The cat is finally out of the bag…
Posted by Wrecked Magazine on 02 Jul 2008 at 02:15 pm | Tagged as: Formula D, Major Announcements, Rumors/Gossip
After a couple days of gossip, rumors and conjecture flying around the Internet forums it appears that the Super Autobacs Skyline has finally received some official mandates from Formula D. The Skyline team last made headlines when they formally protested qualifying after Takatori received a 5th place position and a score of 93.00. (http://wreckedmagazine.com/blog/2008/05/11/a-protest-of-qualifying/) Te following was posted on Drifting.com earlier today and it’s not very clear as to who the source of this information is. Hopefully Formula D or someone will send us some more information to shed light on the situation!? If Takatori is deemed ineligible, a top 5 driver will be inactive as of Las Vegas next week.
The Team SA R34 has recently been deemed ineligible for the Formula DRIFT series in it’s current state. The team has been accessed several fines, penalties, and faces possible removal from the series if the issues are not remedied.
The main issue stems from the vehicle’s current OEM front strut suspension setup. The setup, being OEM, is in compliance with the Japanese version of the rulebook but apparently not with the English version according to the current interpretation. Despite the suspension setup remaining OEM and from the same chassis, Formula D currently has deemed it ineligible. The decision has come as quite a shock to many in the series as a decision to allow the Scion tC to compete in the series seemingly put to rest the same issue at the start of the season. The decision effectively made the chassis, not the model, the deciding factor in vehicle eligibility. (a decision we are very much in agreement with) Unfortunately, for Team SA, consistency with this ruling is not being seen, leaving many to wonder how level the playing field is when what applies to one vehicle, does not apply to another.
The other question that has been left unanswered at this point is why, if the model of the car is now the deciding factor instead of the chassis, the current OEM suspension setup on the R34 has not been allowed. Considering that it is using OEM parts and does not give the vehicle an unfair advantage, the question remains. We must also note that several other vehicles in the series have more drastic changes in suspension design. Are these suspension changes unapproved and deemed ineligible now as well? At this point, we cannot comment on the situation as we have more unanswered questions than answers.
Formula DRIFT has yet to respond to requests for a description of the appeal process to this decision, or a detailed list of previously given rule exemptions. We fear that neither exist, and the series is unprepared for this type of action. The lack of both puts several vehicles in the series in question. Formula DRIFT Chief Steward has already stated that “we have several other actions pending with other competitors,” leaving us to wonder if they will be subject to the same fines and penalties.
Despite the rulebook’s lack of a appeal process, or a list of previously allowed exemptions for specific vehicles, and TIME, Team SA is continuing to explore options to have this decision overturned, seeking a sense of consistency, balance and fairness to be restored to the series.
quoted from member name: Formula D
http://www.drifting.com/forums/showthread.php?t=25200&page=8
Wow, popular thread. But you got us. It’s a huge conspiracy. We favor certain teams and we do things behind doors and we look the other way when someone sponsors us. We do it all in the name of the dollar. Mooo haa haa haaa…. Come on, get out of there with that! We’ve fined our own past Champion Rhys Millen. We even lobbied to have D1 drivers here, so the argument we don’t want any J guys doing well is a lil soft. This is as down the middle organization as it comes. Forget all that stuff. Some of you are way off the reservation and doing a disservice to the team in question and the community of drifting by speculating and gossiping about things you don’t have all the facts on.
There is no specific reason that we have been holding off in responding until this time. Rather most times teams and organization handle matters of dispute in a professional matter mostly done offline and generally with the team principle, not in a public forum. But it’s fine. When one party has the forum all its own certainly, the picture painted will certainly represent the far reaching realm of that side. Kind of like the guy who tells the officer he wasn’t speeding only to find out he got caught on tape blowing a red and counter locked on the 22/5 Freeway interchange and then when showed the tape says, “ok officer maybe it did break the law a lil bit.”
So going back a bit.. Ask any team that has ever done a build that they feel falls within gray area of our rule book (and there is gray in every rulebook in every series) and you will find that that team has consulted our Chief Steward for direction on how to do it in accordance with our rules and within the confines of what is fair. To state an example that has been used in this post, the Scion team did just that. RSR, Design Craft(Gary Castillo), the entire team along with Toyota/Scion worked alongside Randy to complete this one of a kind and EXTREMELY unique build. Racing is all about finding gray and gray they did. Now we don’t want every team to do that, but they did work within the gray and created a precedent of which we found helped us in how we work with these types of builds and circumstances in the future. You would never know the detail or time that went into the back and forth from them to us rather you are speculating on stuff you don’t even know. The flip side is that SA did not contact us about the details of their build. Gray is gray..
..here is black and white:
Long Beach/Annual Tech. SA Drift brings the car to tech and our staff finds that the original suspension on the R34 has been modified to a strut-type suspension. When FD staff addressed the concern with SA staff, we were told that the R34 was available with strut suspension thus falling in line with the guidelines of suspension as directed by the rule book. For us and for fairness to other competitors, anything out of the ordinary like that has to be verified. So we worked with the team to try and verify the information.
This was to no avail. So our own staff exhaustively did the research and getting all the documents and paperwork from Nissan, spending many hours to make sure that we knew exactly what was what. Conclusion: R34 did not come with strut suspension, rather double wishbone. The suspension parts rather came off that of a C34. The team maintained the whole time that the R34 came with strut suspension. Not once prior to entering the series did they alert us of the build or ask for any kind of guidance (again this is a common practice for many builders that work in the series) on what they were doing.
Rather SA maintained that the parts were in fact from an R34. This is a black and white issue. And we investigated it for nearly two rounds so as to make sure we knew exactly what we were talking about and to take the time to get the right information. You can’t complain about the rule book after the fact. That rule has been there for a long time.
At this point, our Chief Steward is basically backed into a corner with a clear illegal violation so a fair penalty was assessed. People that knew of the violation were calling for a very stiff penalty, even for the car to be completely illegal. So what we assessed is more than fair. Everyone knows that FD always give the benefit of the doubt and always is lenient when it comes to docking points or fining teams (Which by the way go to charity).
You really have to do something over the top for it to happen. Anyone that competes with us knows this. We have given the benefit of the doubt many times over.
Formula Drift has been criticized by teams in the past for being too soft and so in the off season we invested in additional tech staff to work on making sure teams are building cars that fall within the guidelines. We have already worked with teams to fix numerous safety issues and validate many, many builds. These are often not public record (unless someone makes it so) because teams to be charged with a safety or build penalty is an issue we like to deal with as much courtesy, delicacy and care. Imagine if you are a sponsor and you just plunked down many thousands of dollars to the team and then read on a public forum that your prize driver can’t build a roll cage to spec. How do you think that makes the team and/or driver feel knowing their sponsors embarrassment? There is no need to bring an issue to the public and embarrass a team and it’s unfortunate that other teams have been pulled into this unknowingly and unprovoked and without any hard data to back the accusations.
There is no inconsistencies in rulings regarding builds. You either did it properly or you didn’t. You either consulted with FD staff on your build or you didn’t. Many teams have already fixed issues have been penalized and have gone on their way. Others are still being investigated. No one knows how many other active investigations are going on. It is a sensitive and special process and we take care in how we do it.
People either believe this is a fair organization or you don’t. Most do. If you don’t, then I don’t know what to tell you. So what do you want to do from here? Do you want to keep the public bashing and trying to make a case for whatever you are trying to do? We hope that efforts shift to trying to help the team fix the issue. The penalty is fair; qualifying points are taken, small monetary fine and 10 weeks to fix the problem. We are very happy that Takatori is in the series and it is a very unfortunate series of events that have led us to this point. It is, however, not an excuse that the builders translated our rule book incorrectly.
Long story short…
- C34 suspension is OEM to C34 chassis vehicle not R34 chassis
- FD was never contacted or consulted on the build prior to Round 1
- Vehicle was brought to FD LB.
- Suspension was suspicious and FD tech staff did through research to investigate.
- Team did not supply need information to support the legitimacy of the change.
- FD assessed the issue and issued the penalty; qualifying points from Rd1 till the suspension is fixed and monetary penalty.
- SA team has until RD 6 to fix the suspension.
Our suggestion is that people keep the irresponsible speculating and rumor-mongering to a minimum and get back out on the track and run.
__________________