You Make The Call - Atlanta 7/2015

Copied from the portable drivers hand book.
50/50 at best.

 

"racing room"  whoops, not a race.

6.11 Rules Of The Road 6.11.1 On Course Driver Conduct

As one of the ace drivers of a Road Atlanta-winning ChumpCar team, obviously my opinion matters the most here. 

 

Steve was a bit off-line on a test day where he presumably isn't 100% up to his potential speed. 

The overtaking car is faster and seems to have had the much better opportunity to avoid an incident.

It is a test day.

 

The swing variable for me is whether Steve KNEW he was increasing the chances of an incident by re-tightening his line left in the second before contact.  Did you see him coming and were making him responsible for avoiding the contact, and do you have crappy mirrors where you can't see well?  If so, I'm calling it 40% on Steve. 

 

If you didn't KNOW you were making contact more risky and you have good mirrors, then at worst you were off-line and situationally less aware than you would be with more time there, and I call it more like 15% on Steve.

I am littering the forums with double posts, sorry.  Something weird going on browser-wise.  Am I crazy, I thought we could delete our own posts?

I am not going into who is or not to blame... really no point, i think every view has been aired.

But the title of this post should be "This guy that hit me is an idiot" and anyone who sees otherwise is wrong and i don't need your opinions.

James, I'm sorry if that is your impression, it is not what's in my mind. I hope you can look again and see that most of my objections are to factual misstatements or insinuations of things that are not true. Above all else I respect someone's opinion when they can support it without exaggeration, twisting of facts, or ignoring clear evidence. Again and again people here have done those things, and never once after I challenge them on the facts do they come back with a factual rebuttal to support their original statement.

Saul, and others, surely the fact that I slowed so much for the red and white cars ahead is evidence that my mind set at the time was to minimize risk, lap times be damned. In NO way was I inclined to make a pass by another car any more difficult or risky than necessary. Had I seen him, no matter how ill advised I considered his move, I would have yielded, period. As for situational awareness, some people are innately better at it than others, and for sure it is high on the list of things common to the great drivers. Perhaps Chris and others are super heroes in that respect, but frankly I suspect they just overestimate themselves until they get clobbered. There have been studies on multi-tasking and those who are the most certain of their abilities don't score very well. In this case, in the instant before turn in you can clearly see me check the left mirror, clear, look forward, then check the rear mirror where the other car is behind and even slight outside, not set up for an inside pass. To Chris's point, from the moment when I turn in AND HOLD MY LINE WITH NO ADDITIONAL INPUT (Saul) I should have seen or "sensed" (whatever that means) the car dive-bombing me. OK, on that I do not disagree, ideally I would have seen the bad move and avoided it. Certainly I wish that I had, but no matter how good you are you can't look in all the mirrors all the time, watch corner stations and watch for incidents developing in front of you, all while in the middle of a corner. Yes we need to divide our attention to do all of those, and in this case I didn't put enough of that focus behind and to the left of me. I accepted that from Chris, after correcting his factual misstatements, and went on to question only his 50% assessment. I still question that, particularly on a test day. But answer me this, if you think about how you automatically divide your attention, once you have already turned into a corner seeing the trailing car squarely behind you, is it not reasonable to expect that the odds of him still making a move inside decreases and therefor more of your attention to shift forward? Again, we're talking test day, not a race where every hint of an opening is likely to provoke a move.

Regarding my helmet, the funny thing is that I drove over 4hrs each way just for the opportunity to try on a variety of helmets to get the best fit. And it does fit OK for the most part but seems to ride up my forehead a bit (rotates backwards) as I drive, so I occasionally push it back down. A contributing factor is the straps from the H&N device being a bit too short. I got a longer strap but maybe need to go up one more inch. However, I think the video exaggerates a bit because I had the balaclava pulled down below my chin, which is why it's all bunched up. I do that on the grid then usually pull it up as I go out, but see from the video that I forgot that time. But yea, I need to keep the helmet in position without screwing with it all the time.

Steve,

I gotta agree with James - the tone comes across as tenaciously "not my fault at all". But I take you at your word and perhaps more importantly at the word of those that know you, like Tom and Mark, that you do want to take input backed by reasoned argument. So I'll dig in.

Lets start by stipulating that Joe should have made a better/different decision and not talk about him at all. Let's talk only about whether or not you were a helpless party to this accident. If you were completely helpless (ie. Had zero ability to change the outcome of the accident) then you should shoulder zero blame. If on the other hand you had any ability at all to modify the outcome of the accident, then some % blame should be attributed to you. Fair enough?

Fact 1: You turned into the apex and got hit. It's immaterial whether you turned steadily (which you did) or not. In other words, if you had not turned in, you would not have gotten hit. Stick with the geometry here and don't get sucked into the "I had a right to the line" discussion.
Fact 2: If you had seen Joe coming up fast (and not slowing) and then seen him move from right to left behind you - the physics suggest that he was going to appear at your left side. Exactly as he did.
Fact 3: You apparently did not see/expect/predict/know/hear/sense that Joe made or was going to make that move. If you had, you would have straightened up just a little and he probably/possibly would not have hit you.

I found the video of the car further back to be interesting. It's not crystal clear, but to my eye Joe came up fast behind you, moved to the right and then turned in hard left to undercut you for a pass. To an experienced racer like you this should be a predictable technique, even if very unexpected for a test day. In other words if I saw a flash in my rear view mirror that indicated movement right to left, I would expect the pass - even if I thought it unwise - and I would straighten up. I hope.

You have made the point (I think) that it's unreasonable to expect to look in your mirrors and see everything while you are concurrently looking ahead. True enough, but we are not doing wave by's on the track and so it's table stakes for us to continuously be looking in our mirrors and trying to predict what's going to happen. Of course this does not mean we always get it right and it does not always mean we can counter crazy Ivan moves.

My point is that it's reasonable to think that you had some level of control over the situation. I'm not in Chris's camp of 50% liability, but I'm definitely not zero.

CNJ

See, you managed to make that point, which was Chris' point and others, without slipping in or implying anything clearly contradicted by the video. So from a self-preservation and practical standpoint I have no argument with it beyond the percentage, though if SCCA were involved I'm not sure that's the same as "fault", but it might be. For my own personal reflection on the incident I wish I had kept a closer eye on him but I also know that as you turn, anything behind you not stuck to your bumper moves accross the mirrors very quickly. That combined with his feint right, dive left, and I lost him. That I did not pick him back up as he blasted alongside left me defenseless. That I COULD have tried to give him more room had I been aware of him is indesputable, and that leaves only the apportionment of blame for not seeing him in time. I still think that all circumstances combined, it is heavily weighted one way, but my interest in differencing opinions based on the facts was sincere.

BTW, you will notice that I never said anything similar to "I had a right to the line" in your first point above, which surely can be interpreted as meaning I was aware of the late pass attempt, which I was not. One of my points WAS that I HELD my line, which was to remind how we preach that with the assurance that if the advice is followed the passing cars will find a safe clean way around. One of the factors to consider for both parties, not meant to imply awareness of the pass and a conscious stubborn decision to not allow more room. I clearly demonstrated great caution repeatedly with other cars both faster and slower.

Saul, same issue plus. I last week started using Windows 10.

I haven't posted on here in ages and I'm not going to add my 0.02c but Steve, dude, YOUR HELMET.  It doesn't remotely fit you.  If you get in a head-on wreck you're going to seriously get hurt wearing your helmet like that.  It looks like your head is not inside the helmet at all and it's resting around your ears.  Get that sorted before you get hurt man!

 

OK, F it I will add my 0.02c  That was 100% on the passing car.  If someone is going to let you by on the inside of no-name (T4) they get WAY, WAY offline to make the pass happen and 90% of the time you're getting pointed by.  There's no questioning it, it's obvious.  When Steve tracked out from T3 he tracked out fully to the left and almost touched the kerbs.  He then turned left for T4 a tiny bit late making his line not completely tight against the kerbing.  But from initial turn-in his trajectory was always right back on the racing line.  In no way was that opening the door.  Without a clear point-by there's no way in holy hell I'm making that pass ESPECIALLY on a test day.  If someone pulled that move on me I'd be spitting fire.

The Flyin Scot!  Nice to hear from you Colin!

I will leave both parties with two words that will make situations like this easier to avoid:

Be predictable.

But answer me this, if you think about how you automatically divide your attention, once you have already turned into a corner seeing the trailing car squarely behind you, is it not reasonable to expect that the odds of him still making a move inside decreases and therefor more of your attention to shift forward? Again, we're talking test day, not a race where every hint of an opening is likely to provoke a move.

 

Granted, it is very easy for me to say this not being in your shoes, but as a one-man-one-car-gang that was on a budget of both time and money, I did EVERYTHING I could to avoid contact, especially if it wasn't late-ish in the race for a position that actually mattered.  Countless times, I dove out of the way of divebombing Mazda Teen Tween Queen Dream Scream ChaIllenge drivers that were trying to score an F1 contract by "winning" the rainy Saturday morning practice session.  "Living to fight another day" lost me some "important" races, but I *think* it also saved me from DNFs, retubs/totals, and the inevitable hard feelings that come from such things.

 

To your point - If I KNOW I am the fastest car heading into the corner because I just passed 2 oil-starved VolksPorsche 944 and 2 bent-valve E30 BMW backmarkers, then I certainly DO shift my focus forward and expect them to not "re-pass" PIT maneuver me.  But when I am in a "traffic jam" or suspect a possibility of being overtaken, I try not to leave the door open  - and IF I drift wide I try to STAY wide to the next apex or until/unless I check the mirrors and see that I am clear to "re-tighten".  GRANTED, this is all preachy armchair QB-ing of your situation, and I have not been a perfect parishioner to my own above-stated religion. 

 

Having said that, I think the SCCA passing rules are vaguely meaningless and the NASA rules are nutty for requiring only 3/4 of a car width as sufficient "racing room".  Everyone should drive like we are in 1950s open wheel cars with leather helmets and trees for runoff area.  It would solve EVERYTHING and the fastest guy would still win. 

What would have been the downside if the overtaking driver backed out of it until a higher percentage passing opportunity appeared? What would be lost?

I did mention it was a very late and possible I'll thought out pass. That is how passing car got his 50% blame. Only thing I was trying too get across too Steve was regardless of situation he is responsible too protect his car by being aware. People are mentioning it was a test day and it was crazy ect... During test day a driver needs too be even more aware of what was going on. Bottom line Steve admitted too not looking and not seeing the car beside him. That was his 50%. Downside for Steve is he pays 100% of the price. And that is what I was trying too point out. If he looked there would have been no crash!
Also your still shot shows an important aspect. Seconds before that still the passing car was a 100 or more feet behind and is rapidly closing. Also in the still the attitude of the passing car shows clear intent too pass inside inmo.

I should also explain I give only 3 percentages. 0% 50% 100%

I should also explain I give only 3 percentages. 0% 50% 100%

Very important fact for understanding your assessment!
So you're saying if it is not 100% one persons fault then you score it 50/50?
Curious, why such a coarse rating scale?

Sorry to post a little late, just catching up on this thread.  Chris you know I respect you, but when you say side to side contact, I have a hard time understanding that point of view.  Sure ultimately it was side to side, but look at this still frame from the vid:

 

Steve has significant steering input, the door is already closing and you can clearly see Joe's car is still completely behind Steve's car (though moving fast to the left).  Now the monkey in the wrench is the speed differential in cars.  This is just bad juju every time.  Anyway, in my book side-to-side means that you have overlap before the leading car has turned in (or minimally the trailing car has presented itself to let you know the dive bomb is coming.)  Clearly that is not the case here.   The trailing car had to have seen that Steve wasn't leaving room for whatever reason.  Perhaps the trailing car didn't have time to react, but IMO on a test day he should never have taken the chance in the first place and backed off long before it got to that point.  I don't know Steve beyond his posts here, but I'd wager that if he knew that Joe was going to stuff it in there, he'd have left room.  Very few people are going to intentionally risk injury and damage to prove a point on a testing day.  So the question becomes is it reasonable for Steve to have kept watching his mirrors after he'd already turned in?  I'd say no.  Sure there are circumstances with out of class cars and massive closing rates where you'd better be ready to leave the door open, but for in class if I've checked my mirrors before turning in and there is no car to the inside of me I'm turning down and looking where I'm going.  If you can run a corner while looking in your mirror and not lose time (or drive off track), you're much better at this than I am.

 

I'd go further and argue that at a test day, I should be able to remove every mirror from the car, and never get in a single collision.

Very important fact for understanding your assessment!
So you're saying if it is not 100% one persons fault then you score it 50/50?
Curious, why such a coarse rating scale?

Simple scale used because unless I was plain and simple slammed into or slammed into someone with those being 0 or 100 the rest is just too hard too judge. Neither car was innocent in this crash so 50/50 would be the call. Basically there are only punts and racing incidents.

Thanks. I understand now. I don't agree, but at least I understand.