work with the #1 team on noise level readings.

Again, you are not telling the truth. The sound meter was setup less than 25 feet from the track and I personally stood there and watch the meter bouncing half the field. Yet you only choose to bring action against the 1 car. One we clarified the rule with the technical staff it was determined that the meter was supposed to be 50 feet from the track and it was relocated as such, both the 1, the 69, and all the other cars that had been over were then within an expectable range.

* The team was notified of the claiming action per ChumpCars rules (Section 1.3.5. Claiming Race). The process of claiming the car was done in conjunction with Section 1.3.5.1. -- "The act of “claiming†any car shall occur within 15 minutes from the final checkered flag of the weekend’s event. Notification shall be issued in writing by a ChumpCar official to the Team Manager (or other representative) of the claimed vehicle. Payment of the $1,500 claiming fee by ChumpCar for the claimed vehicle shall be issued with service of the written claim notice." ChumpCar presented the team with the appropriate payment; however, the team refused the service process and loaded the #1 and #69 cars into their transporters. Regardless of what the team may claim (as far as having the cars stolen from them, without recourse or the ability to buy the cars back), the #1 team would have had the option to bid on their car... had the claiming process been completed, as per the rules. However, as the team avoided the claiming action, and as ChumpCar officials will never escalate an already tense situation, ChumpCar elected to allow the team to remove the cars from the facility.

The situation was only tense due to your poor judgement and command of the facts. I find it telling that you were unwilling to discuss any of these things at the track and choose to find an audience that you think will buy your version and your story. Shame on you.

These are the facts that were weighed, discussed and used towards a decision that resulted in a claiming action against the #1 General Yee Racing Miata.

Please also address the comments of the technical director and ask him to post here. What you are saying and what multiple witnesses heard him say are completely at odds. He seemed to be a knowledgeable individual. You would be well served by seeking his counsel in the future to avoid this type of situation...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...