PDA

View Full Version : Letting off Steam



dj10
08-01-2010, 03:20 PM
:mad1:
I’ve been racing for quite a few years but this weekend at the IT Fest takes the cake, on Sat. in group 2. I’m not sure what race the corner workers were watching but it wasn’t the one that many of the spectators saw! The funny thing about this is that the corner worker only wanted to site me for and penalize me 1 position:
6.11.1 On Course Driver Conduct
A. Drivers are responsible to avoid physical contact between cars on
the race track.
Not one of the corner workers called in what should have been called in on the Porsche:
6.11.1 On Course Driver Conduct
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.
While trying to catch the Porsche a lap car VW who was not watching his mirrors or the blue flags could have been sited with:
6.11.1 On Course Driver Conduct
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.
6.11.2. Hand Signals
A. A driver should signal his intention to enter the pits from the course
by raising his arm.
B. An overtaken driver should point to the side on which an overtaking
driver should pass.
After being accused and penalized falsely I will add on Sat. I just packed up and left totally discussed and disillusioned! I was not going to take a chance just in case the Porsche runs into me again and I get penalized again.
There were multiple witnesses not only from people watching the race but from people right behind the incident that not one of the SOM’s asked me to present. Anyone who has raced with me and knows me will tell you that I’m not a dirty driver and I do not lie. I respect the corner workers and some of them are great people but on Sat. some of or a corner worker blew it. I can look at myself in the mirror and know I was right….can they?

Knestis
08-01-2010, 05:07 PM
"Pull up your skirt and appeal..Allice"

K

mossaidis
08-01-2010, 07:02 PM
video says a million words...

CRallo
08-01-2010, 08:08 PM
video says a million words...

mine plays at 32,000 words a second :D



but in all seriousness, not everyone is perfect and not everything is as clear cut as it seems from one point of view... Give the system a chance. Giving up and packing up hurts everyone :(

that said, It sounds like you got a serious short end of the stick, I feel for ya man...

got anymore details or video so that we all can learn from this?

CRallo
08-01-2010, 08:12 PM
Dunno the details, but this sounds something like what happened to tGA at the Glen a while ago. Kakashi had to write that car off, a totally senseless waste :/ the only one that made out on that deal was Kessler, who was commissioned to build the new car lol

dj10
08-01-2010, 10:03 PM
You guys are right a video unit is in the cards. I guess the honor system I've been going by doesn't cut it any more even with SCCA workers. :~( I would think if they weren't 100% sure of what they saw, they wouldn't say anything. I hope there was no bias. K, I should have appealed but i didn't learn about the witnesses until after the 30 min mark.

Wow, I'm still really bummed out about this.

GKR_17
08-01-2010, 10:47 PM
Still have time to appeal, just make sure to include evidence not seen by the first court.

edit - or was it a CSA? You'd have to protest that action first at the track to be able to appeal later. I believe any penalty imposed by the SOM's can be appealed within the 7 day limit per the GCR.

RacerBill
08-01-2010, 11:51 PM
Dan: As a member of the host region to the IT Spectacular, I am sorry that you had an unpleasant experience. On your behalf, there were multiple incidents in Group 2 all weekend that should not have occurred. On behalf of the corner workers, yes, if they are not 100% certain of an incident, with at least two witnesses, they will not report anything. In your case, it turned out badly.

I missed an opportunity of a lifetime. A friend of mine brought his Dodge Shelby Charger all the way from Pennsylvania to run with my Shelby. He was hoping to get pictures of both of us on the track at the same time. His weekend was ruined on Saturday when an ITR car that was passing him after a point-by, hit his right rear hard enough to bend the axle (remember, the Charger as a beam read axle that has to weigh at least 30 lbs. In Sunday's Race 1, I pointed a couple of ITR cars by on the main straight, and the second on allmost took of my left front fender, moving back over to the right for turn 1. And I was all the way over to the right!

During the opening laps of Sunday Race 2, I entered Turn 14 at speed, no flags out, to find about 75% track blockage, with at least three cars not moving!

So, yes there was some serious lack of respect in group 2.

Again, sorry that your experience was not up to the standards that we strive for with this event.

RedMisted
08-02-2010, 02:12 AM
Bill, I'm glad you posted.

Please let me know if I'm one of the offending cars. I always try to take great care to be very sporting out on track.

That said, my beef is with the insanity displayed by many of the drivers qualified behind me, and the decision to do "pro" starts...

Case 1: Sat race. Hit from behind by an ITS Miata on the OPENING LAP between T9 and T10a. I went off into the grass, got going again, and then fought like mad to get back every position lost but two.

Case 2: Sun. qually race. Got sideswiped in a very obvious way somewhere in Madness on the OPENING LAP by an ITB VW. What the hell was that all about? I then had to drive 11 laps w/o a sideview mirror. Middle finger put to good use after passing offending car on main straight, and for good reason...

Case 3: Sun. race. Three-wide going from T12 to Carousel. On the OPENING LAP. I'm on the outside. Inside car hits middle car right into me. I spin out in the middle of the track, lose about 10+ positions. Had to fight like hell (again) to finish in my rightful top-ten spot.

Moral of story: Pros start on long back straight. Everybody else starts on main straight. Right? Why were we, a BUNCH OF AMATEURS, doing "pro" starts? What we had this weekend were many clueless drivers trying to sort out in a series of very complex corners what is normally done on a straight followed by a corner followed by another straight. Pros can start in back of M-O, go from Madness to Carousel with very few incidents, because THEY ARE PRO! IT types try to be like pros and do pro starts, but instead wreck each other out....

Todd, if you're reading this, PLEASE go back to main straight starts. I don't wanna have to pay to fix another mirror, a crunched bumper, destroyed pass. door/rear panel and replace assorted trim pieces and flat-spotted tires. A needless waste of $$$$$$, ya know???? And for anybody, for that matter...

Or, next time we do a pro start at M-O, I'll just start in the back, watch the carnage unfold ahead of me, and then pick my opening thru the smoke and debris...

Eagle7
08-02-2010, 07:36 AM
Case 2: Sun. qually race. Got sideswiped in a very obvious way somewhere in Madness on the OPENING LAP by an ITB VW. What the hell was that all about? I then had to drive 11 laps w/o a sideview mirror. Middle finger put to good use after passing offending car on main straight, and for good reason...
I wish you had protested him. I went to the tower to let them know that I had video if someone was interested.

gran racing
08-02-2010, 08:12 AM
Everybody else starts on main straight. Right? Why were we, a BUNCH OF AMATEURS, doing "pro" starts?

Sorry, but the location that the flag is being showed has nothing to do with pro vs amateurs. It's merely the location that the start occurs and pro races typically tend to start there. I've done two IT Fests, both of which were on the main straight. I'd much rather start the race on the longer straight - the "pro" starting position for many reasons. The longer straight gives much more of the field an opportunity to see the start and gives more time to get things sorted out. If one is in another class or further back in the field for whatever reason, there's a good chance you'll get the start while still in the turns. There most definately are incidents when getting the start on the "amateur" location.

No matter where the start occurs even if it were on a wide open huge air port, it's up to the drivers to make it happen safely. IMO though, the long pro starting location gives drivers the best opportunity for a safe start.

By the way Chris, Todd and the rest of the region are very in tune to listening what the drivers want. The starts in previous years happened at the other location. I wouldn't be surprised at all if the reason why it was changed to the long straight is because of driver input. If you and other drivers would prefer to start the race on the short straight, ask a few drivers to politely contact Todd offline. They do listen.

924Guy
08-02-2010, 08:40 AM
While I'll put out the disclaimer up front that I didn't race this year, I did watch. With respect to Group 2 - I think a compounding factor to a poor start might've been lack of a pace car through the Keyhole. The tail end of the pack was horribly strung out; it did not look like the front maintained pace car speed, and all the poor B cars in the back were at race pace well before the Keyhole.

Where does the pace car pull off for the pro starts? I'm thinking of like Sears Point, where it really is the last corner before the green...

One addition - per the final Sat Race results Group 2 we received Sunday, Dan was indeed penalized 1 position for the Sat race. There was apparently another protest unrelated going on which took much longer to resolve, and carried through into Sunday.

RacerBill
08-02-2010, 08:51 AM
Chris: No, you were deffinitely not one of the offending drivers I mentioned. You did surprise me stopped in the middle of the track between 14 and 15, perendicular to the track at the start of the afternoon race. My video shows that when I came thru 14, there were NO yellow flags out yet! Whow Nellie! I did see you get going, so I was not surprised when you past me on the front straight. By the way, the FCY did not come out until I was past station two and approaching three.

I think I know who hit you on Saturday. If it is who I think it is, he is a young kid, just starting out. Needs to go back to Driver's School and learn how to race, which is a lot different than knowing how to drive. Probably been watching too much NASCAR.

Sorry I did not get a change to meet you in person. I'll have to look you up at Nelson, or your next race at MO.

Take care! Have fun!

BruceG
08-02-2010, 08:52 AM
If this craziness continues, the only option for racers will be "sacrifice" type 24 hours du Lemons cars. Come prepared to lose your car at every event, go to the junkyard and pick up another.:(

RedMisted
08-02-2010, 09:03 AM
[QUOTE=gran racing;309763]
No matter where the start occurs even if it were on a wide open huge air port, it's up to the drivers to make it happen safely. IMO though, the long pro starting location gives drivers the best opportunity for a safe start.
QUOTE]

Well, it may just be a matter of opinion. I think it's harder for guys to watch all the close quarters action normally associated with starts, plus negotiate a LONG section of track as tricky and blind as T7 to the Carousel. This is Mid Ohio here, one of the most difficult tracks to race, let alone drive...

IN my three years of racing at 5 different tracks, I never saw anything like what happened on the opening laps this weekend. Maybe it was just rotten luck on my part, but I'd doubt it.

BTW, I'm not mad at Todd.

RedMisted
08-02-2010, 09:09 AM
I wish you had protested him. I went to the tower to let them know that I had video if someone was interested.

It never crossed my mind... I guess I was too busy trying to repair a mirror for the upcoming race. In fact, I wasn't even sure which VW it was. I thought maybe it was the no. 21-- I had been warned about him once two years ago-- but couldn't tell.

Wish I could have seen the video. Does it show the car's number?

Thanks for offering your help to the proper authorities anyway...

RedMisted
08-02-2010, 09:21 AM
I think I know who hit you on Saturday. If it is who I think it is, he is a young kid, just starting out. Needs to go back to Driver's School and learn how to race, which is a lot different than knowing how to drive. Probably been watching too much NASCAR.

Sorry I did not get a change to meet you in person. I'll have to look you up at Nelson, or your next race at MO.



We already met. I was the one passing out the "PLN" stickers two years ago at Mid Ohio.

dj10
08-02-2010, 09:41 AM
On behalf of the corner workers, yes, if they are not 100% certain of an incident, with at least two witnesses, they will not report anything.



This wasn't true this weekend.

Racerlinn
08-02-2010, 09:46 AM
Dan, my opinion only, but I'm sorry to say that the deal with Kip at the start, in my view from the hill, looked very much like a very deep braking move on your part and an early turn in on his. It looked like a racing deal. Sorry the aftermath went as far as it did, I had the opportunity to speak with Kip since he was in the garage next door to me and he said he simply wanted to race, he wanted nothing to do with any involvement with stewards. Wish you had video, that would have been valueable.

As far as starting on the back stretch, I liked it and I think it was better than starting on the front where the back half of the field is cluttered up in the carousel. But I agree having the pace car bring the field farther around would be helpful.

gran racing
08-02-2010, 10:03 AM
Even if a person never intends to watch it, video sure can be useful in clearing up perceptions and issues out on track. How many times do drivers think it went down one way (amateur OR pro) when in reality it was a bit different? Often. I now am in the practice of running it anytime out on track during a race weekend just for these reasons.

dj10
08-02-2010, 10:21 AM
Dan, my opinion only, but I'm sorry to say that the deal with Kip at the start, in my view from the hill, looked very much like a very deep braking move on your part and an early turn in on his. It looked like a racing deal. Sorry the aftermath went as far as it did, I had the opportunity to speak with Kip since he was in the garage next door to me and he said he simply wanted to race, he wanted nothing to do with any involvement with stewards. Wish you had video, that would have been valueable.

As far as starting on the back stretch, I liked it and I think it was better than starting on the front where the back half of the field is cluttered up in the carousel. But I agree having the pace car bring the field farther around would be helpful.

YOU ARE EXACTLY RIGHT! EARLY TURN IN! This is exactly what i told him! I had my braking under control and would have made it pass him easily if he didn't turn in early. He turned in early to block he and for no other reason! So why was I penalized? Why didn't the stewards hear what you said or did they and they didn't care even that was exactly what I told them?! I could have used my bumper on him a few times but I didn't ever though a few people that watch the race said I should have.
I hope he like his race on Sunday!

924Guy
08-02-2010, 11:45 AM
In my experience flagging... we've been expected to report all metal-to-metal, and if requested by race control, document with an Incident Report. Which one never likes to do, since that means you can't (if involved as a protest witness) get to the beers on-time with everyone else... :(

As far as blocking, etc, I have only one question: One move or two??

gran racing
08-02-2010, 12:02 PM
Dan, did you talk with Kip after the race? He's a nice guy and should have been given an opportunity to hear his side of things.

Racerlinn
08-02-2010, 12:25 PM
Dan, my observation was your right front tire was locked up and smoking and you flew up from way behind him. Now, your car does appear to have some really great brakes, I will give you that. I would not describe Kip's move as a block. He made one move, that being turning in to the corner. Again, just my observation, would be great to see video from someone. Other racers I talked with thought it was just hard racing. Wish you had stayed because I think you and Kip would have put on a great show on Sunday. The other ITR cars seemed to be dropping like flies with mechanicals. And I had no conversations with any official at the track about it.

StephenB
08-02-2010, 12:43 PM
In my experience flagging... we've been expected to report all metal-to-metal, and if requested by race control, document with an Incident Report. Which one never likes to do, since that means you can't (if involved as a protest witness) get to the beers on-time with everyone else... :(

As far as blocking, etc, I have only one question: One move or two??

One move per straight and if your Racing you should always use it! ( or else it is just another track day!) I would argue that the one move should be started at or before the braking zone... if someone is trying a late braking (dive bomb) move then they are most likely NOT going to be able to do any additional braking or avoidance moves since they are most likely already on the edge. A good driver will observe or anticipate the dive bomb, use the 1 blocking move to put them way off line... then hey mess the turn up bad and spin or you do the over and under with all your momentum! Just my honest opinion. : )

Dan, you and the other driver (or just you) had 30min. to protest the penalty. I was in a similar situation and protested the "severity of the penalty" and we settled on 1 point on my license for a year. (That was about 5 years ago)

Stephen

eprodrx7
08-02-2010, 01:41 PM
Dan,
I was watching from the hill also and I have to say that the braking move on your part was optimistic. I Also saw your RF wheel locked and saw Kip make a second move to the left to avoid your car, at which point you slid up the track and hit him. Regardless of where he decides to turn in it is still your responsibility as the overtaking driver to complete a safe pass.

dj10
08-02-2010, 01:57 PM
Dan,
I was watching from the hill also and I have to say that the braking move on your part was optimistic. I Also saw your RF wheel locked and saw Kip make a second move to the left to avoid your car, at which point you slid up the track and hit him. Regardless of where he decides to turn in it is still your responsibility as the overtaking driver to complete a safe pass.

John, I was right behind him I started in the middle of the track coming into turn 7, he moved over to block my pass, I went farther to the right to make the pass from the inside, still totally in control of the brakes and the car then he made another move to the right and that's when he hit me! I would have made the pass if he didn't make the second move. This is the way it happened. If you didn't see it this way your wrong. My right front wheel probably started to lock up when I saw he was coming over on me. Other people saw what happened also and the people that know my know I don't lie. The only move to the left he made was after he hit me!

It's also said you have to give racing room as stated in the gcr.

Eagle7
08-02-2010, 02:12 PM
It never crossed my mind... I guess I was too busy trying to repair a mirror for the upcoming race. In fact, I wasn't even sure which VW it was. I thought maybe it was the no. 21-- I had been warned about him once two years ago-- but couldn't tell.

Wish I could have seen the video. Does it show the car's number?

Thanks for offering your help to the proper authorities anyway...
It was 21. Once I get this transmission rebuild figured out I'll see if I can post some video. Will also be interesting for those that weren't there to see what those starts were like.

gran racing
08-02-2010, 02:13 PM
Dan, it's not about you or Kip lieing. How many times while watching racing do you hear drivers "that driver ran right into me!" only to watch the broadcast replays and learn something else happened. Possibly in this situation there's another side?

You didn't answer - did you approach Kip and get his side? Did you seek out video from any competitors who were behind you, then review it as well? Since you still are pretty upset, maybe contact Kip via e-mail (being polite and giving him a chance to hear how he views things)? Without doing any of these things, you're just going to remain pissed off. For all you know he's posted something on another forum about you. ;)

dj10
08-02-2010, 02:42 PM
Dan, my observation was your right front tire was locked up and smoking and you flew up from way behind him. Now, your car does appear to have some really great brakes, I will give you that. I would not describe Kip's move as a block. He made one move, that being turning in to the corner. Again, just my observation, would be great to see video from someone. Other racers I talked with thought it was just hard racing. Wish you had stayed because I think you and Kip would have put on a great show on Sunday. The other ITR cars seemed to be dropping like flies with mechanicals. And I had no conversations with any official at the track about it.

They penalized the wrong person on Sat.! They were wrong to do so. I wasn't going to take a chance of something happening Sunday because of someone seeing things from a wrong angle and I get some kind of penelty! BTW, he blocked me almost everywhere. Ask anyone who watched the race. At least 3 or 4 people told me they saw it. It's funny the corner workers never called that in?

I will have some kind of video in by next race because I can't depend on people being honest.

benspeed
08-02-2010, 03:31 PM
How much damage to the cars in this incident? Anybody go off track? Lose positions?

Isn't about liars and dishonesty if people saw it differently than you did. They just saw it differently. But packing up and leaving never looks good...heck you could have stayed and cheered for the other BMWs!

jjjanos
08-02-2010, 04:19 PM
What you remember as part of the incident often is very different than what actually happened.

RacerBill
08-02-2010, 04:26 PM
... But I agree having the pace car bring the field farther around would be helpful.

I believe that the IRL pulls the pace car off on driver's left at three. There is a gate there that they can use to get back to their normal parking spot. It would involve coming through the B-C split and then up the pit lane (either hot or cold pits) and pull in next to the ambulance.

RacerBill
08-02-2010, 04:30 PM
Even if a person never intends to watch it, video sure can be useful in clearing up perceptions and issues out on track. How many times do drivers think it went down one way (amateur OR pro) when in reality it was a bit different? Often. I now am in the practice of running it anytime out on track during a race weekend just for these reasons.

I run a three camera setup, one pointed front, one out the back, and one on the driver (verifies point by's). SCCA Pro World Challange mandates the same system for just that reason - dispute resolution.

R2 Racing
08-02-2010, 04:40 PM
The white #21 ITB VW, Ray Santomo, is now affectionately known as "The Chopper" on roadraceautox.com. That guy made a careers worth of bad decisions, nose chops, and "donut-impressions" into other peoples doors in one weekend. For Sunday's anticts, where he hit four cars on the first lap before finally sending a car HARD into the tirewall, and sending the driver to the hospital, a Stewards RFA was done. They got driver reports and corner-worker reports, but apparently NO ONE brought any video forward, and the Stewards ruled that there wasn't enough there to hammer him. Only AFTER the ruling was made, did a good video surface, showing exactly what happened, as described by the rest of the drivers who made/wrote statements. Only response was "Well, there's nothing we can do now."


Dan, I like you, and I've met and raced on track with you several times, so please don't take this as I'm trying to hate on you or something, but I have to say that from where I was standing against the fence just before the braking zone, your braking move looked awfully optomistic. There was tire smoke well before the contact happened, and Kip gave you no more or less room than he's required to, and he did indeed move back to the left before the contact occured. That's just what I saw, and again, I'm not trying to hate on you or anything like that. Could Kip have done more to make sure the contact didn't happen? Yes, but you could've too. I've been in situations like this too, it's impossible to race competitively for 11 years and not, but eventually you do have to listen to what others may have to say about an incident involving you, look at yourself in the mirror, and at least listen to what they have to say. At least you'll seriously take into consideration what they have to say, see a different way of viewing a situation, and ultimately have it make you an even better, more well-rounded, and successful driver. Personally, I really wish you would've stuck around, learned from the incident, dropped the drama on grid, and geared up for what would've been two more GREAT races with Kip. Again, I'm really not trying to hate on you or anything, but just trying to offer some constructive criticism.

924Guy
08-02-2010, 04:44 PM
As far as blocking, etc, I have only one question: One move or two??

Let me clarify - this was a question for Dan, what did Kip do, one move or two?

dj10
08-02-2010, 04:52 PM
How much damage to the cars in this incident? Anybody go off track? Lose positions?

Isn't about liars and dishonesty if people saw it differently than you did. They just saw it differently. But packing up and leaving never looks good...heck you could have stayed and cheered for the other BMWs!

It's about right and wrong Ben. I got penalized for doing nothing but trying to race somebody to the best of my ability. The other car hit me and I'll bet my life on it that's how sure I am. If i can't trust people to call the race honestly, because they missed a whole bunch of stuff going on out there. People sometimes see and don't see what they want. It doesn't mean they saw it or called it right. I had a lot of respect for erie communications and I still believe there are some great people there, I've raced with them for years. Somebody blew it this weekend ask the spectators, they saw a different race.

dj10
08-02-2010, 04:53 PM
Let me clarify - this was a question for Dan, what did Kip do, one move or two?

2 and the cars behind use can verify it!

Knestis
08-02-2010, 06:15 PM
Can we stipulate for this conversation that "turning in" is NOT a "move" where the blocking question is concerned...?

K

dj10
08-02-2010, 06:35 PM
Can we stipulate for this conversation that "turning in" is NOT a "move" where the blocking question is concerned...?

K

K, I've been racing Mid O since the early 90's. If he tried to turn where we were on the track he would have been on the inside grass.

Knestis
08-02-2010, 08:44 PM
Problem is, there's no real rule stipulating what apex someone might pick.

My parallel is that, in a FWD strut car for which big turns (e.g., VIR or Summit T1) are a curse, I tend to turn in later than the rear-drive cars running similar lap times - a la Miatae, ITB BMWs, etc. I think they consistently turn in "too early" and are prone to poke their noses in when I'm on my actual fast line. Different horses for different courses - or the same course, actually...

My point there however was that, say, approaching a right-hand corner, a driver can start on the right edge of the road, move left (one "move") somewhere on the straight, then turn into the corner wherever he pretty much damn well pleases and it's still not "two moves."

Understand here that this is all in the abstract because I have no first-hand understanding of how your deal went down.

K

dj10
08-02-2010, 09:57 PM
I know what happened K, I was there.

gpeluso
08-02-2010, 10:08 PM
What was the other protest about? Same people handling both incidents? Sounds like a real mess.................... making NASA look clean, and I'm getting tired of that very crowded run group. They start on the back and have been for 5 years. I like both groups(NASA and SCCA) but this weekend sounds screwed up....plus why is there no info about the results.....shouldn't this be highlighted on this forum? I can't wait to run ITS this fall but do not want to head to the body shop.

Greg

RedMisted
08-02-2010, 10:23 PM
What was the other protest about? Same people handling both incidents? Sounds like a real mess.................... making NASA look clean, and I'm getting tired of that very crowded run group. They start on the back and have been for 5 years. I like both groups(NASA and SCCA) but this weekend sounds screwed up....plus why is there no info about the results.....shouldn't this be highlighted on this forum? I can't wait to run ITS this fall but do not want to head to the body shop.

Greg

Greg, I think things will be alright as long as the races start on the main straight. I'll argue that starting on the back straight and then trying to settle into a queue going through a longish segment like Madness is insanity... Also, make sure ITB #21 (white VW) isn't in your field...

RedMisted
08-02-2010, 10:26 PM
It was 21. Once I get this transmission rebuild figured out I'll see if I can post some video. Will also be interesting for those that weren't there to see what those starts were like.

Thanks Marty, for verifying the car number. Would love to see the video.

RacerBill
08-02-2010, 10:58 PM
The other protest involved Matt Green (ITB and Pat Kane (ITS). Pat was lapping Matt, Matt pointed him by, and then Pat ran into the right rear of Matt's car. Some sheet metal damage on the right rear, just behind the rear wheel, however the hit was hard enough to bend the rear axle. You have to understand that the rear axle on the Chargers is a solid beam that weighs about 40-45 pounds. Anyway, Matt's weekend was finished. BTW, this is Matt's side of the story. We had a lot of time to talk since he stopped by my house to pick up a replacement axle. The protest was well founded, however Pat claimed that his tires went away causing the hit. You be the judge.

tom91ita
08-02-2010, 11:10 PM
The protest was well founded, however Pat claimed that his tires went away causing the hit. You be the judge.

agreed. very well founded indeed.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6CoZAqRt9bM

joeg
08-03-2010, 07:09 AM
Tires??

He was simply punted off the track. Terrible.

924Guy
08-03-2010, 08:06 AM
My wife and I watched that video last night; she said the exact same thing happened to her at the end of Sunday's quali race! Only diff, she saw it coming and bailed off-track... and cracked the fuel tank as a result. Finished the race, but had to go home without running the last race.

She thinks it was probably the same guy, too. :(

EBSNASCAR
08-03-2010, 03:39 PM
I just wanted to say, I had a great time at Mid-Ohio this weekend. I met a lot of great passionate racers / drivers and fans.

I did run about 15 laps with #21 Ray on Sunday after the wreck and I thought he gave me plenty of room. He might of "chopped" me in Madness once, but I didn't feel the need to wreck the guy or be mad at him.

I wasn't pushing it at all since the first time I ever saw the track was on Friday night. And if anyone followed me at any point during the weekend, I was braking, way, way early at the end of the straight away. So I was not going to push my luck.

Sorry for your guys contact through out the weekend, I didn't have any and I didn't go off the track either, which was nice.

I will return, probably not this year, but I will return.

Had a great time #00 ITB Mustang
Tom - Waterford Hills regular

dj10
08-03-2010, 05:40 PM
I just wanted to say, I had a great time at Mid-Ohio this weekend. I met a lot of great passionate racers / drivers and fans.

I did run about 15 laps with #21 Ray on Sunday after the wreck and I thought he gave me plenty of room. He might of "chopped" me in Madness once, but I didn't feel the need to wreck the guy or be mad at him.

I wasn't pushing it at all since the first time I ever saw the track was on Friday night. And if anyone followed me at any point during the weekend, I was braking, way, way early at the end of the straight away. So I was not going to push my luck.

Sorry for your guys contact through out the weekend, I didn't have any and I didn't go off the track either, which was nice.

I will return, probably not this year, but I will return.

Had a great time #00 ITB Mustang
Tom - Waterford Hills regular

Tom, if #21 is the ITB VW with checkered rear quarters, he is the one who knocked me out of contention with the Porsche becaues he either doesn't care or watch his mirrors even though I had my headlights on and blue flags were waving. He did chop me off at madness. I will thank him the next time I see him!

ShelbyRacer
08-03-2010, 10:22 PM
Tom-

Thanks for the video confirmation. If I can manage to edit my in-car, you'll be able to see me point the Acura by going into 7, and HEAR (and almost feel) the intensity of the hit from the Acura. I am still very sour about the situation, for several reasons:

1. I clearly pointed him by and left room, and did so because I saw that not only was HE (the Acura) coming, but that he was obviously racing the Miata, and I didn't want to screw that up. For that consideration, my car needs serious repair.

2. While the protest was well-founded, no action was taken because the SOM found "no malicious intent" on the part of the Acura driver. I cannot disagree with that (I don't think he *meant* to punt me), but part of being a race driver is having your car under control, and being able to race (AND allow others to race) in very close quarters. Intent is not the point. GCR 6.11.1 (the foundation of my protest) states this clearly, and makes no mention of intent. My protest was only officially filed AFTER I spoke to the Acura driver, and while apologetic to a point, he stated that since I pointed him by, he expected me to let him "have the track" (not an exact quote, but a paraphrase), and that the real cause of the incident was that his tires had been going away, and that he really lost them at that point. After 5-10 minutes of calm, rational conversation (as much as I could at that point, I felt he didn't "get it", and I informed him that a protest was filed, and that I was going to confirm that with the Chief Steward at that point (the CS asked me to talk to the guy before making my protest official- I hadn't because until I spoke to the Stewards, I wasn't calm enough to talk to the guy constructively).

3. The guy LEFT THE TRACK prior to speaking to the SOM on Saturday. Again, I *clearly* informed him of the protest, and he even commented to the Hoosier Tire guys on Saturday afternoon (which I confirmed) that the bad tires ruined his race, and that there was even a protest pending. This information was all presented to the SOM, yet they took no action.

I'm most disappointed in the fact that I feel like the driver of the Acura left the event thinking that his involvement in the hit was incidental, and that he was in a place at a time with not ideal equipment, and that the equipment shortcoming initiated the event. I feel that he needs to work on his interacting with traffic, and better master handling his car in situations that may not be what he expected. I don't hold malice towards him, and would go back out on track with him in the future, but I protested in the hopes that someone could get the message across to him. I felt I had not, and now I feel the SOM did not attempt to do so in the proper manner.

I've decided that I will probably nnot appeal the decision, but I will be contacting the SOM and CS later just to share my thoughts as I've presented them here.

Thanks for listening... :)

BTW Tom, thanks for showing me that I need to continue to work on my lines at MidO. I hope that I did OK for it being my first event there, but I know I have a long way to go...


Oh, and thanks a LOT to Bill for the moral support and the axle. It was one heck of a weekend.

Gregg
08-03-2010, 11:00 PM
Tires? Maybe if he didn't try entering the turn from all the way on drivers' right there would have been a different outcome.

And if it were me, I'd probably protest the penalty (or lack thereof). Intent plays no part and its allowing these types of decisions to stand only makes a mockery of attempts to self-police our sport. It appears that the driver took little responsibilty for his actions and the SOM even less so.

And I'd be asking Tom for the original tape to use as new evidence.

RacerBill
08-03-2010, 11:32 PM
Matt: How was the rest of your trip home? Hope the new axle works for you. Thanks for all the great information on setup and the help packing up. I have started my todo list for Labor Day.

BTW, I will need to know how to get a hold of the video you shot in Madness Sunday.

Great meeting you and Matt this weekend.

jjjanos
08-03-2010, 11:59 PM
2. While the protest was well-founded, no action was taken because the SOM found "no malicious intent" on the part of the Acura driver. I cannot disagree with that (I don't think he *meant* to punt me), but part of being a race driver is having your car under control, and being able to race (AND allow others to race) in very close quarters. Intent is not the point. GCR 6.11.1 (the foundation of my protest) states this clearly, and makes no mention of intent. My protest was only officially filed AFTER I spoke to the Acura driver, and while apologetic to a point, he stated that since I pointed him by, he expected me to let him "have the track" (not an exact quote, but a paraphrase), and that the real cause of the incident was that his tires had been going away, and that he really lost them at that point. After 5-10 minutes of calm, rational conversation (as much as I could at that point, I felt he didn't "get it", and I informed him that a protest was filed, and that I was going to confirm that with the Chief Steward at that point (the CS asked me to talk to the guy before making my protest official- I hadn't because until I spoke to the Stewards, I wasn't calm enough to talk to the guy constructively).

WTF? I mean really, WTF?
Let me list the things wrong with the above...
1. The Chief Steward asking you to talk to the guy. Hey, that's a courtesy that one driver might extend to another, but a race steward has no business suggesting, let alone asking, that you speak to the other driver. It's my choice whether I want to do that or not. It's his job to manage the event according to the GCR and talking to the other driver is not in the GCR. You've got 30 freaking minutes to protest and you've already lost one-third of that getting back to the paddock and up to the tower.
2. The Chief Steward asking you to talk to the guy when you are clearly really torqued. What the hell is he hoping to accomplish - a couple of 2.8.1 violations?
3. Intent? Intent? Jesus on a pogo stick! There's nothing in the GCR about intent. Hell, how many times have you been part of a group that was a bit physical and the CS gave the group a Come-to-Jesus talk? So now it is OK to hit another driver as long as you didn't intend to do it?
4. The SoMs leaving their testicles at home. Look, nobody wants to be the bad guy, but for kee-rist's sake, that's their job. It's pretty darn simple - if you don't want to hand out penalties and hear protests, then don't be a fracking SoM.
5. The supps for the event being gone as far as I can find: I want to know who the SoMs were.


I've decided that I will probably nnot appeal the decision, but I will be contacting the SOM and CS later just to share my thoughts as I've presented them here.You've got to appeal, otherwise you condone the system where noting is done to overly aggressive drivers.

Sorry to hear that the weekend had to end early. You going to be at the Double?

RedMisted
08-04-2010, 12:27 AM
All the shit on the weekend, the punting of the Shelby, the flap between ITRs #10 and #15, and the actions of the demonic driver in the #21 ITB VW all point to a CS and SOM that didn't want to do their jobs. They wanted nothing of all the paperwork and investigating, etc. that these events would have entailed.

Half the stuff that goes on in any race never gets fully sorted because the "officials" in the control towers are sometimes too damn lazy and just want to get on to the beers. How do I know? A well-respected person in SCCA who often serves as a CS and on SOMs once commented as much...

This weekend's IT fest was an event that Group 2 drivers are going to remember for a long time to come. I wouldn't be surprised if some stay away next year...

gran racing
08-04-2010, 07:46 AM
You've got to appeal, otherwise you condone the system where noting is done to overly aggressive drivers.

I have to agree. The easy way out is to let this slide, but if you're still sour that probably won't be as simple as you may try to convince yourself. In this case, by appealing you can help correct a drivers action and stewards. Letting it all go means that you really can't complain next time it happens to you, or someone else.

Knestis
08-04-2010, 08:13 AM
All the shit on the weekend, the punting of the Shelby, the flap between ITRs #10 and #15, and the actions of the demonic driver in the #21 ITB VW all point to a CS and SOM that didn't want to do their jobs. They wanted nothing of all the paperwork and investigating, etc. that these events would have entailed.

Half the stuff that goes on in any race never gets fully sorted because the "officials" in the control towers are sometimes too damn lazy and just want to get on to the beers. How do I know? A well-respected person in SCCA who often serves as a CS and on SOMs once commented as much...

This weekend's IT fest was an event that Group 2 drivers are going to remember for a long time to come. I wouldn't be surprised if some stay away next year...

DING, DING, DING! Winner!

It's been that way since I went to my first SCCA Club race in 1980. But don't be the guy who falls afoul of some particular issue that this brand of steward cares about, because they WILL find time then...

K

BruceG
08-04-2010, 08:13 AM
All the shit on the weekend, the punting of the Shelby, the flap between ITRs #10 and #15, and the actions of the demonic driver in the #21 ITB VW all point to a CS and SOM that didn't want to do their jobs. They wanted nothing of all the paperwork and investigating, etc. that these events would have entailed.

Half the stuff that goes on in any race never gets fully sorted because the "officials" in the control towers are sometimes too damn lazy and just want to get on to the beers. How do I know? A well-respected person in SCCA who often serves as a CS and on SOMs once commented as much...

This weekend's IT fest was an event that Group 2 drivers are going to remember for a long time to come. I wouldn't be surprised if some stay away next year...

Chris is right..showing my age but Chief Stewards like Charlie Rainville in the 60's ruled NER with an iron hand and most of this Sh*t didn't happen. Granted...different times and no large fields of spec pinatas, but whatever Charlie did....it worked.:dead_horse:

dhardison
08-04-2010, 08:19 AM
I just wanted to say, I had a great time at Mid-Ohio this weekend. I met a lot of great passionate racers / drivers and fans.

I did run about 15 laps with #21 Ray on Sunday after the wreck and I thought he gave me plenty of room. He might of "chopped" me in Madness once, but I didn't feel the need to wreck the guy or be mad at him.

I wasn't pushing it at all since the first time I ever saw the track was on Friday night. And if anyone followed me at any point during the weekend, I was braking, way, way early at the end of the straight away. So I was not going to push my luck.

Sorry for your guys contact through out the weekend, I didn't have any and I didn't go off the track either, which was nice.

I will return, probably not this year, but I will return.

Had a great time #00 ITB Mustang
Tom - Waterford Hills regular

Tom,

Man! You were wringing the crap out that 'Stang on Sunday. Great job! I stopped by your pit 2-3 times to talk but never caught up with you.

I was in the black/orange ITB Civic behind you and the #21 VW for those same 15 laps. I agree that all three of us raced clean for that stint. I even talked with the #21 driver after Sunday's race and he commented on how close but clean the three of us drove. In the end I got around you both, and had Heckman in my sights, but there just weren't enough laps remaining.

However, I have multiple videos showing the #21 chopping/blocking/wrecking at least 5 other cars during the weekend. He never did any of that to me, but I can see why others are understandable upset with the #21.

Dan

RacerBill
08-04-2010, 09:20 AM
...However, I have multiple videos showing the #21 chopping/blocking/wrecking at least 5 other cars during the weekend. He never did any of that to me, but I can see why others are understandable upset with the #21.

Dan

Ray was one spot over from me in the paddock all weekend. What was most memorable was the sound of mexican speed wrenches (sledge hammers) being applied to the #21 after every session! And his father's comment - 'how did that happen, this time....' :blink:

RacerBill
08-04-2010, 09:37 AM
Chris is right..showing my age but Chief Stewards like Charlie Rainville in the 60's ruled NER with an iron hand and most of this Sh*t didn't happen. Granted...different times and no large fields of spec pinatas, but whatever Charlie did....it worked.:dead_horse:
No, but we always had one or two classes where all the crazy want-to-be drivers congregated. First it was FV, then FF, then SR and SRF......

Yes, back in the 60's we had a wide range of CS's. Do you remember Heinrich Szamota? I can still hear him on the PA system at Bridgehampton saying, in his deep Germanic accent "All Group 2 car WILL report to the false grid NOW!!!!!!!!!!!

And then there was the CS who could never make a decision, so the Control Operator would move around while talking to him so that his head would move in the direction that you wanted him to answer, up and down for yes, side to side for no. This trait was later confirmed when he ran for public office and could not get elected dog catcher!!!!! (He ran for Animal Control officer in a small small town in upstate New York, and lost)

RacerBill
08-04-2010, 10:01 AM
I have to agree. The easy way out is to let this slide, but if you're still sour that probably won't be as simple as you may try to convince yourself. In this case, by appealing you can help correct a drivers action and stewards. Letting it all go means that you really can't complain next time it happens to you, or someone else.

Matt: I have to agree with Dave. There are different degrees of penalties that can be applied, so the penalty does to have to be overly restrictive. The point that has been made several times on this forum is that a paper trail of previous instances needs to be started. Otherwise, when a serious infraction occurs the SOM's and CS's can say 'Well, there have not been any other incidents.....'

Would have been nice to have some history on other drivers this weekend, too.

jjjanos
08-04-2010, 10:30 AM
"While the protest was well-founded, no action was taken because the SOM found "no malicious intent" on the part of the Acura driver."

7. Penalties
All Club Racing participants are subject to control by SCCA, the GCR, and the Supplemental Regulations. This Section specifies the penalties for violating the GCR and the Supplemental Regulations. (Comment - I.E. the list contains the full range of penalties for a driver found in violation of the GCR. If it is on the list, it may be imposed. If it isn't on the list, it may not be imposed.)


7.2. RANGE OF PENALTIES
In increasing order of severity, the range of penalties is as follows: (A list of penalties which does not include not imposing a penalty.)

Based on what you wrote and my understanding of what the GCR directs, the SOMs found that he violated the GCR and, having done that, they must impose a penalty from 7.2, even if it is as minor as a $1 fine. No penalty is not on that list. The SOMS did not do that and that gives you grounds to appeal.

The reason is this is important is that, even though imposing a fine is considered less of a penalty than a reprimand, most Stewards won't impose a fine and will reprimand them, toss a time/finishing position and or DQ them.

Anything above a $99 fine imposes penalty points. The only way to establish a paper trail of violations is for a driver to have penalties imposed by the SoMs. Rack up 11 points in a 3-year period and you just bought yourself probation.

teritanz25
08-04-2010, 11:51 AM
I have been reading this for two days now and just felt the need to give some feedback. I was there, I was in all four "events" for the weekend in Group 2. This will be my fourth year in SCCA racing IT-S in the BMW #25. In all the races that I have been to over the years I have never seen or heard so many complaints and gripes about one run group. We all know what has been said about Dan & Kip from Saturday. Then we have also all heard what happened between that IT-B VW and seems like everyone else. I have watched that video between Acura and the Dodge. We also had that incident in the first 1/4 lap of Sunday's race which seemed to involve four cars, one of which was the Red Mustang which I almost hit square in door as I entered the carosel. SO.....All that being said, I am not here to bash or complain, What I wanted to say is the even though this was probably one of craziest and some of the dumbest and rudest driving I have ever seen, I want to Thank Charles Tobel for one of the greatest and "cleanest" races I have ever had. For those who do not know and did not see, Charles and I raced each other from Green Flag to less than 4 feet at the finish, nose to tail almost for 20 laps. In all the things that were soooo messed up in Group 2 there were some bright spots and I do not want the world to think that because a few bad apples things are going down hill, I did have few moments where certain individuals would not move when they knew they should but that is racing I guess. I also am still up in the air about that start and whether we should be starting in the back, I say NO. The one thing that I hated the most about starting there was how early they threw the green flag after coming off of the Key Hole, I did start 6th so I was pretty close to the front and it was still just very odd how early they threw it, then on Sunday ( after my wheel feel off in qualifying ) I had to start last and that was even worse back there....Anyhow, sorry rant but just wanted to give my thoughts.

preparedcivic
08-04-2010, 03:06 PM
I've decided that I will probably not appeal the decision, but I will be contacting the SOM and CS later just to share my thoughts as I've presented them here.



Matt:

I was the "camera" car in the vid, #5 white CRX that was chasing you hard when the hit occurred. Seeing it right in front of me was a big WTF moment; that was my first thought, my second was I was glad the guy got by me on the straight driving like that.

Let me know if you want the original MPEG file. I'd be happy to provide, and would have at the event but no one came to find me.

lateapex911
08-04-2010, 04:22 PM
Matt, thankyou for writing paper. That is something that obviously needs to be done, and clearly needs to be done more often. That said, please appeal. Every one of us needs to contribute to the knowledge base on other drivers. This is your time.

I'm sure the Acura driver is a nice enough guy, but you were MUGGED, Matt. What he was doing way over on the inside, WAY too shallow, with WAY too much speed, I'll never know. Amazingly stupid for someone with a racing license . Of COURSE he's going to go tangental. Ever heard of an early apex? I don't for a second buy the "my tires were going off" bs. Well, if they were, then why weren't you adjusting your lines, braking points and throttle openings? That's called driving.

Simple fact is you let him all the room in the world, and you can't just vaporize. He SHOULD have been right up close to your passenger door in the braking zone, and at turn in, in order to:
1- Make sure you know where he is,
2- Make the corner as large a radius as possible, since he may, or may not be able to clear the overlap by track out, and might not be able to use the last 5 feet of track at track out.
3- and to control YOUR turn in. YOU can't turn in until HE turns in. (not that you did anything wrong, but, he was so far out of your field of vision, it would have been easy for you to have assumed he backed out and you might have taken a crack at getting closer to the apex. (boom))

This one is black and white, yet it appears he doesn't feel he was in the wrong. He was. 100%. He needs to "Get that".

Eagle7
08-04-2010, 10:45 PM
Thanks Marty, for verifying the car number. Would love to see the video.
Here ya go. Wonder if I know how to do this. :shrug:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rncaOE9vwoo

EBSNASCAR
08-04-2010, 10:55 PM
Tom,

Man! You were wringing the crap out that 'Stang on Sunday. Great job! I stopped by your pit 2-3 times to talk but never caught up with you.

I was in the black/orange ITB Civic behind you and the #21 VW for those same 15 laps. I agree that all three of us raced clean for that stint. I even talked with the #21 driver after Sunday's race and he commented on how close but clean the three of us drove. In the end I got around you both, and had Heckman in my sights, but there just weren't enough laps remaining.

However, I have multiple videos showing the #21 chopping/blocking/wrecking at least 5 other cars during the weekend. He never did any of that to me, but I can see why others are understandable upset with the #21.

Dan

Thanks for the kudos. Just trying my best and hoping to stay out of everyone's way. (Chris Childs / Vaughan Scott / Charlie Tabel were a big help too!) Kinda crazy how the #21 drove us clean but was a pin ball the rest of the weekend. Sorry I missed you, I will have to catch up with you another time.

jumbojimbo
08-04-2010, 11:05 PM
Interesting video. What am I missing? It looks like Sr Ruck can't figure out who to block, he's inside trying to block the mustang and then tries to slide left to block the vw. (keeping in mind that by block I mean "squeeze", not necessarily "block illegally")

What caught my eye was how far inside the mustang was, I was thinking, does he know where the corner goes, then I wondered why there was even room on the outside at the turn in for the vw.

I'm trying to figure out how the vw's move is any different from the move made by the orange honda in the rear view who goes BETWEEN cars in pretty much the same place.

I'm willing to learn, what am I missing here?

Whoops, I missed the contact with the mustang going up the hill, that was a bad move.

R2 Racing
08-05-2010, 10:01 AM
It looks like Sr Ruck can't figure out who to block, he's inside trying to block the mustang and then tries to slide left to block the vw. (keeping in mind that by block I mean "squeeze", not necessarily "block illegally")
In Marty's video? My Dad's not even around a Mustang or a VW in that video. Yes, maybe sliding left in front of Tom's Honda into turn 11 could be seen as "blocking", but it's not like there was any near contact or darting moves. That's all I'm seeing, and it was probably just a manuever to pass Dan, which worked. :shrug:

And believe me, if my Dad does something dumb on track, I'm the first person to yell at him for it.

StephF
08-05-2010, 10:38 AM
Sounds like an interesting weekend. Sorry we missed it (well, the ITC race anyway, they had a real barnburner going)
On a tangent, I'm looking into new video systems for our cars. Marty, what are you using? I LOVE that front and rear view screen like that!
Is that the Chasecam system?
Anyone else, feel free to chime in about what you have in your car currently.
OK, back to your regularly scheduled program...

jumbojimbo
08-05-2010, 10:55 AM
I'm at work and can't see the video but what I remember is...

In the short chute leading up the right hander to enter thunder valley.
The red mustang is way right, maybe scared by the vw or maybe trying to get inside the orange honda I thought was RuckSr.
The honda is middle of the road or maybe slightly right, perhaps protecting the inside line, but leaving enough room on the outside turn in point for a full car, which the vw jumps into.
On the exit I can't see what happens but it's likely the honda drifts out and the vw comes back and maybe they bump?

Definitely I didn't mean to imply the honda(?) was blocking, I meant protecting. But in doing so, he was way right of the ripple strips at the turn in point and there was room for a car on his outside.

again, i seems to me the vw is doing nothing much different from the car in rear view, that car went BETWEEN cars at the same point at the turn entry.

I'm not definding the Chopster but I guess I'd like someone to point out step by step what the vw did so wrong in the video. seems like he squeezed dan at madness, definitely hit the mustang, but besides that nothing sticks out to me as different from what everyone else is doing. dive in on 9, yeah, cars in front in back doing that too.

gran racing
08-05-2010, 12:37 PM
but besides that

LOL! That was only 55 seconds of the event.

Knestis
08-05-2010, 12:43 PM
Here ya go. Wonder if I know how to do this. :shrug:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rncaOE9vwoo

Am I the only one here who watched that white Golf carve through the field like an old Speed Racer cartoon or scene from Days of Thunder, thinking that it would take a LOT of poop under the hood to make that possible...?

K

mossaidis
08-05-2010, 02:03 PM
^^ ditto that - I hardly believe the IT-fest drivers would be lack the nuts to drive all out and just let someone drive by. Also, mentioned before... he violates the GCR by not controling his car, adds insult to injury (as well as literal) by saying his tires were off and yet he didn't slow down "ok, so you can't be in control of your car if you drive like that since your tires are off". This guy along with the SoM are direct contradictions to what the GCR spells out in black and white. PLEASE PLEASE Appeal!

RedMisted
08-05-2010, 02:05 PM
[QUOTE=jumbojimbo;309918]
What caught my eye was how far inside the mustang was, I was thinking, does he know where the corner goes, then I wondered why there was even room on the outside at the turn in for the vw.
QUOTE]

I think you're referencing my approach to Turn 11 after the contact with the VW. The contact ripped off my sideview mirror, and, being in close quarters action, I couldn't see if anybody was to my left. I didn't want to be a d*ck like the VW and just drive brazenly...

tom91ita
08-05-2010, 02:51 PM
^^ ditto that - I hardly believe the IT-fest drivers would be lack the nuts to drive all out and just let someone drive by. Also, mentioned before... he violates the GCR by not controling his car, adds insult to injury (as well as literal) by saying his tires were off and yet he didn't slow down "ok, so you can't be in control of your car if you drive like that since your tires are off". This guy along with the SoM are direct contradictions to what the GCR spells out in black and white. PLEASE PLEASE Appeal!

i think you are combining incidents. the vw did not hit the shelby.

well, at least not in the video link i posted. :blink:

R2 Racing
08-05-2010, 03:17 PM
Am I the only one here who watched that white Golf carve through the field like an old Speed Racer cartoon or scene from Days of Thunder, thinking that it would take a LOT of poop under the hood to make that possible...?
Haha, no I noticed that too, but I can tell you that running down the backstraight with my Dad all weekend, the two cars were pretty equal. Basically whoever was in the draft got the better drive. In that clip I think he just got a good jump.

ShelbyRacer
08-05-2010, 04:35 PM
Matt, thankyou for writing paper. That is something that obviously needs to be done, and clearly needs to be done more often. That said, please appeal. Every one of us needs to contribute to the knowledge base on other drivers. This is your time.

I'm sure the Acura driver is a nice enough guy, but you were MUGGED, Matt. What he was doing way over on the inside, WAY too shallow, with WAY too much speed, I'll never know. Amazingly stupid for someone with a racing license . Of COURSE he's going to go tangental. Ever heard of an early apex? I don't for a second buy the "my tires were going off" bs. Well, if they were, then why weren't you adjusting your lines, braking points and throttle openings? That's called driving.

Simple fact is you let him all the room in the world, and you can't just vaporize. He SHOULD have been right up close to your passenger door in the braking zone, and at turn in, in order to:
1- Make sure you know where he is,
2- Make the corner as large a radius as possible, since he may, or may not be able to clear the overlap by track out, and might not be able to use the last 5 feet of track at track out.
3- and to control YOUR turn in. YOU can't turn in until HE turns in. (not that you did anything wrong, but, he was so far out of your field of vision, it would have been easy for you to have assumed he backed out and you might have taken a crack at getting closer to the apex. (boom))

This one is black and white, yet it appears he doesn't feel he was in the wrong. He was. 100%. He needs to "Get that".

A few things-

I am making the most of my allowed appeal period. I'm simply not sure that I can afford to lose a minimum of $100 (according to the current GCR, that is the minimum Administrative fee). I know it's a point that needs to be made, and that's why I filed the protest to begin with...

As for your #3- if I hadn't have pointed him by, perhaps he might not have assumed that I knew he was there, and maybe he'd have been more "on my door". No matter what, his driving/racing technique sucked.

I think I need to appeal, but I'm not sure if it's in the cards at this point...

RedMisted
08-05-2010, 06:05 PM
I'd love to finally shut up about all this, but I think it's testament to what a fiasco the IT Fest was that many are still talking about it... Yes, a farce, because no matter how peachy things were in the other 5 race groups, the garbage that ensued in Group 2 was enough to mar the whole event.

I'd like to add something new here. I was surprised that there was NO impound. WTF? And now it seems that the lack of an impound period was deliberate to minimize the roles of the CS and the SoM in the event. Think about it: Since these individuals basically did nothing about the Group 2 shenanigans, doesn't it seem that they set things up so as to keep protests to a minimim? If I had wanted to protest the #21 for his hit on me in the qually race, it would have been harder for me to chase down enough witnesses from all across the paddock because there was no driver congregation at an impound.

John Nesbitt
08-05-2010, 07:15 PM
"While the protest was well-founded, no action was taken because the SOM found "no malicious intent" on the part of the Acura driver."

7. Penalties
All Club Racing participants are subject to control by SCCA, the GCR, and the Supplemental Regulations. This Section specifies the penalties for violating the GCR and the Supplemental Regulations. (Comment - I.E. the list contains the full range of penalties for a driver found in violation of the GCR. If it is on the list, it may be imposed. If it isn't on the list, it may not be imposed.)


7.2. RANGE OF PENALTIES
In increasing order of severity, the range of penalties is as follows: (A list of penalties which does not include not imposing a penalty.)

Based on what you wrote and my understanding of what the GCR directs, the SOMs found that he violated the GCR and, having done that, they must impose a penalty from 7.2, even if it is as minor as a $1 fine. No penalty is not on that list. The SOMS did not do that and that gives you grounds to appeal.

The reason is this is important is that, even though imposing a fine is considered less of a penalty than a reprimand, most Stewards won't impose a fine and will reprimand them, toss a time/finishing position and or DQ them.

Anything above a $99 fine imposes penalty points. The only way to establish a paper trail of violations is for a driver to have penalties imposed by the SoMs. Rack up 11 points in a 3-year period and you just bought yourself probation.


The poster wrote, "While the protest was well-founded, no action was taken because the SOM found "no malicious intent" on the part of the Acura driver."

This can be read as meaning that the SOM did not uphold the protest, and consequently did not levy a penalty. The expression "well-founded" is usually used to describe unsuccessful protests.

Perhaps the original poster could tell us whether the protest was upheld or not.

tom91ita
08-05-2010, 07:55 PM
i would agree that our group 2 had its moments but there were also a couple of times that i was just giggling when the VW, Ruck Sr., Hardison, Heckman & i were close to each other. it had been quite a while since i was in a pack of several cars dicing for position.

with regards to starting on the back, no better or worse with regards to seeing the starter. i started behind Marty and could not see the flagger. i could see the little cupolo portion above the starter but that was it.

i have also narrowly avoided incidents in T1 with the "normal" starts.

i think i might have the distinction of being the first car touched by the VW in the Sunday a.m. qualifying race. Marty's video might be just starting just when i got bumped.

we were sort of bunched up and some accelerating was happening coming out of the keyhole and then we checked up. the vw tapped me (not as hard as i have been bump-drafted) and frankly i did not think anything about it then or now.

one question regarding the Sunday pm race. who was the BMW passing the crx's down the back straight under the double yellow?

i don't have video.

and kudos to Hileman in ITB. the only time i saw him was on the results sheets several inches above my name.

Eagle7
08-05-2010, 07:58 PM
Haha, no I noticed that too, but I can tell you that running down the backstraight with my Dad all weekend, the two cars were pretty equal. Basically whoever was in the draft got the better drive. In that clip I think he just got a good jump.
I'm with Kevin. The B cars were eating my lunch in the corners all weekend. In this traffic jam at the start I was biding my time waiting for openings. Apparently #21 saw some openings that I didn't.

Gregg
08-05-2010, 08:46 PM
A few things-

I am making the most of my allowed appeal period. I'm simply not sure that I can afford to lose a minimum of $100 (according to the current GCR, that is the minimum Administrative fee). I know it's a point that needs to be made, and that's why I filed the protest to begin with...

As for your #3- if I hadn't have pointed him by, perhaps he might not have assumed that I knew he was there, and maybe he'd have been more "on my door". No matter what, his driving/racing technique sucked.

I think I need to appeal, but I'm not sure if it's in the cards at this point...

I'll send ya $50 via PayPal, Matt.....And stop thinking you had any complicity in his actions. As Jake said, he was never going to be on your door from where he entered and would have tagged you just the same (but perhaps with less damage to your car). If the SOM found it to be a racing incident, they botched it and you should appeal. If they failed to assess a prescribed penalty, you should appeal. As I have seen on multiple occasions with stewarding in the DC region (before John N. joined the program), there have been instances where the stewards have not followed the GCR in meting out decisions and the appeals process DOES correct that not just once, but ensures that they are a little more careful in their decisions going forward as well.

Knestis
08-05-2010, 10:13 PM
I'd love to finally shut up about all this, but I think it's testament to what a fiasco the IT Fest was that many are still talking about it... Yes, a farce, because no matter how peachy things were in the other 5 race groups, the garbage that ensued in Group 2 was enough to mar the whole event. ...

I wasn't there but I've seen my fair share of dorked up races in almost 30 years now. It is NOT the "event's" fault. First, it's the fault of a few drivers who, as is often the case, managed to mess things up for the majority. Second, it completely sounds like a few officials were falling into the "don't want to miss the beer" trap that we've all seen - or had happen around us but didn't see - lots of times.

People are at fault, not the IT Fest. You could go to a regional next month and run into those same people and - SURPRISE! - it would be a shambles again. That's why the protest and appeal process is so important.

K

gran racing
08-05-2010, 10:29 PM
Rob, I've been biting my tonge but...


I'd be happy to provide, and would have at the event but no one came to find me.

If you have video of another driver/car incident, think it's pretty silly what happened, you should seek out at least the innocent driver(s) involved. They should need to find you, people in your position should seek them out. Consider what they may/may not be going though at the time. Protest, or not to protest (hurry! 30 minutes isn't a lot of time). Witnesses? Are there any? Their own video? Who was that car behind them? How would they know?

All a learning experience. Next time I'd suggest approaching the driver, state you were behind them, have video to show what actually happened, and go from there.

On edit: that might come across as being more harsh towards Rob than meant.

924Guy
08-06-2010, 08:27 AM
Regarding the speed of the #21 ITB - I agree, no odd power advantage here. I even watched Sunday PM from the keyhole, observing his group, and he wasn't the fastest car down the back straight - Tom (Forst - #00) could get a decent run on him at least half the laps. I just see someone who was on the ball going through the Esses, and made a move for some clear track that was perhaps over-optimistic... but I can't say I wouldn't have done the same. I just might've done it a little cleaner, that's all - but that's experience, which this newer driver apparently didn't have. Though maybe he's a lot more experienced now!

Something's got to be done to bring the ITS driver to justice. Sorry, but it DOES seem like the stewards are puss-ing out on this, from everything I've seen and heard.

Intent has all of jack squat to do with it. "I'm sorry, I didn't mean to put you in the wall!" Oh, well that makes it all better, doesn't it?

I can do nothing, I was only a crew b*tch this weekend. It's up to the participants involved. Matt - here's hoping closer scrutiny and video review makes your appeal go more smoothly. It may also be appropriate that you discuss with my wife and her experiences with this guy...

EDIT: Anyone have video from Madness, trackside, during the Sunday AM quali race (group 2)? Last lap, where #77 ITB went off?

tom91ita
08-06-2010, 08:48 AM
.......Something's got to be done to bring the ITS driver to justice. Sorry, but it DOES seem like the stewards are puss-ing out on this, from everything I've seen and heard..........

after the fact with video and time on our hands it is a much clearer picture than what the stewards likely had in hand.:shrug:

but i agree. this should be appealed with the video included. stupid question, does the appeal process still require VHS format?

John Nesbitt
08-06-2010, 08:49 AM
I can do nothing, I was only a crew b*tch this weekend. It's up to the participants involved.

Strictly speaking, you can. From GCR 8.1.5 (emphasis added):



Any entrant, driver, crew, organizer, or official participating in an event


may protest any decision, act, or omission of another entrant, driver,
crew, organizer, official, or any other person connected with that event
whose actions the protestor believes to be in error or which violate the
GCR, the Supplemental Regulations, or any condition involving SCCA’s
sanction of the event.



Normally, it's the affected driver who protests, but it's not limited to the driver.

John Nesbitt
08-06-2010, 08:54 AM
but i agree. this should be appealed with the video included. stupid question, does the appeal process still require VHS format?

Pretty much any video format is acceptable. Keep in mind that you must submit the entire original video, not an extract.

The video will be returned at the end of the appeals process. It's still a good idea to keep a copy for yourself, just in case.

For a writeup on the appeals process, see the January Fastrack, or download the CoA procedure from driverinfo.johnnesbitt.com

924Guy
08-06-2010, 09:42 AM
Strictly speaking, you can. From GCR 8.1.5 (emphasis added):


Any entrant, driver, crew, organizer, or official participating in an event


may protest any decision, act, or omission of another entrant, driver,
crew, organizer, official, or any other person connected with that event
whose actions the protestor believes to be in error or which violate the
GCR, the Supplemental Regulations, or any condition involving SCCA’s
sanction of the event.



Normally, it's the affected driver who protests, but it's not limited to the driver.

OH! Duh! I did read your excellent posts on protests etc... but I guess that shows that retention is less-than-perfect! Cheers!:birra:

mossaidis
08-06-2010, 10:52 AM
i think you are combining incidents. the vw did not hit the shelby.

well, at least not in the video link i posted. :blink:

You are correct - my apologizes (see roverelf - it's not that hard). Another example where I should NOT be posting during work hours.

Ed Funk
08-06-2010, 01:10 PM
You are correct - my apologizes (see roverelf - it's not that hard). Another example where I should NOT be posting during work hours.

What else you gonna do during work hours?

ShelbyRacer
08-06-2010, 03:40 PM
The poster wrote, "While the protest was well-founded, no action was taken because the SOM found "no malicious intent" on the part of the Acura driver."

This can be read as meaning that the SOM did not uphold the protest, and consequently did not levy a penalty. The expression "well-founded" is usually used to describe unsuccessful protests.

Perhaps the original poster could tell us whether the protest was upheld or not.

My protest fee was returned to me, I was told it was well-founded, and that they determined the cause to be the tire issues. They also said they were going to speak to him about car preparation.

I am in the process of writing an appeal letter, which I will finish over the weekend. Once finished, I will make a final determination of whether I will make the appeall or not. I thank all of you for your words of support and encouragement, both publicly and privately. I have not had a chance to respond to everyone, but I will try to.

Most of all, I feel better regarding this incident, because no matter what the final outcome, I just want to make sure that I handled myself well on-track, and that you would all feel comfortable going in to a turn side by side with me. I'm not going to back off, but am I going to give you room to race me. I also want those in faster cars to know that I'm a heads-up driver, and that even though I was working to stay ahead of another ITB car, I also saw another race coming, and did my best to let them have their track for that battle as well. The last thing I want to do is screw up someone else...

Edit: Also @ John- thanks for taking the time to write your driver's guide. I've just been looking at it as a resource, and have found some helpful info that was not readily apparent from other sources.

tom91ita
08-06-2010, 03:56 PM
most of us have at one time been the punter as well as the puntee.

my take on this is man-up and admit it whenever it is our fault. if the guy had apologized profusely or offered to help you repair your car in the paddock, etc., you would have likely felt different about it.

he did not learn anything from this incident. i would appeal.

ShelbyRacer
08-11-2010, 12:51 AM
I am submitting my appeal tomorrow. I know it's the last day, but I have been seriously mulling it over that much. I can post my appeal letter once it's finalized if anyone wants to see it.

gran racing
08-11-2010, 07:53 AM
Sure, post it on up. Glad to hear you are going through with it.

lateapex911
08-11-2010, 12:56 PM
My protest fee was returned to me, I was told it was well-founded, and that they determined the cause to be the tire issues. They also said they were going to speak to him about car preparation.

.

I just reread this. What a boat load of crap "Tire issues" is. So they really feel his tires were just FINE up at the keyhole, but they suddenly vaporized after the long straight into 4? Come on, what kind of moron buys that!?? Complete and utter BS.

Stewards, it's simple, THE GUY SCREWED the POOCH. You can NOT go into a corner that shallow and expect to make the radius at the same speed you make a much larger radius. Simple physics, folks!

ANYone with a racing license SHOULD get that, and a Stewards should too. It was driver error, resulting in avoidable contact. Hugely negligent, deserved points on license.

Matt, thank you for appealing, this was yet another case of Stewards being too nice, for some unknown reason.

ShelbyRacer
08-11-2010, 04:30 PM
Appeal has been filed and accepted by the National Office today. Here is the letter I sent. I would also note that I did not submit new evidence, as my appeal has more to do with the inactions of the stewards than the incident itself.

-------------------------------------------------------

I am writing to appeal the decision of the SOM regarding the Protest of the driver of car 73 ITS by Matthew Green, driver of car 96 ITB, in the Saturday afternoon Group 2 race at Mid Ohio on July 31st, 2010. The sanction number of this event was 10-R-1124-S.
Description of the on-track incident:
A few laps into the race, I began to be lapped by faster cars, while still holding off another ITB car. On one lap, while accelerating down the main straight (under the pro-start stand), I noticed that two ITS cars, and Acura and a Miata, were gaining on me, after having passed the ITB car behind me. As I entered the braking zone, I pointed the lead car, the Acura, by me to driver’s right. I then turned in, while maintaining 1.5-2 car widths at the apex on my right. As I completed my turn, I was impacted heavily in the right rear, causing my car to spin clock-wise, off-course to driver’s left, coming to a stop at the lower end of the gravel trap. After restarting the car, I recovered myself from the gravel, and proceeded on point from the next station at the crest of the hill. I then continued driving while assessing the state of the car, and chose to continue, albeit at a reduced pace.

My account of the protest process:
Following the Group 2 race on Saturday afternoon, I, Matthew Green, driver of car 96 ITB, approached the Chief Steward, Pat McCammon, to file a protest for on-course contact. I cited GCR sections 6.11.1.A-D, regarding avoidable contact, racing room, and passing responsibility. After some delay (handling other incidents), Mr. McCammon introduced me to the Operating Steward for Group 2. I mentioned the incident, and the OS looked at his notepad and nodded affirmatively. Mr. McCammon asked the OS if he was choosing to take any action, and the OS replied that he was not. At this time, I completed a protest form and gave it and the $25 protest fee to the Chief Steward. He suggested that, prior to officially submitting the protest, I see the driver of car 73, Mr. Pat Kean, to discuss the matter if I was comfortable doing so. He also said he would hold my protest in good faith and, should I choose to lodge the protest, would consider it submitted at the original time. Prior to this, I had not approached the driver out of concern for holding my temper, but at this point, I felt I could speak to him constructively.
Upon approaching Mr. Kean, I introduced myself, and he offered something of an apology (something like, “Yeah, I’m real sorry about what happened to you out there.”). I attempted to explain to him that I was upset due to the severity of the hit, and that I thought there were several things he could’ve done to prevent the situation, such as staying closer to my side as we approached the corner. He replied that when he saw my point-by, he expected me to just “let him go by”. I explained that by giving him two car widths at the apex, I thought I was allowing him to pass easily and safely. Mr. Kean then began to explain to me that his tires had been going away, which was why he wasn’t as fast as he should’ve been, and that as he entered the braking zone for turn 7, they “got much worse”. At this point, I felt that Mr. Kean was not taking proper responsibility for his actions, and I informed him, very clearly, that I had filed a protest about the incident. He responded, “Well, if that’s what you think you have to do…” and I walked away.
I then went immediately to the Chief Steward, Mr. McCammon, and confirmed that I did wish to file the protest. He accepted it at that time. He informed me that the SOM would want to speak to me. I said that I had in-car video, and he told me to bring it with me to the SOM if I wanted to present it.
I returned to my paddock space and began to work on my car. A while later (not sure of the time, but possibly 1-1.5 hours later), I heard Mr. Kean paged over the PA to report to the SOM at the medical building. Fearing that I had missed an announcement of my name (it had been a while), I went to the SOM, and was informed that they wanted to talk to Mr. Kean first, and that they were looking for him. They said they would page me when needed. I then returned to my paddock space, and had one of my crew, Matthew Rowe, take my rear wheel (hit in the incident) to be examined by the Hoosier Tire workers. While having the wheel balanced, Mr. Rowe overheard the one worker remark to another that the tires nearby were from an ITS Acura, and that the tires needed to be saved because they had “caused the driver to hit someone and now there was even a protest filed”. After a while longer, I returned to the SOM, at which time I was told that Mr. Kean had left the track, and that they would be delaying things until the next morning. Once again, they would page me when they needed me.
The next morning, I reported to the SOM when called. I offered my testimony of the incident, as was written on my protest form. I offered in-car video, and was advised that I “may not want to do that unless it shows something specific” because “most people don’t get those back.” Considering that my in-car simply showed my point-by (a point that I was told was not in dispute) and my leaving of racing room for Mr. Kean (again a point that I was told was not in dispute), I took the advice of the SOM and withheld my video. The SOMs then thanked me for assisting in that, called the other driver, and dismissed me. As I was leaving, I asked if any action was to be taken for Mr. Kean leaving the track. I mentioned that I told him I was filing a protest, and also brought up what has overheard at Hoosier Tire. The SOM Chairman said they would check into it, as they were going to Hoosier to see the tires that were on Mr. Kean’s car. I then went to watch the ITA/ITC/IT7 race which had just started.
At the conclusion of the race I was watching, I headed back to my paddock. As I passed Medical, I saw the SOMs returning. They motioned me over and took me inside. I was told that the SOM was having trouble locating another witness to the incident because “there was nothing in the control log” and they “had no idea who the other ITB or ITS car was” that was racing with us. I said that I knew the other ITS car was a Miata, and that I had been passed by a pair of different Miatas on a previous lap. I was told that neither Mr. Kean nor the SOM could identify the car. I asked to see the provisional results, and pointed out a Miata in ITS that had finished immediately behind Mr. Kean, noting that the other two Miatas in the results were several places higher and paired up the same as they had passed me on track. They then paged the other driver, whose name I do not recall. We then spoke again briefly about when had occurred on- track, and in short time, the Miata driver arrived. The SOM asked me to wait outside, because they “didn’t think this would take too long”.
After about 5-10 minutes, the SOMs asked me to come back inside so that they could deliver a verdict. I was told that my protest did have “foundation”, but that they felt that Mr. Kean did not hit me maliciously. They returned my protest fee of $25 and said that they would “speak to Mr. Kean extensively about his car preparation and mechanical condition.” I then asked if any action was to be taken for Mr. Kean leaving the track, and I was told that there would be no action, because they couldn’t determine if he really knew about the protest.

ShelbyRacer
08-11-2010, 04:30 PM
Continued from the previous post, since I am apparently too long-winded...

----------------------------------------------------

The basis for my appeal:
I am basing my appeal on several issues.
1) Nowhere in GCR section 6.11.1 is there a mention that malicious intent is a requirement for a violation. Drivers are simply held responsible for handling their cars in a safe manner and avoiding contact. Mr. Kean’s intent is irrelevant. A decision should be based on the facts of the incident, and not the intent where none is required.
2) No action was taken by the Operating Steward or Chief Steward due to the on-course contact (obviously, this is the basis of my protest, but I do not feel that I should’ve needed to file a protest when the actual occurrence of contact, and the actions leading up to the contact, were not debated by either party).
3) No action was taken against Mr. Kean for leaving the track while a protest was underway, and as far as I could tell, no investigation was performed about this issue.
4) A decision was not rendered in absentia, as set forth in GCR section 8.2.
5) This event was a one-day sanction, with a separate sanction used for the Sunday event. This, I believe, makes it even more important that the protest be handled prior to the conclusion of the applicable event.
Overall, I feel that the Stewards at this event did not uphold the regulations set forth within the GCR. I am appealing on this basis.
I can be reached at (removed phone #) or (removed email address) if you need any further information.

quadzjr
08-11-2010, 05:23 PM
I woudl of attached the video that is on this site, of the car behind you. That video tells it all.

well written. Couldn't determine the focus of your protest. Do you want them to investigate again the contact or the actions of the stewards?

seckerich
08-11-2010, 09:41 PM
An appeal must provide "new evidence" so you better send any tapes you have or it will be dismissed. They will not rehash the same events dealt with by the SOM.

jumbojimbo
08-11-2010, 11:05 PM
An appeal must provide "new evidence" so you better send any tapes you have or it will be dismissed. They will not rehash the same events dealt with by the SOM.

Sort of. Sometimes in describing the actions of the stewards you are presenting "new" evidence.

The issue here is whether the court will see evidence of procedural errors or simply questions about the judgement of stewards. And you're not going to have a lot of luck getting the court to question the judgement call.

I do think you'd have been better off presenting new factual evidence of the case, sort of two pronged attack. A: the stewards didn't follow proper procedure. B: see, here's evidence they should have discovered. And oh by the way, check out this evidence, the judgement was wrong too.

I'll put $5 on "No new evidence presented."

Gregg
08-11-2010, 11:22 PM
I completely agree, Matt. You need to submit the video as it is evidence that was not presented in the original hearing. Otherwise you may find that the CoA takes no action.

You only need to look at very recent CoA findings to see the importance.

ShelbyRacer
08-11-2010, 11:39 PM
Actually, I specifically do NOT include new evidence, because I did not want the court to make a new decision and include the "based on the new evidence presented" line, thereby letting off the Stewards who made the bad decision in the first place. At this point, I am much more concerned that the mis- or in- action by the Stewards be addressed, than a changed decision based on the on-track incident itself.

This situation is an embarassment to the rules established by the SCCA.

Also, according to section 8.4.3 (Appeal procedures), there is no requirement for additional evidence, UNLESS the CoA requests it under 8.4.4. Also, as mentioned above, I have already submitted evidence that was not considered or acted upon by the original SOM.

That said, if they do not request evidence and then return the "no new evidence" verdict, I will gladly accept my big giant collective "I told you so" from you guys.

Gregg
08-11-2010, 11:53 PM
Matt-

I strongly recommend that you take a look at this ruling involving Roger Troxell (page 13):

http://www.scca.com/documents/Fastrack/06-12-fastrack.pdf

Tell me how its so different from your case.

ShelbyRacer
08-12-2010, 12:56 AM
I would not say it is much different. I would also say that the entire process appears to reach the verdict I hope to see- a modified decision of the SOM. Additionally, the appeal submitted looks similar. It is however, 4 years old...

What is the issue in this case?

John Nesbitt
08-12-2010, 07:07 AM
You don't necessarily have to submit new evidence. The Court will consider appeals based on any/all of the following (taken from the CoA guidelines):


A. Review the process followed by the SOM to determine if all parties involved followed the GCR rules.
B. Review any new information that was not available, or not known, which became available to you after the SOM hearing.
C. Decide whether or not there is sufficient evidence presented to warrant changing the SOM decision.

Without getting into the specifics of your appeal, it sounds like you are speaking to point A.

quadzjr
08-12-2010, 11:21 PM
I am still confused. You don't want them to punish the other driver? you want them to take action agains the volutneer SOM?

lateapex911
08-13-2010, 12:16 AM
Did you include the video that has been seen by everybody!?

lateapex911
08-13-2010, 10:59 PM
I guess I missed a few posts when I posted mine...missed a whole page. Oh well.

Matt, it seems to me that your goal is to get the COA to change the ruling of the Stewards and to chastise the Stewards.

It does NOT appear that you have issues with the other driver.

To me, the other driver needs a harsher penalty, and THAT should be goal number 1.

I'd be happy if the Stewards got their hands slapped, but, that would be gravy to me. I guess I see your point that adding evidence gives the Stewards an "out"...(new evidence), but man, you're taking a huge risk in your purist approach.

I'd hit them with new evidence, AND I'd outline the failings of the Stewards, and I'd be VERY clear and concise. DO NOT make them read between the lines. Make your case and have clear calls to actions.

924Guy
08-14-2010, 06:56 AM
To me, the other driver needs a penalty, and THAT should be goal number 1.


Fixed that for ya... :024:

Bill Miller
08-14-2010, 08:33 AM
What's the point of having a CS, etc. if this is the way they're going to handle something that's so cut and dried? As far as sanctions against the CS, etc. goes, good luck with that. That's like one cop writing another cop a speeding ticket.

Good luck with it Matt.

TAC
08-14-2010, 06:49 PM
BTW, I'm not mad at Todd.

Good to know. :D

Thanks for the input from everyone. After three straight years of starts on the pit straight I thought it was time to mix things up a little. Sorry race group 2 had such a rough weekend.

As far as next year I'm not even sure of a date at this time as the pro schedule at Mid Ohio is in an uproar with IRL wanting to change dates. I won't know much until the end of Sept.

Todd

lateapex911
08-15-2010, 01:42 AM
Todd, even though I wasn't there, I'll weigh in, on the start aspect. There is NO reason the pro start stand shouldn't be used. To those who think the sky fell, and it's because of the location, IMO, you're wrong. The IT guys have proven they are perfectly capable of screwing up on the pit straight as well~
I know, I've jumped the curb to the put lane to avoid contact when I had a 75% overlap, yet the outside driver failed to see me, I assume... And it's just as likely that it could have happened on the other straight. And that's just one of the starts that was screwed up...of many I witnessed.

The pro straight gives the room to have an orderly line up, and gives the starter more options to allow for that line up to occur. On the pit straight, it was basically "If we have 6 or so rows that's all we can hope for, GREEN GREEN GREEN"....

John Nesbitt
08-15-2010, 08:54 AM
What's the point of having a CS, etc. if this is the way they're going to handle something that's so cut and dried? As far as sanctions against the CS, etc. goes, good luck with that. That's like one cop writing another cop a speeding ticket.



Two points:

1. This involves a driver-to-driver protest, so the CS was not involved. The appeal is against the decision of (and, implicitly, the process followed by) the SOM.

2. If you read back through Court of Appeals judgments, you will find a number of cases where the Court has found that the original SOM did not provide due process or correct procedure to the person appealing. I know for a fact that these decisions can and do have consequences for the SOM.

The sanctions applied would be different from those applied to drivers. Obviously, you can't assign a loss of finishing position to an official. :) These sanctions happen through the licensing and assignment process.

Obviously, I cannot say whether this case calls for, or will result in, sanctions. But I can say that they are available and are used.

Bill Miller
08-16-2010, 12:19 PM
Two points:

1. This involves a driver-to-driver protest, so the CS was not involved. The appeal is against the decision of (and, implicitly, the process followed by) the SOM.

2. If you read back through Court of Appeals judgments, you will find a number of cases where the Court has found that the original SOM did not provide due process or correct procedure to the person appealing. I know for a fact that these decisions can and do have consequences for the SOM.

The sanctions applied would be different from those applied to drivers. Obviously, you can't assign a loss of finishing position to an official. :) These sanctions happen through the licensing and assignment process.

Obviously, I cannot say whether this case calls for, or will result in, sanctions. But I can say that they are available and are used.

Sorry, should have said SOM and not CS. However, the CS was the one that suggested that Matt talk to the other driver rather than file a protest. IMHO, it's not the CS's job to editorialize in cases like this.

And while I have seen cases where the CoA has found that the SOM (and other officials) did in fact act in error, unlike driver penalties which are published, in 10+ years of reading CoA decisions in FasTrack I don't ever recall seeing any penalty published for cases where the SOM et. al. were found to have acted in error.

ShelbyRacer
08-16-2010, 12:54 PM
I guess I missed a few posts when I posted mine...missed a whole page. Oh well.

Matt, it seems to me that your goal is to get the COA to change the ruling of the Stewards and to chastise the Stewards.

It does NOT appear that you have issues with the other driver.

To me, the other driver needs a harsher penalty, and THAT should be goal number 1.



Well, my thought process was this:

My case has been argued once already. No matter what goes in the record on behalf of the SOM, my written protest must be on record, and it was exhaustive in its detail in making my original case. I did not want to rehash that, knowing that they'd be reading my original form. Also, no facts from my original protest were refuted by the other driver to my knowledge. He basicly said, "yeah, all that happened, but my tires went away."

By sheer default of the mechanism at work, the driver SHOULD recieve a penalty if the CoA finds that the SOM acted in error. If I was not properly afforded due process, then all resulting actions are in error and must be corrected. Perhaps though, I am assuming too much...

Don't get me wrong, I am annoyed with the other driver. However, the more time that progresses, the more my ire is directed at the Stewards at that event. We need to make sure that they, and all other Stewards, are held accountable to the GCR. I may not race with that driver again, or have to deal with those Stewards, but the GCR is (or at least should be) at the heart of every SCCA race I attend. At this point, I feel the larger issue is that the integrity of that book has been compromised, not only by a participant who doesn't "get it", but by Stewards who refuse to do anything about it.

Which is the bigger problem- the driver who needs to be educated, or the system that fails to do so?

John Nesbitt
08-16-2010, 01:33 PM
Sorry, should have said SOM and not CS. However, the CS was the one that suggested that Matt talk to the other driver rather than file a protest. IMHO, it's not the CS's job to editorialize in cases like this.

And while I have seen cases where the CoA has found that the SOM (and other officials) did in fact act in error, unlike driver penalties which are published, in 10+ years of reading CoA decisions in FasTrack I don't ever recall seeing any penalty published for cases where the SOM et. al. were found to have acted in error.


On the first point, I agree with you. It drives me crazy when stewards try to discourage drivers from protesting. This is wrong.

On the second point, sanctions published - no, but sanctions applied - yes. I know several stewards (Chief Stewards and SOM) who suffered "career consequences".

You use the expression "acted in error" to describe something worthy of punishment. We may be arguing over words, but I would disagree.

We all make mistakes - drivers and stewards. The trick is to recognize one's errors, learn from them, and not repeat them.

I distinguish "error" from something you might call "negligent error" - where a driver or steward does something that he should know is not permitted. That is worthy of sanction.

dickita15
08-16-2010, 05:00 PM
We all make mistakes - drivers and stewards. The trick is to recognize one's errors, learn from them, and not repeat them.

I distinguish "error" from something you might call "negligent error" - where a driver or steward does something that he should know is not permitted. That is worthy of sanction.

That is very true. I think the best outcome here is to have a valuable teachable moment.

Bill Miller
08-16-2010, 05:16 PM
On the first point, I agree with you. It drives me crazy when stewards try to discourage drivers from protesting. This is wrong.

On the second point, sanctions published - no, but sanctions applied - yes. I know several stewards (Chief Stewards and SOM) who suffered "career consequences".

You use the expression "acted in error" to describe something worthy of punishment. We may be arguing over words, but I would disagree.

We all make mistakes - drivers and stewards. The trick is to recognize one's errors, learn from them, and not repeat them.

I distinguish "error" from something you might call "negligent error" - where a driver or steward does something that he should know is not permitted. That is worthy of sanction.

And there's the rub John. Why should officials be handled differently than drivers w.r.t. penalties? If you're going to publish that John Q. Driver rec'd a penalty for such-and-such infraction, why wouldn't you publish that Joe Steward rec'd a penalty for an infraction? And you're actually making my case for me. You agree that having stewards attempt to discourage drivers from protesting is wrong. You also state when they do something they know to be wrong, they should be sanctioned. To me, inaction in a case where action is clearly warranted is as bad, if not worse, than incorrect action. And absolutely deserving of a penalty. I chose the term 'acted in error' because I wanted to differentiate it from 'making a mistake'. I view the former as knowing better, I view the later as not knowing enough. The thing is, they just don't hand out SoM, CS, or OS licenses for the fun of it. Takes a bit to get one. Those people should know better by then.

John Nesbitt
08-16-2010, 08:01 PM
And there's the rub John. Why should officials be handled differently than drivers w.r.t. penalties? If you're going to publish that John Q. Driver rec'd a penalty for such-and-such infraction, why wouldn't you publish that Joe Steward rec'd a penalty for an infraction? And you're actually making my case for me. You agree that having stewards attempt to discourage drivers from protesting is wrong. You also state when they do something they know to be wrong, they should be sanctioned. To me, inaction in a case where action is clearly warranted is as bad, if not worse, than incorrect action. And absolutely deserving of a penalty. I chose the term 'acted in error' because I wanted to differentiate it from 'making a mistake'. I view the former as knowing better, I view the later as not knowing enough. The thing is, they just don't hand out SoM, CS, or OS licenses for the fun of it. Takes a bit to get one. Those people should know better by then.



What infraction, precisely?

You’re comparing apples to oranges. Let’s compare like with like.



If a driver commits an infraction of a specific GCR rule (e.g. Unsportsmanlike Conduct), he is subject to a specific range of penalties. The actual penalty is ‘published’ only if it affects the results of the session (e.g. a position penalty). If the penalty does not affect the results (e.g. reprimand or probation), it is not published. Unless, of course, the driver chooses to appeal the penalty and we read about the outcome in Fastrack.

If a steward commits an infraction of a specific GCR rule (e.g. Unsportsmanlike Conduct), he is subject to a specific range of penalties. The penalty is not 'published' because no event results are affected. Unless, of course, the steward chooses to appeal the penalty and we read about the outcome in Fastrack (read the Court of Appeals rulings in the January Fastrack – Hayward vs. SOM).

(Keep in mind that the simple fact of a steward’s not penalizing a driver for some offence is not in itself a violation of the GCR. Read GCR 5.12.2.B/C and 7.1/2/3. The operative word is always ‘may’, not ‘shall’.)



If a driver is the subject of a driver’s review convened by the Executive Steward, the outcome is published nowhere. Unless, again, he chooses to appeal the outcome.
Penalties are recorded administratively (and confidentially) and can have future consequences.

If a steward is the subject of an official’s review convened by the Executive Steward, the outcome is published nowhere. Unless, again, he chooses to appeal the outcome.



So, if you compare similar scenarios, you will see a lot of commonality in the way that drivers and stewards are treated.



Beyond these parallel cases, a steward is subject to a third jeopardy.

Stewards are subject to review after every event. These reviews are recorded administratively (and confidentially), and can have future consequences.

We go through an annual process of applying for our licenses, which involves a performance review. I don’t know about your employer, but mine does not publish performance reviews. The Executive Steward can renew my license at a lower level (or not renew it at all). And I have no recourse.

lateapex911
08-17-2010, 03:00 AM
I was involved in a situation where I felt the Steward massively mishandled certain aspects. Actually, three stewards blew it in my eyes, but one was "in training", and the other, well, let's just say his input was minimal. But the guy in charge made some grievous errors of procedure. Fortunately, another Steward involved themselves, and ultimately, the goal was realized, but not without a shuddering trainwreck along the way. I chose not to appeal (for a complex set of reasons) but, I was told, in a certain manner, that internal investigations were pursued, and the Steward in charge was demoted. From my observations of subsequent events, it appeared that indeed, changes had been made.

So, yes, it would appear that there is a degree of self checking that occurs.

John Nesbitt
08-17-2010, 06:18 AM
I was involved in a situation where I felt the Steward massively mishandled certain aspects. Actually, three stewards blew it in my eyes, but one was "in training", and the other, well, let's just say his input was minimal. But the guy in charge made some grievous errors of procedure. Fortunately, another Steward involved themselves, and ultimately, the goal was realized, but not without a shuddering trainwreck along the way. I chose not to appeal (for a complex set of reasons) but, I was told, in a certain manner, that internal investigations were pursued, and the Steward in charge was demoted. From my observations of subsequent events, it appeared that indeed, changes had been made.

So, yes, it would appear that there is a degree of self checking that occurs.

Jake,

There is an additional point I should have made in my earlier post.

Given that most steward issues are not GCR-related, but job performance-related, the usual path to correction is different.

If anyone has a problem with a steward at an event, speak to the Chief Steward.

If the Chief Steward doesn't resolve the problem, or the problem is with the Chief Steward, contact the Division Executive Steward.

These approaches do work.


John

ShelbyRacer
08-17-2010, 11:43 AM
Jake,

There is an additional point I should have made in my earlier post.

Given that most steward issues are not GCR-related, but job performance-related, the usual path to correction is different.

If anyone has a problem with a steward at an event, speak to the Chief Steward.

If the Chief Steward doesn't resolve the problem, or the problem is with the Chief Steward, contact the Division Executive Steward.

These approaches do work.


John

John,

Intersting to hear you say that. That was the major reason why I was hesitant to file the appeal, as I was going to pursue this via that route. In the end, I felt that appeal was the only way (obviously) that would also include the driver penalty in the changes if it was determined that mistakes were made.

lateapex911
08-17-2010, 04:33 PM
Matt, you've clearly put lots of thought into this. I hope it works out. Keep us informed! (I see your points, and I'm anxious to learn how it pans out)

Would another option be to follow both paths/ (the shotgun approach), LOL.

I hear what Dick is saying, that people make mistakes. I know he is very wise, and makes the excellent point that "we should never assume malice when stupidity is as likely a reason", or something to that effect.

I see that point, but appealing the whole shooting match is merely, in my eyes, asking another set of eyes to look at the situation, and be the judge. If indeed the 'crime' is one of innocent negligence, or whatever, then they can support the verdict handed down earlier. So, I see no harm in running it up the flagpole.


(I for one, based on what I've seen, think the driver is delusional at best, or blowing smoke up everyone's ass if the thinks he can blame that on tires at worst. That was clear dumbass driving, and anyone not on a novice permit should know better. We have a a duty to make sure we don't race with such behavior. I'm not well versed in the responsibilities of Stewards in such situations to form a stron opinion, but it does sound similar to the same ole same ole..)

ShelbyRacer
08-20-2010, 12:52 PM
I did finally post my in-car. It's the whole thing, unedited. Please beware that the language at parts may not be appropriate for all ages.

http://vimeo.com/14285579

The hit happens around minute 34 I believe.

Feel free to critique my driving (or lack thereof).

tom91ita
08-22-2010, 04:04 AM
interesting video. i find it interesting that one lap prior at ~ 32:10 or so that you point by other cars and take essentially the same line. that is, the large black patch/section of the turn you are to the far left of it or straddling that edge.

the first time, two cars racing for position are able to get past at essentially the same spot and the next lap the lone car punts you.

he was way off line and was using hope instead of physics.....

if you had not pointed him by and taken the "normal" or "classic" line there, i think it would have just changed what part of your car that got hit.

dj10
08-22-2010, 11:18 AM
I did finally post my in-car. It's the whole thing, unedited. Please beware that the language at parts may not be appropriate for all ages.

http://vimeo.com/14285579

The hit happens around minute 34 I believe.

Feel free to critique my driving (or lack thereof).

Matt, thank you so much for posting that. It looks like you were sucker punched!

Also you can see from times 22:14 to 23:14 the 944S2 blocking me, driving in the middle of the track and slamming the door on my just before entering thunder valley.

Eagle7
08-23-2010, 07:06 AM
Also you can see from times 22:14 to 23:14 the 944S2 blocking me,
What from that video would you define as blocking? The leader gets to choose his line through the corner. Unless he used multiple moves leading up to you entering the field of view, I don't see his late move there as blocking. He gave you plenty of room to pass on the outside.


driving in the middle of the track
Huh? Is that a problem?


and slamming the door on my just before entering thunder valley.
I can't see that one well enough to form an opinion, but in my experience, if you can back out of it enough to avoid contact when he turns in, you probably didn't have enough overlap to give you the right to be there. It's his corner to drive his line unless you're overlapping his door. Getting inside his quarterpanel doesn't cut it.

dj10
08-23-2010, 08:47 AM
Getting inside his quarterpanel doesn't cut it.

It does when your there already and he comes over on you in a braking zone. It was like that almost the entire race. I didn't block him when he passed me coming on the front straight, which I could have. If your racing race if your blocking that's not much of racing.

spawpoet
08-23-2010, 09:43 AM
It does when your there already and he comes over on you in a braking zone. It was like that almost the entire race. I didn't block him when he passed me coming on the front straight, which I could have. If your racing race if your blocking that's not much of racing.


The car in front gets to choose the line. If your nose wasn't in front of his he CAN cut you off. That's one move, and we are all allowed that. Remember, it's the passing cars responsibility to find a way around the leading car. You have to assume he's gonna do that and find a way around. I can only speak of the minute or so that the two of you were visible in the video, but I saw no transgressions by the Porsche in that snippet. He was driving a defensive line for sure, but he never made more than one move.

jjjanos
08-23-2010, 11:08 AM
The car in front gets to choose the line. If your nose wasn't in front of his he CAN cut you off. That's one move, and we are all allowed that. Remember, it's the passing cars responsibility to find a way around the leading car. You have to assume he's gonna do that and find a way around. I can only speak of the minute or so that the two of you were visible in the video, but I saw no transgressions by the Porsche in that snippet. He was driving a defensive line for sure, but he never made more than one move.


Without refering to the specific incident - I can find no statement, reference or command in the GCR that supports either your first or second sentence.


6.11.1 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 avoid being chopped, I do not need to have my nose in front of another car, I don't need to be even with his front-wheel, his door or his rear-wheel wheel. What I need is to have is overlap early enough that the other driver has time to be aware that there is overlap.

This isn't a freaking HDPE, it's door-to-door, wheel-to-wheel racing with an edict from the Mr. Sinai requrie that every driver leave racing room and avoid contact.

924Guy
08-23-2010, 12:20 PM
What I need is to have is overlap early enough that the other driver has time to be aware that there is overlap.

Indeed. And the most commonly-applied (by the stewards) guideline (not rule) in this regard is: can the other driver see your car out of his or her peripheral vision?

As such, this would imply that a tall enough part of your car needs to be next to the driver's helmet (assuming he/she has normal 180-deg peripheral vision).

My car, with a very low front end, would then need to be very far up indeed on most door-slammers before I could feel comfortable that they know I'm there. I'm therefore very careful where I stick that little nose in, and ready to pull it back out if needed.

:dead_horse:

spawpoet
08-23-2010, 12:37 PM
Ok, I see how I'm incorrect/misspeaking with the first two sentences. I'm myself am not at all an aggressive driver, and realize we have to make room for each other. What I really meant to emphasize was that it is the passing drivers job to find a way around defensive driving. And personally, I do NOT see where the Porsche was blocking in the video. At what point is it chopping vs. the passing driver being overly optimistic? (honest question)

RedMisted
08-23-2010, 02:01 PM
[QUOTE=924Guy;310745]Indeed. And the most commonly-applied (by the stewards) guideline (not rule) in this regard is: can the other driver see your car out of his or her peripheral vision?

As such, this would imply that a tall enough part of your car needs to be next to the driver's helmet (assuming he/she has normal 180-deg peripheral vision).
QUOTE]

Wait a second, I'm confused here. If I get my bumper mere inches inside the car ahead going into a corner, he can chop me??? The GCR says to leave racing room, which I'm interpreting literally. I cannot tell you how many times I let cars get inside me going into a corner, because I was unsure if they were inside me, and damned if I was gonna be a d*ck and cut someone off. As badly as I want to keep my position, I also want to play by the rules.
Maybe I'll start slamming doors on people and let the stewards decide what to do, whether to penalize me or not. It seems that some stewards don't even follow the GCR. They certainly didn't at the IT Fest as they adopted their own version of "Boys, Have At It."

924Guy
08-23-2010, 08:27 PM
Fair question.

I'll ask this question - how can you expect the defending driver to actually know you're there if he can't see you?

Don't forget the GCR 9.1.3.D.9.d - "Any interior or exterior mirrors may be used."

JLawton
08-23-2010, 08:51 PM
[quote=RedMisted;310757
Wait a second, I'm confused here. If I get my bumper mere inches inside the car ahead going into a corner, he can chop me??? The GCR says to leave racing room, which I'm interpreting literally. I cannot tell you how many times I let cars get inside me going into a corner, because I was unsure if they were inside me, and damned if I was gonna be a d*ck and cut someone off. As badly as I want to keep my position, I also want to play by the rules.
Maybe I'll start slamming doors on people and let the stewards decide what to do, whether to penalize me or not. It seems that some stewards don't even follow the GCR. They certainly didn't at the IT Fest as they adopted their own version of "Boys, Have At It."[/QUOTE]


Yes, you can chop him.......... You may win in a protest but it's not going to pay for
all your replacement sheet metal.

Remember, it takes two to tango........

I'm not a very agressive driver but if I'm going to stick my nose in, I leave enough room to back out if they decide to shut the door on me. On the other hand, if someone jams their nose in on me, I'm going to leave them room. Usually if they are far enough back they can't make it stick. But I'll also take a defensive line to make sure they don't do something stupid and try to stick their nose in when they really can't pull it off. That also helps avoid the "lock 'em up and T bone them" issue.

jjjanos
08-23-2010, 11:05 PM
What from that video would you define as blocking? The leader gets to choose his line through the corner. Unless he used multiple moves leading up to you entering the field of view, I don't see his late move there as blocking. He gave you plenty of room to pass on the outside.


Think of the track being A/B/C/D/E

I see 2 possible moves on the part of the leader.

1 move (definite): from the middle-ish part of the track to DR, taking away the inside.

I.E. D -> E.

1 move (potential, but cannot be determined from the video): moving from the normal line to the middle-ish part of the track when lapping and leaving the inside open until the move above. A or B -> D.

As a flagger, I'd call something like that 2 moves. IMO, if you want to deny the inside, you need to move in one smooth movement to block the inside. No stopping part way through and then continuing.

This video, however, doesn't show whether there was blocking.

John Nesbitt
08-24-2010, 06:39 AM
Fair question.

I'll ask this question - how can you expect the defending driver to actually know you're there if he can't see you?

Don't forget the GCR 9.1.3.D.9.d - "Any interior or exterior mirrors may be used."

If he cannot see you, then how is he the "defending driver"? :)

Seriously, though, read 6.11.1.D in its entirety:


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.
Note the phrase "responsible to be aware" and the reference to using mirrors. If one's mirrors don't show the road behind, it's time to adjust them.

In general, I would counsel folks against looking for deep or convoluted meanings in the GCR. Here is an extract from section 1.2.3.A (Interpreting and Applying the GCR):


Interpreting the GCR shall not be strained or tortured and applying
the GCR shall be logical, remembering that the GCR cannot specifically
cover all possible situations.
The simple, straightforward reading is the correct reading.

dj10
08-24-2010, 05:09 PM
Guys & Gals, here is something to ponder. I was watching a TDI VW Pro race at Road America do you know that they penalized the leader for blocking just for making his car wide to the 2nd place car. Of course that is Pro racing and we as lowly club racers should never should be on the same standards as PRO RACERS, should we? ;~) I've been racing something or another since the 70's and I know the difference between making a car wide and intentional blocking and so will you when it happens to you.

ShelbyRacer
08-26-2010, 07:08 PM
Get ready to hit my with the "I told you so"s when you see me.

JUDGEMENT OF THE COURT OF APPEALSMatthew Green vs. SOM COA Ref. No. 10-13-GLAugust 19, 2010 FACTS IN BRIEF On Saturday afternoon July 31, 2010, at the Cincinnati IT Spec*Taculardouble regional races held a at Mid Ohio Sports Car Course, MatthewGreen (ITB # 96) filed a protest against Charles Kane (ITS # 75) forviolation of GCR 6.11.1.A-D. (On Course Driver Conduct) for body contactduring their race. The Stewards of the Meeting (SOM), Fred McAninch andDan Hodge, Chairman, met, reviewed evidence and heard testimony. As Mr.Kane had already left the track for the day, the SOM adjourned untilSunday morning at which time they heard additional testimony andconcluded the hearing. They found the contact to be a "racing incident"and disallowed the protest. Mr. Green is appealing the decision of the SOM as well as their decisionto continue the hearing the next day. He also appeals the lack of actiontaken by the Chief Steward/Operating Steward. DATES OF THE COURT The SCCA Court of Appeals (COA), Jack Hanifan, Jack Marr and MichaelWest, Chairman, met on August19, 2010 to review, hear and render adecision on the appeal. DOCUMENTS AND OTHER EVIDENCE RECEIVED AND REVIEWED 1. Appeal letter from Mr. Green, received August 11, 2010.2. Official Observers Report and related documents, received August16, 2010. 3. Email from SOM Chairman Dan Hodge, received August 16, 2010. FINDINGS Mr. Green offered no new evidence or information that was germane to thebody contact portion of his case. The COA found insufficient evidence tooverturn the SOM decision. On Mr. Green's procedural issue, the COA found Mr. Kane had not beenofficially notified of the pending protest prior to his leaving thetrack on Saturday afternoon. GCR 8.2. requires that hearings be held"...as soon as practical." The SOM correctly applied the GCR and heldthe hearing when Mr. Kane returned to the track the following morning.The COA notes Mr. Kane fully cooperated with the SOM once he wasnotified of the protest. As to the lack of action taken by the Chief Steward/Operating Steward,the Chief/Operating Steward has the authority to make that decisionbased on the situation. In addition, the decision by the OperatingSteward to not take action was not protested by Mr. Green at the event,therefore it is not open to review by the COA. DECISION The Court of Appeals upholds the decision of the SOM in its entirety.Mr. Green's appeal is deemed well-founded and the appeal fee, less theamount retained by SCCA, will be returned.

seckerich
08-26-2010, 09:00 PM
I will just do it now in a friendly way. Regardless of the advice you get from Mr Nesbit the COA will blow you off on any stewards decision if all you do is second guess them. You have to provide NEW EVIDENCE if you expect them to overturn any decision. The steward has the option to use their judgement as far as on track incidents and the COA will not touch that unless they were negligent. They will look at video or witness statements not available to the first court. Cheap learning experience for you and all reading. :023:

ShelbyRacer
08-26-2010, 09:15 PM
Well, cheap for others. It cost me $100.

Bad thing is, I notified them that I had video from myself and another driver, and that it was available if requested. I *thought* that my argument was strong enough, and that if they felt they needed more, they could ask.

The moral of the story really is: unless the decision of the SOM is costing you something, it's not worth it to appeal. Period.

This "no new evidence was submitted" thing is complete BS. Just because it's the way the system currently works, that doesn't make it right.

And Steve- in my opinion, they were worse than negligent, they were wrong. They read something into the GCR that just ain't there. I guess that the CoA doesn't agree, and that's a shame.

RedMisted
08-26-2010, 11:53 PM
Bad thing is, I notified them that I had video from myself and another driver, and that it was available if requested. I *thought* that my argument was strong enough, and that if they felt they needed more, they could ask.

The moral of the story really is: unless the decision of the SOM is costing you something, it's not worth it to appeal. Period.

This "no new evidence was submitted" thing is complete BS. Just because it's the way the system currently works, that doesn't make it right.

And Steve- in my opinion, they were worse than negligent, they were wrong. They read something into the GCR that just ain't there. I guess that the CoA doesn't agree, and that's a shame.

So to sum up this whole entire thread, a historically flawed system continues to perpetuate itself...

dickita15
08-27-2010, 07:02 AM
Matt, my only question is was the part about the original court accepting the excuse that the other driver blamed his tires going away for the incident and them counseling him about maintaining his equipment part of the court’s documentation that the Board of appeals saw or was it just something they told you verbally.

gran racing
08-27-2010, 09:24 AM
The moral of the story really is: unless the decision of the SOM is costing you something, it's not worth it to appeal. Period.

No. You were right in filing the protest just went about it in a way that wasn't quite effective. Don't wait for them to ask you for new evidence; provide it to them. There's more but it's already been said.

dj10
08-27-2010, 09:42 AM
SCCA justice is to justice as military music is to music!

seckerich
08-27-2010, 10:25 AM
Well, cheap for others. It cost me $100.

Bad thing is, I notified them that I had video from myself and another driver, and that it was available if requested. I *thought* that my argument was strong enough, and that if they felt they needed more, they could ask.

The moral of the story really is: unless the decision of the SOM is costing you something, it's not worth it to appeal. Period.

This "no new evidence was submitted" thing is complete BS. Just because it's the way the system currently works, that doesn't make it right.

And Steve- in my opinion, they were worse than negligent, they were wrong. They read something into the GCR that just ain't there. I guess that the CoA doesn't agree, and that's a shame.

Look at it this way Matt. We have stewards that are responsible for the running of our race weekend per the GCR. To get to that position they SHOULD have shown a level head and some common sense. As a rule most do and your protest and feedback to the Division director are taken into account when their license is reviewed. We may not always like their lack of action, or over reaction but they have earned a certain level of respect. They do not have anything other than yours, and others statements, and possible video. The original steward did not have video so he was going on your statement. Most will try to settle the dispute as gentleman as this is club racing. If you were in the Southeast the driver would have received a loss of 2 positions and possible points or probation on his license. See this link for very clear rules: http://www.sedivracing.org/2010_Penalty_Guidelines.pdf

You protested the stewards lack of dishing out the punishment you deemed necessary. Rational people may disagree but the COA is not there to beat up on stewards to please a driver. Your only appeal was for the contact and proving that it was avoidable with NEW Evidence. I was like you until I was race chair for a few years and saw both sides. No black helicopters, just an opinion and worth what you pay for it. Just don't let this suck the fun out of a great sport.:023:

JohnRW
08-27-2010, 10:30 AM
If, as you left the track on that eventful weekend, a steward didn't hand you a sheet titled "Court of Appeals Procedures", you were done a disservice. It explains what the COA does...and does not...do in hearing appeals.

While you may be thinking "I've wasted enough energy on this", consider writing up a narrative about this, and send it to the Exec Steward for the Division (Great Lakes) and the Chairman of the Stewards (the national uber-steward). There are consequences for screwing stuff up...whether drivers, registrars, T&S, stewards...and while only the "drivers getting whacked" is visible, there are avenues to address "performance issues" in all "race specialties". Consider this - if you've already pissed them off, you're not going to be making new enemies.

jjjanos
08-27-2010, 11:48 AM
Look at it this way Matt. We have stewards that are responsible for the running of our race weekend per the GCR. To get to that position they SHOULD have shown a level head and some common sense. As a rule most do and your protest and feedback to the Division director are taken into account when their license is reviewed. We may not always like their lack of action, or over reaction but they have earned a certain level of respect. They do not have anything other than yours, and others statements, and possible video. The original steward did not have video so he was going on your statement. Most will try to settle the dispute as gentleman as this is club racing. If you were in the Southeast the driver would have received a loss of 2 positions and possible points or probation on his license. See this link for very clear rules: http://www.sedivracing.org/2010_Penalty_Guidelines.pdf

And according to that document, the offending driver in this situation should have been penalized the same.

Was the contact avoidable? Undeniably yes... even if the "cause" of the accident was the loss of grip in the tires, there is NFW this loss was sudden. I.e. the driver knew his tires were less than ideal and failed to leave a suitable margin of error.


You protested the stewards lack of dishing out the punishment you deemed necessary. Rational people may disagree but the COA is not there to beat up on stewards to please a driver. Your only appeal was for the contact and proving that it was avoidable with NEW Evidence.

According to a former member of the CoA, when the CoA takes on a case the specifics items of the protest do not matter at all. To overturn the original findings of the court, there must be either a procedural error (as in this case through the failure to impose a penalty) or new evidence. If, however, in reviewing either the new or older evidence, the CoA notices a new violation not part of the initial SoM action, it is within their power to impose a penalty -- even on a driver who wasn't part of the original protest or the appeal!

i.e. Jack protests Jill over contact and SoMs find no foul. Jack appeals. In reviewing the evidence, the CoA notices that on the video, you can see Thumper drilling Bambi in the door, the CoA could penalize Thumper.

Don't know if he was blowing smoke up my rear over this, so YMMV

John Nesbitt
08-27-2010, 12:10 PM
According to a former member of the CoA, when the CoA takes on a case the specifics items of the protest do not matter at all. To overturn the original findings of the court, there must be either a procedural error (as in this case through the failure to impose a penalty) or new evidence. If, however, in reviewing either the new or older evidence, the CoA notices a new violation not part of the initial SoM action, it is within their power to impose a penalty -- even on a driver who wasn't part of the original protest or the appeal!

i.e. Jack protests Jill over contact and SoMs find no foul. Jack appeals. In reviewing the evidence, the CoA notices that on the video, you can see Thumper drilling Bambi in the door, the CoA could penalize Thumper.



That used to be the case, but no longer. The COA is now explicitly forbidden to be a first court.

In your example, where new evidence implicates a third party, the COA would send the matter back to the original SOM, who would hear the case against him/her.

This preserves Thumper's right to a full hearing plus appeal.

924Guy
08-28-2010, 06:36 AM
Really sucks to hear the inaction on this one. This guy (driver of the ITS car) really needs to be set set straight about standards for driving.

I've never heard such a lame-ass excuse for taking a guy out of the weekend.

And to do it to two drivers, the same way, on two races back-to-back? Inexcusable.

This guy needs some points on his license, and some time to consider the wisdom of driving within his abilities.

Don't leave it up to us ITB guys to sort it out. It won't be pretty.

seckerich
08-28-2010, 08:54 AM
Had that been the basis for the appeal and the video of those two incidents presented to the COA you might have gotten the right outcome. :023:

RedMisted
08-28-2010, 08:43 PM
Really sucks to hear the inaction on this one. This guy (driver of the ITS car) really needs to be set set straight about standards for driving.

Don't leave it up to us ITB guys to sort it out. It won't be pretty.

Send "Chopper" to sort it out. I'm damn sure he'd gladly oblige...