Quote Originally Posted by GlennCMC70 View Post
If you watch this vid https://vimeo.com/110745842 (the reason I want this rule changed - straw that broke the camels back per say), you will see I was being very patient. My moves were deliberate and low risk. I cannot know that another driver does not see me.
I watched several of the videos and come to a different conclusion.

At the downhill entrance to T9 the 24 and 32 are side by side, and remain so through the corner. And, in fact, the 24 maintains a very tight line track left. At the end of T9, the 32 goes 4 off track right, with the 70 nearly along side the 32, though still trailing the 24 at this point.

My initial thought, and the one that still prevails is that the 24 is farther track left than preferred solely as a consequence of leaving the 32 "racing room" into and through the middle of T9. It was also apparent to me at the outset that the 24 would soon be coming across track to the right to establish his racing line into T10.

I believe the 24 initiated the turn-in to T10 (the leading car taking the racing line) prior to the 70 establishing position alongside the 24 - roughly at 1:54 of the 70 video - and that Figure 6 of Appendix A in the CCR is a reasonable description of fault, save there did not appear to be locked wheels in our example.

Perhaps (though I remain unconvinced) a 1 car or 1 car plus 6" racing room requirement (if executed by the 24) would have changed the outcome.

If I were king:
1) Car 24 some fault for not knowing car 70 was sufficiently close with no apparent move made to reduce risk of potential contact
2) Car 70 some fault for causing contact to the 65 by failing to control the car/aborted pass attempt on the 24

and since I would be a benevolent king, I would consider input from experienced, wise advisors.

I admit I struggle with the competitive aspects of taking advantage of another car who is now at a disadvantage to me, simply because he was giving room to another car. In my opinion, if the 24 had simply stayed closer to the 32 througout T9, there would not have been room for the 70.

I will add some of my perspective. At MSRC I was frustrated by my perception of the lack of pace by the 77. And it's an unfamiliar track to me. I was impatient, locked up the front of the car and failed to control the car going off, failed to maintain control and did significant damage to the 39 and 77 when returning to track. If I remember correctly, and if I don't Al/Glenn/Adrian can post it here, I was offered a DQ or 4 race probation where any contact would result in a DQ. I chose the probation.

I yield the balance of my time and reserve the right to learn, adjust, and clarify my position.