FUELING THE PAIN AT BARBER

Details have started to, um, flow following the seizure and discovery of non-conforming pit lane fueling equipment following the July 19 Barber Motorsports Park Porsche 250 presented by Legacy Credit Union.

According to those familiar with what occurred, it really was “seizure and discovery,” by the way, for officials believed something was amiss but lacked specifics until after an impound was conducted by officials from the Rolex Sports Car Series presented by Crown Royal Cask No. 16.

Furthermore, that any Daytona Prototype teams were caught out was a surprise because, according to the insiders, the focus of Barber’s post-race fueling probe was actually on the GT side of the fence, but that “we figured if we were to look at those guys we also needed to look at the DPs for continuity’s sake.”

Still further, “We were as surprised as anyone that the top-two DP finishers (and championship points co-leaders) were out of compliance.”

Three teams were deemed to have transgressed in one manner or another. Two Daytona Prototype teams - the No. 01 Telmex Chip Ganassi Racing with Felix Sabates and the No. 99 GAINSCO Auto Insurance/Bob Stallings - were each fined $15,000 and penalized 15 championship points. The No. 86 Farnbacher Loles Racing Grand Touring team was fined $7,500 and penalized 15 points.

Each of the three teams are in the thick of the 2009 points-championship fight within their respective classes and the exacted points penalties were suffered across the board in driver, team and manufacturer championship categories.

The specific Grand-Am rules-violation verbiage (emphasis added): “Violation of Sporting Regulations 9-7. Fueling rig must be used as designed and delivered with no modifications of any kind. Fuel rig exit fitting confiscated per Sporting Regulations 7-8. Act detrimental to the sport of Automobile Racing Sporting Regulations 12-1.”

  In the below image, on the left is an example of a Grand-Am rules-specified “fuel rig exit fitting.” To its right is a bisected “modified” elbow, one of two such offending, nearly identical fittings confiscated from the DP fueling rigs at Barber Motorsports Park in Birmingham, Ala.

Rearranged so as to provide a different perspective in the below-right image, more easily seen is an “unacceptable sleeve” within the elbow - which at the very least reduced fuel-flow turbulence - is the most evident no-no, but other modifications also were found, again made outside of rulebook specifications (noticeable is a piece of transparent film, used to secure the otherwise-unsupported insert sleeve in the bisection, but wasn’t “part” of the offending apparatus).

The three examples shown in the image at below-left, from left-to-right, are an unaltered BSR assembly; the No. 01’s elbow in the middle (which bears a bisection cut); and, at far right, the No. 99’s complete, non-conforming assembly which mirrors that of the unaltered BSR assembly. Carefully compare the flanking “complete” sections and one can see the inner sleeve protruding from the No. 99’s assembly.

While other non-conforming but relatively minor aspects peculiar to each team’s rig were ascertained, the two unacceptable, “sleeved” elbows were said to have come from a commonly known and frequently used third-party who modified the pieces outside of Grand-Am specs.

Though the altered elbows’ inside diameter was actually less than that of the approved BSR assembly, the use of it was said to have improved a refueling procedure by as much as by two seconds.

Though images are absent herein, the failing Farnbacher Loles Racing fuel rig’s dead-man valve and its connections’ various interior metal surfaces were, in some cases, milled and in almost all cases polished, much like one might “port” an intake manifold.

Strongly suggesting a rogue operation on the No. 86 Farnbacher Loles Racing team side - hatched by one or more individuals within it - is evidenced by the lack of duplication in any other Farnbacher Loles Racing team cars’ fueling rigs. Though officials seized all Farnbacher Loles Racing refueling rigs used at Barber Motorsports Park, only one was found to have been unacceptably altered. Indeed, Farnbacher Loles’ “illegal” No. 86 team rig was juxtaposed by Rolex Series officials with a fully acceptable, “legal” version from Farnbacher Loles’ No. 87 car.

When one considers five different Rolex Sports Car Series DP-class competitors have produced a combined margin of victory totaling less than one-minute over the series’ thus-far completed 46 hours (1,487 laps; eight races) in 2009 (through the July 19 Barber Motorsports Park race) - and with similar GT-class MOV numbers thus far in its 2009 race schedule - every millisecond gained, wherever gained, looms large.

Did any of the teams in the matter act in concert with each other or team members within an individual organization?

It’s doubtful. Indeed, the situation strongly suggests that individuals - whether working directly or as an independent subcontractor for the involved teams - most likely autonomously undertook efforts which produced the greatest fines thus far levied in Rolex Series history. Furthermore, in a competitive environment in which every tick of a clock can represent the difference between winning and being an also-ran, it’s understandable a human brain would envision and employ the means by which a team might better perform so that it finishes first. After all, winning - the ultimate demonstration of superior skill and/or ability - underlies competition.

Though speculation runs rampant as to who knew what, when and the time period during which the above transgressions may have been undertaken, lacking is any official ability to determine exactly such.

Frankly, it’s tough for anyone indirectly involved to know, with certainty, that any of the acts described above were done with malice and forethought; that someone, acting alone or in concert with others, decided to nefariously circumvent the Grand-Am rule book.

Indeed, knowing racers’ competitive nature, it isn’t difficult to imagine that the involved parties simply sought an edge and in the process, perhaps even inadvertently and unknowingly, crossed a forbidden line. 

IGNORANTIA LEGIS NEMINEM EXCUSAT

“Ignorance of the law excuses no one” for it is “… not that all Men know the Law but because 'tis an excuse every man will plead and no man can tell how to confute him,” noted English jurist John Selden (1584-1654) in part wrote in his Table Talk: Laws - a principal still in use today when a bank-robbing suspect stammers to judge and jury, “Buh-buh-but I didn’t know I couldn’t rob it!”

Later.

DC