79 replies to this topic

[Jim Drago]

This past weekend we had a situation where we had one competitor who was clearly not up to the task of racing in the Super tour series. He was so far of the pace that we were lapping him twice in the 25 minute sessions and three times in Sundays race. A few drivers lost their best lap in qualifying for passing him under yellow. It was actually unsafe not to pass him in some instances.  This driver did meet the 115% rule barely, but was endangering himself and other drivers all weekend.  If you can picture yourself driving your Sm at 100% in a field of 50 SRF3 cars, that was basically what we had. I cant imagine driving in our field constantly looking in mirrors while trying to drive forward.  Many people had near misses and very close calls and I am sure it messed up many battles within the races. The driver himself is a very nice man, but I can't imagine he enjoyed himself or the weekend, which is sad. What do we do in this situation? Should we tighten the supertour to 110%

[Richard Astacio]

Why isn't it being enforced?? Being a fairly new driver myself... get your feet wet with regionals then move up.

To be honest when I was watching I thought there were 2 blue similar cars on track.....didn't even think it was the same car. 

[Jim Drago]

Why isn't it being enforced?? Being a fairly new driver myself... get your feet wet with regionals then move up.

To be honest when I was watching I thought there was 2 blue similar cars on track.....didn't even think it was the same car. 

He barely made the 115%, yes that was the car  

[Rob Burgoon]

You could make an argument for 105%

[DrDomm]

I was going to post something in the other thread, but had to work.  

 

Jim, I heard you speak to him after the Friday drivers meeting.  He was within 115%, so the problem is the rule.  I'm a lower half of the field (for now hopefully) guy, and I think that at Majors even 110% might be too slow.  I came upon him on Saturday after I went off to avoid someone...very scary.  I watched Justin's video from yesterday...even worse.

 

I'm not sure how this would affect other classes, so perhaps 110% at Majors would be a good place to start.  I think 107% is the F1 rule, right?

[evan.pecore]

Same situation happened at the Blackhawk Majors, same driver. Almost took me out and cost others a locked in podium position. I agree something needs to be done. Imo, if you are lapped once in a spec series and are that far off the pace, while not pointing by cars that have lapped you and then trying to race them as they pass, you should be brought in... for everyone's safety.

[Jim Drago]

I was going to post something in the other thread, but had to work.  

 

Jim, I heard you speak to him after the Friday drivers meeting.  He was within 115%, so the problem is the rule.  I'm a lower half of the field (for now hopefully) guy, and I think that at Majors even 110% might be too slow.  I came upon him on Saturday after I went off to avoid someone...very scary.  I watched Justin's video from yesterday...even worse.

 

I'm not sure how this would affect other classes, so perhaps 110% at Majors would be a good place to start.  I think 107% is the F1 rule, right?

I felt for the guy as all he wants to do is race and have a good time like the rest of us. It had to be hard on him as well. I really dont have an answer as I have always been of the more the merrier and all inclusive.. But this was tough and dangerous and really has me asking the question? If this were Road America, Sebring or Atlanta I dont think it would have been an issue? Not much of one anyway... Just no good passing opportunities here so all are risky. 

[Johnny D]

So did you want to add the Chief Steward reserves the right to move him to a another class for his own safety or along those lines.

 

J~

[Tom Sager]

Maybe a talk with the driver is best.  Plenty of divisional races to enter unless his goal is the Runoffs? 

[Bench Racer]

So did you want to add the Chief Steward reserves the right to move him to a another class for his own safety or along those lines.

 

J~

Cut the Clinton crap ^.

 

Trump rule, if a driver can't meet a not being lapped rule, don't allow driver to start race. Note logbook accordingly.

 

My ego is so far in check, even though I could qualify for the 2017 Runoffs (anybody can this year), I know I don't belong. 

[BNaumann]

I agree the 1:58 cutoff at Midohio may as well be no cutoff at all. I wonder if 115% means anything to other classes. After all SM is the second slowest class. 105% may work for SM but not sure it would be well received across the other classes. You're basically asking for a cutoff that guarantees no lappers in a 35min race barring spins or mechanicals. Pro super bike used to be 107% of pole. Maybe we can have special cutoffs for SM and SRF like we have special tech.

On one hand this is still club racing. On the other hand this was the Ultra-Major Super-Dooper Tour. But then the Runoffs is an attendance award.

Did the two cars running 20 seconds off pace cause you as much trouble at COTA?

The driver paid his entry. He met the requirements. Hell, putting that in the supps maybe even encouraged him to enter. Hope no one gave him too hard a time.

[Bench Racer]

 But then the Runoffs is an attendance award.

MAN, it can't be said any better.

But if there's more than 72 cars, say 

[Johnny D]

How about an intervention? Some guys sit down with him a review his set up and data.

Or that's just too much time to make up?

 

J~

[FTodaro]

A few points to consider, knowing the person involved. He wants to run the runoffs at Indy. You can put part of the blame on this situation on SCCA by making the qualification criteria so liberal ( I know how many of you hate the word liberal) well there it is. I suspect he does not really want to run the majors for any other reason. Now if there was some type of point qualification to qualify, I doubt you would see this happen.

 

Now having said that, a 15 plus second per lap differential is not safe IMO. I also think when your looking at this rule it should be an average lap time, not the one and only flyer that they may have had because the average lap times was likely above the limit.

 

Bottom line this situation aside, for Majors it should be an average of a lower percentage, for safety sake.

[DrDomm]

For various reasons, I only plan on doing 3 Majors this year...so that I qualify for Indy.  I have zero chance of qualifying...in the top half.  Barring mechanical problems all week...I think I can do 110%.  Probably 105-107%...and that'll prolly put me into the qualifying race...assuming we have that many cars.

 

I've been a big advocate for inclusion at the Runoffs. In 2012 I tried to get an exemption, because I was 1 point shy of qualifying.  That was declined.  The next year, the 50th Anniversary, I think you just had to do 4 Majors/Nationals.  I qualified under 104%...for 58th!  Last year I made sure I did a couple of poorly attended Majors to get the needed points.  I don't think achieving that point requirement somehow made me any better.  I qualified at 105.7%...for 42nd!  

 

Bottom line...We shouldn't be talking about 115%.  That isn't safe, or appropriate for Majors or the Runoffs.

[JRHille]

So, I could run a 1:57, and the rest of the laps be 2:05-2:10 or even 2:20 and I could still meet the rule as it's written? Makes sense.

[Duane Polsley]

Sadly a driver like this can have an affect on the outcome of a race.  What are you going to do at the runoffs if a lapper takes out the leader?  I've seen it happen locally and the lapper was clueless. He had no idea of what he had done. He apologized at the next race after he watched video and understood what he did. 

 

Just Saying

[BNaumann]

I also think when your looking at this rule it should be an average lap time, not the one and only flyer that they may have had because the average lap times was likely above the limit.
 
Bottom line this situation aside, for Majors it should be an average of a lower percentage, for safety sake.

 
You can't make it that complicated. Compression ratio spreadsheet anyone? It needs to be something a volunteer can look at the qualifying results sheet and figure out easily. It should be X% of pole position. Actually that might be too complicated and that's why they went lap record. You tighten that up too much though and condition swings play a big role.

So, I could run a 1:57, and the rest of the laps be 2:05-2:10 or even 2:20 and I could still meet the rule as it's written? Makes sense.

Yes. How could you control otherwise? Are you going to need video evidence to support your lap time variation? It needs to be something an old-school person can see on a hard copy sheet of paper.

[BNaumann]

Sadly a driver like this can have an affect on the outcome of a race.  What are you going to do at the runoffs if a lapper takes out the leader?  I've seen it happen locally and the lapper was clueless. He had no idea of what he had done. He apologized at the next race after he watched video and understood what he did. 
 
Just Saying

That almost happened in AS this year. 

[JRHille]

 
You can't make it that complicated. Compression ratio spreadsheet anyone? It needs to be something a volunteer can look at the qualifying results sheet and figure out easily. It should be X% of pole position. Actually that might be too complicated and that's why they went lap record. You tighten that up too much though and condition swings play a big role.


Yes. How could you control otherwise? Are you going to need video evidence to support your lap time variation? It needs to be something an old-school person can see on a hard copy sheet of paper.

 

Individual lap times are all posted on SCCA live timing, it shouldn't be hard to take an average of all hot laps.