Poll re Rules of the Road

[RSTPerformance]

13/13 rule is hopefully never going to happen. mistakes do happen when you are driving at 10/10ths. if you have metal to metal all the time then something needs to be done but it is not always your fault. Drivers need to be spoken to before a ruling is made...

As far as leaving racing room..... leave it! there are at least 2 lines for every turn and good racing/ fun racing is side by side. EVERY TRACK you cna go two wide in every turn! do it and have fun!

IF you are getting passed blocking is unacceptable. If you hit tire to tire it is the car being overtaken who is at fault. If the tire mark is up past that rear tire it is the car being overtaken who is at fault again. That is the way the rule should read.... if there is a tire mark on the rear bumper then it is the guy trying to hard IE the guy trying desperatly to overtake the guy in front.

People that turn in on others need to realize that the guy trying ot out brake you or pass you on the inside of a turn is probably slowing down as fast as he can. If you turn in he has nowhere to go. Leave him room! If he messed up and went in to hot you need to leave him room as well. Letting him by is better than a dent and or a crash. Take the smaller trophy instead of the dents!

Stephen

[bldn10]

Well, as I expected, there is no consensus on this point, and the majority appears to be at odds w/ the SOM at The Runoffs. So, isn't it clear now that the "rules" need to be clarified? If not, would someone please explain to me why not? As it is, we have no guidance and the SOM and COA can do anything they want just be making ad hoc definitions of the relative rights and duties of the 2 drivers.

[apr67]

Originally posted by RSTPerformance:

If you hit tire to tire it is the car being overtaken who is at fault. If the tire mark is up past that rear tire it is the car being overtaken who is at fault again. That is the way the rule should read.... if there is a tire mark on the rear bumper then it is the guy trying to hard IE the guy trying desperatly to overtake the guy in front.

I disagree. It depends on who had the option of avoiding the incident to some extent. If I am on the inside and already up to the edge of the track, I can't 'give' any more track. If you are on the outside, and almost in the dirt, then you can't 'give' any more track.

[emwavey]

I'm glad to see that most who post here error on the side of caution... to you I look forward to sharing the track with you, hopefully next year.

I've heard stories like what has been mentioned about folks who either make bonzai moves or are just "asshats". And yeah this causes me concern.

I don't think the SCCA or anyone else can legislate a conscience, but having a clear expression of what is acceptable and what isn't wouldn't hurt either... doesn't have to be in the GCR, but could simply be expressed at the driver's meeting. No?

------------------
-dave
8) <A HREF="http://www.nerdsracing.com
Got" TARGET=_blank>http://www.nerdsracing.com
Got</A> Photos?... post 'em here: http://y3k.shacknet.nu:31338/gallery/

[gsbaker]

Originally posted by Bill Miller:
...This guy as a rep as an arrogant blow-hard, and drives a tank of a car, so he figures he can get away w/ it.

At circle tracks, this is what someone eventually says to said arrogant blow-hard at the end of the feature race:

"Gee, that's too bad. I've been fighting a 'loose off' problem all night. I never expected that when I dropped the hammer on the exit of T2, unleashing 600 HP, I would slam my 3,000# car into your driver's door and shred your entire right-side suspension on the concrete wall. Oh well, that's racin'!"

Gregg

[RSTPerformance]

Originally posted by apr67:
I disagree. It depends on who had the option of avoiding the incident to some extent. If I am on the inside and already up to the edge of the track, I can't 'give' any more track. If you are on the outside, and almost in the dirt, then you can't 'give' any more track.

Actually we agree..... I was talking about incidents when both cars have plenty of racing room.... the moment before one or the other decides to take the line and push the other one off. I would suspect that no dent's scratches or dings would occur before at least 1 car ran out of racing room since evrey track I can think of you can go two wide anyware. so the evaluation I gave was assuming both cars still had racing room and wasn't pushed off track....yet. Thanks for clarifying, I should have said that earlier.

Stephen

[RSTPerformance]

A agree with what people have said that if your tire is up to or past the rear of anothers tire AT ANY POINT of the turn then it is both of yours turn, and the best part of "racing" has begun!!!

I have this problem (or had it a few times with ITS cars). In an ITB car it is very hard to compleatly overtake a faster car before making the turn in. All drivers should be prepaired to run side by side when they see someone make a move off line.

Also I STRONGLY agree with Stephen on the fact that EVERY track I have raced at 2 cars can go side by side in EVERY turn.

PS: Stephen, I have never seen you block but thought I would make another clarification based on what you said: Blocking is not moving off line once. IE: taking the inside line going into a turn. however moving twice from side to side shutting the door whenever someone tries to take a peak is blocking. (I don't want to get off topic, but I thought it was a little related)

Raymond "2 cars going round the outside, round the outside...um wrong song" Blethen

[bldn10]

Dave, a statement at the drivers' meeting is not good enough because it would not be binding on the SOM or COA. But, taking your thought a step further, it has ocurred to me that, if the SCCA will not clarifiy the rules, perhaps Regions can do so in the Supplemental Regulations.

There is another side of this situation - when no contact occurs. What if, according to whatever interpretation a particular SOM or COA wants to make, the overtaken car had the corner but yielded to an overtaking car to avoid contact and lost a position. To be consistent, that driver should be able to protest the other and regain his position despite the lack of contact. Unless, of course, we just want to outlaw contact and place the blame on the last driver who had the opportunity to avoid it. I don't think we want to do that. So, an infraction is an infraction and deserves the same penalty whether contact is made or not - the "injury" suffered by the yielding driver is loss of his position, momentum, etc. and he should be compensated by penalizing the other.

[Geo]

Boondoggle comes to mind here.

Bill, you're right, if the GCR were amended to clearly spell out all the parameters of passing, failure to yeild on the part of the driver being overtaken could be protestable. Wouldn't that be nice.

Passing is the essence of racing. IMHO it should not be legislated. Furthermore judgement regarding blame in the case of contact should not be legislated either. It's a judgement call. But that's racing. It's always been that way. And IMHO it should remain that way.


------------------
George Roffe
Houston, TX
84 944 ITS car under construction
92 ITS Sentra SE-R occasionally borrowed
http://www.nissport.com

[bldn10]

So, George, you would be willing to accept 2 diametrically opposite protest outcomes from 2 absolutely identical incidents? Not me. The no-contact protest scenario is not one that would be created by a more specific set of rules - it exists now. I just don't know if anyone has ever tried it.

Blocking has been mentioned but it too is not defined in the GCR. Some say you are entitled to 1 jink (every dog gets 1 bite)before it is blocking but 9.1.1.C. says that abrupt changes in direction to impede an overtaking car may be interpreted as blocking. We can argue over whether the use of "changes" in the plural means it takes more than one, but I don't think that is the intent.

The more I read the existing rules re blocking and giving racing room the more I come to the conclusion that the intent is that the overtaken car has to leave at least a car width for any car that has taken an inside line and is overtaking in a controlled manner (i.e. no banzai passes) even he has not come alongside at all. I.e. if I am drafting you down the straight and pull fully out on the inside, you cannot deprive me of the inside line I have established. That means you may have to give up your normal line. On the other hand, if you ease over to the right such that there is not a car width line for me to take, I have to back off. I suggest that this is the most internally consistent construction of the current rules. Of course, The Runoffs SOM did just the opposite. Is that not a problem?

[Geo]

Originally posted by bldn10:
So, George, you would be willing to accept 2 diametrically opposite protest outcomes from 2 absolutely identical incidents?

Over every passing attempt being subject to protest and further argument? You bet.

"My wheel was at his door and he didn't yeild. He should be penalized enough for his final position to be behind me." And other nonsense.

Originally posted by bldn10:
The Runoffs SOM did just the opposite. Is that not a problem?

I don't know, I wasn't there.

But it sounds to me that you want to legislate mistakes from happening, and that is not possible. IMHO it will just create further boondoggle.

I don't know the detail in this situation, but I will say that mistakes will always happen and all the laws in the world will not prevent this.

And do you really want passes (and races) decided through protests? Or do you want passing to be made easy? To some extent, some passing in racing has always come down to just exactly who will back down first.

And if there are already rules to cover this (by your own words), why do we need more rules?


------------------
George Roffe
Houston, TX
84 944 ITS car under construction
92 ITS Sentra SE-R occasionally borrowed
http://www.nissport.com

[This message has been edited by Geo (edited October 19, 2004).]

[RSTPerformance]

I agree with George a bit here... I don't want to see rules made to judge passes, every contact is a unique situation and blame can really go many different ways. I could easily always hit someone past the rear tire.... hit the gas as the competitor is on the brakes... I bet you will gain 2 feet!!!

Each case should be handled on an individual bases, although with that I do agree that their needs to be consistency among all drivers at AN EVENT. For instance last year protests were made at the ARRC for inconsistent penalties, and drivers won where stewards were unjust. Obviously this won’t always work, but at some point we have to say enough rules is enough, let’s have fun.

Raymond "At least we can protest a steward’s decision... Those Red Sox only get to yell at the umps for those unfair calls "
Blethen

[Eric Parham]

When I first started road racing, one of my SCCA instructors told me the "two change rule", which basically says that a driver being passed may not move off line more than once per corner to prevent a pass.

Unfortunately, I later had cause to protest a blocked pass based on this understanding. I recall protesting a driver who moved off line to block my feigned pass on the right edge of the track and then moved off line a second time to block my actual attempt on the left edge of the track. There was contact as I attempted (unsuccessfully) to avoid getting pushed into the guardrail.

I was just going to take my lumps and go home, but a few others talked me into lodging the protest based on "racing room". I still recall Kathy B. asking me where in the GCR it stated that the overtaken driver could not block more than once per corner, and having to admit that "it's not in the GCR"! I lost the protest (partially because the corner workers were never even consulted), and suddenly began to seriously doubt my understanding of "the rules".

Finally, within the past two years, I read (and saved) a COA decision that used that type of language to define unallowed blocking (no more than one movement off line, IIRC). I don't have the citation with me, but I have carried that COA decision with my GCR to every event since then. IMHO, even if it's not codified in the GCR, such COA decisions can be offered to support this type of protest (and others).

Edited for typos. I'll try to add that COA citation next weekend.

[This message has been edited by Eric Parham (edited October 20, 2004).]

[David Ferguson]

I read a great description recently that echos my own sense of what constitutes "racing room". See for yourself if you agree:

http://www.bmwccaclubracing.com/Primer/rulesofroad.htm

[Joe Craven]

NASA has a much more extensive definition and examples of what is considered good and illegal passing and blocking.
http://www.nasaproracing.com/rules/ccr.pdf

Unfortunately, I was involved in a minor SCCA on course race incident with another driver in my class which involved different expectations in what is "good" driving and blocking and what is a driving line. GCR definitely wasn't any help.

Joe Craven

[Eric Parham]

Thanks, I read both the BMWCCA and NASA rules.

The BMWCCA method seems to be more of a gentleman's agreement, perhaps like SCCA used to be. When it comes to modern competitors pushing the envelope on several fronts (including, unfortunately, "safe passing" and "racing room"), I think the BMWCCA rules are probably not an improvement over our current GCR (although I do appreciate the intent).

The NASA method is discussed below in my next post.

[This message has been edited by Eric Parham (edited October 20, 2004).]

[JeffG]

I read a great description recently that echos my own sense of what constitutes "racing room". See for yourself if you agree:

http://www.bmwccaclubracing.com/Primer/rulesofroad.htm[/QUOTE]

This is a good description!

The bottom line for me is that we are CLUB racing, primarily as a hobby. There should be no tolerance for club drivers that want to bang around for a position. The key is awareness! Both drivers need to allow the other adequate room, both at the apex and at track out. While one may technically have the position established, both are responsible for avoiding contact.

It’s a lot more fun to be out with a group of equally matched cars that are constantly overtaking each other than to parade around. We usually know who we can trust to allow this sort of racing and the key is a matter of etiquette, not simply “do I have the right to close the door”!

OK, it’s different at the runoffs or possibly the ARRC, but never IMHO at a regional event. If one wants to rub for 20th go WC racing.

Jeff

[Eric Parham]

I just found pages 101-102 of the NASA rules. Excellent! The NASA racing rules not only define "blocking" and "racing room", but also provide a reasonable measurement point (front tire of overtaking car even with overtaken driver, for sedans) at which the overtaken driver may be deemed to have seen the overtaking car and must provide racing room. I like it

[This message has been edited by Eric Parham (edited October 20, 2004).]

[bldn10]

Now we are making progress here!

Eric, your intructor was stating his personal opinion re blocking because, as you noted, his definition is NOT in the GCR. And you can have that COA opinion bronzed but COA opinions are NOT binding precedent and any SOM or COA can come to a completely opposite conclusion. That is another pet peeve of mine - I think COA opinions should be precedential. That way, even w/o changing the GCR we end up with (more or less) consistent clarifications and applications over time.

The BMW explanation sounds exactly like what I surmised and stated above. However, again, The Runoffs SOM apparently decided that the overtaking car was NOT entitled to racing room and that the overtaken car was free to turn in early.

Although I had never seen them, the NASA passing rules are just what I had in mind. I'm sure those guys still argue about interpretations but those rules would seem to me to clear up a lot of the ambiguity and give the drivers pretty clear notice of what they can do and not do.

[bldn10]

Here we go again - the COA provides another interesting example of application of "the rules." In the latest Fastrack an appeal covers 3 contacts:

1. Overtaking car pulls out on straight and gets "side-to-side;" overtaken car closes door. Result - overtaken car violates 9.1.1.B. by not leaving racing room.
2. Car A "maintained his position at the exit of the corner" and forced Car B into grass. Result - Car A violates 9.1.1.B. and 14.1.7. (unsportsmanlike conducr).
3. Overtaken car has 1/2 car-length lead on outside of turn and turns-in for apex causing contact. Result - Overtaking car violates 9.1.1.B.

The decision supports my premise that racing room is the key to the rules as they are written and applied. No car has the corner by virtue of its position vis a vis the other - the car that takes away or fails to give racing room is going to be at fault. Re blocking, notice No. 2 above where Car A did not make ANY move to block but simply held his position. That should dispel any notion that you get 1 free move.

Of course, this is still inconsistent w/ the SOM at The Runoffs, which penalized the overtaking car even though it was the overtaken car that turned in early and took away the overtaking car's racing room as in No. 3.