Miata Mailing List: December 1993, Message #30
sponsored by



     


   From: Alan Dahl 
Subject: a chip off the old block?
   Date: Thu, 2 Dec 1993 12:50:11 -0500

[this is cross-posted to both the auto-x lists and the Miata lists so those of you  
on both will get two copies - Alan]

I was a little surprised at Randy Pobst's CS win in his SSC Miata at the latest NT  
after his disqualification at the Runoffs and the fact that no one there protested  
him. It now appears that he may not have been illegal at the Runoffs after all.

==========================
>From the November 29, 1993 _AutoWeek_ Letters section:

A CHIP OFF THE OLD BLOCK?

Thank you for the photo and mention of my win and exclusion at the SCCA Runoffs  
(SSC Mazda Miata, AW, Nov. 1). But do you know what the inspection of my CPU was?  
Tech _looked_ at it. It _looks_ different inside. I have since learned it's an  
early production unit, according to Mazda and Nippondenso, perhaps even from  
_AutoWeek's_ road test car, with standard programming.

I was told by the appeals committee that if I could prove the programming was  
stock, I'd be O.K. It was Sunday morning at Road Atlanta, and I had two hours to do  
that: impossible. At every other event SCCA sanctions there are at least four weeks  
for the appeal. For me, it was the thrill of victory and the agony of defeat in the  
same race.

Randy Pobst
Melbourne, Fla.
===========================

Is what Randy says here true? Is the entire appeal process handled at the event?  
Considering how long the SEB deliberated and the amount of data they examined  
before making their rulings on some of the protests at the Solo II Nationals I  
can't imagine the SCCA giving only 2 hours for road racers to present their appeals  
and have them ruled on at the Runoffs.

Of course this also leaves several unanswered questions. If the computer in  
question did come from the factory on Randy's car then it should be legal no matter  
whether it looks different or not, especially if there are no differences in the  
programming. Computer manufacturers change board layout and design all the time,  
many times without warning. Two identically-appearing Apple Macintoshes, for  
example, may have different-looking, but functionally identical mother boards  
inside.

*But* Randy seems to indicate that the computer came from another (perhaps very  
early or pre-production) car. The big question here is _why_ was it changed?  
However, I suppose what he could be saying that his car *is* _AutoWeek's_ road test  
car.

We may never know for sure since if Randy's car is a 1990 model I believe it will  
be ineligible for SSC next year since it will be too old.

P.S. I'm also surprised that the SCCA didn't have a device on hand to examine the  
programming since it would be very easy to build a computer that looked identical  
but had different programming.
---
  ___   __   ___  Alan Dahl                    | alan.dahl@mccaw.com -or-
 /_ /   /   /     Analysts International Co.   | adahl@axysdev.nwest.mccaw.com
/  /  _/_  /___   10655 N.E. 4th St. Suite 804 | (NeXTMail OK)
                  Bellevue, WA 98004           |  PH:  (206) 803-4496
                                               | FAX:  (206) 803-4901