I've already talked w/ Al about video'ing the Hallett session and dumping it on you tube.
Printable View
I've already talked w/ Al about video'ing the Hallett session and dumping it on you tube.
We're going to have to rehearse if it's going to be taped for youtube.com productions! LOL
Another perspective to keep in mind in addition to the Appendix of the CCR is the concept of "avoidable contact". If either car A or car B causes contact due to "forcing the issue", it doesn't bode well.
Directly from the CCR Appendix...
Notes:
These two rules (ed.- rough driving & punting) 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.
Lastly, 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.
-=- Todd
Sadly, there are those who don't care if their car gets beat up.Quote:
Originally Posted by Todd Covini
At some point in time, whether contact is ever your fault or not, the appearance of impropriety is all that your peer group sees. You are the only one who recalls the IRB's decision ... the rest of us see a loose cannon.
Thank god for ABS... it provides the illusion of conrol. :DQuote:
Originally Posted by David Love AI27
What is this "ABS" that you speak of?????Quote:
Originally Posted by marshall_mosty
It is a type of plastic. What 4th gen Camaros are made of I think.Quote:
Originally Posted by David Love AI27
Love the entertainment guys....
5 years now this "rule" has been misinterpreted...that I know of. sounds like the rule needs to be re-written so it is clearly understood by all these competition license holders who don't currently clearly understand the rule... sounds like the "evolution of a pass" discussion needs to occur in HPDE 3/4 and before someone gets that cute little piece of provisional paper.
I know Scott Kerner needed it and pretty ironic he hit the comp licensing director last year.
further chuckles come from Love's post about GL....
Back to my pina colada!
Glad someone liked it :roll:Quote:
Originally Posted by AI#97
Now where is my Pina Colada??? Bartender.. "set me up"
:lol:Quote:
Originally Posted by Rob Liebbe
Depending on the application, I would suggest Polycarbonate over ABS. For example, when flexural modulus is not required, but high ultimate strenth is more important, PC wins. However, if you a favorable elastic deformation curve, I would go with ABS. 6 of one, half a dozen of another. But, since I'm in AI, I prefer carbon fiber.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jeremy Gunter