No, its not causing a stir.Quote:
Originally Posted by BlueFirePony
Folks like you need to speak up. Kudos.
Printable View
No, its not causing a stir.Quote:
Originally Posted by BlueFirePony
Folks like you need to speak up. Kudos.
I personally don't like the 3/4 rule. I prefer to make it 1 car width so that there is less possibility of a car being forced off into the grass and more risk of control loss. I personally leave enough room for the passing car because there are a couple of guys that race with us who will stuff their car into that 3/4 space way too hot with little real chance of making a safe turn if the passed car doesn't give them room. Are they taking advantage of the 3/4 car rule, yes. Are they counting on others to make room, I believe so. Are they involved in a lot of car contact, you betcha. Is it really necessary, nope.
Ok..if you say so....I received no calls, emails or PMs so I kinda feel like I am in the eye of a hurricane!Quote:
Originally Posted by mitchntx
I should probably wait to see if the pond is rippling, but...continuing with deer-like innocence on the first day of the season:
I believe I've negotiated passing situations pretty well. I personally think my passing under braking skills are far above par but I am open to peer critique.
I really don't like the CCR situational clarifiaction on pg 119 - unless I just don't understand it. I think I do understand it and it seems to put an overt responsibility on Driver A to compenstate for all sorts of screwups on the part of Driver B. I agree Driver A should be situationally aware and be prepared to execute an earlier/later turn-in than normal based on Driver B's line, but placing fault on Driver A just seems wrong.
Case(s) in point - I had a couple of issues with brake fade at ECR my first race weekend and I created this very situation with both Jerry AND Jay in different races. I drafted them down the backstraight, and pulled out with a pretty strong pull on them.
I waited just a hair too late to brake and wound up missing turn in completely driving right in front of them. They were both aware and avoided me but geez if they had t-boned me they would be at fault?
The same weekend I completed that same pass 4 or 5 other times successfully and had some awesome passes into Turn 1 - but all of those were similar - inside pass that if I screw up the other guy gets blamed?
Why don't I just plan to diamond every turn, cut in front of you and force you to check up and then see who can get the power to the wheels faster? Am I just now learning a valid passing technique?
This is a dynamic issue to say the least.
If you have "rights to position" and your right side tires are on the right edge of the track for a right turn, you are expected to maintain that position on the track surface all the way thru the turn- imagine lanes 1 car wide drawn along the track surface. The driver you are passing who is on your left 1 car width off the right side of the track can hold you in that position all the way thru the turn. If you dont maintain the position due to loss of grip, lack of attention - whatever - your at fault for any contact. The driver to your left must wait for your turn-in, but you cant wait to the point that now your car is further from the right side of the track than it was when you made claim to "rights of position".
You have the responsibility to "make a safe pass" not the other way around. The 3/4 car width rule comes in here. If your car was 1/4 width off the surface when contact was made, it shows you made an attempt to avoid contact by putting "two in the dirt". If you put two in the dirt to get "rights to position" you will likely be at fault for contact.
Due to the nature of the complexity, its really best to have this conversation in person. Todd does an awsome "Evolution of a Pass" and I've already talked w/ a couple folks about asking Todd to "perform" it for Hallett before our first race.
Sorry my post was unclear.
What you did was 100% spot on. If you have a concern, post it. Too many are making calls, e-mails or PMs asking for clarification in private.
If you have a concern, voice it publicly. If you have it, chances are others do too.
As Rob said, too many folks have the "I have the line so "F" him" attitude. "He'll lift or else" has no place here, IMHO.
I was in this exact same situation at the March MSR-C back in 2007. I was the inside car and the situation didn't go to plan. The outside car, who will remain nameless (since he doesn't race with us anymore), came into my "line" and we hit side-to-side with my front tire between his front tire and door. I ended up with a broken tie rod and a ruined wheel/tire. He got the DQ (based on an IRB). I still didn't get the car together for the afternoon race. Bummed either way. It was my fault that I gave him too much credit. I would definately not worry if the person on my outside was MP, DD, RP, or MFW, but I gave this guy too much credit. My mistake. Be careful who you plan this type of maneuver on. 8)Quote:
Originally Posted by BlueFirePony
I look at that diagram and thinks it's a bit deceiving relative to the description. The diagram shows car B ahead of car A at the point of turn in (and contact). I would think that yes, car A should not have turned in and would be at blame. However, if car B's tire was still only to the door of car A at point of turn in as in the situation you give (more like Fig 2 or 6), I would think that the outcome would be what Glenn described earlier...Quote:
Originally Posted by BlueFirePony
*edit* FWIW, one thing I've noticed is that some of the best passes from the fast guys videos are started coming out of a corner, not going in.Quote:
Originally Posted by Glenn
Good input everyone... I am getting closer to understanding the rationale but feel free to keep it flowing. Glenn your point about the dynamics is at the root of my thinking right now. I tend to 'visualize' a lot when I prepare to compete...the brain has an amazing ability to drive performance based on pattern recognition (I have been one of the few goalie coaches in the world to use pattern recog in training with excellent results)... and I am trying to make sure I understand what is/not acceptable.
I want to see of my take on this hypothetical situation is correct. I tend to internally boil things down to simple concepts and I want to see if what I go by is correct before its too late.
I think of it as the "right to manouver" If two cars are in a situation where neither one can manouver side-to-side freely without hitting the other, this comes into play.
If the trailing car's front wheel isn't overlapping the leading car's door, the front car has the "right to manouver" and the trailing car is responsible for avoiding contact. If the lead car comes over, the trailing car moves over also, or backs off to avoid contact. (I'll get to the 3/4 car-width bit in a second.)
If the trailing car has reached the leading car's door (i.e. the wheel overlaps the leading car's door,) then the trailing car has the right to manouver, and the leading car MUST give him room to do so. (I will say that if the trailing car wants to move towards the leading car, this is a really risky move and while he may technically own the line, a wise driver would try to avoid moving over on the leading car.)
Make sense?
On to the 3/4 car rule. I interpret this as meaning, if you own the right to manouver and are the lead car, you must still leave 3/4 of a car width to the trailing driver, even at the apex of the corner.
Right?
And finally, there's what's right and there's whats wise, and they're not necessarily the same thing.
Robert - you have it correct.