End the Current form of Scrutineering.

[Robert Farrell]

Why at every race meeting do we have to stand about for ages in order to get a little sticker that tells us our car is fit to race. Something that we already knew.
If our cars weren`t the vast majority of us wouldn`t have taken the time and the money to turn up anyway. Particularly when the same scrutineer gave you the same sticker, albeit a different colour, 2 weeks earlier!
I suggest each entry form contain a declaration stating our car complies with all the criteria for both eligibility and safety and accepting the full consequences of any false declaration.
Scrutineers would then have the time to thoroughly check those that they felt necessary.
Also they would be able to devote more time to the specification and eligibility of any modifications.
No-one knows more about my car than me. I know it is equipped the relevant safety kit and I know it will pass any inspection regarding eligibility.
I would much prefer the scrutineers had the time to examine those that don`t

[Lancsbreaker]

I understand where you are coming from - I often wonder how many cars are actually failed on scrutineering for anything of any importance - as opposed to whichever bee-in-the-bonnet an individual scrutineer has - you know - "that battery terminal needs more yellow tape on it", whilst ignoring the gaping hole in the bulkhead

But I guess there needs to be some checking, so maybe say 10% per race selected at random for a fairly thorough check would be a compromise.

Anyway if we didn't have scrutineering we wouldn't be able to laugh at the privateer on his own pushing his car up the hill to the Brands scrut bay because its before the engine-run time.............

[Adam43]

An interesting thought. I'll pick it up and run. These are just thoughts to develop an idea and not necessarily what I will ultimately think is good.

What about a mandatory comprehensive scrutineering yearly (or whatever period) that is 'better' than the brief race by race one? It could also check that the safety equipment lasts the year and document.

There could then be random, or prompted checks, through all meetings as Lancsbreaker suggests. Then there would be an incentive to keep things good as you could be stopped from racing at any point.

Maybe the yearly test could be at a pre season test, or any official test day? There would need to be a provision for anyone mid year.

All this may need more paperwork?

The MSA tribunal pages might be full of people being dodgy, but that would make a change from karting dads fighting

[midgetman]

Hey steady on we haven't had a good karting dad fight there for ages, there's more about motor club officials getting application of the rules wrong these days.

I've normally found that the higher up the ranks one progresses the more cursory the pre race safety checks become and the more intensive the post race eligibility inspections.

[delta]

Every year I suggest to a certain chief scrutineer who I have been mates with for over 30 years . I suggest that we all have a log book . At the start of the year cars get a full going over at their first race . Any issues then get noted in log book and owner gets told to fix the problem before next race . If you are involved in a shunt the log books gets taken away and returned when the car is repaired and again given a good old once over by scrutineers. There after at each race the scrutineer can see log book quick look at car then helmet and race kit and next one please . Simple. Do they listen to me do they F--K.

[one-two]

What on earth does, or even could, "accepting the full consequences of any false declaration" mean in this context?

[DAVID PATERSON]

Australia adopted this system a couple of years ago. It's not perfect and we are reviewing/fine-tuning it, but I for one don't miss queuing up for an hour or two on Saturday morning pushing my car all the way to the scrutineering bay.

The entrant signs a declaration on the entry form that his car is safe and compliant with all relevant regulations. Then every fifth meeting or twelve months, which ever comes sooner, the car is "audited" by the scrutineers, primarily for safety, but they can do eligibility checking as well.

Minor problems are noted in the mandatory log book and the competitor MUST have them sorted before the next meeting. Major problems must be sorted before the car is issued with a sticker allowing it to compete. Competitors can arrange for their "audit" to be done away from the meeting, at a garage with a hoist perhaps, and these audits area also marked in the log book.

Scrutineers also are to do random audits of 25% of the entry, regardless of whether or not they are due.

[Mike Bell]

Log books with pre season annual scrutineering still operate in many countries. But what's to say that at a mid season meeting something has been changed or is worn out or has become inoperative.... Some safety checking is at least necessary, surely?

Some of the stories I hear from scruts about misuse of HANS at the moment suggest their presence is still very necessary in the paddock!

[Derwent Motorsp]

it would seem that the rules are now so complex and constantly changing that many scrutineers can't keep up. In speed events, there are new rule for ROPS, HANS and road car tyres. There are a good few examples of ineligible cars being passed.
Rally cars and non road speed cars do have MSA log books but don't work in the way suggested.
The guys who scrutineer enjoy the power and wearing the MSA sweater of course! They would be gutted if we sacked them!

[rbm]

couple of years back at a Mallory dodging the snow showers I was behind a stunning prewar sports/racer (I think it was an Alfa but it is a while back) being scrutineered.

The scrutineer commented to the driver that perhaps it would be better not to race with this loose in the engine bay as he removed a 2lb hammer.

[Scrut]

Originally Posted by DAVID PATERSON

Australia adopted this system a couple of years ago. It's not perfect and we are reviewing/fine-tuning it, but I for one don't miss queuing up for an hour or two on Saturday morning pushing my car all the way to the scrutineering bay.

The entrant signs a declaration on the entry form that his car is safe and compliant with all relevant regulations. Then every fifth meeting or twelve months, which ever comes sooner, the car is "audited" by the scrutineers, primarily for safety, but they can do eligibility checking as well.

Minor problems are noted in the mandatory log book and the competitor MUST have them sorted before the next meeting. Major problems must be sorted before the car is issued with a sticker allowing it to compete. Competitors can arrange for their "audit" to be done away from the meeting, at a garage with a hoist perhaps, and these audits area also marked in the log book.

Scrutineers also are to do random audits of 25% of the entry, regardless of whether or not they are due.

Correct David.
At a minimum we attempt to audit 25% of the competitors, but at times we do more or less than this depending on the number of scrutineers we have available. A full audit is required every 5 meetings or 12 months.

The items audited are broken down into 3 areas-
SAFETY CRITICAL
SAFETY – NON-CRITICAL
NON-SAFETY
If a non compliance is found in the Safety Critical items the vehicle cannot compete until the item or items have been corrected.
Safety-Non Critical and non-safety items are normally noted in the log book for correction before the next meeting.

The competitor can also be charged for submitting a false deceleration
on their entry form if the vehicle fails the audit.

This system was brought in about 10 years ago, very simular to the what New Zealand has been using previously.

[zefarelly]

Seems like a good approach to me.

There's no doubt historic car prep has improved immeasurably in recent years, but safety must be monitored, continually IMO.

I still see some scary stuff, 4 point harnesses, bacofoil seat mountings.

[Cliff Ryan]

They use Log Books in the US, with a record of all tech inspections as they call them, as well as space for you enter your event results if you so wish.

The Historic Race Group that I race with have a full inspection on a separate tech day once a year in spring which checks both eligibility and safety equipment. For each event you enter the driver completes a detailed form confirming that all items are ok and giving the date of the last full tech inspection. There is normally a tech inspection at each event, where a scrrutineer spends a few minutes checking the paperwork and a few key items, much the same as we have here.

A full inspection is done at random at an event, which takes about an hour and has happened once in five years to me. Thankfully I don't know the penalties for failing, probably depends upon the circumstances.

Seems like a much more thorough system than we have, which combines more rigorous annual testing with driver declarations at every event.

[terence]

Originally Posted by one-two

What on earth does, or even could, "accepting the full consequences of any false declaration" mean in this context?

Signing a race entry form declaring that your car conforms to the clubs rules? No driver has ever been dragged into court as far as I know.Seems rather pointless including those meaningless words.

[Robert Farrell]

One of the other threads currently exercising the regulars is about the future of historic motorsport.
The greatest danger is that we competitors cease to enjoy taking part. For whatever reason, be it cost, unfair competition, being treat with contempt by certain organisers or being subject to unnecessary and time consuming procedures.
Scrutineering and those who volunteer to do the task are a vital part of our sport. Comments about sacking scrutineers do not add to the discussion.
Surely we can find a better system than asking four or five people to examine 800 cars and and 1200 sets of sweaty kit over a two day period.
To lessen this workload would give the scrutineers the opportunity to conduct a more focused examination which would help eliminate some of the unfair competition often referred to on this site.
Any procedural change which eliminates the need for the entire entry to clutter up the paddock with impromptu queues for large parts of the event must enhance competitors experience.

[Scrut]

Just looking back on the every car lining up for scrutiny, every day.
For example the Phillip Island Classic event.
500 vehicles entered.
Either the 500 entrants either push their cars to scrutineering (if before
9.00am when race engines can be started) or wait until after 9.00 to drive up.
Allowing for quick brake light, wheel nut and oil leak check would take 3 to 4 minutes per car.
If we could run 4 lines of 4 scrutineers it would take over two hours, with out any issues.

With the new Audit system.
125 to 150 cars selected for audits.
The audit is done at the most suitable time over the duration of the meeting.
Smart competitors ring an approved pre-race inspection scrutineer 2 weeks before, if an audit
was due,to have the car checked before the race week-end. If there were any isues these could
be attended to before arriving at the track.

I know which system I prefer.

[VIVA GT]

Originally Posted by Scrut

Just looking back on the every car lining up for scrutiny, every day.
For example the Phillip Island Classic event.
500 vehicles entered.
Either the 500 entrants either push their cars to scrutineering (if before
9.00am when race engines can be started) or wait until after 9.00 to drive up.
Allowing for quick brake light, wheel nut and oil leak check would take 3 to 4 minutes per car.
If we could run 4 lines of 4 scrutineers it would take over two hours, with out any issues.

With the new Audit system.
125 to 150 cars selected for audits.
The audit is done at the most suitable time over the duration of the meeting.
Smart competitors ring an approved pre-race inspection scrutineer 2 weeks before, if an audit
was due,to have the car checked before the race week-end. If there were any isues these could
be attended to before arriving at the track.

I know which system I prefer.

It's always amazed me how much time scrutineers spend checking these basic things. Surely anyone who's going to sit themselves in a racing car is going to make sure the wheel nuts are tight?

[Tim Falce]

Originally Posted by Robert Farrell

The greatest danger is that we competitors cease to enjoy taking part. For whatever reason, be it cost, unfair competition, being treat with contempt by certain organisers or being subject to unnecessary and time consuming procedures.

This is exactly the reason I have stopped racing, even down to eligibility scrutineering going OTT in one series I did. I don't know the answer to the general scrutineering debate but I do feel some people need saving from themselves and thus saving the rest of us from them so there's no easy solution.

[Tim Falce]

Originally Posted by VIVA GT

It's always amazed me how much time scrutineers spend checking these basic things. Surely anyone who's going to sit themselves in a racing car is going to make sure the wheel nuts are tight?

We do get side tracked and miss or forget things (I once did a day's marshalling and came home with virtually half a toolkit that I'd collected off the track between races) but by the same token scrutineers miss things as well, like at Mallory a few years ago a guy in front of me (same car as mine) had no roll cage on his car and the scrutineer totally missed it and let it go through and following on from my previous post a guy who had been warned about his harness mounts at a previous meeting and had done nothing about them so was refused a ticket.

[Mike Harte]

Originally Posted by VIVA GT

It's always amazed me how much time scrutineers spend checking these basic things. Surely anyone who's going to sit themselves in a racing car is going to make sure the wheel nuts are tight?

As Tim says, you do have to save some people from themselves, and you also have to factor in the human element. For example, my arrangements were that I prepped the car, and helped load it on the trailer, and from that moment on the responsibility for driving to the circuit and anything to do with the car was in the hands of the rest of the team. Therefore, I relied on them making sure that everything was in order, but sometimes things can be overlooked. The human element.