Goodwood 27th

[jeffw]

Simon's friends, slightly out of focus, opposite lock photo

[jeffw]

I've just found the results online

http://www.hillclimbandsprint.co.uk/201 ... pril27.pdf

I would have been first in class and 7th overall with my one and only timed run (168.3) Pretty annoyed now with being excluded from the results. 12 secs faster than Stephen Laing as well.

[dopdog]

do we know why people got excluded rather than just retired?

[jeffw]

No....I'm actually quite miffed now.

[dopdog]

I bet you are. This was the first time they have done this and if you had known that you could have done what Bill did and not run again, this kept his first timed run.

[jeffw]

I've sent this to Bognor Regis MC

I was excluded from the results on Saturday (while leading my class) for noise and my times were removed from the results. I understand that Goodwood has specific issues with noise and have legal requirements that the organising club need to work within. What surprised me (indeed shocked me) was that having been told I could not run again my times were removed from results especially as I was leading class A8 (and indeed would have won the class).

I’ve never seen this done before at Goodwood (or anywhere else) and do not understand why. Previously when someone has had a noise issue they are not allowed to run again but their results have stood up to that point. Obviously I’ve paid a considerable amount of money out to be at the event (entries, travel etc etc) and this has proved a waste as I don’t have a time or place in class to show for it.

Could I ask you for an ‘official’ explanation for the actions taken and which MSA Blue Book rule (if any) was used to exclude myself (and others) from the results? If this is a specific Bognor Regis MC ruling I will then know not to enter your events again so as not to risk exclusion.

[dopdog]

good one Jeff, where did it say the 2 strikes and you are out rule? Will be interesting to see what they come back with?

[jeffw]

Hi Jeff.
Please find below the official reasons for actions taken on the day. As you are aware Goodwood is very strict on noise, therefore we have to police these things fully, we allow you a second chance after being warned but after that its out of our hands. It’s not just Bognor mc I have had it happen occasionally and the way things are going it will happen more, cars will have to be quieter, for some unknown reason Saturday seemed very sensitive on the noise meters, weather perhaps?.
I understand your frustration but if the car is not legal it cannot be included in the results against cars that are.

‘There is a combination of Blue Book references here. J.5.18 refers predominantly to static tests. However J.5.17.8 is of more relevance in this instance (105 static + 101 drive by). The fact that noise monitoring would take place during the competition and these limits are indicated and exclusion could follow as a result of failure to meet those limits is shown in Article 17 of the Event Supplementary Regulations .

Then as far as what took place is concerned there is G.5.2.14 which has then resulted ultimately in the car's ineligibility for competition and this is followed by G.5.3.1. Exclusion from competition means that the competitor is also, of consequence, excluded from results of that competition. ‘

Your sincerely Terry Holmes

[RobMsport]

Hi Jeff.
Please find below the official reasons for actions taken on the day. As you are aware Goodwood is very strict on noise, therefore we have to police these things fully, we allow you a second chance after being warned but after that its out of our hands. It’s not just Bognor mc I have had it happen occasionally and the way things are going it will happen more, cars will have to be quieter, for some unknown reason Saturday seemed very sensitive on the noise meters, weather perhaps?.
I understand your frustration but if the car is not legal it cannot be included in the results against cars that are.

‘There is a combination of Blue Book references here. J.5.18 refers predominantly to static tests. However J.5.17.8 is of more relevance in this instance (105 static + 101 drive by). The fact that noise monitoring would take place during the competition and these limits are indicated and exclusion could follow as a result of failure to meet those limits is shown in Article 17 of the Event Supplementary Regulations .

Then as far as what took place is concerned there is G.5.2.14 which has then resulted ultimately in the car's ineligibility for competition and this is followed by G.5.3.1. Exclusion from competition means that the competitor is also, of consequence, excluded from results of that competition. ‘

Your sincerely Terry Holmes

Personally , I haven't complained when told in the past --- sorry no further runs .(can cause resentment against you in future ) It only happened once , a few years ago and like last Saturday there were many others too. BUT ---- we didn't lose our result , in fact I won my class on that occasion
Terry hasn't actually answered your primary complaint OR if he considers that he has ie. not fair to other ' legal ' cars ---- then why did I not lose mine Didn't Bill's time stand ?

[dopdog]

I think Bills time was kept as he was told only once, and then he decided not to run again. I may be wrong but Jeff were you told twice?