Any Updates on Head and Neck Restraints from SCCA?

[Knestis]

Memorize this:

... There shall be a single release common to the seat belt and shoulder harness. ...

That is ALL that the rules have to say on the subject.

If the rule needs to be rewritten to reflect the desires of the CRB, they best get on it but there are all kinds of intentions being piled onto that clause, none of which are reflective of the wording.

K

[gsbaker]

Well put, K.

...and I've just been reminded of that old adage: When the competition is in self-destruct mode, sit down and shut up. I suspect we will just open a cold one and watch this train wreck happen.

[924Guy]

I'm kinda bummed about this; after all that great effort, work, and results on the IT situation, the same (I assume?) CRB then heads off in this direction. Oh well. I'll continue to rely on a straightforward interpretation of the GCR, as published and updated, as approved by the BOD. :P

[JamesB]

Oh well. I'll continue to rely on a straightforward interpretation of the GCR, as published and updated, as approved by the BOD. :P
[/b]

Pretty much the position I have taken that this point. Its been an entertaining thread to say the least.

[erlrich]

Hey guys,

Would it do any good at all to send this issue through the SCCA legal system? If so, I would happy to pay the fee to have one of my buddies protest my Isaac at next weekend's MARRS event. At the very least we would find out where our region's stewards stand on the subject.

[lateapex911]

From the way I read the winds, I don't think you'll have to. Methinks this has been published in order to set up such RFAs at the Runoffs. Time will tell if they are actually going to get the stewards to go through with it.

Politics appear to be more important than my neck.

I hope I'm wrong on that.

[RacerBill]

Just a quick note from the other end of the pendulum swing.

I needed to test a new carburator before a full double regional weekend, so I took my car down to Columbus Motor Speedway where they were conducting an open test session. I drove up to the gate (did I mention that I have never been there before?) paid $20 for a one hour session. unloaded the car and drove out onto the track (I was waved on by pit out control person) (did I mention that the car had never been near this track before?)

No verification to see if I had any business on a race track, not one word about any proceedures, not one look at the car to see if it was safe (looks like a race car, sounds like a race car, must be a race car!!!!). I can only assume that pit out could see that I had a helmet on.

Fortunately (or unfortunately) I was in too much of a rush to realize all of this until this morning.

I was so glad to get out of there!!!!!! Alive!!!!!!!!

File this one away in the old storyies folder.

[RSTPerformance]

Hey guys,

Would it do any good at all to send this issue through the SCCA legal system? If so, I would happy to pay the fee to have one of my buddies protest my Isaac at next weekend's MARRS event. At the very least we would find out where our region's stewards stand on the subject.
[/b]

If you do the protest, save the Stewards time and explain the entire situation and tell them no matter what decission is made someone will appeal the decision. They wont be happy that they are being used but it may save some of them a little bit of time.

On second thought why not send in a 13.9 and ask if it is legal to use an Issac? It would save a lot of time energy and guessing for all of us.

Raymond

[erlrich]

If you do the protest, save the Stewards time and explain the entire situation and tell them no matter what decission is made someone will appeal the decision. They wont be happy that they are being used but it may save some of them a little bit of time.[/b]

Trust me, I know the stewards have other duties, and I would do everything possible to make the process as quick and painless as possible.

On second thought why not send in a 13.9 and ask if it is legal to use an Issac?[/b]

$25 v. $250

[RacerBill]

Trust me, I know the stewards have other duties, and I would do everything possible to make the process as quick and painless as possible.

$25 v. $250
[/b]

(Huge tongue in cheek, please)

What's $250 to a $1,000,000 per year racing budget??

Seriously, I agree with you. Makes it seem that the National office's time is worth 10 times what a volunteer's time is worth.

[gsbaker]

Before any of you good people (whose support is highly appreciated, BTW) begin spending hard-earned dollars and giving the Stewards something else to do, you might want to give this thing a chance to play out naturally. After all, the BoD has already said that any H&N restraint is legal, and the 20.4 wording is very clear.

Also, there are probably some things known to the BoD that are not known to the CRB, so this may be a simple matter of communication.

Gotta go. Everyone have a good weekend.

[RSTPerformance]

Trust me, I know the stewards have other duties, and I would do everything possible to make the process as quick and painless as possible.

$25 v. $250
[/b]

I like Gregs thoughts, as nothing has changed from years past as of now.

But if you must I will COMPLETELY go against the idea of making a protest... I once agreed with you until I was on the other side of the fence. If you don't agree then just think about your time being wasted by someone who doesn't actually care what you say but realize that using you is a cheep way out. If you do go through with it I hope that they throw out the protest find it in vexatious or in bad faith keep your $25 and give you a repromand. Thats just my thought on it.

Reasoning for my harsh retaliation to your idea...

It has been done here before. Gather up some money from a group of people (thier are plenty on this site that I bet would contribute) and submit a 13.9. I would think that at $25 a pop it would be easy to find 10 people willing to make the donation. Also I would hope that some or all of your $250 would be returned - but I am not sure it would, I have no idea how that process works.

Wasting good peoples time to save yourself a few $$$ for not putting an effort in to get some other donations is lame IMO.

Raymond

[Knestis]

Sorry, Raymond. That's pretty out of line.

Any steward who would let his feelings about whether I'm "wasting his time" by filing (or defending!) ANY protest within the bounds described by the GCR impact his findings, needs to find a new place to volunteer. PARTICULARLY if they start whipping out reprimands.

Questions of "good faith" don't enter into the equation if the protestor has "sound evidence" that the protestee's actions or equipment are outside of the standards imposed by the GCR or ITCS. Even if I'm honest that I'm just trying to secure clarification of an interpretation, that is a heck of a long way from "vexatious" - filing the protest for the purpose of being annoying. Whether you are annoyed or not is NOT the test there.

I've been doing this long enough - a big chunk of your lifetime, if my estimates are accurate - to have seen and grown COMPLETELY intolerent of the kind of attitude you describe. If I want to file paper and your job is to read it, you have an obligation to abide by the same rules I do, act within them, and hear the protest - as long as I've done everything within the bounds of the rules. Even if it's not convenient. Even if you are busy. Even if it cuts into your participation in the worker party.

(That last one from a real example in my past - utter crap, making beer a higher priority than questions of car legality.)

A 13.9 ruling is a weak resolution since only non-compliant rulings are published. NOTHING is gained, in terms of establishment of a precedent, if my interpretation in question is supported.

Q: Hey, first court - is my Isaac complaint with GCR 20.4? I get one of two things:

1. "No - and we'll publish that opinion so you can spend more money to appeal it"

2. Crickets chirping and no assurance that someone someday might not put me right back where I started.

K

[erlrich]

But if you must I will COMPLETELY go against the idea of making a protest... I once agreed with you until I was on the other side of the fence. If you don't agree then just think about your time being wasted by someone who doesn't actually care what you say but realize that using you is a cheep way out. If you do go through with it I hope that they throw out the protest find it in vexatious or in bad faith keep your $25 and give you a repromand. Thats just my thought on it.

Reasoning for my harsh retaliation to your idea...

It has been done here before. Gather up some money from a group of people (thier are plenty on this site that I bet would contribute) and submit a 13.9. I would think that at $25 a pop it would be easy to find 10 people willing to make the donation. Also I would hope that some or all of your $250 would be returned - but I am not sure it would, I have no idea how that process works.

Wasting good peoples time to save yourself a few $$$ for not putting an effort in to get some other donations is lame IMO. [/b]

Raymond - I usually try to avoid getting into one-on-one pissing matches with others here, but in this case I just can't seem to pry my fingers off of the keyboard...I promise after this post I'm all done.

First, I'm sorry that you would, as a steward, feel like it was a waste of your time to try and help resolve a fairly serious issue that affects many of your fellow racers. The fact is I would probably care more about what my region's stewards had to say than what the Court of Appeals might say, since they're the ones whose decisions directly affect me. And where exactly did I say that I would appeal their decision whichever way it went?

Second, how could you possibly consider it vexatious or in bad faith to try and find out whether I will be allowed to continue to wear an important piece of safety equipment? I just don't get that at all.

Third, the donation thing was tried when Greg was attempting to get a decision on the spherical bearings; if you bother to go back and check I think you'll find that I first brought the idea up at that time, and we got like 3 or 4 responses. And I don't remember seeing your name on the list at that time. Oh, but then that issue didn't directly affect you, did it? Pretty lame if you ask me.

I can only assume that your comment about being on the other side of the fence refers to you having worked as a steward at some point. I can only hope for their sake that the drivers in your region have never had to "bother" you with any of their petty problems. I've only met a few of the stewards in my region, but I certainly get the impression that they would be much more willing to help with this kind of thing.

To everyone else, I apologize for wasting your time with this crap. I won't let it happen again.

[RSTPerformance]

Earl- thanks for keeping me in check

I was being a little harsh on my opinion, and for the record, I WOULD follow all the correct protest policies, and like all of you I am so anoyed with this rules that I would probably take 2 min of my time say it was legal and move on no harm no foul. I also fully support drivers going to stewards in advance and asking if something is compliant or not, and I truley feel that they should give thier honest opinion and that it should hold true for that entire weekend.

Examples:
1) I feel that you should be able to go to say the tech steward ask about the legality of an item and have it ok'd or not per him/her. That tech steward then should not DQ (file an RFA) on that same issue. Obviosly if another competitor makes a protest then it is up to the SOM's, not the tech steward.

2) Another example would be to go to the chief steward and ask if it was ok for you to wear your Isacc, if he/she says yes then you should be good to go and not expect any RFA's that weekend for wearing it.

With that said, filing an actual protest with another driver against basically yourself on an issue that will only give you the opinions of the handfull of stewards on the SOM that weekend is not fair to them or you. The ruling means nothing for future races thus to be reasured that you were compliant every weekend would mean that you would need to file a protest every weekend. I stand by that and I truley think that if you kirk or anyone else did this it would be the incorrect process to follow. You are educated, do the right thing.

If I misunderstood what you said earlier to mean that you would appeal it to SCCA-topeka to get an "official" or "national level" determination I am sorry. I thought in your previose posts that you wanted to achieve a 13.9 with a protest.

Also please stop making out a 13.9 as a non-valuable option. many people come here and view for education, and many of us here seem to give out bad information. To you and Greg and others that worked on the sperical bearing issue you did the correct thing and fixed things for A LOT of people.

BTW Greg, did you get your $ back from SCCA? just curiouse how that part of the process works.

Raymond "Sorry if I upset you with my strong "retaliation" I just hate people putting our workers in a cituation that is not fair to them" Blethen

PS: Kirk, if the 13.9 were to go in your favor you would recieve a letter from SCCA stating that it was legal. You could scan that letter post it here and greg could even post it on the Issac site for people to download and print out, so it isn't such a weak way to go about it, it is actually far stronger than ANY protest should be. I do give you credit though, an appeal would be published either way in fast track, but who reads the court of appeals beside you a few others and myself? (joke).

[Greg Amy]

BTW Greg, did you get your $ back from SCCA? just curiouse how that part of the process works.[/b]

We never filed. The CRB published the "clarification" in response to member queries exactly one day before I was planning on dropping it off at FedEx... - GA

[RSTPerformance]

We never filed. The CRB published the "clarification" in response to member queries exactly one day before I was planning on dropping it off at FedEx... - GA
[/b]

This is sooo far way off topic but I am wondering if anyone ever filed a 13.9 and got anypart or all of the $250 returned to them... I support the idea of the 13.9 a lot and want to know if it does work or not.

Anyway thanks for the reply Greg.

Raymond

[Stan]

Yes, 2 friends and I filed a 13.9 last fall and got nothing back, except a badly worded opinion that was overturned...

[Knestis]

... PS: Kirk, if the 13.9 were to go in your favor you would recieve a letter from SCCA stating that it was legal. ...[/b]

From the 2006 GCR:

13.9. RULES INTERPRETATION
To obtain a determination on the legality of a vehicle or component,
without filing a formal protest, a competitor may request such a ruling
from the Club Racing Office. The Chairman of the Stewards Program will
then convene a first court. Their decision would then be reviewed by the
Court of Appeals . The fee for this service is $250. A portion of this fee
may be refundable at the discretion of either or both courts. Penalties
or penalty points will not be assessed in the event of a negative ruling.
A non-compliant ruling will be published; a compliant ruling will not be
published. (empasis in the original)

Really? The part in italics was added this year so you may have missed it. Of course, I may be confused in my reading of this but it sure sounds like more weasel language to make rulings that go against a 13.9 petitioner sound like a precedent, without giving them the same consideration if the ruling goes their way. Why someone would bother with this process, I have NO idea.

If I misunderstood what you said earlier to mean that you would appeal it to SCCA-topeka to get an "official" or "national level" determination I am sorry. I thought in your previose posts that you wanted to achieve a 13.9 with a protest. ...[/b]

Without filing a protest in the first place, there's nothing to appeal. Without an appeal, there's still room for reversal, even though technically an appeal finding doesn't set a precedent either. I slip in here a reminder that these policies have the potential to contribute to rules creep in a substantial way. Absent any actual precedent AND with weak enforcement at the track, we get de facto interpretations through gradual acceptance that something is OK. Something like a common-law change to the ITCS.

K

[Bill Miller]

I like Gregs thoughts, as nothing has changed from years past as of now.

But if you must I will COMPLETELY go against the idea of making a protest... I once agreed with you until I was on the other side of the fence. If you don't agree then just think about your time being wasted by someone who doesn't actually care what you say but realize that using you is a cheep way out. If you do go through with it I hope that they throw out the protest find it in vexatious or in bad faith keep your $25 and give you a repromand. Thats just my thought on it.

Reasoning for my harsh retaliation to your idea...

It has been done here before. Gather up some money from a group of people (thier are plenty on this site that I bet would contribute) and submit a 13.9. I would think that at $25 a pop it would be easy to find 10 people willing to make the donation. Also I would hope that some or all of your $250 would be returned - but I am not sure it would, I have no idea how that process works.

Wasting good peoples time to save yourself a few $$$ for not putting an effort in to get some other donations is lame IMO.

Raymond
[/b]

Raymond,

I have to agree w/ Kirk here. If this is how you feel about the process, maybe your efforts should be focused elsewhere. I used to see a similar attitude when I was on the local VFD. Some felt that it was a waste of their time to respond to calls for activated fire alarms/smoke alarms/CO detectors. They only wanted to show up when there was some excitement. If you're going to volunteer for something, be committed to it, don't cherry-pick the stuff you want to be involved in.

Also, don't get mad at people that are working w/in the system. If it takes $25 for a protest, and $250 for a 13.9, that's the way the rules go. How can you be upset for someone taking advantage of the rules? Before threaded body shocks were allowed, people spent good money to have the threads turned off of Penske (and other) shocks, just to fit the letter of the rule. If it can go one way, it can go the other.

I'm actually a bit surprised that you wouldn't be in favor of this approach, as it gets things on record, and is the least costly to the people involved. I think that's a good thing. It's one of the reasons I got involved w/ the ITR AdHoc, I thought it was in the best interest of the Club and the Category.