October Fastrack

[Andy Bettencourt]

And that is when you need to act locally and fix these things. The process isn't broken, the people are.

[shwah]

He did stuff it good into the wall (at 12 at Road America). I believe he was OK. But, you're right, we probably won't see that car again this year.
[/b]

Yeah I almost pushed him through the kink, and then he rocketed off. So I had a decent view of the incident. Basically just went in a bit too hot and too late to get it hauled down and went off in the sand trap. I didn't see any wall contact, but the sand ripped bumper covers off. If cosmetic, I wonder if the car can make it back out.

The driver is an alright guy, I talked to him a bit before the race. They were gone by the time I got back from impound. His buddy is a talker though. I know lots of this has little to do with the thread, sorry folks.

[1stGenBoy]

Every time I hear about this kind of crap, I get more irritated at our system. It reminds me of when I taught school and we didn't go to the the police when actual laws were broken in the building. It's counter-productive to "take care of things" like this. Grrr.

K
[/b]

I'm confused? What did I do wrong? After it was explained to me the reason why by the stewards I had no issue with it except that the car was still non compliant. They accepted the liability for the infraction if something happened not me.

[Greg Amy]

I'm confused? What did I do wrong? After it was explained to me the reason why by the stewards I had no issue with it except that the car was still non compliant. They accepted the liability for the infraction if something happened not me.[/b]

Ours is a system of self-policing; when someone is non-compliant it is OUR responsibility as competitors to file the paperwork. What Kirk is upset about is that some stewards even TRIED to talk you out of protesting a non-compliant vehicle for reason TOTALLY unrepresentative of why you were protesting. In other words, they were willing to overlook a non-compliant vehicle so that the guy could keep his license (and, inferentially, so they didn't have to do anything about it).

That's all fine and Good Samaritan and stuff, but that ain't the way the system works. You should have filed the paperwork against the illegal car, and at worst he could have re-registered under a different catch-all class (e.g., SPU/O, ITE) to keep his license. Using that excuse to "forgive" a non-compliant vehicle is unforgivable. So he's a nice guy; do nice guys get a pass on the rules...? If so, which rules; where does it stop?

BTW, I can't imagine what "liability" you think they accepted with their actions.

There's a system in place. Unless and until SCCA decides to go pro-active on enforcing the rules, you and I have to use the existing system to do so. It's OUR responsibility. - GA

[Andy Bettencourt]

BTW, I can't imagine what "liability" you think they accepted with their actions.

[/b]

Cage compliance. Did not meet minimums.

[Greg Amy]

Cage compliance. Did not meet minimums.[/b]

OK, you lost me: were we referring to protesting a car for non-compliant go-fast stuff ('fast Volvos') or for improper cage? I can't find where we were talking about a cage...

If the cage was non-compliant, then there was definitely an SCCA liability issue, but not something the competitor should have been specifically concerned with. Yes, we can protest unsafe cages, but those matters are best handled by bringing them to the attention of Tech. If nothing happens after that, and you truly believe it's unsafe, then yes, you should file a protest WITHOUT FAIL, but possibly against the technical steward... - GA

[Gary L]

OK, you lost me: were we referring to protesting a car for non-compliant go-fast stuff ('fast Volvos&#39 or for improper cage? I can't find where we were talking about a cage...[/b]

I'll obviously let 1stGenBoy speak for himself, but I'll bet the protest was NOT going to be about an unsafe cage.

And for the record, the car in question wasn't a "fast Volvo", but what appeared to be an unusually fast (in a straight line) ITB Fiero.

[Andy Bettencourt]

OK, you lost me: were we referring to protesting a car for non-compliant go-fast stuff ('fast Volvos&#39 or for improper cage? I can't find where we were talking about a cage...
[/b]

You might have been talking about go-fast stuff, but I don't see where the protestor said what he protested. Cage is the only think I can think of that might have 'liability' attached to it.

[shwah]

The cage on that car was non-compliant. He was allowed to race, but not allowed to have finishing position count. I don't personally know anything to suggest the car is illegal, or legal for that matter, on the go fast front.

[1stGenBoy]

I'll obviously let 1stGenBoy speak for himself, but I'll bet the protest was NOT going to be about an unsafe cage.

And for the record, the car in question wasn't a "fast Volvo", but what appeared to be an unusually fast (in a straight line) ITB Fiero.
[/b]

Yup, it was a cage issue. Here's the story:
In late June or early July the stewards sent several people home from the track because they did not have the second passenger side door bar in. Later in July the same thing happened at another track in our division. Now the Fiero guy shows up at RA with only one door bar on the passenger side. Same stewards,same chief of tech,etc. Now he does have a funny angle bar from the front down hoop to the one side bar that is already in place. Clearly no second door bar that is legal. My point was not to get this guy tossed but to point out to the stewards that you cannot have a double standard. Some of the other people at the earlier events drove several hours to get to the event. Was it their fault for not reading the rules and rule changes? You bet it was. How about noting the issue in the log book to have it fixed by the next event?
That was my point in this whole thing. The other point was SCCA needs to be more customer friendly and work with competitors instead of just sending them home.
Make sense?

[ScotMac]

Well, there is also the issue of duke based fiero blowing cars away on the straights, and the proposed 190ft-lbs of torque. Obviously nothing definite there, but there could also be issues on the "go-fast-front".

And yes, the stewards should definitely be consistent on the (safety) rules. However, there is a waiver on that rule til jan 2008 for cars originally tech'd before 2002 (1? 3?). ie, we are already letting cars out w/out the double bars.

[Knestis]

My interpretation was that the protest was going to be for illegal go-fast bits - although I don't think my opinion about the stewards' actions (Greg was right on) would really be any different for cage issues.

K

[1stGenBoy]

Well, there is also the issue of duke based fiero blowing cars away on the straights, and the proposed 190ft-lbs of torque. Obviously nothing definite there, but there could also be issues on the "go-fast-front".

And yes, the stewards should definitely be consistent on the (safety) rules. However, there is a waiver on that rule til jan 2008 for cars originally tech'd before 2002 (1? 3?). ie, we are already letting cars out w/out the double bars.
[/b]

Where did you see that? I would be interested in forwarding that on to our Divisional steward for review of the stewards actions at these events. They get graded on their performance through out the year and this might make them think a little before reacting so quickly. Not trying to throw anybody under the bus and they are volunteers too but.... still.

[lateapex911]

There's a waiver? News to me.......

[ScotMac]

Just looked it up. I knew i saw it somewhere, but wasn't sure where. It turns out it is for "Touring", not IT (and the year is 2003)...but there is a waiver :

18.3 TOURING ROLL CAGES
1. All cars registered after 1/1/03 shall conform to these roll cage
rules. Effective 1/1/08 all Touring cars shall conform to these
roll cage rules. ...

[shwah]

Bill is right, they made a big stink about this at RA in June, and at BHF in April. The inconsistency does need to be brought to light. Just like any other sport, I can accept that officials may not rule the way I would, but expect them to be consistent with their interpretations - sort of like a strike zone in baseball. If you start calling it one way, keep it up until the end.

[dickita15]

Guy, consistency is a wonderful goal but some of this is “ball and strikes”. Stewards are umpires and they use their best judgment at the time.
At our April School-regional weekend I was helping out Tech and ended up lobbying the chief steward to allow a car with one door bar to participate. I succeeded for the school but the different Chief Steward for the region decided against. Each had very good well thought out reasons for their final decision and I can’t say either were wrong.

On one hand some say we need to be user friendly and flexible and on the other hand some say be consistent (which means inflexible).

Club racing is run by humans. Humans are imperfect. Therefore club racing is imperfect.

[tnord]

Guy, consistency is a wonderful goal but some of this is “ball and strikes”. Stewards are umpires and they use their best judgment at the time.
[/b]

don't give them that much credit. there are plenty out there who just want to feel powerful and do everything they can to avoid paperwork.

[dickita15]

don't give them that much credit. there are plenty out there who just want to feel powerful and do everything they can to avoid paperwork.
[/b]

There are good drivers and bad drivers, there are good stewards and bad stewards. I am sorry your default position is to blame evil. That is really a position more at home on the Prod site rather than in the real world.

[Andy Bettencourt]

Guy, consistency is a wonderful goal but some of this is "ball and strikes". Stewards are umpires and they use their best judgment at the time.
At our April School-regional weekend I was helping out Tech and ended up lobbying the chief steward to allow a car with one door bar to participate. I succeeded for the school but the different Chief Steward for the region decided against. Each had very good well thought out reasons for their final decision and I can't say either were wrong.

On one hand some say we need to be user friendly and flexible and on the other hand some say be consistent (which means inflexible).

Club racing is run by humans. Humans are imperfect. Therefore club racing is imperfect.
[/b]

Dick - I am with you 99%. The other 1% has to do with official processes. If this was an issue being bantered around at tech between officials, fine. But as soon as a competitor brings forward an official protest for something non-compliant, all 'nice guy' stuff has to get set aside. It is the wish of a driver to protest another for a non-complaint car. Done deal.