Poopie Board for 2011

#41

turbo329is wrote:

[quote]As a future se30 racer I must say that the top 25 idea is retarded. Whoever posted that should be blocked from the forum for a month.
If I wanted to race by myself I would have put a cage in my turbo car.[/quote]

I like this guy already. The last thing we need is more club racing classes. What do you want Gasman, everyone to run in their own safe little 3 car class so they don’t have to compete to win like most other classes? And tell everyone at work you got 1st instead of 20th. Yah!!!

Spec E30 is about real competition, that’s why it has so many cars to begin with. You clearly don’t appreciate racing for what it is… Which is why you apparently don’t do it anymore.

PS: what’s with used tires? I ran the 2010 season on two sets of RA1s from 2007 that I bought off Jim for $250. Go check the lap records page if you want to judge their capability against your fresh rubber. Not everyone can afford to burn up brand new shaved ones racing against themselves in 6 hour races.

#42

evanlevine3233 wrote:

[quote]turbo329is wrote:

[quote]As a future se30 racer I must say that the top 25 idea is retarded. Whoever posted that should be blocked from the forum for a month.
If I wanted to race by myself I would have put a cage in my turbo car.[/quote]

I like this guy already. The last thing we need is more club racing classes. What do you want Gasman, everyone to run in their own safe little 3 car class so they don’t have to compete to win like most other classes? And tell everyone at work you got 1st instead of 20th. Yah!!!

Spec E30 is about real competition, that’s why it has so many cars to begin with. You clearly don’t appreciate racing for what it is… Which is why you apparently don’t do it anymore.

PS: what’s with used tires? I ran the 2010 season on two sets of RA1s from 2007 that I bought off Jim for $250. Go check the lap records page if you want to judge their capability against your fresh rubber. Not everyone can afford to burn up brand new shaved ones racing against themselves in 6 hour races.[/quote]

Robert, thank you for throwing this gernade and seeking cover. If this single post doesn’t define the problem, I don’t know what will.

#43

Gasman wrote:

Just damn. Did I just hear/read some SCCA elitism?
BTW I am a member of both NASA and SCCA.

#44

You threw the grenade. The people arguing with you (everyone?) all get along with and have great respect for Robert. In fact, some of us supported his idea in this thread.

But despite not one supporter, I’m sure you’re right. I’m the problem, my apologies.

#45

I’m going to go ahead and call a halt to the pile on!! I realize that I might have been the first to jump on but things have escalated out of hand.

Steve I apologize for the name calling earlier in the thread!!

Now lets not jump down Steve’s throat because you don’t like his ideas. He is one of the only drivers so far to offer up alternative ideas. The reason for this thread is valid so if you don’t agree with someones idea offer one of your own!!

Greg

#46

Thanks Greg, I really do appereciate the kind words, but I have pretty thick skin, so no apology is necessary. Obviously, I’m not trying to win friends over here, but I am trying to participate in a sport that I have an interest and investment in without breaking the damn bank. Repairing my car from accidents has cost more than it cost to build. Those that think they will enter this sport and not have the same experience are extremely naieve.

Evan, Robert started this thread and hasn’t commented once. The “gernade” was his.

#47

wow… quite a shitstorm… limiting car fields is the worst idea i’ve heard so far.

#48

Oh Lord,

Please give me the strength not to comment on the thread or the stupid things being said.

:S

While I the wait for divine intervention… I’d like to kill some time by sharing some of my own personal thoughts and opinions on this subject. I’ll do my best to not call anyone out.

First… whoever said this tread ought to be deleted should win a prize. But seeing how that’s unlikely to happen…

This whole conversation is ridiculous. There are rules already in place to “police” reckless driving. Simply adhering to the rules would go a long way in keep our driving in check. Yes… I said “us”. I can’t think of any one who’s never over estimated his skill and/or control. Some have just been lucky enough to not have it bite them in the ass.

Personally speaking, I went 3+ years without contact with another car. Then I hit Chuck. Does that make me “aggressive and reckless” or was I just unfortunate due to a series of factors (driver, track, situation, equipment)? I know there was no thoughts or intent of aggression?! But enough about me…

I only brought up my own situation because it gives me a little more perspective/understanding of what it feels to hit someone in a race. And knowing most of you as I do, I find it impossible to believe any drivers ever want to deal with our cars hitting anything… especially another car. Sure, there have been situations where some bad choices have been made but that sh!t happens.

Show a history of bad choices and there’s reason to rethink those drivers being in the mix.

Again… the CCR has thought this through. Not sure the 6th place trophy’s evil twin is going to do the trick.

What’s the deal with always addressing bad situations with new rules rather than applying the rules.
27.11 Issuing Penalties
27.12 Driver’s Points System
27.12.1 Point Limit- Annual

We’ve all grown accustom to the annual off-season man-drama, but this tread takes the cake.

And for what it’s worth:

Limiting car fields is the worst idea (if not one of the top 10… the Poopie Board a close second)
Robert’s MO is to start conversations. No harm in that. (Guns don’t kill people. People kill people)

And if we were to address the original post by RP…

Patton wrote:

[quote]Discuss…

A public way to keep up with reckless driving?
Will it curtail some of the goober things that a re happening in the larger fields that we are now having.?
Better yet. will it foster a better understanding/less animosity among racers?

RP[/quote]

A public way to keep up with reckless driving?
Per 27.12 Driver’s Points System
The IRB may elect a “Points Keeper” for the sake of keeping track of on track violations and penalties…

Will it curtail some of the goober things that a re happening in the larger fields that we are now having.?
If we follow the letter of the law? You bet your ass it will.

Better yet. will it foster a better understanding/less animosity among racers?
I’d think the real rules will do a better job than creating some passive aggressive mockery.

Those are my thoughts.

amen-

#49

Scott, I completely agree with your last comment. Okay, I hear several of you thinking my idea is incredibly stupid, but no one is taking the time to tell me why they think so.

#50

Steve Foushee wrote:
Robert, thank you for throwing this gernade and seeking cover. If this single post doesn’t define the problem, I don’t know what will.[/quote]

The post was started prior to the December Road Atlanta event and then it was discussed by a crowd of 20 or so racers. It was agreed upon to take action next year. My mistake for not doing a follow up to advise others.

While the rule set might not be to my liking, the rules is what the rules is. So, see the NASA CCRs and starting at page 123 (at least in my old print version dated 2007) and we can all read how the score will be kept.

Bottom line, NASA racing is a contact sport. Close racing, big fields and many drivers that have a different personality once the helment is strapped on. Know who you are racing.

For less crowded fields, a chance to get to know the racers in your class (re: smaller fields)and harsher rules for contact there is BMWCCA racing. I might give some of their events a try next year.

Seems like a logical way to end the discussion. We all have choices.

RP

PS
My thanks to those that can type faster than I can for their review of the CCRs and logical input (Scott Mc, Steve DeVinney others…).

#51

Gasman wrote:

IMO it’s really bad form to be hard on someone in a forum. If a person is going to tell someone, for example, that their idea is “incredibly stupid”, they need to do it to their face in private. If I chose to do it that way it would give the other person the opportunity to teach me simple human courtesy with a torque wrench up-side the head.

And you’re all my buddies.

So it really gives me a case of the ass when folks start treating each other like dog-shit here. I would encourage everyone to try to publically treat each other with courtesy and respect or I’ll gouge out your eyes and skull-f***k you.

IMO, here’s why the limited field idea is not great.

  1. It doesn’t address the cause of the problem. No one has made a compelling case that big fields are a prime cause of contact. I think that it’s aggressiveness that causes contact. Take a look at where the wrecks happen at the first turn. It’s never ever in the rear. A bigger field just means that the rear is farther back.

Contact after the first turn isn’t about big fields either, because after a few turns we’re not 2 or 3-wide pack anymore. When an incident occurs 1min or 15min into a race, it’s not caused by the fact that there were 30cars in the field.

If aggressiveness is the cause, than any solution has to be something that dampens aggressiveness.

  1. Limiting field size doesn’t really limit field size. It’s unworkable for folks to pay and show up and not let them race at all. This would kill newbies and anyone that had problems in qual. Therefore cars 26-30 (or whatever) would have to race with either Lightning or Thunder and they’d just be in an “also-ran” sort of class. Thunder would be a bad choice because putting our slow cars in with their fast cars won’t increase safety any. So the best we could do is just start them somewhere else in Lightning.

If cars 26-30 start in Lightning, they might as well start at the back of our pack. It’s not the back of the pack that pile up at turn 1.

  1. I don’t buy the used tires theory on contact either. I’m one of the few guys that uses a durometer on tires. I’ve had good luck with Ebay tires and I’ve enough data on tires getting hard due to heat cycles and age, that I’ve rules of thumb on how fast a tire loses grip. How you got the tires isn’t a player in how much grip they have.

None of us show up with sticker tires at each event. Therefore it’s all about the grey area of less-than-optimum equipment. Think about what that means…if we are going to indict less than optimum equipment as a cause of contact, than we need to agreement on optimum alignment, police when each of use replace our shocks, requirements for corner balancing, lowering center-mass by removing sunroof, etc. It becomes silly.

We all drive non-optimum cars. And handling changes throughout the race. That’s just a variable that drivers deal with. One feels out how their car is handling and the do the best with what they have. It is the driver’s responsibility to operate his car safely and not ask more from it than it can give.

  1. If the prime cause of contact is simple aggressiveness, than the solution is penalties for contact. There’s a whole spectrum of possible penalties ranging from simply publishing incident points, to good natured public humiliation, to probation, to start at the back of the pack penalty, to miss some races.

The trick is the balance. Gentle punishments don’t change behavior. Harsh punishements might cause too much change. A 13/13 rule would change the character of our series. I’m not advocating a 13/13 rule, but I could live with it. I think what we ought to do is experiment with an incremental ramp up of the punishments for contact. We’re never going to fix the situation perfectly, nor are we going to make everyone happy. But maybe we could experiment with measures that help the situation.

I’m showing up at CMP, likely with engine #10, with a dunce cap sort of thing, that is my idea for some good natured public humiliation. The scheme is for it to be presented to the SpecE30 incident points leader at each Saturday awards ceremony while Jim cracks a few jokes at the guy’s expense. The rule is that it has to be worn all Sat night and then given back to me on Sunday. Will you guys support this?

Yes, engine #10. Really.

#52

turbo329is wrote:

That is not true. I have raced SCCA from Florida to California for 5+ years and have never seen the 20% rule put in effect. They don’t limit the size of any class because in practice they don’t have to.

SCCA allows 25 cars per mile. A division steward can lift that limit. That is 63.5 cars at Road Atlanta. Gasman - which half of your car do you want to enter. :laugh:

The only time I have seen NASA exceed that SCCA guideline is in the annual run-what-ya-brung Toy Race with 70+ cars.

Speaking of the 120%-of-pole-time rule, that would be a 2:06 on a fast, dry track at RA in a Spec E30. Hopefully someone turning that time on their best lap has been given a free set of golf clubs by Pantas and encouraged to not go further than DE2.

#53

scottmc wrote:

[quote]Those are my thoughts.

amen-[/quote]

Scott Mc for friggin president. Best. Post. Of. 2010.

#54

If I wanted to race by myself I’d autox. If I wanted to race with others, but without the chance of contact, I’d race Historics. I understand contact happens, and sometimes it’s unavoidable, the rules in place for asshatery should be all we need, maybe a stern personal reminder for those who forget. Perhaps stronger penalties if people really believe there is a problem?

Not including those of us who are still learning and are still slow feels like exclusion. If I wanted that, I’d go back to SCCA. Have you ever had a bad day and qualified towards the back? Are you ok not racing for points that day?

#55

Gasman wrote:

Gasman - My opinion is that the trouble is not caused by the number of cars on track (have you ever watched a 12 car SCCA World Challenge field reduce itself to about half that?) but folks diving over their heads. I am less concerned with a new guy turning 1:55s at Road Atlanta than a guy who has raced for a couple years who is capable of clipping off 1:48s safely all day long but is trying his damndest to run 1:47s. That dude is the one who is gonna try something that won’t work out well.

So, if my hypothesis (that drivers outdriving their talent reserves are the real problem) is true…

Ranger wrote:

It is bad form to be rude. Sometimes it is appropriate to be hard on someone. A rational, reasoned discussion of opposing opinions doesn’t have to be rude but it doesn’t have to pussy-foot around either.

Ranger wrote:

[quote]…with a dunce cap sort of thing, that is my idea for some good natured public humiliation.
snip
…at each Saturday awards ceremony while Jim cracks a few jokes …
snip
Will you guys support this? [/quote]
No. Any approach that includes humor or poking fun at the offending driver(s) minimizes the seriousness with which we should treat this subject.

My proposal is a big whiteboard hung on the side of the NASA hauler visible at every driver’s meeting.

The Big Board of Dangerous BMW Drivers
The board will list each person’s name who is involved in CCR-violating contact. Alongside the person’s name/car number is the number of contacts during that season, the number of races run that season, and their position in SE30 points.

Pure, factual, shameful.

Please note that I said “number of contacts” not “number of at-fault contacts.” Yes, that is intentional. It takes two to tango. If there is a driver who is consistently involved in contact (deemed to be at fault or not) I want to know that information.

I, for one, would do everything I could to avoid getting on that board.

I cannot seem to express in words just how opposed I am to making light of contact - even if the main purpose is to publicly draw attention to the dangerous drivers - whether it is by dunce cap, toilet seat superglued to the top of the car, crotchless driver’s suit to be worn at the awards dinner, etc.

2nd to last point: NASA is a business. The solution must be one in which the customer can continue to participate until he causes the loss of more income to NASA than that person generates.

NASA is a busy weekend. We cannot and should not impose additional duties on Pantas or the timing and scoring people. They are tasked with keeping track of and adjudicating contact. The solution, IMHO, can not be one that requires separate run groups, sub-groups, different contact rules than other classes, etc.

Last point(s?): Tires/Beer/Budgets
To say that someone running older tires is less safe is simply nonsense. Some tracks like stickers. Some tracks like old tires. I am concerned with someone who can’t manage whatever grip his car has on that day.

I would rather run against a guy on 2 year old tires than someone who pounded down (pick a high number) beers at the Saturday party.

[facetious on]The real problem is rich guys. Guys who can afford to replace their cars are killing this class. I have spent about 10% of my build cost on bodywork and that is way too much.[facetious off]

#56

PS - If you really want to bust out the Excel spreadsheet for the BBDBD, I would propose a rule where anyone in the top 3 CPRRR (Contacts Per Race Run Ratio) is ineligible for the season championship. If Excel and acronyms can’t solve it, it’s not a problem. :laugh:

#57

Steve, I have no problem with your Big Board idea. The biggest difference between your idea and mine is that I’m beyond the “idea” stage and in “execution”. If you are willing to commit to making your idea happen, then I’m happy to step aside and let you do it. It’s excellent that we have numerous good ideas, but the hard part is finding someone with the tenacity to make it work, and keep it working weekend after weekend.

Re. making light of contact. It’s all in the approach. All the dunce cap does is identify who the incident points leader is, exactly like your board does. It’s how we as a group react to the dunce cap and board that counts. And you have as much control over that reaction as I do. It is up to us to apply the right amount of ostricization to the points leader such that public identification results in more cautious track behavior.

The beauty of the dunce cap is that every single racer in the SE is going to see who it is presented to. And that’s hard to duplicate with anything rugged enough to survive packing and unpacking each weekend.

#58

Ranger wrote:

I would be happy to maintain the list based on information I get from T&S and Chuck/Robert. I cannot be at every event this year, but I will commit to providing the whiteboard, markers and information.

I agree with the intent. However, Jim does a great job of keeping the awards ceremonies humorous and light-hearted. The driver’s meetings are also light-hearted but serious topics are covered in a serious nature as needed.

A somber recognition of asshattery would not jive with the awards ceremony, IMHO.

I and my dry erase markers stand ready to serve…

#59

PS - Robert - If you want to give me 2010 data, I will put together a sample spreadsheet for the group’s comments.

PPS - I will include myself on that spreadsheet for out-of-region contact as well as my in-region contact. We will have to rely on the honor system for that information from each of you.

#60

It took me two days to muster the spiritual energy to type this next line.

I agree with Ranger. I rationalize this to myself by saying several others have made this point as well.

Field size may limit the chances of collecting others. But the real problem boils down to aggressiveness. Look at Formula 1, where do most of their piles up occur turn 1, followed by lap 1, followed by pretty much nothing. I doubt lack of talent is the issue there. Field size simply means that when some dude tries some wacky sh!t the people around and behind have less room to navigate the shoals.

Like World Challenge, Spec Miata, SE30 any class that has cars and drivers separated by a very narrow time difference means that if you want to finish better than you qualified you’re throwing hail mary’s from the start trying to make magic happened.

Few ways you can mitigate your damage in these scenarios:

  1. Mike Skeen approach - qualify on pole and drive away. Watch carnage in rearview mirror.
  2. Find an organization that mirrors your tolerance for risk. BMWCCR, HSR, SVRA, etc all have much less tolerance for rubbin’ is racin’ since people show up with super high dollar cars.
  3. Have a truthful internal debate with what you’re trying to achieve in club racing. There were many times I lifted, didn’t make a move, or just outright tried to stay away from someone I didn’t trust on track. Number 3 and 1 put the onus on you the driver and to some extent on luck. Craig (I believe) adopted a similar trophy to damage policy and still got banged up more than me. If you’re an omelette maker sometimes eggs get broken.

I would second the motion - that applying the rules as Scott mentioned is preferred to creating new ones (see engine debate / dyno rules ad nausem). The problem with that approach is that NASA is a business, so you’re likely not to get immediate satisfaction until the people Racer Asshat #1 is driving away is more $$ than his entry fee. So you have to be somewhat realistic in what is going to actually happen. I had a miata hit me that (in my mind) couldn’t have been more clear cut, nothing happened, I didn’t really expect anything to happen so I wasn’t extremely disappointed to be proven correct.