128 replies to this topic

[john mueller]

John

 

Apology accepted! Fortunately there were no cones for me to hit since they had already been moved.    

 

Here it is for your curiosity I'm really not complaining about the penalty and I thought the Race Director did a great job all weekend, even though I was on the losing end of this.

 

https://youtu.be/3QwGnc6ymug

 

Thanks.

 

My personal opinion (NASA hat off) the pass looked fine to me.

 

I'm glad you had a nice event and hope to see you next season wherever that may be.

[Rob Burgoon]

It's an interesting question.  If there are cones and someone squeezes you towards the cones once you reach their door, should you wreck the cars to be in the right of not hitting the cones?  Assume the cones represent a concrete wall and you are entitled to 100% car width?

[Ron Alan]

It's an interesting question.  If there are cones and someone squeezes you towards the cones once you reach their door, should you wreck the cars to be in the right of not hitting the cones?  Assume the cones represent a concrete wall and you are entitled to 100% car width?

My guess is if it was a wall , Steve would have went right. That said, he looks like he has room as overlap begins but avoids contact as the car he was overtaking moves left a little.

In general this weekend, it seemed like there was little more aggressive "defending" and definitely more semi dive bombs that the recipients of did a good job avoiding. I like the majority of the responsibility being on the passing car but the 3/4 car width gets taken advantage of. NASA considered the red curbs at Laguna "walls" so a car width was expected this weekend but not always given

[Rob Burgoon]

My guess is if it was a wall , Steve would have went right. That said, he looks like he has room as overlap begins but avoids contact as the car he was overtaking moves left a little.

In general this weekend, it seemed like there was little more aggressive "defending" and definitely more semi dive bombs that the recipients of did a good job avoiding. I like the majority of the responsibility being on the passing car but the 3/4 car width gets taken advantage of. NASA considered the red curbs at Laguna "walls" so a car width was expected this weekend but not always given

 

Agreed.  However it sounds like they failed to specify that the virtual wall still exists once the cones are gone.  Not enough to say "don't hit the cones".

 

Counting the red curbs as walls is correct I think unless the red ones got shorter.

 

The more I think about it, I think nasa needs to retire the 75% width thing.  I understand the reasoning, but it's too.... suggestive, and it falls apart at any track with tall curbs, holes, cars with splitters, etc.  I think we're best with 100% + a sliver.

[john mueller]

Agreed.  However it sounds like they failed to specify that the virtual wall still exists once the cones are gone.  Not enough to say "don't hit the cones".

 

Counting the red curbs as walls is correct I think unless the red ones got shorter.

 

The more I think about it, I think nasa needs to retire the 75% width thing.  I understand the reasoning, but it's too.... suggestive, and it falls apart at any track with tall curbs, holes, cars with splitters, etc.  I think we're best with 100% + a sliver.

 

 

The wisdom flowing from Mr. Burgoon this week is making me feel uneasy.  

[Jamz14]

Agreed.  However it sounds like they failed to specify that the virtual wall still exists once the cones are gone.  Not enough to say "don't hit the cones".

 

Counting the red curbs as walls is correct I think unless the red ones got shorter.

 

The more I think about it, I think nasa needs to retire the 75% width thing.  I understand the reasoning, but it's too.... suggestive, and it falls apart at any track with tall curbs, holes, cars with splitters, etc.  I think we're best with 100% + a sliver.

Though I agree with most of what Rob is saying, it is a total cop out to suggested that just because the cones are no longer in place after being displaced from their original position by those violating the rule now means that the rule no longer applies. If that is the case you could then hire someone to drive that doesn't care about being DQed to take out the cones for you so you can take advantage of the situation while guys with ethics that understand the rule continue to abide by those ethics.

[Jamz14]

Oh, and we were told not to cross over the blend line. It was people that wanted that defined perfectly that led to the comment that they would have cones out there so just don't hit the cones. This was for the benefit of those that couldn't figure out what don't cross over the blend line meant. Not crossing the blend line to me means don't put a wheel over the blend line period. Whether cones exist or not.

[Jim Drago]

Does it hurt when you hit a virtual wall

[Tom Hampton]

it si virtually painless.

[James York]

Does it hurt when you hit a virtual wall

 

Virtual pain.  Like when you crash in iRacing.

[trimless]

I ran all over those cones when the car I attempted to pass pushed me left after already committed. If it HAD been a wall it would have likely ended in damage to one or both cars. But the virtual wall did no damage but the cones will never be the same I suspect.

[Rob Burgoon]

Oh, and we were told not to cross over the blend line. It was people that wanted that defined perfectly that led to the comment that they would have cones out there so just don't hit the cones. This was for the benefit of those that couldn't figure out what don't cross over the blend line meant. 

That settles that part of the question.  My virtual wall philosophical question is still open for discussion.

 

 

I like the "anything paved is fair game" school of thought myself.

[Jamz14]

That settles that part of the question.  My virtual wall philosophical question is still open for discussion.

 

 

I like the "anything paved is fair game" school of thought myself.

I like the spirit of what you are saying but with tracks like COTA and others with paved runoffs, this definition would lead to a lot of racing done outside of the defined racing surface.

[Rob Burgoon]

I like the spirit of what you are saying but with tracks like COTA and others with paved runoffs, this definition would lead to a lot of racing done outside of the defined racing surface.

 

Limits on how far you can cut a corner?  50% of the car must be outside of the curbing to get credit?

[Jamz14]

I don't mind that at all. But could we simplify it by just stating that at least 2 wheels have to stay on the defined racing surface? Like F1 qualifying. That way even if you make a pass with only 1/4 car width left at the apex, if the passing car thinks he can pull it off with two wheels still inside the lines, and in fact does so without issues to the overtaken car, then the pass is legit and he has earned the position from bravery. If he screws it up, then penalized for contact.

[Jamz14]

I would say however, I would have no tolerence for any encroachment of the pit out blend line or pit out definition line.

[Rob Burgoon]

I would say however, I would have no tolerence for any encroachment of the pit out blend line or pit out definition line.

 

 

Why? 

[Bench Racer]

IIRC for the 2014 SCCA Runoffs the placed some concrete/or something barriers inside a couple turns. Brian Linn F prod drove into one with L front corner, race over.

 

Concrete cones would get folks attention, same as concrete walls.

 

At Blackhawk Farm they added a half dozen really tall (guess 6 inch, painted RED) alligators at three corners. Cut em short and pay the price. 

[Jamz14]

Why? 

Why? I am a bit surprised at the question, but here goes;

 

1. Pit out and blend lines mark areas of the track where there is a very really possibility of two cars being in very close proximity at drastically different speeds.

2. Cars in pit out do not yet have the handling of cars on a hot track ( cold tires and brakes ).

3. The physical lines give us an opportunity to remove ambiguity from judgements. In so many cases calls need to be made as to whether something is inside or outside of a space that we arbitrarily define like 3/4 car width, nose to the door, ETC ETC. Distinct lines allow us to make the calls and to provide absolute determination that a crossing was violated or not.

4. Cars in pit out rightfully think that they are outside of the racing surface and protected from cars at full speed. When I say protected I mean protected from anyone deciding to race in their non racing space.

 

If we go back and take a look at the video of the gentleman that was DQ during one session of the champs, and envision a car being in the pit out lane as those moves were happening. I think it would scare the shit out of anyone coming down the pit out. Especially at Mazda with the blind crest of the hill and potentially not being able to see if anyone is in the pit out lane. Just too much going on with no good reason that I can think of to allow encroachment. I think the better question than why we shouldn't allow racing in the pit out would be; for what possible reason should we allow racing in the pit out?

[john mueller]

Why? I am a bit surprised at the question, but here goes;

 

1. Pit out and blend lines mark areas of the track where there is a very really possibility of two cars being in very close proximity at drastically different speeds.

2. Cars in pit out do not yet have the handling of cars on a hot track ( cold tires and brakes ).

3. The physical lines give us an opportunity to remove ambiguity from judgements. In so many cases calls need to be made as to whether something is inside or outside of a space that we arbitrarily define like 3/4 car width, nose to the door, ETC ETC. Distinct lines allow us to make the calls and to provide absolute determination that a crossing was violated or not.

4. Cars in pit out rightfully think that they are outside of the racing surface and protected from cars at full speed. When I say protected I mean protected from anyone deciding to race in their non racing space.

 

If we go back and take a look at the video of the gentleman that was DQ during one session of the champs, and envision a car being in the pit out lane as those moves were happening. I think it would scare the shit out of anyone coming down the pit out. Especially at Mazda with the blind crest of the hill and potentially not being able to see if anyone is in the pit out lane. Just too much going on with no good reason that I can think of to allow encroachment. I think the better question than why we shouldn't allow racing in the pit out would be; for what possible reason should we allow racing in the pit out?

 

James;

This all makes sense for an endurance race but it all too concrete (pun intended) for a sprint race.

 

The reality is during the drivers meeting it was left ambiguous if (or once in SM's case  )  the cones were removed if it was acceptable to go over the line.  All we got was "don't hit the cones". 

 

There are extenuating circumstances in our sport where an inch given in the rules will yield a mile or ten.  It's the old "beg for forgiveness" adage.