Printable View
And neither am I. But they are just 2 people. Keep it in perspective.Quote:
Originally Posted by AI#97
In my deleted post I said just turn the flame down, put the car and yourself on a back burner. Like a kidney stone, this too shall pass.
Its what I plan to do.
Thats David... with a capital "D", if you don't mind...Quote:
Originally Posted by AI#97
Isn't it funny how people focus on different issues... I'm just saying,
Take Michael's post for example
Nice location, Mitch. :D
Glad you realize its all about me, in spite of what Glenn or Matt tell you.Quote:
Originally Posted by rleng1
:wink:
Quote:
Originally Posted by AI#97
To think that there aren't similar or worse problems with every group that you could have or might run with in the future is... umm... naive at best.
Sorry you are not happy.
Richard P.
Matt, you couldnt be more wrong. Its not that I dont care what your view is, its that you've made it perfectly clear that its your way or the highway and that no amount of facts, explanations, or alternative perspectives will ever change your mind once its made up. So there is no point in me talking about any of your concerns with you because, as you've said, I'd be wasting my time.Quote:
Al refuses to as he sees things only HIS way. he doesn't take criticism at all, and could care less what your view is. That is the main reason NO ONE in AI-TX wants him as their director
To say no one in this group wants me as their director is your opinion and just another example of its Matts way or the highway. You're assuming everyone else has your opinion/experience/perspective, and that is flat wrong.
The folks here have enough hutzpah to be anywhere. I'll give you it's probably not turning away 20 people... but 1 or 2 or 3? A year? That could add up.Quote:
Originally Posted by mitchntx
(Pardon the Buck Rogers reference from the Center of the Universe)Quote:
Originally Posted by Emporer Ming
I don't need/want hospital-alcohol-in-the-air-squeaky-clean either and wasn't impying that.
And I don't necessarily have to like the management, series directors or sanctioning body, racers or anyone else to participate. It makes it a LOT easier and enjoyable though.
Well, thats exactly right David. The thing is, you cant make everyone happy. Matt wants 100% compliance by 100% of the cars, 100% of the time. Its unfortunate and I'll take the blame for him not being advised that that is not the NASA nor AICMC mentality.
Let me try to spell it out then for the others for whom its not too late...NASA and specifically AICMC is here to have fun racing. It is not here to be the closest thing to professional racing humanly possible.
This means we allow cars to compete that are not 100% compliant with the rules. Now, I wont let someone running up front have that leeway, but if you're in the back of the pack and you havent had time to get rid of that aftermarket sway bar that isnt CMC legal, you're still going to be allowed to run. You're going to get a "fix it" ticket, and we'll agree on a time frame for you to fix it, and we try to make sure everyone knows, but you're going to get to run. We absolutely do not simply ignore the issue, but we're not going to send someone home. Does that make the other guys at the back of the pack mad? Well, I doubt it because its much more fun to race against an inferior driver in a superior car than it is to hot lap by yourself. Its about the fun, and wheel to wheel racing is more fun than hot lapping, otherwise we'd still be in TT.
Matt would see that as wishy washy rules enforcement. I see that as just plain logical given that we are here to have fun.
The tech side is similar. We do not have the resources nor the time to be 100% certain every car is 100% legal. But let me assure you, if we did, the vast majority of you would not run with us! Take a look at SCCA's A-sedan runoff stories on their forum and read about engines being torn down to the crank! Do you want to take your engine home in a couple of crates? Of course not! We try to ensure a fair fight, but we're not going to devote half of your weekend and half of your racing budget to tech inspection. That would not be fun. So we do visual inspections, and dynos, and scales, etc. and we'll pick one or two or three rules per weekend and check every car against those.
Does that ensure 100% compliance by 100% of the cars 100% of the time? Of course not! There is no way we could do that and keep the race weekend fun. What we do do is throw the book at someone that is caught intentionally cheating in the hopes that the fear of being ousted is a sufficient deterrence from intentionally cheating. In my time that has happened once, and that guy lost his race license for a year. Race license! No wheel to wheel in any class for a whole year.
So, is our rules enforcement at FIA levels? Duh, no. Does it give reasonable drivers reasonable assurance that they have a fair fight? Hopefully.
On track contact... We do not issue the CCR penalty in absolute terms. I form incident review boards for everything other than no brainers and if I'm involved in the incident I dont participate in the review. Some of you have had the pleasant experience of participating in these and it isnt easy, is it? We review videos where possible, and interview drivers, and review the CCR. Then everything goes by Clifton to ensure he concurs. We have standard penalties for standard offenses using the CCR, section 27.11 except we tone down points 4 and 6 to just a DQ if its the drivers first at fault in a long time. A lot of times we'll add a probation period of anything from one race to three weekends where any at fault contact will result in a DQ or multiple suspensions and the drivers are made to clearly understand that. The biggest grey area is "damage" since NASA defines damage as something you have to repair to run or to pass the 50/50 rule...its subjective and the drivers involved have a lot of input as to whether they consider that small wrinkle "damage" or "a racing incident".
So does that mean everyone gets the exact same treatment for on track contact? No, it means everyone gets the same process but the result is different depending on a lot of variables. I think that is fair and less punishing than trying to make everything black and white.
Hopefully that helps to shed some light as to how we like to run things. You dont have to agree, but hopefully understanding them will help you decide if you would prefer to be here or not.
You are right. But the question remains ... did those few have the "hutzpah" to be here in the first place?Quote:
Originally Posted by Fbody383
Think about it ... if they get all pissed and offended from all this mindless and meaningless tripe that it makes them go run in SCCA, maybe we are the ones better off.
As bad as it is right now, it CAN be a LOT worse. Until you've tried to keep Strano and Gigliotti internet seperated, you ain't seen nuttin'!
Well put Al...
BUT.. If you plan to go to Nationals you better be prepared for a whole new world of racing AND tech...
I think it would be cool to have a "Nationals Prep Day" for anyone who plans to go and has never been... All the former Nations participants can prep you on what to expect.. Glenn?