284 replies to this topic

[Tom Sager]

Many SCCA volunteers reject the notion that there is a customer at all.

I suppose that members and racers can consider themselves customers as we pay for services but as a club and one that staffs many events with a lot of volunteers, we the "consumers" of services should never forget that many that serve us are volunteering for their own satisfaction.  Anything we can do as drivers and members to make the volunteer's weekend a good one we should strive to do IMO. 

[Ron Alan]

I suppose that members and racers can consider themselves customers as we pay for services but as a club and one that staffs many events with a lot of volunteers, we the "consumers" of services should never forget that many that serve us are volunteering for their own satisfaction.  Anything we can do as drivers and members to make the volunteer's weekend a good one we should strive to do IMO. 

I think you understand Robs point but for the newbies...yes...most of those volunteers are there for their own satisfaction and enjoyment. Its when that "enjoyment" is nothing but for any of the "customers" who do in the end pay for there uniforms, food and cocktails. Having to put up with a power trip from a SCCA "volunteer" gets old!

 

Don't get me wrong...I'm not complaining, I just understand where the rub comes in!

 

And of course this is a small percentage...and I do encourage all to thank the workers!

[Danica Davison]

And here we have it...another example of when rules/procedures/expectations...whatever you call it are not adhered to!!!

 

A front row going 45mph in 2nd gear who never get the green flag are still going 45mph! A properly and tightly bunched 2 by 2 start can not go anywhere until the car in front moves. Even if they have a radio and can not see starter...they should never get a green flag call!!!

 

Ron and Rob ... Yeah, that all sounds peachy to blame the pole sitter ... if everyone behind him does what they are supposed to do as well.  Also a lot easier when you have smaller fields. This also depends on the track you are at. For example:

 

At Sebring, when you have 70 cars taking the green, the middle of the field and back are still in T17 or just after when the green comes out and you are behind the walkover bridge, you cant really see the starter. So, what happens if the leader doesn't start rolling into the power before the green comes out?  10 rows and back are already accelerating before the front row carrying more speed than the front pack down the straightaway.  There is a good 5-10 mph difference going down the straight and into turn 1 and you have mid pack guys in the front pack of the field where they don't belong.  It happens almost every start.  If the leaders are already rolling into the power at the walkover bridge before the green comes out, this issue never occurs because we are all going the same speed.

 

At Daytona, it is the opposite because everyone can see the green and all of the stewards in the tower can see any drivers doing anything wrong on the start.  Last race at Daytona with 50+ cars, I was the pole sitter and I didn't start the race.  The cars behind me did. Both starts i was bumped pretty solid from the car in the second row who were already under power before the green came out. 

 

My point, it is not necessarily the pole sitters fault, and sometimes if the pole sitter is still going pace car speed before the green flag drops can cause more issues.  

[Ron Alan]

John...I understand the ramifications of what happens at certain tracks given certain starting conditions. But I also understand there are rules that apply to starts...and all participants are expected to follow these rules. I think its fair to say that in general...when all play by the rules...the likely hood of less carnage before the start/finish line is good! 

 

If certain regions/tracks want to have supplements to the rules to avoid what they know may happen with a "text book" start so be it...no issues. But until then we have to live by what we have, stewards need to penalize infractions, starters need to wave off when things arent right!

 

Bottom line...ALL need to be accountable...be it front row, mid pack, starter, and rules officials! 

[Rob Burgoon]

Zero sympathy for pole sitters going early, or the officials that enable it.

[Bench Racer]

How about we approach the existing rules like Pro golfers.

Option:

Maybe we continue the by SCCA rule, approach the start line speed limit equal to pace car speed along with hand held radar gun aimed at pole position and closely watch off pole position. Put it in the supps.  Screw up, black flag the offender next time around. Learning process will be quick and stick.

 

John...I understand the ramifications of what happens at certain tracks given certain starting conditions. But I also understand there are rules that apply to starts...and all participants are expected to follow these rules. I think its fair to say that in general...when all play by the rules...the likely hood of less carnage before the start/finish line is good! 

 

If certain regions/tracks want to have supplements to the rules to avoid what they know may happen with a "text book" start so be it...no issues. But until then we have to live by what we have, stewards need to penalize infractions, starters need to wave off when things arent right!

 

Bottom line...ALL need to be accountable...be it front row, mid pack, starter, and rules officials! 

[Jim Drago]

It's very easy to have an idealistic position when you dont start many races from pole  try a few your way and let me know how it works out.. yeah yeah, I know you will protest the 15 cars behind you. Good luck. 

[Tom Hampton]

It's very easy to have an idealistic position when you dont start many races from pole  try a few your way and let me know how it works out.. yeah yeah, I know you will protest the 15 cars behind you. Good luck.

lol.

cold blooded, but funny.

[Bench Racer]

It's very easy to have an idealistic position when you dont start many races from pole  try a few your way and let me know how it works out.. yeah yeah, I know you will protest the 15 cars behind you. Good luck. 

Repeat:

How about we approach the existing rules like Pro golfers.

 

Seems many want the rules to be followed, but any comments that may be an improvement the cold/it effects me/or whatever negative response come pouring out. So sandbag and start in the second row.

 

EDIT:

 

Presume exceeding the pace car speed before green flag would be identified as, improving position during pace lap. Me on pole will never happen and has nothing to do with open communication.

 

http://www.cendiv-sc... guidelines.pdf

[Rob Burgoon]

It's very easy to have an idealistic position when you dont start many races from pole try a few your way and let me know how it works out.. yeah yeah, I know you will protest the 15 cars behind you. Good luck.

I've started from pole quite a few times, and every time manage to not floor it early. Don't see any need to exploit the officials like that to defend my position either.

Maybe you're just old?

[Jim Drago]

I've started from pole quite a few times, and every time manage to not floor it early. Don't see any need to exploit the officials like that to defend my position either.

Maybe you're just old?

Yeah, the special olympics dont count  

No come back for the old, your right

[Rob Burgoon]

Yeah, the special olympics dont count  
No come back for the old, your right

should we talk about legalizing the full throttle start?

[FTodaro]

An update from the weekend, we had 3/4 of the SMAC on hand to talk out some ideas. I think we have a consensus that we are going to do a petition with the primary objective of gathering signatures requesting that SCCA take action regarding the amount of contact and the lack of penalties being assess for dangerous driving. The overall message is that the aggressive driving has gone too far and "we" the class want action to correct it.

 

So the petition will ask class members to sign if they agree that they want aggressive driving to be reined in. We have kicked around several ideas, some very good, but as a practical matter we will need a proposal that will be easy to implement and easy to monitor. While we do not have all the details the two general proposals in the Petition will be to do a contact impound where all metal to metal contact is recorded and evaluated.

 

The second proposal will be to have a contact czar, Like the CCC who may find fault, issue penalties and points. He will also keep records.

 

This is a starting point. We will get some language posted to kick around.

[38bfast]

Frank just for reference in the sups for this last weekend all contact was to be reported. I did not see that happen. I do know that at least one metal to metal was addressed by the Stewart but no penalties we given. although contact was very light this weekend I witnessed at least 4 contact situations that I believe should have came with some sort of penalties.

[FTodaro]

Frank just for reference in the sups for this last weekend all contact was to be reported. I did not see that happen. I do know that at least one metal to metal was addressed by the Stewart but no penalties we given. although contact was very light this weekend I witnessed at least 4 contact situations that I believe should have came with some sort of penalties.

Good point, that is what the supps said but not sure action was taken. I will bring that point up. PM with with the cars if you know and I will see if any action was taken that was not apparent to us.

[Brocodile]

The post by 38bfast illustrates a key point: It's not enough simply to decree that all contact is to be reported. There must be a formal procedure. This is the gist of the NASA metal-to-metal rule I described in an earlier post. A simple form must be completed by both drivers. Failure to file the completed form is itself an offense. This is a practical way to assure that incidents will be reported and addressed officially. Most reports and the ensuing discussions between the drivers and the official should result in no official action, but (most) drivers will naturally exercise more discretion in order to avoid the entire process. Repeat offenders will be identified and dealt with accordingly. I would envision a process by which the official who initially talks to the drivers deciding whether or not it merits sanctions. If so, he would refer it to the protest committee for official action (like an RFA). Likewise, if such official does not think action is warranted, either driver would be free to file a protest per existing procedures, except that the 30-minute time window would begin to run only when the official announces his decision to take no action.

 

Would it be possible to implement this on a regional basis, as an experiment, thereby avoiding the bureaucratic obstacles of high-level SCCA approval? If it works, then a club-wide rule could be proposed. 

[Rob Burgoon]

The post by 38bfast illustrates a key point: It's not enough simply to decree that all contact is to be reported. There must be a formal procedure. This is the gist of the NASA metal-to-metal rule I described in an earlier post. A simple form must be completed by both drivers. Failure to file the completed form is itself an offense. This is a practical way to assure that incidents will be reported and addressed officially. Most reports and the ensuing discussions between the drivers and the official should result in no official action, but (most) drivers will naturally exercise more discretion in order to avoid the entire process. Repeat offenders will be identified and dealt with accordingly. I would envision a process by which the official who initially talks to the drivers deciding whether or not it merits sanctions. If so, he would refer it to the protest committee for official action (like an RFA). Likewise, if such official does not think action is warranted, either driver would be free to file a protest per existing procedures, except that the 30-minute time window would begin to run only when the official announces his decision to take no action.

 

Would it be possible to implement this on a regional basis, as an experiment, thereby avoiding the bureaucratic obstacles of high-level SCCA approval? If it works, then a club-wide rule could be proposed. 

 

It's not "metal-to-metal", it's "contact" which is a lot more than a tire dount.

[Tom Hampton]

It's not "metal-to-metal", it's "contact" which is a lot more than a tire dount.

True. For clarity (from the nasa 2017 CCR):

27.4.1 Body Contact
Body Contact is defined as any part of a car making physical contact with another car significant enough to
cause one (1) of the cars to sustain body damage or to be significantly knocked off of the racing line. Any driver
involved in body contact must go directly to impound and fill out a contact report form.

27.4.2 Damage
Damage from an incident is limited to the following definition: Any sheet metal, fiberglass, or other body
material, deformity significant enough to cause the NASA Officials to enforce the “50/50 rule,” thus requiring
repairs. Damage to suspension or other mechanical components are not included in this definition. Damage to
plastic or vinyl bumper covers, trim pieces, splitters, marker lights; and marks from tire rubs, are not considered
damage for the purposes of this section.

27.4.3 Course Deviation
Course deviation is defined as: when a driver is forced to significantly deviate from the “normal” racing line as a
direct result of body contact from another car. Voluntary deviation to avoid another incident in not considered
“deviation” for the purposes of assessing fault.

[Brocodile]

True. For clarity (from the nasa 2017 CCR):

27.4.1 Body Contact
Body Contact is defined as any part of a car making physical contact with another car significant enough to
cause one (1) of the cars to sustain body damage or to be significantly knocked off of the racing line. Any driver
involved in body contact must go directly to impound and fill out a contact report form.

27.4.2 Damage
Damage from an incident is limited to the following definition: Any sheet metal, fiberglass, or other body
material, deformity significant enough to cause the NASA Officials to enforce the “50/50 rule,” thus requiring
repairs. Damage to suspension or other mechanical components are not included in this definition. Damage to
plastic or vinyl bumper covers, trim pieces, splitters, marker lights; and marks from tire rubs, are not considered
damage for the purposes of this section.

27.4.3 Course Deviation
Course deviation is defined as: when a driver is forced to significantly deviate from the “normal” racing line as a
direct result of body contact from another car. Voluntary deviation to avoid another incident in not considered
“deviation” for the purposes of assessing fault.

 

Thanks for looking up the actual rule, Tom. As with any rule, this one contains some ambiguity, but it's been around for years and has proven pretty effective. For those unfamiliar, the "50-50" rule states the any damage visible to an observer standing 50 feet from the car passing at 50 mph must be repaired. The ambiguity arises from the exclusion of bumper covers and donuts for purposes of the reporting rule, although they apply for purposes of the 50-50 rule. I guess that's why it is commonly called the "metal-to-metal" rule.

 

Note, however, that the "course deviation" alternative may catch many incidents which do not cause "damage". For example, a hit from behind may dent the bumper cover and even break the diff, neither of which is included in the definition of "damage" (that's right, suspension and mechanical damage is excluded); however, if the contact also knocks the recipient off line, which is practically inevitable for contact in a braking zone, then it must be reported. Another example would be contact mid-corner, which, while very light, may be sufficient to induce a wiggle or even a spin. Either would be a "course deviation" and thus reportable.

[Rob Burgoon]

Thanks for looking up the actual rule, Tom. As with any rule, this one contains some ambiguity, but it's been around for years and has proven pretty effective. For those unfamiliar, the "50-50" rule states the any damage visible to an observer standing 50 feet from the car passing at 50 mph must be repaired. The ambiguity arises from the exclusion of bumper covers and donuts for purposes of the reporting rule, although they apply for purposes of the 50-50 rule. I guess that's why it is commonly called the "metal-to-metal" rule.

 

Note, however, that the "course deviation" alternative may catch many incidents which do not cause "damage". For example, a hit from behind may dent the bumper cover and even break the diff, neither of which is included in the definition of "damage" (that's right, suspension and mechanical damage is excluded); however, if the contact also knocks the recipient off line, which is practically inevitable for contact in a braking zone, then it must be reported. Another example would be contact mid-corner, which, while very light, may be sufficient to induce a wiggle or even a spin. Either would be a "course deviation" and thus reportable.

 

 

A wiggle is likely not a "significant" course deviation and it takes a lot of damage to make NASA officials "enforce the 50/50 rule".  Generally it seems to need to be a bump hard enough to make a pass happen or send you off.  Complaining that someone made you overshoot your turnin by 6 feet probably isn't going to get you anywhere.