24 replies to this topic

[CruzanTom]

I just started following F1 and I found this interesting. FAI reveals new 2012 Sporting Regulations, including:

Drivers may no longer move back onto the racing line having moved off it to defend a position.

http://bit.ly/tlmVlY

Is this the same as our "1 Block" rule or something different? What was the previous F1 regulation?

[Caveman-kwebb99]

Not sure what F1 means but in SCCA you can make 1 move and that move is not allowed to impeed the progress of another car. NASA on the other hand you can make a move to not only impeed the other car but also puut him 2 wheels off the track.

[Kyle Disque]

Kyle,

Please note that the "1 move" reference in the GCR has been removed (a while ago). It would be time well spent to re-review this section of the GCR.

-Kyle Disque

[Qik Nip]

Seting aside the rulebook(s), it's my firm opinion that one move is all we should get. After the second one, we deserve whever happens.
Rick

[Caveman-kwebb99]

A. Drivers are responsible to avoid physical contact between cars on

the race track.

B. Each competitor has a right to racing room, which is generally

defined as sufficient space on the marked racing surface that under

racing conditions, a driver can maintain control of his car in close

quarters.

C. Drivers must respect the right of other competitors to racing room.

Abrupt changes in direction that impede or affect the path of

another car attempting to overtake or pass may be interpreted as

an effort to deprive a fellow competitor of the right to racing room.

D. The overtaking driver is responsible for the decision to pass another

car and to accomplish it safely. The overtaken driver is responsible

General

to be aware that he is being passed and not to impede or block the

overtaking car. A driver who does not use his rear view mirror or

who appears to be blocking another car attempting to pass may be

black flagged and/or penalized, as specified in Section 7.

SCCA rules directlry from the GCR.

Sure wish NASA would pick up on this !

[LarryKing]

NASA on the other hand you can make a move to not only impeed the other car but also puut him 2 wheels off the track.

I read the entire section on passing in NASA's CCR and didn't the above anywhere. In fact it's practically copied word-for-word from the SCCA's GCR, as is most of the rest of the rulebook. NASA hasn't gotten around to deleting the "one move" language yet.

[Caveman-kwebb99]

25.4.4 Blocking

A driver may choose to protect his or her line so long as it is not considered blocking.

Blocking is defined as two (2) consecutive line changes to “protect his/her line,” and in

doing so, impedes the vehicle that is trying to pass with each of the two (2) consecutive

movements. Drivers are encouraged to check with the Race Director for a full

explanation before the start of the race.

Clearly by this rule you are able to change the line once not to mention I have asked for clarification on this from the RD, I was told that 2 wheels in the grass to make a pass is customary. That the driver being passed must only leave 3/4 of the corner to the overtaking driver, meaning again in the grass, yet it is the overtaking drivers responsiblilty to maintain control even though he has been forced into the grass to make his pass. That is nowhere near the same as SCCA rule to racing room on the marked surface.

[LarryKing]

Still not seeing the "in the grass" part.

[Caveman-kwebb99]

Grass is not in writing it is the clarrification with the RD part, next time you go to a NASA race just ask. Frank can clarrify it for you as well... after a guy just moved right over on him and he didnt go into the grass to avoid, he was subsequently penalized!

[Caveman-kwebb99]

Punting.

The term “punting” is defined as nose to tail (or side-of-the-nose to side-of-the-tail)

contact, where the leading car is significantly knocked off of the racing line.

Once the trailing car has its front wheel next to the driver of the other, it is considered

that the trailing car has a right to be there. And, that the leading driver must leave the

trailing driver enough “racing room.” In most cases, “racing room” is defined as “at least

three quarters of one car width.” If adequate racing room is left for the trailing car, and

there is incidental contact made between the cars, the contact will be considered “sideto-

side.” In most cases, incidental side-to-side contact is considered to be “just a racing

incident.” If, in the case of side-to-side contact, one of the two cars leaves the racing

surface (involuntarily) then it may still be considered “a racing incident.” [Note: The

whole intent of the “wheel next to the driver” rule is to make sure that the overtaken

driver sees the overtaking driver.]

Notes:

These two rules are the basis by which the IRB or Race Director will determine fault

when two (2) or more cars are involved in an on-track incident. The rules described in

CCR section #25.4 are intended to help drivers determine when they should attempt a

pass, and who may be at fault should there be an incident. The main purpose of the “¾

car width” rule is not to allow one driver to “squeeze” the other driver. The main purpose

and intent is to alert the mind of the driver that is contemplating a pass that he/she may

be “forced” to go two (2) wheels off-course to avoid a collision. Basically, this means

that the overtaking driver must be certain that he/she can attempt the pass with room to

spare, and must be prepared to take evasive action if necessary.

2 wheels off course would be in the grass or into a wall maybe. this rule while it states it is not written to allow one driver to squeeze another, actually does allow for such a move. I have seen two people get race suspensions over this as well, as get DQ'd

Seems you like to argue alot Mr. Moose? I am just posting the rules... like them or not they are the rules and not just my opinions.

[LarryKing]

Driving someone into the grass is not a rule, it is one race director's opinion. (Making rules on the fly is one of NASA's areas for improvement)

And please, call me Bullwinkle.

[Caveman-kwebb99]

Driving someone into the grass is not a rule, it is one race director's opinion. (Making rules on the fly is one of NASA's areas for improvement)

And please, call me Bullwinkle.

The main purpose
and intent is to alert the mind of the driver that is contemplating a pass that he/she may
be “forced” to go two (2) wheels off-course to avoid a collision.

You dont see that grass is off course? I would love for you to set the RD straight for all of our sakes! I have been driven into the grass several times with NASA, not once with SCCA. Better drivers? or Better Rules? Not sure which it is...

[MPR22]

As with any rule, what is written vs what is applied are two totally different things. I have seen the rule applied as Kyle descibes many times in NASA Texas. The car initiating the pass can be forced off without penalty to the blocker. This in fact encourages blocking, as the guy gets run on you out of the turn you just have to wait until he is committed to a side and then turn down on him. Bang, its his fault. I have seen this happen on long straights at 100+ mph.

[Caveman-kwebb99]

As with any rule, what is written vs what is applied are two totally different things. I have seen the rule applied as Kyle descibes many times in NASA Texas. The car initiating the pass can be forced off without penalty to the blocker. This in fact encourages blocking, as the guy gets run on you out of the turn you just have to wait until he is committed to a side and then turn down on him. Bang, its his fault. I have seen this happen on long straights at 100+ mph.

It is just an unfortunate TRUTH! IMO they need to re write some of those rules, but thats just me. Everyone else that races NASA seems to love that rule.

[HoneyBadger - BrianW]

As with any rule, what is written vs what is applied are two totally different things. I have seen the rule applied as Kyle descibes many times in NASA Texas. The car initiating the pass can be forced off without penalty to the blocker. This in fact encourages blocking, as the guy gets run on you out of the turn you just have to wait until he is committed to a side and then turn down on him. Bang, its his fault. I have seen this happen on long straights at 100+ mph.

I have found the people that will do this to you, do so not because the rules allow it but because they are a-holes. They will do it in either SCCA or NASA. I honestly don't think people pay that much attention to the difference in the rules. Good racers, race you clean and bad ones turn down on you, plain and simple. I have honestly never though, hey I can run this guy 2 wheels off because the rules allow it...

[Jim Boemler]

I agree, Brian, but even bad racers react to feedback. If the feedback they get is a penalty, next time they don't do it. If there's NO penalty, it continues. In that respect the rules DO matter, assuming anyone enforces them.

[dtfastbear]

Somehow, in Northern California NASA, we avoided having absolute mayhem and smashed cars at every race, even though we race under the NASA rules that Kyle posted. I agree with Brian. There are the racing room rules as they are written, then there is the attitude of the racers toward each other. When you have incentives in place (peer pressure is a good one) to not always exercise one's right to racing room, then you can actually have very competitive, cooperative and damage free racing. That is to say, that even though a driver is technically allowed to leave only 3/4 of a car width at the apex for a passing car, when the driver being overtaken has been educated that it isn't in his best interest to only leave 3/4 of a car width, that driver is likely to be a more cooperative competitor. Faster, too.

This is precisely the reason Juan and I started the Art of Road Racing school - because these rules are almost always misunderstood and misapplied, and it results in sub-optimal racing.

Kyle, I don't know about your region, but NASA here in norcal has a fraction of the contact that occurs in the local SCCA races, not the other way around. My guess is that it's due to a lot of different factors, but the racing room rules as written isn't one of the main reasons.

Just one guy's [obviously biased] opinion,

Dean
>> edited because I mispelled "racer" and also had "overtaking" when I mean "overtaken".

[MPR22]

I have found the people that will do this to you, do so not because the rules allow it but because they are a-holes. They will do it in either SCCA or NASA. I honestly don't think people pay that much attention to the difference in the rules. Good racers, race you clean and bad ones turn down on you, plain and simple. I have honestly never though, hey I can run this guy 2 wheels off because the rules allow it...

In NASA the guy that gets turned down on gets a DQ and one race suspension. In SCCA protests are filed and the percieved guilty party recieves the punishment.
Also, I have never been turned into on a straight away in an SCCA race but I have had it happen 2 out of the 4 NASA races I have attended. My point is the rule encourages contact and the guilty party(my opinion) is absolved by the officials even though the written rule says something different. To your point, 50% of the turn downs were committed by Aholes.

[Jim Boemler]

Kyle, I don't know about your region, but NASA here in norcal has a fraction of the contact that occurs in the local SCCA races, not the other way around. My guess is that it's due to a lot of different factors, but the racing room rules as written isn't one of the main reasons.

What do you think those factors are?

[dtfastbear]

You really wanna know? OK, but I'll start with the disclaimer that I'm a NASA official, so I'm biased. This is also my opinion based on observation from racing with both organizations for about 6 years, not based on data and stats.

I think there are two main factors and a couple of smaller contributing factors.

1) I believe the NASA rule of making it every driver's responsibility to fill out a Contact Form if there is any contact results in more incidents being reviewed and discussed. This is different than the SCCA approach in which incidents are only reviewed if a) a corner worker calls the incident in or one driver formerly protests the other. I believe the NASA approach is more instructive for casual racers and raises the awareness of the rules and what they mean across the board. My experience has been that it gets drivers talking to each other, also. The more drivers know each other the more likely they are to cooperate with each other rather than dogmatically "exercise their rights according to the racing room rules".

2) The second main factor, particular to our region, is that SCCA attracts a larger number of cars at this point, so the pure density of spec miatas probably results in more incidents. If NASA had 40-50 cars instead of 20 at each event, maybe we'd see more incidents. I don't think so, but I don't know for sure.

Other contributing factors:

- In my region, NASA brings drivers up through HPDE, so they learn to drive the proper line and acclimate to driving on the track before they ever start racing. SCCA lets a driver go from never-been-to-a-race-track to licensed racer without ever getting ANY in-car instruction and in just one weekend. NASA (in our region, at least) makes you complete four race days without any incidents of any sort - including wheels off or spins - before you are off probation and get a race license. In SCCA, you just have to not get DQ'd for a few races before you're signed off for a license.

- In our NASA region, we have a drivers' meeting every race day. That brings all the racers face to face, and we talk about any incidents that happened the prior weekend or the prior day. In our local SCCA region, they only have one class drivers' meeting per season, and that's usually dominated by a specific topic. There's no other mechanism that brings the drivers together, face to face, to talk about the racing or racing incidents.

- In our NASA region, we create a designated paddock space for each class which has the effect of forcing the drivers closer together physically for the whole weekend. Again, I firmly believe that you treat people differently when you know them, have borrowed tools (or beers) from them and have interacted with them off the track. NASA flat-out does a better job of this in our region.

I don't agree with how all the NASA racing room rules are written, but like I said above (and Brian said originally), I think the quality of the racing and the amount of contact has a lot more to do with the mentality of the drivers in the class and how you bring the drivers together than it does the printed words in the CCR.

Again, just one guy's opinion.

Cheers,

Dean