Letting off Steam

[tom91ita]

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.

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

[joeg]

Tires??

He was simply punted off the track. Terrible.

[ShelbyRacer]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

[RacerBill]

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]

"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.

[Knestis]

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]

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.

[RacerBill]

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.

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)

[preparedcivic]

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]

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".

[ShelbyRacer]

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]

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.

[Knestis]

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

[Gregg]

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.