Jim Knapp here, the one who filed the protest. Just so all y'all know what at least my "facts" are.
Following are two e-mails that I sent to the tech committee with my thoughts:
1st e-mail
Rick and his "fifth wheel trailer". Personally I was very impressed with the out of the box (out of the car?) thinking and never want to stifle that sort of creative thinking, even if it's to my own detriment. It's just too valuable a component of the racing we do. So, how to allow it and still carry forth the spirit of the rule? I was talking to Bob this morning and he said what if there is a rule addendum that said, "the vehicle must be able to demonstrate that it can accelerate while being powered by either engine." It would certainly satisfy me, and Bob BTW. Of course there would also have to be the safety thing, controllability from the driver's compartment, fuel shutoff, fire system, etc.
Anyway, something for you "powers that be" to chew on.
2nd e-mail
Hey, Dan,
I guess at least SBC is making some money off this protest.
I've been chatting around and spending some further time stewing about this whole deal. And I know you've got a board meeting (at least I THINK you're on the board) this Friday to cuss and discuss this and other matters. So here are some further points I would like to mention to you, and hope you mention to the board, in this whole deal.
And please, PUHLEEEESE know that I applaud the incredible out of the box thinking, and if Rick had done it properly I would merely stand in awe of what he did.
Issues:
The car was top speed of the meet in the first four meets this year averaging 255mph, and yet nowhere was there any John Bjorkman review of the new "trailer" addition, and no test runs of the clearly controversial new frame design were done.
The motor was a substance over form argument, i.e., more cubic inches were there, but it violated ?the spirit of the rules?, probably the single most important aspect of the interpretation of each and every rule in The Rule Book.
No 2 stoke gas/oil mix was available for the 2 stroke 500cc motor, so how did it run?
Fuel shutoff valve was represented as shutting the fuel pump off, a common method for motor cycles. However, the fact remains that the main motor was injected at probably 45 ? 55 psi, and the 500 cc motorcycle motor was carbureted at probably 5-8 psi. Where was the pressure regulator?
?The spark plug wire fell off.
? C?mon, Rick. You didn't get to be five times Points Champion by building cars that have that happen. I.e., Rick is a WAY better car builder than that.
In short, Dan, the 500cc motor did not run, and did not drive, nor was it capable of driving the car forward. It was merely a subterfuge to make Championship Points in my opinion a clear and flagrant violation of "the Spirit of the Rules" notion that helps to keep us from having a rule book the size of a phone book.
Further as to the safety of the "trailer":
Section 1.A. of the rule book states and it states in CAPITAL LETTERS to emphasize the importance of this point, ?VEHICLES SHALL BE PRESENTED FOR INSPECTION IN RACE READY CONDITION?? At no time during the tech/safety inspection of this vehicle did the 500 cc motor ever leave the back of Rick's pickup truck. When asked by the inspector, (and I was standing right there) Rick said, ?It?s a supplemental power plant.? The inspector said, ?OK? and, as I recall, that was that.
No fire system.
No chain guard.
The housing/cover to prevent the parachute from hanging up was duct taped to the car. DUCT TAPED!! See photo in Cars 2 section of October meet on the SCTA-BNI web site to see this (besides it's the only place in October where you can see a picture of the Bomber).
No throttle cable.
Motor hinged (I believe this to be true, but did not see the car "assembled" myself) at the bottom, hence no possible downforce, other than a few pounds, and therefore no propulsive traction could be generated.
Phew! A lot of stuff to consider, Dan-oh. I know Rick was/is creative. I know he's that kind of racer. I just think overall it was a slap in the face to SCTA and the volunteers that make it all happen.
My further comment: The requirement that a motor actually accelerate the car would support the spirit of the rules and prevent us from becoming ECTA, i.e., just run anything you want in any class you want. I mean if this protest falls through, my opinion, (to stretch my point only a little) is I can Duct Tape another Honda motor to the top of my liner and as long as it doesn't fall off I can set a record in any class I want.
Final remarks: And in closing, let me say, I APPLAUD THE OUT OF THE BOX/CAR THINKING. I just think the way it was done was a bit of a cheap shot, and frankly after a long phone conversation with Rick Sunday night, speaking about his car/motor and about his current "challenges" I can see why he didn't have time to produce a device up to his normal standards of excellence.
Jim Knapp
