Thunder - 2014 Contact Issues

[GlennCMC70]

A few comments and then I will see where this thread goes.

1) I didn't lock the other thread and I don't know who did.
2) Keep it civil and respectful at all times. It's the internet and we all seem to read into what is typed and get on the defensive easily.
3) We all have the same goal, fun and safe racing. Assume we all are trying to help. Keep an open mind.

I have avoided this topic to ensure I have had time to cool off from my own personal meltdown at ECR. I left, cause I was no longer in control. I can blame it on personal life stress, but the short of it is..... I wasn't in control as a result of being involved in contact 2 weekends in a row that were not my fault (possibly a skewed POV....). I tuned in contact forms after the event. I have not been involved in any of the process there after.

Been doing a lot of thinking since ECR about contact since it was pointed out to me that Thunder has once again gotten a reputation for be a high contact class. I have missed a few events (more than normal) and was just plain out of the loop. Going to try much harder in 2015 to be there no matter what. One of the things that changed for the negative in 2014 was seemingly random Race Directors. Most of us knows that the Series Directors used to handle all class issues. That changed when Dave B took over. Now the RD does that to remove any appearance of bias since the SD's are racing w/ you guys. Good change and I like it. This past year it seems the RD's were different each weekend. Not good. With a new RD comes a blank mind w/ regards to who has done what in the previous events. That results in not thinking about a need to look-up past contact and how many driver points are accumulated and determining if further action is needed beyond the current contact. This is getting looked at and will likely be set-up on a web-based tool that the RD will look-up as part of each contact investigation. This will also help if a driver racing under 2 different RD's has had similar issues in the same weekend in different run groups or just switches classes from weekend to weekend resulting in being under multiple RD's throughout the year. Mike is working with Will on this new process. I hope they can get it to work.
Speaking of Mike, I know he is working on pulling stats to see if we have an issue w/......
A) Drivers who should have been close to or at 10 driver points for contact in case we really messed that one up.
B) Changing the points system from calendar year to a rolling 12 months.
C) Whether inverts cause more issue than qual based starts. Rolling vs standing. I even asked to look at each track individually to see if (for instance) TWS has more contact in T1 going CCW vs T15 going CW. Is there an issue w/ the track layout that inherently is more risky that others for the starts. We know MSR-C takes the green in two different places for standing vs rolling. Do we need to do this at other tracks?
D) Do we need to get rid of inverts? Not saying we will, but is it worth it? Should we limit it to 1 per weekend? If there was an honest way to set the grid, I would do inverts every race. Remember...... fun and safe....... At this point anything is on the table.

One area that was brought to my attention is race craft. Are we lacking it w/in our group? Do we need to have classes specific to each track addressing the line, when/where to defend, where "secret" passing zones are (so the pass is expected)? Where to expect that "surprise" pass? Not sure, but I bet we can drink a lot of beers doing it and learn at the same time. Once again, ideas, open mind, brainstorming here. (Michael Mosty gave me this idea).

And one last area to point out...... as was mentioned in the other area we were mentioning this..... 3/4 car rule.
I hate this rule w/ all my heart. I've used it to win and it has been used against me. But from an RD/SD POV, I hate it. If your not 100% clear on passing rules and the 3/4 car rule, stop here and read up before posting an opinion.
As we all know class rules supersede the CCR's. It was pointed out to me that another class did away w/ the 3/4 car width rule by replacing it w/ their own 1 car width rule. I like this and as a class, we can agree to do this. I already have a call into Al F about adding it into the CMC rules (proposal at this time). There is no reason I have to put my car 1/4 car width in the dirt to avoid contact and there be no penalty assessed to the driver who put me there if I had rights to position. My personal feeling is I want the curb to be excluded from the racing surface as well. I would love to hear thoughts on this from everyone. Am I off base here?

[BlueFirePony]

You lost me at "avoided" ;) j/k

Anyway, I completely disagree with NASA's interpretation of the 3/4 width rule and I've talked to pro drivers who prefer the "equal racing room" interpretation - any rule that takes away a hard won advantage from a competitor is a bad rule...don't give the overtaking driver unfair advantage (i.e don't give him/her the right to the line) and don't give the overtaken the advantage (3/4 width) - let 'em race.
I'd like to have a "full car width" change made (thanks Glenn) but if that does not happen, at least NASA has as a clear situational clarification (Figure #4) so you should know the rule and understand why you are penalized, even if you don't agree with it.
"The driver of Car B should not have attempted to make that pass if he/she was not willing to drive into the dirt to avoid collision."

To me, the rules should be written to ensure all racing is done ON TRACK - that's where you win or lose the race.


Section 25.4.3 needs to be completely cleared up though as it has been revised and revised into lack of clarity - I would even suggest that an explanation be put in the section as to why the "The driver attempting to make a pass shall have the right to the line when their front wheel is next to the driver of the other vehicle" was changed out.
Frankly to me it seems that NASA has been confused on this for years and the current way 25.4.3 is written seems to support that theory (literally both ends of the spectrum are there...one in and one written out).

SCCA overtake is written very clearly to specify BOTH drivers have the right to racing room which is described as

sufficient space on the marked racing surface
that under racing conditions, a driver can maintain control of his car in close quarters.

Also from SCCA rule:

Drivers must respect the right of other competitors to racing room. Abrupt changes in direction that impede or affect the path of another car attempting to overtake or pass may be interpreted as an effort to deprive a fellow competitor of the right to racing room.


And as is consistent in most rule books

The overtaking driver is responsible for the decision to pass another car and to accomplish it safely.

[GlennCMC70]

I really expected more chatter than this after 24hrs.

[blk96gt]

From the other thread...

I never meant to leave that impression if it came across that way - I figure the other thread got locked because the emotions were high.

Yes, but it isn't always intentional. I think I took Mosty wide/off track at TWS. He was working on an outside pass and I couldn't hold it down and he avoided any contact.

I agree 100% that it's not always intentional, which is why I stated first that I understand why the rule is in place, and why it's my fault. After I hit the submit button I regretted posting that paragraph at the end.



You hate that people are racing aggressively and trying to get to their apex and keep you behind them? Is it that "we" have contact or that "you" caused contact because you didn't give up the non-position you never had? I did that exact thing to Mitch at Hallett, left a black mark on the new white paint, and it took me some soaking to admit to myself that he was right - I didn't have position and I didn't make enough effort, any actually, to avoid the contact.

I'm not trying to beat you up, just supporting your observation that I want to continue to learn and understand the expectations of those racing around me.

Al/Glenn/Marshall - appreciate all the work you guys put in so we can do this thing.
Again, I'm in 100% agreement that it would be my fault if an incident as you described above occurred between myself and another driver. I should have been more clear when I made that comment. The situation I'm talking about is this:
Car A is ahead of car B coming out of a corner, car B has a better exit and before the braking zone for the next turn manages to get a nose up to the rear wheel of car A. Both cars brake at the same time, with car A coming down following the normal driving line and contacting car B. Car B never "established position" by getting the front wheel to the driver door, so the incident would be deemed the fault of car B.

I guess what I meant by "hate" is that I don't really understand why someone would want to do this, especially during a regional race. Last couple laps for nationals, sure, but seems that doing this during a regional race is overly aggressive and an unnecessary risk that doesn't do anyone any good. The way I approach a situation like this is that if I even think that someone may have a nose on the inside of me, then I will give them room (or at least to my recollection I do). I do this because I have no desire to have contact with anyone, even if it would be the other driver's fault. What I try to do is that if there appears to be a chance that the car behind me could get the inside before the start of the turn, I'll defend the position by moving down to the inside line before they have a chance to get on the inside.

[BlueFirePony]

I really expected more chatter than this after 24hrs.

I tried...

[mach1]

Here is one for ya, check the video, I was racing John and giving him enough room, little did I know we were 3 wide and Jerry was on the other side of John. Jerry came to me after the race and told me. I'd like to see his video of it.

Check this at 25 seconds
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tX7vr3u-Jgg

[BlueFirePony]

Again, I'm in 100% agreement that it would be my fault if an incident as you described above occurred between myself and another driver. I should have been more clear when I made that comment. The situation I'm talking about is this:
Car A is ahead of car B coming out of a corner, car B has a better exit and before the braking zone for the next turn manages to get a nose up to the rear wheel of car A. Both cars brake at the same time, with car A coming down following the normal driving line and contacting car B. Car B never "established position" by getting the front wheel to the driver door, so the incident would be deemed the fault of car B.

I guess what I meant by "hate" is that I don't really understand why someone would want to do this,

Driver A has to give Driver B "racing room" if Driver B has successfully started the overtake (front/rear bumper overlap). So if there is contact, the question comes down to how much "racing room".
Equal racing room
I prefer "equal racing room" which at a minimum means Driver A gives Driver B enough room to negotiate the turn safely, with all four wheels on the racing surface. That does not mean Driver B can banzai the corner as he still carries the full responsibility for making a safe pass. Also Driver A needs to maintain a line and abruptly changing that line to pinch Driver B would be frowned upon and if contact is made would go toward assigning blame. In this regard there is the expected give and take...Driver A gives enough room and maintains the line, but Driver B must use that room safely and in fact may have to adjust speed. This allows Driver A to be defensive and Driver B needs to decide if this is the corner to make the pass or not.

3/4 width
In my opinion the only place for the 3/4 width rule is when Driver A is attempting to hold off Driver B BEFORE the pass can be established. Driver A is allowed one defensive move but must leave 3/4 width on the side he is defending BEFORE taking the turn. Once at the turn, Driver A has the right to the line and if the pass has NOT been started then Driver A does not need to give 3/4 width. If Driver B HAS started the pass, then EQUAL racing room should be given by both drivers. I've got several examples on video where this has been done - I would say successfully . I'll dig up the links, but a few top of mind:

My very first race weekend at ECR, DLo did it to me turn after turn after turn...toying with me until I finally sold him a dummy going into T1. ;)

Frank did it to me at TWS - as we approached the turn Frank glided up to the outside where I was trying to overtake and gave me just enough room that I would have had to put two wheels off to start the pass. He continued to carry that line into the turn and since I did not start the pass I backed out.

Corey did it to me at Hallet - he spun on the start and I got a run on him on the outside. He glided over, to give me 3/4 width down the straight and I took it for a bit until I realized I could not get into passing position and the next corner was coming up so I bailed and fell back into line.

I did it to Eddie later that weekend - coming out of T9, Eddie had a run on the inside so I glided over to the right on the way to T10 and left him 3/4 width where he went two wheels off for a bit trying to pass but ultimately bailed. Didn't matter, he got me there next lap I think. :/

[Fbody383]

I really expected more chatter than this after 24hrs. First time online this weekend...


Car A is ahead of car B coming out of a corner, car B has a better exit and before the braking zone for the next turn manages to get a nose up to the rear wheel of car A. Both cars brake at the same time, with car A coming down following the normal driving line and contacting car B. Car B never "established position" by getting the front wheel to the driver door, so the incident would be deemed the fault of car B. THIS is the question. Car B does NOT have "position" as it is currently defined, but might have been able to establish "position" by outbraking Car A, or could have given up the "non-position" and avoided any contact.


SCCA overtake is written very clearly to specify BOTH drivers have the right to racing room which is described as... Here it is directly from the GCR:


6.11. RULES OF THE ROAD6.11.1 On Course Driver Conduct
A. Drivers are responsible to avoid physical contact between cars on
the race track.
B. Each competitor has a right to racing room, which is generally
defined as sufficient space on the marked racing surface that under
racing conditions, a driver can maintain control of his car in close
quarters.
C. Drivers must respect the right of other competitors to racing room.
Abrupt changes in direction that impede or affect the path of
another car attempting to overtake or pass may be interpreted as
an effort to deprive a fellow competitor of the right to racing room.
D. The overtaking driver is responsible for the decision to pass another
car and to accomplish it safely. The overtaken driver is responsible
to be aware that he is being passed and not to impede or block the
overtaking car. A driver who does not use his rear view mirror or
who appears to be blocking another car attempting to pass may be
black flagged and/or penalized, as specified in Section 7. To me it's not as definitive as a simple "right to racing room," we are still racing and not time trialing.

I will agree that SCCA seems to be saying that at all times you cannot drive the guy directly next to you off a straight, even to establish your line on corner approach. I think most of us could agree it is reasonable to expect a driver directly next to you, travelling a straight, to know you are there and leave room for all 4 tires on the actual racing surface. But in many cases a failed pass attempt is the sole responsibility of Car B, and may require Car B to take the evasive action.

I think we've uncovered a couple of issues:

A) A driver is simply over his/her head and causes contact - the event at MSRC, I was in over my head, locked up the car, went off/back on track and knocked Randy's car one deal off.

B) A driver "thinks" they have the right to be there - the 55 came inside me ECR T6, was a little late in braking/respecting track surface, light nose to tail contact. (not a perfect example) A better one may be when I was outside Mitch last corner of Hallett and had a wheel along his outside rear quarter. He let the car go to track out, while I thought he would/should "give me the room" on the outside. I put a black mark on fresh white paint - and I was wrong to do so.

C) A racing incident - TWS CCW, 4 cars racing into T1, the first 2 touch, the back 2 touch in what was deemed a "racing incident" - watch the video from the 11. I don't know what I supposed to do differently - I KNEW the 55 was outside me and that I was more than 1 car width from the edge of the track. When I felt the contact, my impression was that the 55 had lost track of me dealing with the self-preservation issues of the potential 2 car wreck happening in front of him.

I hope the discussion continues to be positive and we can find examples of both what to do, and not to do. If we want stricter class rules than the general rules, fine. If we want to add points penalties for accrued contact - fine. If we want to adjust qual spots - fine.

Still reading through all of this - but if anybody has any issues with my racing, I would like to know about it.

[Fbody383]

D) Do we need to get rid of inverts? Not saying we will, but is it worth it? Should we limit it to 1 per weekend? If there was an honest way to set the grid, I would do inverts every race. Remember...... fun and safe....... At this point anything is on the table. Absolutely not. I would rather we find a way to reward contact free racing in the invert

My suggestion essentially gives points for most places improved, tie going to the car starting furthest back.

[Fbody383]

Didn't want this missed and brought from the other thread:


One topic in this light is divebombing. I think of it as a negative example...a bad thing to do. Other people characterize it as a good passing maneuver, within the rules.
Here are two ways I have heard it described:
1) (I think a dive bomb is) when an attempt to pass is started when the overtaken car is ALREADY taking the turn and has the RIGHT to the line - maybe they just got off the throttle, maybe just a downshift, or maybe they are turning in...at this point the pass has NOT been started and any contact is 100% the responsibility of the overtaking driver.
2) (I don't think a dive bomb is) when you come in hot, late brake and overlap the bumpers BEFORE the other driver starts their turn....of course you need to be in complete control..otherwise all bets are off. But this is show some people characterize divebombing...in this light, I don't have a problem with it - I just consider is an aggressive overtake but nothing wrong with it.

[AllZWay]

I don't really have much to say about it. Not all but a lot of contact could be avoided with patience from the overtaking car. Everyone has to remember what you are racing for. A vinyl a sticker for the winner and a glass mug for a full year of racing.

I personally would just make the penalties stiffer for contact, especially on inverts and with some increasing scale for patterns of contact. I like the rolling 12 months...but it may actually need to be after a number of races that dictate when points are removed from record.

[JMR81]

hit where it hurts. in the wallet that will stop most of the stuff.

[ShadowBolt]

I used to have a hard time with people cutting the nose off going to the apex in a corner. Al and Mitch did it as bad as anyone until I realized that it is okay to do. It took me awhile to realize that just because I had my nose inside a rear quarter did not mean the other car was going to let me stay there. I'm okay with that and now I do it as much as anyone.

I think we have two problems (one of them I do from time to time). One issue is guys trying to make passes when they don't have a good enough run (I'm guilty of this from time to time) and the other is when a guy fights to long once the pass is a done deal but the passing car has not completely cleared the other car. I know when James and Michael or Dan come up on me from fifty yards in less than half a lap I will not try and block and do everything I can to hold them back (maybe I'm wrong for that). I may do it if it's the last lap but that is the only time. I would rather get behind them and try to learn something from them.

I want to know what to do in the cases like three wide deals like Tyler, John and I had at ECR. I want to know how to avoid having to bail out to keep from being involved in a big wreck. Who's fault would it be? I'm assuming since I was on the inside it was not mine. Glenn told me it would have been Tyler's fault but since he did not even know I was there I don't know that I agree.

I know that Michael, Dan, and James never "divebomb" me to get past and never have trouble getting around me without touching me. I want to be able to pass like these guys do.

I did bump David at TWS and I swear I have no recollection of moving to avoid the wreck I thought was going to happen (between Al and Glenn) but I did it. At ECR I hit David again as he said in turn six. I know I could make the same move I made in turn six at ECR at any other track we race on and I would have never even been close to him and I would have completed the pass. Glenn told us all at the meeting that the inside of turn six was bad and I did not listen. My fault all the way. As soon as I turned the car it pushed all the way out to the 39. I was not even on the gas. It was like I was on marbles. Here again the better drivers in this series would not have made contact like I did. I am sorry for both times I hit the 39 and I hope to get through next year without contact with anyone much less the 39. I started thinking about the better drivers that are fast, make great passes, and never hit anyone when I thought of the "other" driver of the 55. I can't remember except when Wade spun at MSRH that Jay has ever had any contact and I don't think he has ever had any at-fault contact since we started racing. If I'm right great job Jay!


JJ

[rleng1]

You kept blaming inverts. I would like to see the data. Yes there is close racing, and some minor contact in the inverts. Usually like James stated, the guys in the back, run out of patience and know that they can pass 5 cars in T1L1. In doing so, they can break free from the pack and run fir the checkered. Good on you.
I've been hit hard 3 times in 5 years (confirmed through NSA video), and was never the result of an invert. One mechanical failure, one mis judgement on braking, and another well, er, over his head as the NSA video shows.
Patience, and learn to pass someone without sticking your nose in and moving them out of the way. If you stick you nose in, be ready to pull it out. Anticipate. Patience.
Racing is fun, exciting, and we grow to love it. TT is well, TT. I'm sure it is exciting as well, and there are some great drivers in TT. But I like racing. I've learned a lot over the years and have met my brothers for life. Cheers.

[Fbody383]

Jerry and I have talked about this several times and I'm comfortable that he just "lost" my position in the sequence of events.


I did bump David at TWS and I swear I have no recollection of moving to avoid the wreck I thought was going to happen (between Al and Glenn) but I did it.

While this is currently "no fault," (or 'less fault' as a racing incident) is it worth considering a 51/49 interpretation where AT LEAST one car is deemed to be more responsible, with points assigned accordingly?

Another thought is, if you don't run a camera, get one - the video of that incident from my car did not match up with the replay in my brain. Video is cheap and there is a lot to learn and gain clarification from a video record that could be much different than what you remember.

[ShadowBolt]

Jerry and I have talked about this several times and I'm comfortable that he just "lost" my position in the sequence of events.



While this is currently "no fault," (or 'less fault' as a racing incident) is it worth considering a 51/49 interpretation where AT LEAST one car is deemed to be more responsible, with points assigned accordingly?

Another thought is, if you don't run a camera, get one - the video of that incident from my car did not match up with the replay in my brain. Video is cheap and there is a lot to learn and gain clarification from a video record that could be much different than what you remember.

I agree about video. TWS contact was all on me as far as the 55 and the 39. I have no problem getting points for it.

JJ

[michaelmosty]

I don't like the 3/4 car width rule. You should not have to put tires in the dirt to make a pass "if" the driver you are overtaking decides to put you there. I do feel you should "have" to get within 1 inch of the grass if the driver you are overtaking decides to put you there. (a 1 car width rule)\
I find it INSANE that with the 3/4 rule you can be next to a car on a straight and he can force you into the grass by giving you your 3/4 car width!!!! With a 1 car width rule he could still move you over to the edge, but not make a situation 10 times worse by running you into the grass. That is a big difference.

Tyler's situation at ECR is tricky b/c he probably never even knew Jerry was there. Additionally though, John technically still had the right to dictate the line b/c Tyler had not fully completed the pass. I'm not calling it a bad move on Tyler's part, I would have done the same thing with the good start that was had. Also, both cars went into T1 at the similar speed so it is natural to think that both cars would push towards the outside of T1 to the similar extent.
Now Jerry started next to Tyler on row 3. Had he come from behind Tyler, row 4 or back, then I would say it was 100% on Jerry for "making it 3-wide". The fact that he started directly next to Tyler means he could have been in the exact position as Tyler was, just on the left side of John. Its a tough situation to call.

Inverts, I 100% love them. If there are more incidents during inverts, then we as a group need to do a better job to analyze why they are happening and make sure the faults / penalties / etc are discussed within the race group.
I find it crazy that people would not want the body contact forms published as public knowledge. If you are sensitive b/c you don't want someone looking at you differently b/c of "your" contact, then maybe it is good to get called out. I don't see it as a witch hunt but more of an educational lesson. Bottom line is anyone involved in contact should use it to learn.

When a new racer comes in and starts racing, they never think they will be the one that goes out and smacks into someone. Heck, when I started racing, I kept telling myself that it is called an "accident" for a reason and the 1st time someone hits me, that is just part of racing. Well, it happened that on my 4th race weekend in 2006 I was the one that screwed up first and slammed into Dave Irwin at MSRH. I still think of that incident all the time and used it both then and now to try and learn to be a better driver and handle any contact that does happen in a more stand up and professional manner.

We are all human and make mistakes but we need to make sure these incidents are handled fairly and consistently according to the rules.

[Fbody383]

I don't like the 3/4 car width rule. You should not have to put tires in the dirt to make a pass "if" the driver you are overtaking decides to put you there. I do feel you should "have" to get within 1 inch of the grass if the driver you are overtaking decides to put you there. (a 1 car width rule)




25.4.2 Punting (revisited)
Notes:
These two rules are the basis by which the IRB or Race Director will determine fault when two (2) or more cars
are involved in an on-track incident. The rules described in CCR section #25.4 are intended to help drivers
determine when they should attempt a pass, and who may be at fault should there be an incident. The main
purpose of the “¾ car width” rule is not to allow one driver to “squeeze” the other driver. The main purpose and
intent is to alert the mind of the driver that is contemplating a pass that he/she may be “forced” to go two (2)
wheels off-course to avoid a collision. Basically, this means that the overtaking driver must be certain that
he/she can attempt the pass with room to spare, and must be prepared to take evasive action if necessary.
Note to drivers: Remember that, even though you have the “right of way” it may not be smart to insist upon it.
You may be involved in a collision that was not your fault, but you may end up crashing your car, sustain
damage, get hurt, or at the very least be punted out of the race. The other driver may get penalties, but that will
not help you fix your car, get your position back, or get you out of the hospital any faster.

I disagree with the idea that the CCR allows either Car A and Car B, while travelling door to door down a straight, the RIGHT to coerce the other off the edge of the track. If you show me clear video of Car A travelling straight and Car B initiating unprovoked contact, i.e. not avoiding debris or Car C, I could easily assign fault/blame to Car B.

Please consider, even IF we adopt a 1 car width rule for passing we still have to be able to determine when the overtaking car has adequately established the mythical "position." And are you also to willing to remove the ability for the lead car to "protect their line," i.e. have one move for defense?

Changes in the definitions of "position," "racing room," and "blocking" will change how, and where, cars are driven on track. Nothing wrong with that, but expect that the resulting behavior WILL be an attempt to maximize the rules.

[BlueFirePony]

Here's an article I found interesting wrt passing:
http://www.windingroad.com/articles/blogs/the-road-racers-guide-to-passing-etiquette/

[ShadowBolt]

Here is all of our videos. If you look at ECR R3. I did not get a good start but way better than John. If you watch at 6:35 I'm even with John. Did I have the right to the line or did John or did Tyler? I have no idea but I know as soon as we got half way to track-out in turn 1 things were going really bad in a hurry. In my mind I'm even with (or almost even certainly past his door) John and on the inside of turn 2 so I assumed the line was mine. Tyler is pushing John down and John would have hit me had I not bailed out. Please tell me what I should have done and who's fault it would have been if I had held my line all the way to turn two? I'm asking because I really don't know. Maybe it would have been my fault. If so please tell me why? I really do want to know what I should have done. These decisions are made in the blink of an eye.

https://drive.google.com/folderview?id=0B4IQe6K2zQXkRi1qcWVtRjFBaGc&usp=drive_web&tid=0B4IQe6K2zQXkUlBCSVhIb1owSW8

JJ

[AI#97]

Jerry, keep both hands on the wheel more and replace your diff or check that your right rear shock isn't "topping out". If you can keep that tire on the ground and under power, you will be able to get on the power earlier out of the corners.

[Fbody383]

Here's an article I found interesting wrt passing:
http://www.windingroad.com/articles/blogs/the-road-racers-guide-to-passing-etiquette/ Paging Mike Patterson and other SCCA experienced guys.

How does SCCA intepret their passing/share-the-road rule(s):


First, notice that SCCA does not allow blocking at all, while NASA allows one blocking move. Other sanctioning bodies may have other subtle variations. Many drivers run with multiple sanctioning bodies and it isn’t realistic to re-program your sub-conscious mind based on which group is sanctioning the race you’re in. So, what to do?

[ShadowBolt]

Jerry, keep both hands on the wheel more and replace your diff or check that your right rear shock isn't "topping out". If you can keep that tire on the ground and under power, you will be able to get on the power earlier out of the corners.

A bad habit I have been trying to get better. Years ago I was even worse. I have felt like the T2R was not right ever since I installed it.

JJ

[MikeP99Z]

SCCA - Each competitor has a right to racing room, which is generally defined as sufficient space on the marked racing surface that under racing conditions, a driver can maintain control of his car in close quarters.

NASA GTS - Section 2.2 - Modified "racing room" definition: In the NASA CCR, under section 25.4.2 "Punting," the rules define "racing room" as: "at least three-quarters of one car width." For racing between two or more GTS cars, "racing room" is hereby defined as: "at least one car width plus 6 inches."

I prefer allowing a car width of racing room.

Have I used the 3/4 rule to my advantage? - sure.

Has it been used against me? - sure.

[Al Fernandez]

Excellent discussion so far. From my point of view the primary purpose of the 3/4 width is to stress the responsibility to the overtaking driver and to make it easier to establish whether or not sufficient room was given. On my earlier point, I think very often overtaking drivers do not have enough grip in reserve to pinch it tighter to avoid contact. In any case regardless of 3/4, 1, 1+6"...thats not what is at the root cause of contact. The root cause is overtaking drivers attempting low percentage moves. The solution is not making it more difficult to establish fault, nor is it to shift fault to the overtaken driver rather to have consistently applied and escalating in severity penalties. James nailed it. This is my opinion as a driver only. As an official my opinion is irrelevant, the rules as written are what matter lol

[drwright]

There is no reason I have to put my car 1/4 car width in the dirt to avoid contact and there be no penalty assessed to the driver who put me there if I had rights to position. My personal feeling is I want the curb to be excluded from the racing surface as well.

I completely agree with Glenn’s comment above. This is amateur racing. NASA is allowing the leading car to defend its position by increasing the risk for the overtaking car and making it the overtaking cars responsibility to make a safe pass. Some competitors will follow the rules as written while others will allow more room than required by the rules to reduce the risk of contact. When I can (which is almost always) I allow 1 full car width when being passed. It is not worth the risk of damage to me.

The Midwest/Great Lakes regions have had the same race directors for years which has been very good. They know the history of the drivers very well. At every drivers meeting they reinforce penalties will be handed out per the CCR and will be increased if necessary. For the 2 regions there were 10 DQ’s for at fault contact with body damage that resulted in nine 1 race suspensions and one 2 race suspension. Six incidents in one region and four incidents in the other region. There were at least that many DQ’s for at fault contact without damage. Another thing they told us this year at every event was that the ¾ rule only applied in the turns. On a straight you weren’t allowed to force the overtaking car 2 wheels off. You must give one full car width on the straights. This was something new this year.

In CMC the last 2/3 of the year we have been running 3 races per weekend with the third race being inverted. The races are 25-35 minutes long. The inverted races are definitely the most talked about race of the weekend. We haven’t had more contact in the inverted races. I definitely feel shorter races put more pressure on to attempt passes that may not be there that can cause contact. The longer races allow a little more patience to let things sort out and still be able to make passes and move to the front. Most of our bigger wrecks occur at the start when people are trying to gain numerous positions on the first lap.

I also agree with Jerry and David 100% on video. Get it and run it all the time. If you can have both forward and backward facing video. I was amazed how bad my recollection of what happened in my mind versus what the video showed had happened. Now I won’t even talk about an incident until I watch the video first. Plus it is the single best learning tool for improving you’re racing if you are willing to study it.

[Fbody383]

The solution is not making it more difficult to establish fault, nor is it to shift fault to the overtaken driver rather to have consistently applied and escalating in severity penalties. James nailed it. This is my opinion as a driver only. As an official my opinion is irrelevant, the rules as written are what matter lol But you are allowed an opinion and we can change the rule which you will enforce fairly.

[Suck fumes]

I've always raced and lived by SCCA's passing rule which is to give racing room and if there is contact which gains you a position then most of the time you get penalized. That's how I've always raced and like to race. Having to get a 3/4 car on the other car is hard to enforce when it comes to penalties enforced by the officials. Why can't NASA just keep it simple and make the rule match SCCA? Giving someone common courtesy and racing room is the way it should be. I know I'm just as guilty as any on accidental contact during certain situations but it is racing...accidents do happen.

[GlennCMC70]

Still holding my thoughts for later as I let this thread do its own thing........ but........
As the CCR is written, the overtaking car with rights to position must place the car 1/4 car width (1/4CW) in the dirt prior to contact before any fault is assigned to the lead car. Why can't we as a series (or a region via a Texas supplemental addition) change this to be that the overtaking car should be willing to leave the racing surface with at least 1/4CW, but the lead car that caused the deviation can be held accountable via a post race penalty? This way contact is avoided and the driver leaving the surface is more willing to do so knowing that the car that caused the issue can have a protest filed against them post race. The offending driver can then be placed behind the driver who left the racing surface to avoid an incident as long as there is sufficient evidence to support said protest.

Earlier it was mentioned that there was a lack of patients from the rear of the field during inverts.
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. If we always assume we are not seen, then all passes are low risk. At some level, faith has to be placed in the hands of our fellow drivers to know what is going on around them. Low corner exit speed due to compromised entry/exit and offline entry to the following corner should be reason for assuming your about to get passed, particularly on an inverted start race.
So this is the reason I want this rule changed. I received more damage from trying to avoid contact than if I had stood my ground. The resulting loss of control caused contact w/ me and another driver that was very very bad for him. There was zero penalty for the driver that caused it per the CCR. In the future if the CCR stay (or our rules) the same, I'll take the contact, do the paperwork and risk the DQ. I don't need to put my car on a frame machine for a DQ. A DQ does not cause me to write checks to a body shop. ......rant off......
All of this is good and well, but none of it fixes the lack of awareness that can cause accidents the same as lack of patients.

[GlennCMC70]

Also - do we need to start performing visibility checks on drivers cars to ensure they have sufficient visibility in their mirrors behind and on the side? My rearview mirror is set so that I can see behind me and beside me w/ one mirror. I can see from the rear center of my car all the way around to the passenger side mirror with the rear view mirror.

More food for thought to add during the "feast".

[Fbody383]

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.

[Fbody383]

Also - do we need to start performing visibility checks on drivers cars to ensure they have sufficient visibility in their mirrors behind and on the side? Could certainly be a driver's meeting checklist item:
a) is your safety gear still in good shape?
b) is your car safe?
c) can you see out of it?
d) can you get out of it?

And we usually have enough people on grid to wave somebody down and get an outside mirror adjusted before a session.

[AllZWay]

I hate to discuss specifics for fear of making someone mad, but honestly I would have assumed the 24 would be coming to the apex of the turn, since he was only out there because the 32 had been beside him. He probably was unaware at that time that 32 wasn't still there.

I don't blame Glenn for testing to see if Bryan would give room or not, but I would have been pretty concerned about him cutting to the apex since that is just about the only way through that turn.

[Trublu]

I wish a benevolent king would ease the burden of a lowly serf who's wagon is at the blacksmiths forge to be straightened

[Fbody383]

I wish a benevolent king would ease the burden of a lowly serf who's wagon is at the blacksmiths forge to be straightened Benevolence translateth not into riches, good sir. I remind thee that thine own chariot of competition lay hobbled at the fore. HUZZAH!


I hate to discuss specifics for fear of making someone mad... I think we are at a good point where people are listening, even if the truth hurts. Good opportunity to have difficult discussions, keeping it about the conduct and not personal.

Never let a crisis go to waste.

[rleng1]

[QUOTE=Fbody383;70419]

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.

Ok, so now you call me slow. As you might recall, it is only my 2nd year of racing, and a current Golden Helmet winner. So you need to know your drivers, be patient, and anticipate.
I agree with the room to race act.

[smitty328]

Wow, looks like I missed a lot at ECR!

When I started three years ago, people told me not to let my car anywhere near AI/CMC. I’m so glad I didn’t listen to them, I would say they were being a little dramatic. I managed to make it the first two years without any car to car contact. Yeah!!! And then there is this year…

I have been hit twice this year, it sucks, but I’m pretty much over it. The bad part is, there wasn’t a racing weekend this year where someone didn’t have some significant damage to their car. And I’d be willing to bet that there wasn’t a single racing day that there wasn’t some contact. Not to mention this year was the first time I have come around a corner and seen a friend of mine motionless in a smashed car. So yeah, if you’re an outsider looking in at AI/SI/CMC, stay the Hell away.

How do you fix it? I don’t know but I’m pretty sure getting rid of inverts won’t do much to help. I love inverts, I’d hate to see them go away. I think you can learn just as much (or more) from an invert than you can running with the front of the pack. I would love to see the ¾ car width rule go away, but that won’t fix it and neither will harsher penalties.

So again, how do we fix it? And again, I don’t know. BUT, I think “learning and discussion” could play a big role in getting this under control. When I flew for the airlines we were required to have recurrent training once a year. Part of this training was analyzing crashes, a little morbid, but a great training aide. It would be great if each Saturday after racing we could all hang around and drink beer while talking about racing. Oh wait, we already do that. I think this would be a great time for everyone to see any video of contact from the day’s races. Talk about a jury of your own peers! It’s also a chance to call someone out with video about a questionable move, nothing like watching a good fight on a Saturday night. :shock:

I don’t know how we would do this, I’m basically just throwing crap out there. There have been times when I have wondered if I made a questionable move or if someone else made a BS move on me. Just seems like a good time for people to learn something while having fun.

[BryanL]

Still holding my thoughts for later as I let this thread do its own thing........ but........
As the CCR is written, the overtaking car with rights to position must place the car 1/4 car width (1/4CW) in the dirt prior to contact before any fault is assigned to the lead car. Why can't we as a series (or a region via a Texas supplemental addition) change this to be that the overtaking car should be willing to leave the racing surface with at least 1/4CW, but the lead car that caused the deviation can be held accountable via a post race penalty? This way contact is avoided and the driver leaving the surface is more willing to do so knowing that the car that caused the issue can have a protest filed against them post race. The offending driver can then be placed behind the driver who left the racing surface to avoid an incident as long as there is sufficient evidence to support said protest.

Earlier it was mentioned that there was a lack of patients from the rear of the field during inverts.
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. If we always assume we are not seen, then all passes are low risk. At some level, faith has to be placed in the hands of our fellow drivers to know what is going on around them. Low corner exit speed due to compromised entry/exit and offline entry to the following corner should be reason for assuming your about to get passed, particularly on an inverted start race.
So this is the reason I want this rule changed. I received more damage from trying to avoid contact than if I had stood my ground. The resulting loss of control caused contact w/ me and another driver that was very very bad for him. There was zero penalty for the driver that caused it per the CCR. In the future if the CCR stay (or our rules) the same, I'll take the contact, do the paperwork and risk the DQ. I don't need to put my car on a frame machine for a DQ. A DQ does not cause me to write checks to a body shop. ......rant off......
All of this is good and well, but none of it fixes the lack of awareness that can cause accidents the same as lack of patients.

Here is a video from another car that appears to have a more straight ahead viewing angle rather than the one posted above which is skewed to the left. This is from R4 at ECR-you can fast forward to the 2:00 minute mark.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IeKRdEeErCI

[AllZWay]

BTW.. I have had my share of incidents, mistakes and near misses, so I am certainly not casting stones anyone's way. We do often have to make a split second decision and we will not choose correctly every time.

[GlennCMC70]

I'm very confident there would be rubber on the door here had I not lifted and moved right 1/2 a car:

https://scontent-b-lga.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-xpf1/t31.0-8/10258107_791850474208643_6106445491911366881_o.jpg

[rleng1]

It appears that you not have position and should back out. But that is just me. MPS.

[GlennCMC70]

I'll no longer debate who was at fault. Done deal. I got blamed so it really doesn't matter. Same as me and Al at TWS. I got screwed by a BS move. I worked my ass off to not hit Al for many a lap due to Al having a very poorly handling car (broken PHB mount) to finally make a nice clean pass to have that kind of BS given back. I would never cut down and brake check like that.

Bryan, I would have given you room to race had we been in opposite positions. I recall being told you didn't know I was there, so it really doesn't matter how far alongside I would have been, you were coming over.



As many have said, the 3/4 car width rule staying as is or changing will not really fix the mistakes, but it will allow fault to be assigned to someone when another driver has to bail to avoid contact when a right to the position was gained. 2 good things come from that, 1) a willingness to bail as that will at least give the position that was trying to be earned in a legal manner but was taken away in what I consider a non-gentlemanly way. 2) a change to make someone aware that they made an unfair move. Awareness if they didn't know someone was there.

[mach1]

It appears that you not have position and should back out. But that is just me. MPS.
Hard to say from that pic IMO, I've had the door shut on me many times and had to back out or go 2 off because of it, but I didn't have position either, close, but not quite.

[Fbody383]

I had the thought last night that we could post a "Racing Etiquette" reminder sheet right next to the grid sheet every event.

And if there is a specfic concern at that track, i.e. Turn 6 at ECR, is there anything to stop us from having more strict enforcement there? As an example we tightened the rules at Hallett a couple of years ago because of the multiple regions.

[blk96gt]

That's a great suggestion. I know when NASCAR raced at Watkins Glen, the announcers mentioned that the drivers all agreed not to attempt passes in the chicane (or maybe it was to go two wide through it, don't remember). Pretty sure I've seen other pro series drivers agree on stuff like this in the driver's meeting before the race as well.

I know there are places on certain tracks where I wouldn't attempt a pass, but just because I wouldn't do it doesn't mean everyone else would do the same.

[rleng1]

I'll no longer debate who was at fault. Done deal. I got blamed so it really doesn't matter. Same as me and Al at TWS. I got screwed by a BS move. I worked my ass off to not hit Al for many a lap due to Al having a very poorly handling car (broken PHB mount) to finally make a nice clean pass to have that kind of BS given back. I would never cut down and brake check like that.

Bryan, I would have given you room to race had we been in opposite positions. I recall being told you didn't know I was there, so it really doesn't matter how far alongside I would have been, you were coming over.



As many have said, the 3/4 car width rule staying as is or changing will not really fix the mistakes, but it will allow fault to be assigned to someone when another driver has to bail to avoid contact when a right to the position was gained. 2 good things come from that, 1) a willingness to bail as that will at least give the position that was trying to be earned in a legal manner but was taken away in what I consider a non-gentlemanly way. 2) a change to make someone aware that they made an unfair move. Awareness if they didn't know someone was there.

Agree with you Glenn. It is a race of give and take. And when to do what is an reaction. A very quick reaction where we do not always have time to do what needs to be done. It's racing and don't think you can eliminate the contact. Though maybe if we were driving $100k Porsches we might make passes a little differently.

[Dulaney]

It seems to me that the introduction of SI has caused a lot of issues. There are SI drivers that are faster than tail AI cars, and others that are slower than mid-CMC cars. Throwing them behind the AI pack seemed to make sense, but in reality it didn't work out too well several times.
I think we either need to fully integrate them into AI (by qual time), or they need their own flag. As is, it's kindof like an inverted start for them each race.

Not a lot of chatter from AI guys. We've had our share of contact this year. I had my first ever contact this year, which was the result of frustration turned into bad judgement on my behalf (Cresson race 2).

[GlennCMC70]

Sat morning I asked SI to take thier own green. The consensus was no. I encouraged them to do it and got pushback. The reason I asked them to do it was CMC had the same issues with AI prior to doing just that.
It may become manditory in 2015.

[mach1]

Sat morning I asked SI to take thier own green. The consensus was no. I encouraged them to do it and got pushback. The reason I asked them to do it was CMC had the same issues with AI prior to doing just that.
It may become manditory in 2015.

My green to checker times at ECR, I wonder what another green would do to these (-1m?)
R1 14m
R2 10m
R3 12m
R4 12m

[Rsmith350]

It appears that you not have position and should back out. But that is just me. MPS.

Isn't this the whole point of the debate though. If the rule were different Glenn never would have attempted this move, would not have been forced to bail to the right which resulted in a loss of traction and consequently the shot over to the left and MORE damage. Why would you have a rule that forces you to race in the dirt? This is not rally cross! You're inviting more incidents by encouraging "hail mary" moves. Maybe more penalties for forcing people into the dirt?

For the record can we all agree that the spelling is "patience" not "patients"? Autocorrect can't save you there :)

[MikeP99Z]

For the record can we all agree that the spelling is "patience" not "patients"?

Thanks, that was killing me.

[MikeP99Z]

My green to checker times at ECR, I wonder what another green would do to these (-1m?)
R1 14m
R2 10m
R3 12m
R4 12m

I'll be working on that with Will. We'll leave this topic alone for a bit..

But to put it in perspective, all the race groups were cut a bit short at ECR for some reason:

Total hot laps (4 races for some groups/3 for others):
Thunder - 24
Blitz - 25
Cyclone - 26
Lightning - 19* (*red flag during race 3 ended the race on Lap 2)

[Suck fumes]

You guys prob won't have to worry about SI next year cause three of them are going bye bye to new owners elsewhere.

[mach1]

You guys prob won't have to worry about SI next year cause three of them are going bye bye to new owners elsewhere.

That's a shame, whats the story behind that?

[Suck fumes]

Well they aren't sold yet but the plan is for:

Me - going AI
Bill - going back to SM
Corey - who knows

[AI#97]

Isn't this the whole point of the debate though. If the rule were different Glenn never would have attempted this move, would not have been forced to bail to the right which resulted in a loss of traction and consequently the shot over to the left and MORE damage. Why would you have a rule that forces you to race in the dirt? This is not rally cross! You're inviting more incidents by encouraging "hail mary" moves. Maybe more penalties for forcing people into the dirt?

For the record can we all agree that the spelling is "patience" not "patients"? Autocorrect can't save you there :)
Ross, the 3/4 width rule is not the issue in my opinion. The problem is a general lack of racecraft and car control to know better than to even try certain moves or take certain risks. That isn't racing, its gambling. Knowing what not to even try is the key regardless of what the rules state. If you honestly think you can pull off a move with tires in the dirt....that driver needs to reevaluate their racecraft.

That may sound a little harsh but to quote Dirty Harry. " Man has got to know his limitations."

[JMR81]

Not sure what Jack is doing yet. Could stay in SI but talking about AI with the same car. It was an AI car when we bought it won't be hard to change back still have all the go faster stuff. Pretty sure Dennis and Mike Snavely will stay in SI. Don't know about the other guy.

[ShadowBolt]

Here is a great video showing how to pass and to use patients. I closed the door on James many times (I feel I had the right to every time). Most of us could learn a bunch about passing and patients from watching James.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h2T-0I0vY7Q


JJ

[AllZWay]

Don't dig too deep.. you will find all the bad mistakes too. :o

In that race, I was little aggressive in the fist lap and that is why I went off track. I think Wade was on my inside and I was trying to pass on the outside and we were running out of room, so I bailed off track to avoid any contact.

Jerry.. I never had an issue at all with you. We joked and cut up afterwards about how I couldn't quite get next to you where I wanted to be most of that race. Good fun.

[ShadowBolt]

Don't dig too deep.. you will find all the bad mistakes too. :o

In that race, I was little aggressive in the fist lap and that is why I went off track. I think Wade was on my inside and I was trying to pass on the outside and we were running out of room, so I bailed off track to avoid any contact.

Jerry.. I never had an issue at all with you. We joked and cut up afterwards about how I couldn't quite get next to you where I wanted to be most of that race. Good fun.
Good fun for sure but you showed great patients getting around Gary and I. Sometimes you can't pass another driver in a few corners or even a few laps even if you are way faster than they are. I think this video could be used to show how to do it right.

JJ