79 replies to this topic

[Johnny D]

Not sure I understand that...

It appears it was a SCCA race so you run under "racing room" for both.
The 3/4 car comes from NASA where they have a number of combos to look at. Starts around PDF page 119 out of 138
http://www.nasaprora...m/rules/ccr.pdf
J~

[Kyle Keenan]

I do have to say, incredible job avoiding the crapper! I don't think the SCCA volunteers could use grease sweep on that mess.....

[Rob Burgoon]

I do have to say, incredible job avoiding the crapper! I don't think the SCCA volunteers could use grease sweep on that mess.....

Dirt makes for a perfectly fine racing surface so long as it's somewhere dryer than mud. Just gotta keep in mind that the car only has a fleeting desire to face the direction that it's traveling and a delayed reaction so go easy on the inputs until you get a feel for it. I could have climbed that hill and shot through there faster, but I didn't want to clean the car either.

[Caveman-kwebb99]

[Todd Green]

And here's the rest of that rule that folks don't bother reading that says it is NOT ok to PUT someone two wheels in the dirt:

That is not the rest of the rule per se. Those are "notes" in an appendix. Good luck on determining the "intent" of the driver(*). How about writing the rule as "leave a car width and an 1/8" and you have no issues of having to determine intent if the driver being passed was intentionally squeezing. You can still write the appendix notes about being prepared to go two wheels off etc., because shinola happens in racing.

Edit: You also don't have to have a bunch of figures that differentiate between a k-wall and dirt. Note that Figure 4 still sides with the 3/4 rule saying B is at fault, but A should be talked to.

* Imagine trying to determine "intent" in this thread if we only had video from one of the cars (Mark's). It paints a very different picture than the video from both cars. Any rule that relies on intent and other nebulous factors is a bad rule, IMO. Also any rule that is spread out through the rule book and repeated is poorly written. It's asking for typos discrepancies etc. to crop up.

[dtfastbear]

They are notes in the appendix in the CCR that are written "to clarify the rules of the road as applied to NASA road racing." I think that makes them relevant. You can argue the semantics all you want, but at the end of the day it's a PERSON (race director) that makes the determination of fault using the full set of rules, so I personally like to apply the full set of rules - notes and all.

I agree that there's room for improvement in the way the NASA rules and appendix are written. It's been a project of mine for the last couple months (and will probably take me the rest of this season) to do a rewrite to clarify many of these racing room situations (input appreciated!). I personally still like the approach of being more specific (CCR approach) to being completely vague and open to interpretation (GCR approach) even though the CCR approach leaves it open to folks poking more semantic holes in it.

Cheers,

Dean

[Todd Green]

They are notes in the appendix in the CCR that are written "to clarify the rules of the road as applied to NASA road racing." I think that makes them relevant.

I agree they are relevant, just saying that if they were in the same place as the main rule, more people would read them and that Figure 4 supports the 3/4 rule. WRT semantics I think it is important. I just see it as you could write a law like:

You are allowed to kill people. Note: This doesn't mean you get to shoot people on the street, but its intent is that there may be cases of self-defense.

You are NOT allowed to kill people. Note: It is understood that there may be cases of self-defense where it is permissible.

I don't like NASA's "kill people" rule with clarifications that you really can't kill people. I just see the rule as causing more people thinking they can squeeze you, than deterring those who are going to stuff it in a corner (people who dive bomb seem to do it regardless of rule sets ).

I think the rule maker's intentions were good, but you know what they say about Hell, roads, and good intentions. This is club racing, I'd rather see a rule stating that you have to give more than a car-width and then the notes can have strong admonishments about dive-bombing etc. The figures already are pretty clear about having to have established position to be entitled to racing room.

Again, just my opinions, not saying I'm right or wrong.

[dtfastbear]

Yeah - totally see your point. Given the very widely held belief that NASA allows/encourages you to squeeze a driver two wheels into the dirt, the "full intent" of the rules clearly aren't getting through to the general driving populace. I held a classroom session on passing and racing room at the last NorCal NASA event. We went over all of this and I think it really got through to people what the real intent and interpretation of the 3/4 car width rule is. However, the classroom session wasn't mandatory. And as you could probably predict, all the people who really needed it didn't bother to show up.

Good discussion, and I agree with you viewpoint, Todd. I'm just trying to make the best of the 3/4 car width rule until I can get it changed...

Cheers,

Dean

[Caveman-kwebb99]

Yeah - totally see your point. Given the very widely held belief that NASA allows/encourages you to squeeze a driver two wheels into the dirt, the "full intent" of the rules clearly aren't getting through to the general driving populace. I held a classroom session on passing and racing room at the last NorCal NASA event. We went over all of this and I think it really got through to people what the real intent and interpretation of the 3/4 car width rule is. However, the classroom session wasn't mandatory. And as you could probably predict, all the people who really needed it didn't bother to show up.

Good discussion, and I agree with you viewpoint, Todd. I'm just trying to make the best of the 3/4 car width rule until I can get it changed...

Cheers,

Dean

Here is to you getting it changed permanently to a full car width or racing room!!!!!!!!!!

[FTodaro]

I have been bitten by the NASA 3/4 rule. I have two issues 1) i don't like the rule. Rules should be simple to understand and apply. the less there is for interpretation the more likely the application of the rules will be fairly applied. Racing Room meets that goal. 2) Not every incident does there have to be a finding of FAULT. I think its unfair for people to post incidents and then all have our opinion with hind sight and video of every angle to decide some one screwed up. It never looks the same on Monday morning as it did in the heat of battle. I do see the value of evaluating situations, I am not jumping on Rob for this post, if people are doing it to understand and for others to learn that's a good thing.

Don't get me wrong NASA lovers, I Like and race NASA a bunch, i just think the system in our region of requiring an inquire of every incidental contact and a full video of your car at impound, puts the pressure on officials to do fault finding in every racing bump incident. Its an obsession with contact. I am more likely to chalk something up to a racing incident than our local officials. If I see a pattern of conduct that is a different story, but we all know from our experience who we can trust and who we watch.

Anyway when I was sanctioned for my incident, I was told we don't like the rule but we have to enforce it. That does not sound healthy to me.

[Rob Burgoon]

I have been bitten by the NASA 3/4 rule. I have two issues 1) i don't like the rule. Rules should be simple to understand and apply. the less there is for interpretation the more likely the application of the rules will be fairly applied. Racing Room meets that goal. 2) Not every incident does there have to be a finding of FAULT. I think its unfair for people to post incidents and then all have our opinion with hind sight and video of every angle to decide some one screwed up. It never looks the same on Monday morning as it did in the heat of battle. I do see the value of evaluating situations, I am not jumping on Rob for this post, if people are doing it to understand and for others to learn that's a good thing.

Don't get me wrong NASA lovers, I Like and race NASA a bunch, i just think the system in our region of requiring an inquire of every incidental contact and a full video of your car at impound, puts the pressure on officials to do fault finding in every racing bump incident. Its an obsession with contact. I am more likely to chalk something up to a racing incident than our local officials. If I see a pattern of conduct that is a different story, but we all know from our experience who we can trust and who we watch.

Anyway when I was sanctioned for my incident, I was told we don't like the rule but we have to enforce it. That does not sound healthy to me.

Frank, I almost completely disagree with you.

"Racing room meets that goal"
Racing room is a license for the SoM to never be wrong. Someone can always be blamed, right or wrong. It also encourages "racing incidents" or "both drivers at fault" even in clear cases.


"It never looks the same on Monday morning"
Discrepancies between perception and reality are something that needs fixing.

"require an investigation of every incidental contact"
Frank, contact is defined as 50/50 breaking cosmetic damage (big) or getting knocked significantly off line. You don't need to report anything smaller. Clement blew his braking in one of the races and whacked me rather hard squarely on the bumper in a difficult braking zone. I wasn't trail braking on that lap and barely moved. If it was under NASA rules, it didn't happen, don't worry about it. And we shouldn't.

I will agree that I'm glad Dean will be revising. I used to think that 3/4 meant the leading car only had to leave 3/4 but I no longer believe that. I like the general direction of the NASA rules, they just need some revising for clarity. Dean, I'm happy to review any drafts you come up with.

As for posting these videos here and getting fairly impartial feedback the monday after, it's the best option I have. I don't trust the SoM with anything, showing him my video privately didn't work, and I don't want splatter Mark's car across a corner station just to "correct" his radical ideas about racing room.

[Caveman-kwebb99]

Frank, I almost completely disagree with you.

"Racing room meets that goal"
Racing room is a license for the SoM to never be wrong. Someone can always be blamed, right or wrong. It also encourages "racing incidents" or "both drivers at fault" even in clear cases. I agree with you here Rob, racing room should be defined. but it is not defined good enough in either group currently.


"It never looks the same on Monday morning"
Discrepancies between perception and reality are something that needs fixing. When you can fix this anywhere in society Rob, you will have life by the short hairs!

"require an investigation of every incidental contact"
Frank, contact is defined as 50/50 breaking cosmetic damage (big) or getting knocked significantly off line. You don't need to report anything smaller. Clement blew his braking in one of the races and whacked me rather hard squarely on the bumper in a difficult braking zone. I wasn't trail braking on that lap and barely moved. If it was under NASA rules, it didn't happen, don't worry about it. And we shouldn't. Rob, since you do not race in our region I will give you a pass on that one! Contact in our region means ANY Contact, been told repeatedly that NASA wants to decide what is incedntal!

I have raced with both groups and will continue to do so, in my experience most every incedent I have been involved in with SCCA, has been able to be handled between drivers. Nasa may punish the offender but it will never help the offended on the timing and scoring sheet. If I get punted in NASA the other guy probably gets a DQ for the race, although he got to finish the race, he might not be able to race the next day, and probably gets a 2 race probation. Big Freakin Deal... I meanwhile ended up in the wall or the Sand trap for the remainder of the race, so where is the Justice in that? So I get to finish one race that weekend, same as the dude who punted me only difference is he is on probation. Makes me feel so much safer out there I notice that the drivers in NASA hardly ever work out the situation since Big Brother already has it handled! I dont want contact any more than anyone else, but this is racing, and we are all humans, therefore shit is gonna happen. To me personaly, the most humbling thing that can happen at the race track is me having to go over and look the other driver in the eye and say I AM SORRY. I have had to do it, it aint fun but it does earn you respect in the long run, getting punhished by Big Brother achieves neither goal.

Opinions are like #ss holes everyone has one... I respect yous, and hope you respect mine as well as Frank's.

[Rob Burgoon]

I have raced with both groups and will continue to do so, in my experience most every incedent I have been involved in with SCCA, has been able to be handled between drivers. Nasa may punish the offender but it will never help the offended on the timing and scoring sheet. If I get punted in NASA the other guy probably gets a DQ for the race, although he got to finish the race, he might not be able to race the next day, and probably gets a 2 race probation. Big Freakin Deal... I meanwhile ended up in the wall or the Sand trap for the remainder of the race, so where is the Justice in that? So I get to finish one race that weekend, same as the dude who punted me only difference is he is on probation. Makes me feel so much safer out there I notice that the drivers in NASA hardly ever work out the situation since Big Brother already has it handled! I dont want contact any more than anyone else, but this is racing, and we are all humans, therefore shit is gonna happen. To me personaly, the most humbling thing that can happen at the race track is me having to go over and look the other driver in the eye and say I AM SORRY. I have had to do it, it aint fun but it does earn you respect in the long run, getting punhished by Big Brother achieves neither goal.

Opinions are like #ss holes everyone has one... I respect yous, and hope you respect mine as well as Frank's.

Well, they can't very well give you positions back, that's not fair to the other drivers.

I realize NASA can be a regional thing, but they do define what they consider contact in their rules, and it isn't "when a cars bumps another car".

[dtfastbear]

Kyle,

Agree with almost everything you said above, but I do not agree that having to fill out an incident report and "working it out with the other driver" are mutually exclusive. It may be that way in your region. If that's so, that is pretty sad. I agree that for MOST DRIVERS, the biggest deterrent to driving like an a-hole is the consequences of hurting a friend/comrade's car and/or body. Having to walk, hat in hand, to the other driver's paddock spot and stand there with the gawkers and apologize for the damage hurts. The problem is, not every driver is that conscientious. My experience has been that in SCCA, many drivers who really need an attitude adjustment from the officials don't get one because the emotional hurdle of protesting another driver is too big. So, when things do not get worked out between the drivers, the offender typically has gotten away with it without any repercussion.

Personally, I like the idea that the obligation to report contact (and there is a definition of contact as Rob pointed out) is on every driver. I think the race directors in NorCal do a good job of calling racing incidents racing incidents and handing out punishment when appropriate as a deterrent to future bad behavior. This has one really big benefit - it is easy for the race directors to notice patterns of behavior. And as you point out, those are the drivers that need to be dealt with.

Just one guy's opinion.

Cheers,

Dean

[Caveman-kwebb99]

Kyle,

Agree with almost everything you said above, but I do not agree that having to fill out an incident report and "working it out with the other driver" are mutually exclusive. It may be that way in your region. If that's so, that is pretty sad. I agree that for MOST DRIVERS, the biggest deterrent to driving like an a-hole is the consequences of hurting a friend/comrade's car and/or body. Having to walk, hat in hand, to the other driver's paddock spot and stand there with the gawkers and apologize for the damage hurts. The problem is, not every driver is that conscientious. My experience has been that in SCCA, many drivers who really need an attitude adjustment from the officials don't get one because the emotional hurdle of protesting another driver is too big. So, when things do not get worked out between the drivers, the offender typically has gotten away with it without any repercussion.

Personally, I like the idea that the obligation to report contact (and there is a definition of contact as Rob pointed out) is on every driver. I think the race directors in NorCal do a good job of calling racing incidents racing incidents and handing out punishment when appropriate as a deterrent to future bad behavior. This has one really big benefit - it is easy for the race directors to notice patterns of behavior. And as you point out, those are the drivers that need to be dealt with.

Just one guy's opinion.

Cheers,

Dean

I am only speaking from my personal experience. I think defining RACEING ROOM is where the most return on time invested is. I for one will stand up and appluad when that gets defined. Many do not know that NASA considers being on the curb as off the racing surface, I did not even know that till and incendtal contact with someone I was sure I gave 4 wheels on the hard surface, to me the curbs are the racing surface. I was corrected by NASA's decision, but I think most drivers do not know that the curb is the same as going into the grass. I have just adjusted how I drive now knowing that fact. Dont get me wrong SCCA has their problems like any other group on the planet as well. thanks for the reply Dean.

[Rob Burgoon]

I am only speaking from my personal experience. I think defining RACEING ROOM is where the most return on time invested is. I for one will stand up and appluad when that gets defined. Many do not know that NASA considers being on the curb as off the racing surface, I did not even know that till and incendtal contact with someone I was sure I gave 4 wheels on the hard surface, to me the curbs are the racing surface. I was corrected by NASA's decision, but I think most drivers do not know that the curb is the same as going into the grass. I have just adjusted how I drive now knowing that fact. Dont get me wrong SCCA has their problems like any other group on the planet as well. thanks for the reply Dean.

That's certainly a shortcoming in the NASA rules. Not all curbs are created equal. Some are pavement extensions, some I'd argue might as well be K-rail for racing room purposes.

[FTodaro]

Just so we are talking apples to apples our NASA rule on contact reporting is that is you have "any" contact with another car you are to report to impound. When you get to impound they take a camera and walk the entire 360 degrees around the car and video it. You are given a clip board and bottle of water and fill out a page or two on the incident. So we really do not have discretion to decide when to come in or not. This excludes bump drafting of course.

If you think it was to minor to report but your fellow competitor reports it and you don't, you risk getting into trouble for not reporting it, so everyone generally reports everything.

That is how it works,

I do not criticize the effort to prevent avoidable contact and clear bad decisions, I am just giving my opinion that I don't like the process. I don't like going to the dentist either by the way, but I go.

[dtfastbear]

Many do not know that NASA considers being on the curb as off the racing surface...

There's an important distinction between "NASA considers" and "my local Race Director considers". I've probably been guilty of not making that distinction, too, even within this thread. I couldn't find "curb", "kerb", "berm" anywhere in the CCR, so I'll bet that each Race Director may interpret this slightly differently. There isn't even a good definition of "racing surface".

Cheers,

Dean

[Caveman-kwebb99]

There's an important distinction between "NASA considers" and "my local Race Director considers". I've probably been guilty of not making that distinction, too, even within this thread. I couldn't find "curb", "kerb", "berm" anywhere in the CCR, so I'll bet that each Race Director may interpret this slightly differently. There isn't even a good definition of "racing surface".

Cheers,

Dean

Just another of the many ambiguous rules. Please fix the wording of that while you are working on the racing room wording. In your Spare Time of Course, Dean! LOL

[Jim Boemler]

I'm sure "baboon" was meant in the most friendly way, but . . .

If you have a serious reason for your analysis, it would be welcome.