Letting off Steam

[dickita15]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

[spawpoet]

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]

[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]

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]

[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]

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.