Jump to content


Photo

Application of CAMS Scrutineering Regulations


  • Please log in to reply
33 replies to this topic

#1 JockinSA

JockinSA
  • Member

  • 127 posts
  • Joined: December 10

Posted 27 January 2011 - 10:07

As The motorsport authority here in South Africa seems to be intent on selectively trying to apply the CAMS scrutineering system here, I would like to know how well this system operates in Australia both from the scrutineer's point of view and the competitors.

Any help on this subject would be very much appreciated, as I will be one of those who will have to apply these new ideas on the subject.

Advertisement

#2 Catalina Park

Catalina Park
  • Member

  • 6,519 posts
  • Joined: July 01

Posted 27 January 2011 - 10:18

As a competitor I found the system works quite simply. The idea is to get people with no mechanical knowledge and very little brains to annoy drivers till they decide never to race again.
As far as I can see the system is working fine.

My last race meeting was at Bathurst in 1999. I spent 20 minutes in scrutineering and they never looked at anything safety related. They bent out of shape over illegal advertising on my car and ignored their whole purpose.
Oh, the illegal advertising was previous scrutineering stickers from other circuits.



#3 Tony Matthews

Tony Matthews
  • Member

  • 17,519 posts
  • Joined: September 08

Posted 27 January 2011 - 12:06

The idea is to get people with no mechanical knowledge and very little brains to annoy drivers till they decide never to race again.
As far as I can see the system is working fine.

:lol:

#4 Ray Bell

Ray Bell
  • Member

  • 71,703 posts
  • Joined: December 99

Posted 27 January 2011 - 20:52

I frankly don't know what kind of 'system' the CAMS would have that anyone would need to copy...

South Africa has been running motor racing for many years and even had WDC events long before Australia did. What's the purpose?

When I was involved, it seemed that each circuit (or organising club) would muster its own officials including scrutineers. I was a flag marshal so I know we had some instruction nights and briefings, so I guess the scrutineers did the same. There is definitely oversight from the CAMS, so something must go on, and in the case of the 'Big Shots' in racing they take charge of that with a Chief Scrutineer who follows the rounds AFAIK.

The outstanding recollection I have of dealing with these people is that you always give them a way out and you give them a way out. If, for instance, the little rubbers on the stupid Triumph Herald steering rack where it joins the column were worn, you just leave the blue triangle off the battery cut-off switch.

They get to tell you to fix the blue triangle 'or you can't go on the circuit today' and maybe they'll recommend that you some time soon fix the rubbers. "Next!"

#5 JockinSA

JockinSA
  • Member

  • 127 posts
  • Joined: December 10

Posted 27 January 2011 - 21:13

Thanks for your replies so far. I have acttually had a good giggle at them as what you have said is so true. I have come to this side of the fence after 30 years running and building cars, and when i packed that in, I was asked to jump the fence so to speak.
What has happened here is that the powers that be have decided that because "self scrutineering" works so well in Aus, that it just has to be the thing to do here, and at the same time they can get rid of the trouble of having the likes of us telling them that a rollcage made of a bit of box tube is not really good enough, or that we really should have some kind of regulation for crash hats.
I kidyou not, for circuit racing there are no standards for crash hats or rollcages or fire suits or the seats in cars, to name but a few things, and the moment that we try to implement the regs that are there COC's overule us and let the person race.
So that is the reason for my question. We all know that there are the no nothing prisses out there that really do not have the mechanical knowledge to do this job, and that is one of my current tasks is to weed these people out from our lot and consign them to the paperwork side of things if required.
Any more advice from your side of the ocean would still be appreciated though.
Cheers
Jock

#6 Lee Nicolle

Lee Nicolle
  • Member

  • 10,387 posts
  • Joined: July 08

Posted 27 January 2011 - 21:43

As a competitor I found the system works quite simply. The idea is to get people with no mechanical knowledge and very little brains to annoy drivers till they decide never to race again.
As far as I can see the system is working fine.

My last race meeting was at Bathurst in 1999. I spent 20 minutes in scrutineering and they never looked at anything safety related. They bent out of shape over illegal advertising on my car and ignored their whole purpose.
Oh, the illegal advertising was previous scrutineering stickers from other circuits.

One of the reasons I stopped racing too, and yes the previous scrutineering stickers caused grief too. And they were on the rollcage!!
That and the clear headlight covers where everyone had to BUY clear pieces of vinyl from the scrutineers to pass scruitineering, even those wth proper headlight covers, the bubble type or a piece of lexan over the headlights.
Or the blitz at PI on drivers names on the side windows, wrong font they had to be removed, drivers christian name had to be removed, even the initial. And when you have 2 or 3 drivers with the same surname that causes some confusion.
Or the 2and a half hours I spent in a stewards hearing at PI because they had a different interpretation of the rules on wings to what the CAMS manual had. Or being told I cannot have a wing and a rear spoiler, on a car log booked as an XU1 Torana [and it actually was] The spoiler is homolgated bodywork which it has to have!
Or in a stewards hearing about having a white number background on a white car, with a proper black border, While I am being told it is illegal, the timekeepers cannot read it etc etc the Australian Production Car Championship are qualifying outside the window with you guessed it exactly the same. But they were ok as they were a different class!!! But racing under exactly the same rules.

Scrutineering, the death of motorracing. My casual observation, as a sometime helper they do seem a little better these days

#7 Catalina Park

Catalina Park
  • Member

  • 6,519 posts
  • Joined: July 01

Posted 28 January 2011 - 06:36

Thanks for your replies so far. I have acttually had a good giggle at them as what you have said is so true. I have come to this side of the fence after 30 years running and building cars, and when i packed that in, I was asked to jump the fence so to speak.
What has happened here is that the powers that be have decided that because "self scrutineering" works so well in Aus, that it just has to be the thing to do here, and at the same time they can get rid of the trouble of having the likes of us telling them that a rollcage made of a bit of box tube is not really good enough, or that we really should have some kind of regulation for crash hats.
I kidyou not, for circuit racing there are no standards for crash hats or rollcages or fire suits or the seats in cars, to name but a few things, and the moment that we try to implement the regs that are there COC's overule us and let the person race.
So that is the reason for my question. We all know that there are the no nothing prisses out there that really do not have the mechanical knowledge to do this job, and that is one of my current tasks is to weed these people out from our lot and consign them to the paperwork side of things if required.
Any more advice from your side of the ocean would still be appreciated though.
Cheers
Jock

I think that the problem here is that Australia does not have "self scrutineering".
I am led to believe that NZ does. (NZ always does these sort of things better)

I think it came about after someone took legal action against the organisers after a car had a component failure on the track after a car had been inspected by scrutineers and passed as OK when it was in fact not OK. So they took the step of not inspecting cars at all and passing the blame back onto the cars owners.
In Australia they just changed what they wrote in the log book from "OK" to "NAFF" (really!) meaning No Apparent Faults Found.


#8 Catalina Park

Catalina Park
  • Member

  • 6,519 posts
  • Joined: July 01

Posted 28 January 2011 - 06:41

One of the reasons I stopped racing too, and yes the previous scrutineering stickers caused grief too. And they were on the rollcage!!

I fixed them at Bathurst by asking them if they were going to place a sticker on the car to say it had been checked. They said yes. So I told them that I would have them charged by the stewards for breaking the NCR concerning illegal advertising. :drunk:
The fastest most dangerous track in the country and they never even opened the bonnet or checked the brakes. :rolleyes:


#9 Lee Nicolle

Lee Nicolle
  • Member

  • 10,387 posts
  • Joined: July 08

Posted 28 January 2011 - 09:58

I fixed them at Bathurst by asking them if they were going to place a sticker on the car to say it had been checked. They said yes. So I told them that I would have them charged by the stewards for breaking the NCR concerning illegal advertising. :drunk:
The fastest most dangerous track in the country and they never even opened the bonnet or checked the brakes. :rolleyes:

Michael, didnt you know the signs on the car are life and death.

At the 94GP meeting I had picked up some sponsorship fron a cab company, part of their logo was the 13 ph no. Which had the potential to be ongoing. But no on Saturday i had to remove the no, making the sign look crap. And there went an ongoing sponsorship. Small but it would have paid for the fuel at least a meeting.
Apart from being technically illegal, the reason was that the timekeepers might get confused, by a 6 digit, 150mm high no on the rear 1/4 panel. I did say that you had better remove all the dates on the scrutineering sticker as clearly they are illegal too !! The sticers also had a sponsors ph no attached.

Conversley another year I was in the pit area as a HQ engine sealer and discovered that the head I had knocked back prior to the meeting was being used by the polesitter. About 4 hours later [and I was really a paying spectator with a pitpass] of bullshit from the chief scrutineer the head was knocked back, but the pole stayed. Initially I was told i did not know what I was talking about etc etc. HQ Racing officialls had sealed the engine. Which they had no right to do. Chief scrutineer has a son who drives for 888 in Thupercars.
Not safety but a defenite elegibility issue.

Another competitor in a somewhat scruffy and dirty car [Sports Sedan] was refused scrutineering because the very legal car was dirty. He missed qualifying having to take the car to a car wash. The dirt was from roadworks on the Hume Hwy on his way to the track.



#10 JockinSA

JockinSA
  • Member

  • 127 posts
  • Joined: December 10

Posted 28 January 2011 - 16:27

One thing I have pushed here is that at initial scrutineering we do not get involved in any way with the eligabilty and such like of a vehicle.
If we see someone who may have a problem on that score, we smile and say to them that they might want to check it out. All that side of things gets looked at once the car goes into Parc Ferme, then the **** can hit the fan if required. As for illegal advertising and stickers etc as long as the timekeepers can read the numbers and the glass is clear enough to see through then anything that is wrong with required advertising is down to the series organisers to sort out. We don't get involved in it at all.

#11 Ray Bell

Ray Bell
  • Member

  • 71,703 posts
  • Joined: December 99

Posted 28 January 2011 - 21:52

Well... you see... it is written in the advertising rules that no numbers should be used, something like that, to avoid upsetting the poor timekeepers...

There's nothing like beating one rule to death while you ignore others.

I think you should be harder than that on eligibility issues, however, as you do have the chance to keep it clean.

Michael... Keith Neville was okay, wasn't he? And wasn't he in charge at Bathurst? Or maybe this was after he retired?

#12 Catalina Park

Catalina Park
  • Member

  • 6,519 posts
  • Joined: July 01

Posted 29 January 2011 - 02:50

Michael... Keith Neville was okay, wasn't he? And wasn't he in charge at Bathurst? Or maybe this was after he retired?

Keith Neville was the best. A true gentleman. I gave him a good laugh at the second last Amaroo meeting when I opened the bonnet of my HQ and it was wearing triple Strombergs!


#13 JockinSA

JockinSA
  • Member

  • 127 posts
  • Joined: December 10

Posted 29 January 2011 - 04:12

Thanks Ray, with the eligabilty point we parc ferme after official practice if we think there is hanky panky going on, so yeah the wrong doer might get a great time but sits at the back of the grid for the racesand the good guys don't get penalised that way and the nughty ones still get to race that way.

Talking about pushing the envelope, because the regs for roll cages are so iffy here, we checked a car once that had a really nice looking cage and after prodding around a junior member came to us and said that he thought there was something wrong with it. On closer inspection it was found to be made of plastic drain pipe!

Have a good day all, I'm off to do our big Historic weekend. Some nice visiting stuff this year.

#14 Ray Bell

Ray Bell
  • Member

  • 71,703 posts
  • Joined: December 99

Posted 29 January 2011 - 14:06

Originally posted by Catalina Park
Keith Neville was the best. A true gentleman. I gave him a good laugh at the second last Amaroo meeting when I opened the bonnet of my HQ and it was wearing triple Strombergs!


Oh yeah!

He'd have split his sides and then given you twenty minutes to get them changed, I guess...

Poor Keith had a hard time of it, though. He was the brother of a woman I worked with when I first started work in 1961. She was a bit of a hard case but had a great sense of humour.

But, and I don't know if you remember this, Keith had a daughter named Bev who was married to Tony Warrener... Tony you might recall as being one of the leading lights in the CIG-TAFE setup. One Bathurst Bev retreated to the camping area (or she might have left the circuit altogether) and stuck hose from the exhaust pipe up to the window.

Keith certainly didn't deserve that, I think she might also have been an only child.

#15 Catalina Park

Catalina Park
  • Member

  • 6,519 posts
  • Joined: July 01

Posted 30 January 2011 - 03:02

Oh yeah!

He'd have split his sides and then given you twenty minutes to get them changed, I guess...

It was legal, I was running as a Sports Sedan since HQ's were not on the list for the meeting.

#16 Lee Nicolle

Lee Nicolle
  • Member

  • 10,387 posts
  • Joined: July 08

Posted 30 January 2011 - 22:24

It was legal, I was running as a Sports Sedan since HQ's were not on the list for the meeting.

How much faster were you?


#17 Catalina Park

Catalina Park
  • Member

  • 6,519 posts
  • Joined: July 01

Posted 01 February 2011 - 06:41

How much faster were you?

A couple of seconds, I also changed the diff and the gearbox. :lol: It was different, a lot better acceleration out of corners, it really needed the LSD with the extra power. It didn't disgrace itself, I finished in front of some proper Sports Sedans. (with improper drivers?)
Quite a good feeling to be diving inside Toranas and Mazdas under brakes and then drive away from them out of the corner!



#18 Lee Nicolle

Lee Nicolle
  • Member

  • 10,387 posts
  • Joined: July 08

Posted 01 February 2011 - 21:39

A couple of seconds, I also changed the diff and the gearbox. :lol: It was different, a lot better acceleration out of corners, it really needed the LSD with the extra power. It didn't disgrace itself, I finished in front of some proper Sports Sedans. (with improper drivers?)
Quite a good feeling to be diving inside Toranas and Mazdas under brakes and then drive away from them out of the corner!

Somebody did it here too, set of CDs or SUs on a normal sealed engine, with a M20 [wide ratio] 4 speed and everything else standard and was about 2 seconds faster than his normal times. Said the same thing, it needed a locked diff and some more laps too.

#19 Catalina Park

Catalina Park
  • Member

  • 6,519 posts
  • Joined: July 01

Posted 02 February 2011 - 08:29

Somebody did it here too, set of CDs or SUs on a normal sealed engine, with a M20 [wide ratio] 4 speed and everything else standard and was about 2 seconds faster than his normal times. Said the same thing, it needed a locked diff and some more laps too.

I did a few Winton 24 Hour Relay races and in the last one I used the CDs, M21, LSD and Dunlop R tyres. It was quite fun! CAMS President Colin Osborne used to run his ex-Bob Morris XU1 and I had great delight in stalking and eventually lapping him. Not bad for an old Kingswood.


Advertisement

#20 Ray Bell

Ray Bell
  • Member

  • 71,703 posts
  • Joined: December 99

Posted 04 May 2021 - 02:43

This is about Keith Neville, a veteran of scrutineering, a gentleman as well. He was best known at Amaroo Park, but he was also there at Bathurst and many other places. Keith was a short-ish bloke who had a lot of experience behind him and some of that was evident by his casual demeanour and the grey of his wavy hair. Always approachable and he knew his stuff.

After the crew finished examining the Ross Bond (Ken Webb?) Austin-Healey one day, Ross jumped in and started it up, selected reverse and was starting to back out when Keith came over and stopped him. The engine was turned off and the scrutineers under Keith's charge asked to jack it up. An inspection of the underside in the gearbox area was carried out.

That was the day it was decreed that the Alfa Romeo 5-speed gearbox had to be removed. Keith had noticed that Ross had moved the gearlever in the wrong direction to get reverse gear.

Part 3 (d) of the Marque Sports Car regulations at that time read:



The original design of transmission train assemblies, including the number of forward and reverse ratios, assembled and operating as originally supplied by the manufacturers, shall be retained. The use of alternative ratios in the gearbox and final drive is permitted, as is the use of a "limited slip" differential.


In the terminology of the time... "SPRUNG!"

Perhaps there are similar stories others can add?

#21 Doug Nye

Doug Nye
  • Member

  • 10,406 posts
  • Joined: February 02

Posted 04 May 2021 - 22:18

My experience of Australian scrutineers is limited to 13 Classic Adelaide Rallies for which the scrutineers always seemed pretty amiable and cooperative, save for just one or three occasions upon which we had some minor issues, long forgotten.

 

However - when we took a Maserati 250F down to Melbourne for some demo laps by Moss before the first World Championship Australian GP there in 1996 we experienced for the first time 'proper' CAMS scrutineers and the full earnest-Aussie 'by the book' approach to stifling entertainment - or in this case, mere tribute.  

 

Two first-degree crimes were detected - 1. the car had a green-painted fire extinguisher fitted, not a red one, which meant its content would instantaneously destroy the planet (so I was told) should it ever be discharged - and 2. SM insisted on wearing his period-design crash helmet.  

 

Aaaarrrggghhh!  The scrutineer with whom I was involved nearly had a seizure, red in the face, bulging veins in his forehead.  I instantly regretted helpfully suggesting that if he was so disturbed by the colour of the extinguisher bottle then I could easily spray it any colour he might specify.  He almost had a stroke on the spot.

 

As for the crash helmet matter, Stirl was going to have to wear a full FIA-certified 1996-current bone dome or he would not be permitted to drive at all in the demo.  The whole matter - just for a scheduled 2-3 lap demo - and after we had shipped the car(s) [admittedly at the organisers' expense] 12 1/2 thousand miles just to be there - seemed so utterly unhinged that I was just bewildered by the bureaucratic heat it all generated.  And I became genuinely concerned for the official's well-being, since he genuinely seemed so incensed he was almost fit to burst.

 

Well - we compromised.  We borrowed a CAMS-legal extinguisher (a red one I think) and clipped that into the car in place of the detested, outdated, allegedly lethally dangerous, UK-legal original.  Then Stirl drove out of the paddock onto the startline ready for the demo, wearing the borrowed CAMS-dictated bone dome crash helmet.  

 

We then joined him on the grid carrying his repro Herbert Johnson cork and canvas one.  Just as they cleared the grid the helmets were swopped.  He drove the demo instantly recognisable as the fans' former-times favourite.  But from memory the demo itself was cut to a footling single lap - but we still felt honour had been satisfied.  A minor victory for common sense.  

 

I had never had much time for petty authority, in any form.  That experience left me with no time for it - none at all.  It's still one of the few things guaranteed to make the back of my neck go hot...

 

DCN


Edited by Doug Nye, 05 May 2021 - 06:24.


#22 Ray Bell

Ray Bell
  • Member

  • 71,703 posts
  • Joined: December 99

Posted 05 May 2021 - 10:19

That was just at the end of the cricket season, wasn't it?

 

I wonder if that had any bearing...



#23 Lee Nicolle

Lee Nicolle
  • Member

  • 10,387 posts
  • Joined: July 08

Posted 05 May 2021 - 22:41

My experience of Australian scrutineers is limited to 13 Classic Adelaide Rallies for which the scrutineers always seemed pretty amiable and cooperative, save for just one or three occasions upon which we had some minor issues, long forgotten.

 

However - when we took a Maserati 250F down to Melbourne for some demo laps by Moss before the first World Championship Australian GP there in 1996 we experienced for the first time 'proper' CAMS scrutineers and the full earnest-Aussie 'by the book' approach to stifling entertainment - or in this case, mere tribute.  

 

Two first-degree crimes were detected - 1. the car had a green-painted fire extinguisher fitted, not a red one, which meant its content would instantaneously destroy the planet (so I was told) should it ever be discharged - and 2. SM insisted on wearing his period-design crash helmet.  

 

Aaaarrrggghhh!  The scrutineer with whom I was involved nearly had a seizure, red in the face, bulging veins in his forehead.  I instantly regretted helpfully suggesting that if he was so disturbed by the colour of the extinguisher bottle then I could easily spray it any colour he might specify.  He almost had a stroke on the spot.

 

As for the crash helmet matter, Stirl was going to have to wear a full FIA-certified 1996-current bone dome or he would not be permitted to drive at all in the demo.  The whole matter - just for a scheduled 2-3 lap demo - and after we had shipped the car(s) [admittedly at the organisers' expense] 12 1/2 thousand miles just to be there - seemed so utterly unhinged that I was just bewildered by the bureaucratic heat it all generated.  And I became genuinely concerned for the official's well-being, since he genuinely seemed so incensed he was almost fit to burst.

 

Well - we compromised.  We borrowed a CAMS-legal extinguisher (a red one I think) and clipped that into the car in place of the detested, outdated, allegedly lethally dangerous, UK-legal original.  Then Stirl drove out of the paddock onto the startline ready for the demo, wearing the borrowed CAMS-dictated bone dome crash helmet.  

 

We then joined him on the grid carrying his repro Herbert Johnson cork and canvas one.  Just as they cleared the grid the helmets were swopped.  He drove the demo instantly recognisable as the fans' former-times favourite.  But from memory the demo itself was cut to a footling single lap - but we still felt honour had been satisfied.  A minor victory for common sense.  

 

I had never had much time for petty authority, in any form.  That experience left me with no time for it - none at all.  It's still one of the few things guaranteed to make the back of my neck go hot...

 

DCN

That was never a race, or a speed event but a pure display.

Alan Jones in Hamiltons Porsche had the door taken off as he did not fit! And it was so hot he would have melted inside.

There was some other silliness too as I remember.

And this just watching the event on TV



#24 brucemoxon

brucemoxon
  • Member

  • 851 posts
  • Joined: December 04

Posted 06 May 2021 - 03:24


 

 

I had never had much time for petty authority, in any form.  

 

DCN

 

 

Now, Doug, what's the point in having a bit of power if you don't get to abuse it?


BRM



#25 BRG

BRG
  • Member

  • 20,555 posts
  • Joined: September 99

Posted 06 May 2021 - 12:39

For years, I was rather dismissive of scrutineers.  Then, at one of our club events, I was co-opted to assist the scrute.  He asked me to check all the external ignition cut-outs - you know, the little red plastic t-handle usually placed by the windscreen.  Although many worked OK, if a little stiff and in need a some lube, a good few were completely seized up where the inner and outer cables had rusted into one.  One t-handle simply came off in my hand!  Much fettling ensued...



#26 Michael Ferner

Michael Ferner
  • Member

  • 5,743 posts
  • Joined: November 09

Posted 06 May 2021 - 12:52

Simple problem, simple solution: if you don't want to play by the rules, don't play at all. Saves a lot of aggravation on the part of those who work for little (if any) money and no glory at all to enable you to enjoy your hobby and/or profession.



#27 RS2000

RS2000
  • Member

  • 2,460 posts
  • Joined: January 05

Posted 06 May 2021 - 13:46

If anyone thinks it's simple, they haven't been there. Usually the problem is that regulations do not actually say what the body that wrote them intended. That can be serious but mostly it is trivial and far too many opinionated people make the latter case a big issue. Then you have personal opinion getting in the way of actual regulations. Then throw in that at one time all International events were regulated by a rule book in which only the French text was "law" and even works teams seemed to believe what an unqualified translator told them. (Do we need to mention Monte Carlo 66...). Ironic that a notorious Belgian scrutineer at World Championship level who had drifted into an "understanding" with most works teams on pickup points was pulled up short once the championship went to ....Australia.



#28 Ray Bell

Ray Bell
  • Member

  • 71,703 posts
  • Joined: December 99

Posted 06 May 2021 - 14:16

Somebody ought to tell of the wheel and tyre problem when the Australian Touring Car Championship was first run at Lakeside...

 

Nobody had seen this problem anywhere else.



#29 brucemoxon

brucemoxon
  • Member

  • 851 posts
  • Joined: December 04

Posted 07 May 2021 - 03:59

Somebody ought to tell of the wheel and tyre problem when the Australian Touring Car Championship was first run at Lakeside...

 

Nobody had seen this problem anywhere else.

 

You're 'somebody' aren't you Ray?



#30 Ray Bell

Ray Bell
  • Member

  • 71,703 posts
  • Joined: December 99

Posted 07 May 2021 - 12:03

Not yet...

 

I'm hoping that Paul Hamilton will come along and tell about the day a young scrutineer discovered one of the front ball joints on Paul's Elfin was absolutely knackered.



#31 Paul Hamilton

Paul Hamilton
  • Member

  • 428 posts
  • Joined: February 04

Posted 08 May 2021 - 01:14

I don't now recall the front suspension issue with my Elfin, Ray, but feel free to remind me about it if you wish. 

 

I have certainly had my share of problems in the scrutineering bay but to my mind such issues are usually personality rather than systems driven.  Once CAMS or any other motor sport authority appoints a scrutineer we are all unavoidably subject to the views taken by an appointee whose technical competence may not be matched by their people sklls and who often will not be well equipped to hold that level of power and authority.  It should also be borne in mind that the problem personality is sometimes on the competitors side of the scrutineering bay!!

 

It has been my experience that it has all worked much better here in oz since CAMS adopted the targetted scrutiny system back in around 2006.  That system allows for cars to be examined either annually or after each 4th meeting without need for the car to visit the scrutineering bay if the examination can be arranged to take place elsewhere.  for many years now I have been able to arrange for my car(s) to be examined either in my workshop or another mutually convenient location. That system has made life a lot easier and it has been further simplified under the current Covid related system which has moved to be wholly reliant on a competitor declaration to minimise people contact during the epidemic. There is no formal vehicle examination but scrutineers do still have a charter to undertake periodic 'audits' of cars identified during their wandering around the paddock.  Hopefully this system may continue post the Covid epidemic.    



#32 GreenMachine

GreenMachine
  • Member

  • 1,827 posts
  • Joined: March 04

Posted 08 May 2021 - 02:04

Paul, I agree.

 

One aspect of the 'targetted' scrutiny is that it requires the driver/entrant to certify that, effectively, they have self-scrutineered the car, and it is compliant.  While in the normal course of things, that car will not be audited (unless an audit is due), if there is a bingle and the car ends up in the scrutineering bay, or a wandering scrute notices something, there is a potential for a draconian penalty to be applied if the car is found to be non-compliant - pour encourager les autres.  It is an honour system, and people need to respect that.  But human nature ...

 

Are the 'targetted' cars still inspected under the covid arrangements, or is it purely wandering scrutineers with beady eyes?



#33 Lee Nicolle

Lee Nicolle
  • Member

  • 10,387 posts
  • Joined: July 08

Posted 08 May 2021 - 04:01

I don't now recall the front suspension issue with my Elfin, Ray, but feel free to remind me about it if you wish. 

 

I have certainly had my share of problems in the scrutineering bay but to my mind such issues are usually personality rather than systems driven.  Once CAMS or any other motor sport authority appoints a scrutineer we are all unavoidably subject to the views taken by an appointee whose technical competence may not be matched by their people sklls and who often will not be well equipped to hold that level of power and authority.  It should also be borne in mind that the problem personality is sometimes on the competitors side of the scrutineering bay!!

 

It has been my experience that it has all worked much better here in oz since CAMS adopted the targetted scrutiny system back in around 2006.  That system allows for cars to be examined either annually or after each 4th meeting without need for the car to visit the scrutineering bay if the examination can be arranged to take place elsewhere.  for many years now I have been able to arrange for my car(s) to be examined either in my workshop or another mutually convenient location. That system has made life a lot easier and it has been further simplified under the current Covid related system which has moved to be wholly reliant on a competitor declaration to minimise people contact during the epidemic. There is no formal vehicle examination but scrutineers do still have a charter to undertake periodic 'audits' of cars identified during their wandering around the paddock.  Hopefully this system may continue post the Covid epidemic.    

From what I hear it is sometimes less stressfull for competitors.

Though I have heard of competitors being hassled on the dummy grid for inane things.

Great to stress someone who is trying to focus on going racing. 



#34 Ray Bell

Ray Bell
  • Member

  • 71,703 posts
  • Joined: December 99

Posted 09 May 2021 - 14:05

Originally posted by Paul Hamilton
I don't now recall the front suspension issue with my Elfin, Ray, but feel free to remind me about it if you wish.....


As Paul told me the story years ago...

His crew took the Elfin 600 to Oran Park with everything ready to go except for the ball joint at the top of one of the front uprights. This part was a tie-rod end (from a Vanguard?) and readily available, so Paul was to buy a new one on his way to the circuit and then they could fit it.

Paul arrived at the circuit to find that the car was in the scrutineering bay and watched as a young scrutineer gave the front wheel a shake and found there was movement there shouldn't have been. He looked around, Paul assumed to check and see if anyone else had noticed, and didn't know what to do. So he did nothing.

I think Paul then went up to him and showed him the new part and explained that they were about to fit it. Quite possibly he quietly explained to him the procedure he should have followed on finding a fault with a car.