[quote=“Diggs” post=81263]Hello all, I am new to this forum and have a Spec E30 but not licensed yet.Had been reading thread about incidents on track and the rules governing fault. I was hoping to get a little input about the scenarios listed in the CCR book.Specifically the on-track incidents scenarios depicted. In figure 9 the fault is assigned to car A for failing to see car B. But car B has a responsibility to complete pass safely (assuming he has at least 3/4 car width from car A) I understand the spirit of the rule (be safe and don’t purposely be a trouble maker) but it seems to be a little contradictory to other scenarios. Until car B completes the pass car A still has the line as long as they give racing room and car B has responsibility to complete pass safely.Figure 11 states that car B is at fault for failing to maintain control of the car when tail comes out on exit and contacts car A, but in scenario 12 the fault is assigned to car A for assuming that car B will turn in at normal point. It states that car B may have entered turn to fast or perhaps chose an abnormal turn-in point. And then states that car A must not make assumptions in case car B turns in later of even does not turn in at all and simply drives straight off the track. I understand the later turn in point, but doesn’t car B still have obligation to complete the pass safely? Furthermore, if car B drives straight off track, doesn’t that mean he/she failed to maintain control of their car?
I understand I have very little experience racing on track which is why I was looking for some input. I also understand the other thread(s) pertaining to this subject have been extensive. But that thread was closed. I must admit that the rules’ seeming contradictions have me wondering if racing is really for me as I cannot easily afford to build another car if I lose this one along with the fact I cannot be competitive if everyone knows they can bully me at will.
Thanks to everyone and apologies for beating a dead horse.[/quote]
I’m likely the SpecE30 driver most obsessed with driver conduct rules. I’ve discussed them at length in long emails with the NASA CCR author and honcho Jerry Kunzman. He was very patient with me, I am in his debt for him giving me so much of his time, we had a terrible time trying to understand precisely what the other person was saying, and in the end he did not find any of my arguments all that compelling.
Note that you are discussing this in the wrong place. The right place for this discussion is the NASA forum, not here at SpecE30.
Example 9. The apparent contradictions in example 9 are worse than you know. The justification for Car A being at fault is the idea that the “right to be there” rule is a product of making sure that the passee knows the passer is there. Yet, as you mentioned, the passer only gains a right to 3/4 track width. Therefore the passee in this example is asking for more track then the passer is required to give him.
Significant points that came out of the discussions with Mr. Kunzman. 1) If passer has not yet earned the right to be there, and envision a slowly developing pass on a straight, the passer can be squeezed to 4 off the track. It’s a bad idea, but the rules allow for it. 2) Once passer’s nose is up to passee’s door, passer has earned the right to be there which means 3/4 track width. Therefore passee can only squeeze passer to 2 wheels off the track.
Yes, example 9 contradicts what I just wrote. As I stated, Mr. Kunzman and I had a hard time communicating. I would point out an example like this contradiction and he would respond by saying something along the lines of “it was important to illustrate the example of the requirement of the passee to be aware.” I would say that the example created a contradiction and he would see his point as primary. I’m not saying that was an exact exchange. It was an attempt to illustrate the general tone of the conversations.
Example 12. Imo this example is unsupportable. The passer attempts an aggressive pass and loses control of his car. Yet the passee is blamed.
Here’s what is really going on. Other sanctioning orgs like SCCA, IMSA, BMWCCA, etc. don’t go into a lot of detail re. passing rules. They say vague things that give general guidance that both passee and passer have the right to a full track width, passer is obligated to pass safely, and the passee is obligated to be aware. Only NASA tries to get into more detail, but in doing so our CCR creates contradictions.
What this means in practice. The folks adjudicating an incident will have their own opinions re. what’s important and what is less so. One adjudicator might focus on “passee demanded a full car width” and another adjudicator might focus on “passee needed to be more aware and not squeeze”. The decision re. fault will be made based on what the video shows, the personal biases, and some debate between interested parties.
Fortunately, discussion re. who was at fault rarely has to get into this much detail. Usually it’s pretty obvious so there isn’t too much use in agonizing over the contradictions.
I’m one of the nutjobs in the series and my perception of the contradictions re. driver conduct in the NASA CCR drives me crazy. I also turned into a crazed maniac every time I’m reminded that the NASA CCR totally allows the passee to ram the passer right off the track, with the sole proviso that if the passer has earned the “right to be there”, then he can only be squeezed to 2 off the track.
Over the years I’ve made a lot of good friends in SpecE30 and in NASA. A lot of those guys are pretty senior in both. I really love these guys. But, I’ve also been in some knock-down drag-out fights with them over these issues. They see me (accurately) as a problem child advocating things that are not in the CCR, and I see them as being blind to the contradictions and advocating ideas that lead to carnage. We’ve not been able to convince each other. But keep in mind that these are great guys and great friends. So at some point in these discussions I just had to/have to back away from the issue because we’re were/are just driving each other crazy.
SouthEast region SpecE30 has fixed this. We have explicitly prohibeted the passee from deliberately squeezing another SpecE30 off of the track in slowly developing pass situations. By slowly developing, I mean as opposed to the common dive to the inside in the braking zone, which is all part of the fun. I will try to generate some interest in the other regional directors to make this idea more widespread. Classes are allowed to create their own driver conduct rules, an idea that Mr. Kunzman emphasized, so we can fix the perceived problems for the NASA CCR for our class. I don’t know if the idea is going to catch on tho. Race car drivers are a very independent lot so have a hard time agreeing about anything. Also, the regions with small car counts have a lot fewer incidents then the big regions do. So the smaller regional directors don’t see it as such a big deal.