PDA

View Full Version : Who writes these things anyway?



Fbody383
09-19-2007, 11:33 AM
Picked out of the Nationals thread...



Hey Glen, how about this rule:
CMC rule 8.5.6 ...The car must be run with the hood, doors, and trunk completely closed and securely latched.

Chuck
CMC Mustang #14

He DID run with all those parts ... for about 1/2 a lap.

The rule doesn't say a racer has to FINISH with all those parts.

BUT, you still have to make weight at the end.

I guess if it was a 1/2 lap race he would've been ok. The rule also doesn't say you have to "start" with a hood either but are you going to get on track without one? So a car that loses a hood can continue but one with the hood flopping open/closed can't?

The rule reads pretty clear to me - to "run," i.e. be on track competing, requires a closed and latched hood.

Maybe the better question starts with this:

1. INTRODUCTION
Camaro Mustang Challenge is a racing series with two classes: CMC and CMC-2. The following rules are not guidelines for this series but an actual listing of allowed and required modifications. All of these rules apply to both CMC and CMC-2 cars unless otherwise stated. The only modifications are those specifically allowed. If not specifically allowed, any modifications shall be prohibited. Some equipment may be required to support the sponsors who have contributed to the year end points fund.

Can anybody point me to the "you don't have to have a hood at all time" rule?

So what does "run" mean here?
8.28. Engine Coolant
All cars may not run antifreeze in their cooling systems. The only engine coolant allowed in the radiator shall be water. Water additives such as Redline Water Wetter may be used. The intent of this rule is to avoid the extremely slick track conditions that spilled antifreeze produces.

The reason I bring it up is that I have learned that several, if not many rules, are NOT interpreted the way they are written.

I'm not trying to pick a fight but become better prepared for the "I know the rules says THAT, but it is really interpreted to mean THIS; we'll consider a revision next year" discussion. And yes, I know this is not the best way to make friends.

GlennCMC70
09-19-2007, 11:38 AM
post this over on the CMC forums please.

AllZWay
09-19-2007, 11:59 AM
I kind of thought since the whole purpose of having to have a backglass was probably some saftey issue....then running without would not have been allowed.

Probably a pretty unique situation, but I guess ultimately if he made weight after the race it would be excused.

jeffburch
09-19-2007, 12:41 PM
Well, I thought I knew the rules from my hood incident last year.
I of course had a good view of this when it happened.
I had nothing for the 22 car in this race.
I didn't mess with the 45 car because I knew the rule.
Silly me.

jb

GlennCMC70
09-19-2007, 01:00 PM
this is another example of why we should be allowed to use lexan if we wanted. that thing could have f'ed Jeff Burch.

Waco Racer
09-19-2007, 02:51 PM
I doubt it was Nick's intent to run without the hood and back glass. That would be one hell of a dangerous trick just to lose some weight on the car. Was the hood securely latched when he took the track? Looks like it was not. It also doesn't say in the rules that you can crap in your driving suit, I bet Nick did, should someone have protested that?

RichardP
09-19-2007, 04:22 PM
I doubt it was Nick's intent to run without the hood and back glass.


I’d be real careful with that “intent” thing.

Many years ago, the NASCAR guys figured out that you could get a little more top speed on some tracks without the rear bumper cover. They started designing the mounts for it so that when your teammate “accidentally” hit you in the rear, the bumper cover would come off.

There was a competitor that came in 6 lbs light after one of the qualifying sessions at Nationals. Clearly there was no “intent” to come in light but the competitor was justifiably penalized for it.

Clearly there was no intent to loose the hood and the back glass. There is either a rule that says that stuff has to be there and secured properly or there isn’t.


A more interesting scenario has to do with making weight in these types of things. Nick still came in 5 lbs over (I probably wouldn’t have at nationals) so it became a moot point. What if he came in under weight? What if the amount he came in under weight was less than the weight of the hood (verified by the official scales)? There was certainly no “intent” to come in under weight.

Nick’s incident happened on the first lap so he ran the whole race in that condition. Does that matter? What if I was in an incident on the last lap of a race that sheared off the bolts holding my 50# ballast weight to the bottom of the car and I came across the scales 45# light?


Richard P.

Waco Racer
09-19-2007, 07:16 PM
Concerning the car that was 6 lbs. light - There was intent to run the ragged edge concerning weight and they knew the consequences if they calculated incorrectly.
Concerning your "What if" - Nobody should go on track with the intent of having an incident that shears off properly mounted ballast. If you have such an incident then making weight should be the least of your worries.
Concerning Nick - A securely mounted hood is a must and could easily have been black flagged since the incident happened on the first racing lap. This could make weighing the car after the race irrelevant.

Rob Liebbe
09-19-2007, 08:52 PM
Not to mentuin the aerodynanic benefit of now having a flow-trough rear window instead of a glass parachute.

What abot the 50/50 appearance rule?

AllZWay
09-19-2007, 10:31 PM
Not to mentuin the aerodynanic benefit of now having a flow-trough rear window instead of a glass parachute.

What abot the 50/50 appearance rule?

Also with no hood....he had ram air induction.

RichardP
09-19-2007, 10:34 PM
Concerning the car that was 6 lbs. light - There was intent to run the ragged edge concerning weight and they knew the consequences if they calculated incorrectly.
Concerning your "What if" - Nobody should go on track with the intent of having an incident that shears off properly mounted ballast. If you have such an incident then making weight should be the least of your worries.
Concerning Nick - A securely mounted hood is a must and could easily have been black flagged since the incident happened on the first racing lap. This could make weighing the car after the race irrelevant.


Wow, you apparently missed all the points I was trying to make.

Concerning your points:

6 lbs under weight: In this instance, the driver was certain he was over weight. He had come in early from the qualifying session and it wasn’t clear whether or not he was required to go to impound. No one from the series was there to tell him what needed to be done. Just to be sure, he had the car weighed. Turns out that he was not one of the drivers that was called in and no one would ever have known (including himself) that he was under weight if he hadn’t volunteered to check. The point is, regardless of the reasons for the car not meeting the rules (on purpose or not) it was found not to be in compliance and was penalized. Intent had nothing to do with it.


Sheared off ballast: Where in my description did I say that there was intent to have the ballast shear off? It was just the example I used. What if I was rear ended and my bumper and rear wing went flying off. What if I went wide and ripped off 30# of front splitter. I guarantee there is no intent to tear off a splitter because it really sucks to fix that crap. The question still remains, if I have some mass of stuff unintentialy ripped off of my car at some point in the race and I come in under weight because of it, am I legal or not???


Nick being black flagged: He wasn’t black flagged and successfully completed the whole race. Weighing the car was relevant and he made weight. What if he hadn’t? Why is meeting the weight rule important while meeting 8.5.6 isn’t. Is it because loosing his hood wasn’t intentional as has been implied? If he had missed weight by less than the weight of his hood and glass, that wouldn’t have been intentional either.


Richard P.

mitchntx
09-19-2007, 10:44 PM
Cut the guy some slack.

He didn't check his pins before the race, grid didn't notice ... hell I didn't notice and I rode right in front of him and gave him the "thumbs up" before going out.

It was racing

There was no way he intended to lose 60 lbs of hood and back glass. This isn't NASCAR nor is it F1.

Was there a power increase? Who knows.
Was there an aero advantage? Who knows.

Neither appeared to help or hinder on track performance.

David ... who writes these rules? The same guys who race every possible weekend and have been down this road for a lot longer than me.

And I can say it because I had the same type attitude a couple years ago. So, with that experience let me give you a little advice ... you aren't gonna be able to change anything with this tactic other than alienate yourself from the rest of the competitors. Trust me ... I have first-hand experience.

This is as close to gentleman, hobbiest racing as you will find. There are no big prizes to win, no groupies following the circuit and certainly no living to eek out.

So, relax and let the guys officiating ... officiate. Your sleep will be longer and more restful. Again ... trust me.

RichardP
09-19-2007, 11:31 PM
Cut the guy some slack.


OK, I should be much more clear on one thing. I’m not trying to hammer on Nick at all. I know it wasn’t intentional (and it certainly sucked trying to get the car repaired for Sunday). I also saw no reason that the car in that condition was dangerous to him or anyone else on track so the decision not to black flag him seems sound to me.

It’s also not clear to me whether or not a car that finishes a race without a hood or back glass is actually in violation of 8.5.6? It doesn’t seem that the rule was written to cover that instance. It’s a judgment call and I’m fine that they ruled that he was OK to have run that way.


What I’m not fine with is the implication that it’s OK to violate a rule if you don’t mean to. Cody certainly didn’t mean to violate the spring perch rule. His car could have been legally set up to the exact specifications and corner weights with the addition of a small spacer. I think it’s a dumb rule. All of that is irrelevant. There is a rule, he was in violation of it, and he was penalized as he should have been. It sucked for him and I felt bad. I’m glad he recovered very nicely from it because he deserved to do well.


I also think my question of meeting weight after loosing parts is a valid question to examine to make sure everyone is on the same page. It actually did happen when I was working tech for the SCCA. A winged open wheel car came in missing most of it’s appendages. What would the NASA ruling on this be???


Realistically, the only thing I see unfair about the whole thing is that it's possible for a fourth gen to loose it's hood and continue racing. It's been proven WAY too many times that it's just not a possibility with a Mustang... :)


Richard P.

Todd Covini
09-20-2007, 12:20 AM
I helped write the CMC rule years ago and, as the CMC Race Director at Nationals, I made the decision to let Nick run.

From the CCR:

2.12 Officials / Rules Hierarchy
This section is intended to clarify hierarchy among some officials and rules. Where there
is a conflict, the following order should be used. Each item on this list supersedes the
prior listed item whenever there is a conflict:
• Club Codes and Regulations
• Class Rules
• Local or Event Supplemental Rules
• Drivers’ Meeting Information
• Orders From Officials
• Race Director
• Executive Director
• Medical Staff (with regards to patient care and their duties).

Intent regarding on track, post race and next race requirements for that vehicle were discussed with the Executive Director and others in Control before the race was even over.

Sometimes weird stuff happens and you have to make a judgement call.

-=- Todd

Waco Racer
09-20-2007, 07:56 AM
I made my comments on the facts presented with the intent of helping. I guess you made your point; "intent" is a dangerous word. There are so many factors that go into decisions at a race that most racers fail to realize. Todd made the right decisions and I look forward to working with him in the future.

GlennCMC70
09-20-2007, 08:15 AM
as much as i wanted Nick black flagged, i also wanted to beat him on the track and not while he was in the pits.

BUT, looking at this from a safety standpoint. race directors would black flag a car due to excessive smoking, leaking oil, or other related type things. why? because its a safety issue. because it can affect the outcome of a race.
well hoods flying off the car at 100 mph and flying 50 feet into the air almost hitting the flag station crew is dagerous. this issue did affect the race as some drivers placed safety of others and themselves over thier own position. i almost lost a spot myself. we also do not know what else this driver forgot to secure. he should be required to at the least come in for a stop in the hot pit to have the car checked. he should give up his spot in the field to help correct the loss of positions that occured due to the scramble that he caused behind him.

CMC rule 8.5.6 ...The car must be run with the hood, doors, and trunk completely closed and securely latched.
the rules also say the hood and other parts must be securely latched. the hood was obviously not and that is the point at which he was in violation.
this created a dangerous situation, much like overly aggressive driving and other reasons that a race director would black flag a car and bring him in.

Todd made a hard call and he should be respected for that. its hard being in the hot seat and making quick judgement calls. i think he made the right call. but i also see how rules are not always enforced equally.

Todd Covini
09-20-2007, 08:23 AM
There is also a 50/50 rule regarding appearance.
We typically don't black flag cars for violation of it when there's contact mid-way thru the race.

Maybe we should look harder at that too.

-=- T

michaelmosty
09-20-2007, 09:52 AM
I know Nick came in 5 lbs. over weight and all was good BUT what would have happened if he was 2 lbs. under?

We all know the hood and back glass weigh more than 2 lbs. How is the post-race weight rule seen with regard to on-track damage?

Fbody383
09-20-2007, 10:59 AM
Cut the guy some slack. There was no way he intended to lose 60 lbs of hood and back glass. This isn't NASCAR nor is it F1.

I don't believe losing the hood was purposely done to create an advantage. I don't even know enough to definitively say it created a safety issue alone absent the shattered glass.


And I can say it because I had the same type attitude a couple years ago. So, with that experience let me give you a little advice ... you aren't gonna be able to change anything with this tactic other than alienate yourself from the rest of the competitors. Trust me ... I have first-hand experience.
Let me say that when I started inquiring about CMC several folks pointed me to Mitch and Glenn. I made a Saturday roadtrip to Cresson to spend a morning talking to them and looking at the LAW stable of cars. I have found Mitch and Glenn to be forthright; to the extent they have both made this point. I appreciate their input to date more than I can express and I hope it continues.

I'm less concerned about "changing" than understanding. And yes, I'm sure it's a gentlemen's game until...


So, relax and let the guys officiating ... officiate. I talked to Al a couple of days after a Houston event because I thought I saw obviously crimped tubing in a roll cage. Do I lay low on that in the future?


What I’m not fine with is the implication that it’s OK to violate a rule if you don’t mean to. This goes a long way towards what I wanted to day.

Todd, I am comfortable that you made the decision you did, i.e. it was a racing incident with no expectation of increased risk during the session. And just as important to me, you acknowledged the responsibility of making the decision and the follow-up requirments necessary to conform to the rules.

With regards to appearance:

8.2.5. Cars must appear at the event with virtually no visible body damage or primer as described in the NASA CCR. Cars may be painted any color or combination thereof. It is highly recommended that multi color paint schemes be used to promote the visual appeal of the CMC class. Has anyone disputed the car showed up at the event clean?

I'll type this and then shut up for a while - I've seen/heard a couple of the animated discussions you guys have had at the track. It is clear to me that above all, personal feelings included, you want to be able to race hard - and safe - with as many like minded folks as possible, the more the merrier. Would anybody complain that there were too many CMC cars to fit in one group?

I'll say it again - I just want to understand, to the greatest extent possible, what I'm getting in to.

ps - The car is mostly stripped, need to pull the windshield, bolt the bender to the floor and do something with the first 40' of tubing.

RichardP
09-20-2007, 11:04 AM
For an interesting twist: What if the hood had flown off in Sunday morning practice instead of during the Saturday race? If he didn't have time to fix his car before the big race and showed up on grid without those parts would he have been allowed to run? (Realistically he probably would have had time to secure the hood down but likely would have not had gotten the rear hatch and had it secured down in time.)

Is it OK to finish a race not in a legal configuration but it wouldn't be OK to start a race in the same configuration???

As a matter of trivia, the AI rules (7.4.12) state that cars must “START” the race with two functioning brake lights. The CMC rules don’t have the start distinction. Both sets of rules specifically state that the weight rule applies post race. All of the other rules appear to apply all the time.


Also an interesting point made at the track was that the effective severity of the penalties handed out at nationals had a lot to do with when you were found to not be in compliance. They were checking things after most sessions including practices. What’s the penalty for being out of compliance in a practice session? The penalty for missing track width and loosing your qualifying time is a bit different than being disqualified from a race for the same infraction. You are responsible for being in compliance at all times but luck can unfortunately play a role also.


Richard P.

mitchntx
09-20-2007, 11:41 AM
Richard, my "slack" comment was more rhetorical than specific. We're all vying for the same outcome ... clean, competitive racing.

Your twists are exactly that.

The rule states "Cars must appear at the event with virtually no visible body damage". That is clear enough.

But the other side of that coin is a racer who rubs a lot, causing damage. Should the recipient be held accountable for something deemed not his fault?

I don't think so.

As for the specific scenario ... the hood/hatch being lost in practice and not enough time to fix before the race ... that would be an official's judgment call based upon the specific circumstances.

Had Nick made a concerted effort to obtain and affix a new hatch, then I would back a decision to let him run as long as Tech deemed the car safe for racing conditions, the car made weight and there was no other significant advantage because of the lack of body work.

Had Glenn's door been totally knocked off by Poe as opposed to donuts and cracks in the skin, the same would apply. In Glenn's case, had he lost the door, I would expect some leniency in


8.5.6. Hood pins must be fitted. Trunk pins may be fitted. Stock hood and trunk latches may be replaced with clips. The car must be run with the hood, doors, and truck completely closed and securely latched.

so that a racer could compete and not be victimized twice.

Bottom line ...

I don't think Jeff, Cody or Glenn would have wanted Nick to be DQed because of such a thing. Finishing ahead of someone on the track is more gratifying than beating them with a rule book.

Advocating rules implementation or changes for an advantage is a hollow victory.

David ... you will NEVER reach rules nirvana ... trust me.

Todd Covini
09-20-2007, 09:37 PM
"...What if a frog had wings? " :wink:

From the CCR:
18.1.3 Car Condition
All competition vehicles must be in good condition. Excessive body damage, primered
body panels, etc., will not be allowed. The vehicle’s mechanical condition must always
meet the safety requirements and may not pose a hazard. The vehicle may be
inspected for safety violations at anytime while at the race facility. The competition
vehicles must meet the “50/50” rule that means they must look undamaged and straight
at fifty (50) mph from fifty (50) feet. Some latitude will be given to those that have
damaged their vehicles during the event and have made a reasonable effort at
compliance with this rule. The competitor is expected to have the vehicle in compliance
by the following event. In some classes, thirty (30) days will be given for crash repairs.
Crash damage that did not happen at a NASA event, does not warrant any latitude or a
time period for repairs. Only the Race Director, Executive Director, or the race promoter
may grant exceptions to this rule.

18.1.4 Loss of bodywork
All major body components such as hood, trunk, doors, etc. shall be maintained in
normal position during all on track activities. If loss of bodywork is a hazard, the car may
be black-flagged. A vehicle completing a race with missing bodywork may be penalized.
The vehicle must also meet the required minimum weight.

Have some trust in your officials, guys.
And if you don't agree with a decision, there's always an appeal process at the track and we can look at it more in-depth. I'm always open to hear interpretations and have been known to even agree with folks from time to time!

-=- Todd

mitchntx
09-20-2007, 09:50 PM
I'm always open to hear interpretations and have been known to even agree with folks from time to time!


http://www.selfnurture.com/images/cat_dog.jpg

Fbody383
09-21-2007, 01:15 PM
David ... you will NEVER reach rules nirvana ... trust me.

Perhaps not grasshopper, but I'm closer than before...


"Have some trust in your officials, guys.
And if you don't agree with a decision, there's always an appeal process at the track and we can look at it more in-depth. I'm always open to hear interpretations and have been known to even agree with folks from time to time!

-=- Todd

Todd, thanks for the patience and the CCR reference. I've read through it several times but don't know it cold.

Todd Covini
09-23-2007, 09:30 PM
Todd, thanks for the patience and the CCR reference. I've read through it several times but don't know it cold.

No problem, David. You're not the only one and won't be the last one either. :wink: Heck...Mitch & Glenn are still in their Junior year and it's encouraging to see them mentoring you Freshmen so early!!! :lol: :lol: :lol:

-=- Todd

mitchntx
09-24-2007, 09:24 AM
I have been assimilated ...

http://www.slightlywarped.com/crapfactory/evilkitty/images/borgkitty.jpg