Is anyone interested in petitioning for a rule change? I understand the 3/4 width rule is a great tool for anything entering a corner. As it applies going down a straight, it can lead to trouble.
Would a petition need to happen? Perhaps all of us that don’t agree with the rule need to shoot an email to the correct director to help facilitate a rule change? Or maybe an address where my carrier pigeon needs to land with the note tied around his foot?
Theres been some great debate over the last 10 pages. Every system has flaws. Perhaps this incident has uncovered a flaw in the rules and something needs to be done about it. It would help protect drivers from damage and injury, and ease the decision or judgement making process for the officials.
Video of my rollover
Just as food for thought/comparison purposes, here’s the IMSA take on it. I just thought I would include it because there’s virtually no rules – it all comes down to race director/steward opinion.
[quote]6.17 ON TRACK PROTOCOL
6.17.1 PASSING
It is the responsibility of both the overtaking Driver and the Driver being overtaken to assure safe overtaking at racing speeds. A car traveling alone may use the full width of the track. Overtaking may be either right or left depending on the conditions of the moment.
6.17.2 BLOCKING
Any Driver who, in the sole opinion of the Race Director and/or Stewards, alters their racing line based on the actions of pursuing competitors, or uses an abnormal racing line to inhibit or prevent overtaking may be considered to be “blocking” and may be warned or penalized pursuant to Art. 8 of the IMSA CODE. In accordance with Art. 9.1.3 (1) any action or decision (or any alleged inaction or non-decision) taken by or imposed by the Race Director, Stewards or IMSA officials in this regard is not subject to protest or appeal.
6.17.3 AVOIDABLE CONTACT
Any Driver who, in the sole opinion of the Race Director and/or Stewards, initiates avoidable contact with another competitor, whether or not such contact interrupts the other competitor’s lap times, track position or damages other competitor’s cars, and whether or not such actions result in actual contact, may be warned or penalized pursuant to Art. 8 of the IMSA CODE. In accordance with Art. 9.1.3 (1) any action or decision (or any alleged inaction or non-decision) taken by or imposed by the Race Director, Stewards or IMSA officials in this regard is not subject to protest or appeal.
6.17.4 UNJUSTIFIABLE RISK
Any Participant who, in the sole opinion of the Race Director and/or Stewards, engages in any behavior deemed to represent an unjustifiable risk or reckless endangerment may be warned or penalized pursuant to Art. 8 of the IMSA CODE. In accordance with Art. 9.1.3 (1) any action or decision (or any alleged inaction or non-decision) taken by or imposed by the Race Director, Stewards or IMSA officials in this regard is not subject to protest or appeal.[/quote]
[quote=“catsailor” post=72962]Hey everyone, Tom Hall checking in. I guess its time for me to chime in since I’m the MA Compliance Director and I helped rule on this incident. There is no grey area in this incident it is simply a case of a driver not following the passing rules as stated in the CCR’s, whether or not the driver fully knew and understood those rules. Location on track, IE: entering a turn, on a straight, etc makes no difference. When an “overtaking car” is attempting to make a pass (side-by-side driving, overlapped ahead or behind, etc) he is obligated to give the “lead car” room to his / her line. The “lead car”, which was previously clear ahead, is only obligated to give 3/4 of a car width to the overtaking car. In other words the overtaking car has to be ready to go 2 wheels off in order to avoid contact with the car it is attempting to pass (or is driving side-by-side with, etc).
Soooo, in this incident the overtaking car (Jeff) is obligated to give the lead car (Rob) room to drive his line. Again, the lead car is only obligated to give the overtaking car 3/4 of a car width, on the left side of the track in this case. The overtaking car never went 2 wheels off, he simply "held his line" which is not acceptable under the rules. The correct thing for the overtaking car to do would have been to back out and allow the lead car to drive his desired line. Nothing else matters, not his position in the race, the class he is in (out of class racing), etc. the overtaking car must give room. If he gives room, goes 2 wheels off (clearly trying to give room) and there is still contact then fault could possibly shift to the lead car. However, that was not the case here, this is a clear cut classic case of a "punt resulting in damage", look up the penalty for that infraction and you'll probably want to avoid doing it, not to mention wanting to avoid causing serious damage and possible injury to a fellow racer.
Y’all would be amazed at how many racers I interview who don’t fully understand this rule. I’ve realized now that until I took on this position I really didn’t fully understand this rule and some of the other rules that are designed to keep us all safe and heading home from the track without damaged vehicles.
Not too many years ago the Spec E30 groups could have tight racing and a lot of fun without very many collisions. For some reason that seems to have changed and we are now having multiple and occasionally serious incidents at almost every race event.
If I could ask everyone to please read the CCR's again, there are some additions to rules as of this year. And after you've read them read them again, and the maybe another time or two. We all have to take on the responsibility to not only learn but internalize the rules, because when followed the racing is much safer IMHO.
Cheers.[/quote]
Hi Tom, thanks for weighing in. You mention that the passing car be prepared to go 2 wheels off, but you said that the passing car in this situation should have hit the brakes. You did not recommend that he should have gone 2 wheels. I assume that is because of the significant danger of 2 wheels off in that section? So the rule is in all cases racing room is considered 3/4 car width? What about trying to pass a car on the outside of T9 at WGI? There is a wall right next to track out. 1) Is the car being passed legally allowed to push the passing car into the wall to prevent a pass? 2) Should they be allowed to intentionally crash another car in order to prevent a pass? 3) Is there any verbiage in the rules to prevent that sort of thing and if so where?
Also when passing on a straight is the car being passed allowed to move into the car trying to pass as soon as the passing car’s front bumper is is at the lead car’s rear bumper? Using your strict interpretation of the rules, who’s fault would that be? I know common sense would dictate that you don’t want to make someone hit your rear bumper, but where in the rules does it actually prevents someone who has the checkbook and will to turn racing into a game of chicken instead of skill to prevent passes? (ie, everytime someone starts to get some overlap on me, I’m going to swerve over, counting on him to have to hit the brakes and lose momentum so I can prevent a pass. If I get hit, it’s his fault, and if I wreck, no big deal I just write a check for another race car). Rules need to prevent this, don’t just assume common sense will.
When I started posting last night I didn’t know that a ruling had been made. I was not trying to sound contradictory to that ruling.
So are your posts and comments now based on your opinion? Or are you still standing behind the CCR even after the ruling was changed? Might give others planning on running in the Mid-Atlantic Region some piece of mind knowing that the MA Compliance Director’s views and opinions may or may not agree with the regional director.
[quote=“swolfe” post=72978][quote=“Ranger” post=72967]Re. opposite conclusion. Point well made.
The problem with the rules and these examples is that they are oriented towards the braking zone of a turn. The actions of the passee are predictable in the braking zone and the rules dictate things that the passer has to take into account as he is planning and then executing his pass.
This incident was not in a braking zone. We all try to read each other’s minds, but I certainly would not have expected Rob to come across the track so I’d have been caught be surprise too. One of the purposes of rules is that they help us predict each other’s actions. They are not intended, to reference a hypothetical I created earlier, to allow me to ram a passer because he looked at my sister wrong.[/quote]
What prevents that – beyond common sense, sportsmanship, and general not-being-a-dick?[/quote]
That’s my point. That kind of reckless behavior is prevented by the knowledge that a decision-maker is going to look at the circumstances of the incident, look at the rules, and determine that “altho the rules fit the situation imperfectly, it was not reasonable for me ram the other guy.” Therefore I get penalized. It is always wrong to reflexively apply rules, any rule, with zero attention to the circumstances of the incident. Rules cannot possibly take into account every detail. That’s where human interpretation comes in.
Sorry is this is already said, but what is getting lost is that the 3/4 rule is as much a shield as it is a sword. It prevents the guy being overtaken from completely cutting down or moving over on the overtaking car. He has to give room!
To those who are concerned about running NASA because of this rule–this situation is an extreme, and we’re getting in the realm of fear mongering. Does the rule allow Rob to do what he did? Yes. Is it a dickish move to do it if that’s what he was doing? Probably. Will our community tolerate that kind of driving? Absolutely not! I know before our first race this weekend I told all of our drivers I won’t have any of that crap in our races and we had some fantastic close racing (videos to come)!
I disagree that this situation is extreme or rare. I was on the losing end of a strict reading of the same rule last October. The incident happens a few corners into the first lap at which point the other car and I had been door to door for several corners.
NASA-MA Oktoberfast video
I was friendly with Tom before he made the judgment that I was at fault, having met him at other races, gone wheel-to-wheel with him, etc. I still think he is a good guy. However, even F1 has someone to temper the rulebook with a driver’s perspective.
I don’t think a strict interpretation of a rule set should ever count more than common sense. If my view of my incident is too one-sided, I’m all ears.
Again, the other driver in my incident admitted to Tom that he hit me because he washed out after hitting the curb. I was told I should have gone further left (i.e. into the grass).
This doesn’t keep me up at night but I thought it was pertinent to point out that Rob and Jeff’s incident is not isolated.
[quote=“cosm3os” post=72992]Sorry is this is already said, but what is getting lost is that the 3/4 rule is as much a shield as it is a sword. It prevents the guy being overtaken from completely cutting down or moving over on the overtaking car. He has to give room!
To those who are concerned about running NASA because of this rule–this situation is an extreme, and we’re getting in the realm of fear mongering. Does the rule allow Rob to do what he did? Yes. Is it a dickish move to do it if that’s what he was doing? Probably. Will our community tolerate that kind of driving? Absolutely not! I know before our first race this weekend I told all of our drivers I won’t have any of that crap in our races and we had some fantastic close racing (videos to come)![/quote]
it might be an extreme, but there’s a car with a busted roof, essentially because he played chicken with another car trying to flex his “rules muscle”. And the following post to yours is from a guy who says the nearly identical incident happened to him. And I know people who would certainly ‘move you over’ like that if they knew the rules would back them up. (I think they are some of the biggest dicks I know and I will not race in that class). A rule director is shocked so few people are aware of this rule. So, in some ways, it’s not extreme…and is likely to happen again.
I hope the NASA racers take it to heart to implore their rulesmakers to clean up this clearly mistaken rule. The onus MUST also be on the passee to ensure that racing room is given in club racing. Racers get the world they want, but most put this sort of thing on a lower priority than making sure the new dampers arrive in time, etc. It should be a top priority.
Having ANY car move another car off the straight…well, thats flat out not right. And I see the need for a full cars width not 3/4. Good point above about walls, etc.
[quote=“Ranger” post=72991][quote=“swolfe” post=72978][quote=“Ranger” post=72967]Re. opposite conclusion. Point well made.
The problem with the rules and these examples is that they are oriented towards the braking zone of a turn. The actions of the passee are predictable in the braking zone and the rules dictate things that the passer has to take into account as he is planning and then executing his pass.
This incident was not in a braking zone. We all try to read each other’s minds, but I certainly would not have expected Rob to come across the track so I’d have been caught be surprise too. One of the purposes of rules is that they help us predict each other’s actions. They are not intended, to reference a hypothetical I created earlier, to allow me to ram a passer because he looked at my sister wrong.[/quote]
What prevents that – beyond common sense, sportsmanship, and general not-being-a-dick?[/quote]
That’s my point. That kind of reckless behavior is prevented by the knowledge that a decision-maker is going to look at the circumstances of the incident, look at the rules, and determine that “altho the rules fit the situation imperfectly, it was not reasonable for me ram the other guy.” Therefore I get penalized. It is always wrong to reflexively apply rules, any rule, with zero attention to the circumstances of the incident. Rules cannot possibly take into account every detail. That’s where human interpretation comes in.[/quote]
The problem is that is not the case. As Tom said, he had no choice but to rule the way he did and give the penalty that he did, because he MUST follow the rules strictly. There is no room for leeway or judgement. Regardless of the situation, the rules say this, so this is what someone making the judgement must do, no exceptions.
A rule change would be needed for them to rule the way Scott suggests.
-Scott
NASA is the only venue that has tried to legislate a way of driving through the rulebook…probably based on many new drivers in the series and lack of WTW experience. Since they copied, almost verbatim, the GCR, I strongly suggest they modify their passing rules to better align with SCCA, PBOC, BMWCCA, PCA, etc. (Note: If a very similar car is beside your door and you A S S U M E he is not there 10 seconds later: IT’S YOUR DAMN FAULT FOR HITTING HIM!) I don’t really give a damn what the CCR says…common sense is common sense. It is everyone’s responsibility to prevent contact.
Write the letters…change the rule, and for God’s sake, let this forum die an already indignant death.
[quote=“cwbaader” post=72997]NASA is the only venue that has tried to legislate a way of driving through the rulebook…probably based on many new drivers in the series and lack of WTW experience. Since they copied, almost verbatim, the GCR, I strongly suggest they modify their passing rules to better align with SCCA, PBOC, BMWCCA, PCA, etc. (Note: If a very similar car is beside your door and you A S S U M E he is not there 10 seconds later: IT’S YOUR DAMN FAULT FOR HITTING HIM!) I don’t really give a damn what the CCR says…common sense is common sense. It is everyone’s responsibility to prevent contact.
Write the letters…change the rule, and for God’s sake, let this forum die an already indignant death.[/quote]
I hear ya, Mr Baader, but apparently it’s not that common…
[quote=“sbarton” post=72995][quote=“Ranger” post=72991][quote=“swolfe” post=72978][quote=“Ranger” post=72967]Re. opposite conclusion. Point well made.
The problem with the rules and these examples is that they are oriented towards the braking zone of a turn. The actions of the passee are predictable in the braking zone and the rules dictate things that the passer has to take into account as he is planning and then executing his pass.
This incident was not in a braking zone. We all try to read each other’s minds, but I certainly would not have expected Rob to come across the track so I’d have been caught be surprise too. One of the purposes of rules is that they help us predict each other’s actions. They are not intended, to reference a hypothetical I created earlier, to allow me to ram a passer because he looked at my sister wrong.[/quote]
What prevents that – beyond common sense, sportsmanship, and general not-being-a-dick?[/quote]
That’s my point. That kind of reckless behavior is prevented by the knowledge that a decision-maker is going to look at the circumstances of the incident, look at the rules, and determine that “altho the rules fit the situation imperfectly, it was not reasonable for me ram the other guy.” Therefore I get penalized. It is always wrong to reflexively apply rules, any rule, with zero attention to the circumstances of the incident. Rules cannot possibly take into account every detail. That’s where human interpretation comes in.[/quote]
The problem is that is not the case. As Tom said, he had no choice but to rule the way he did and give the penalty that he did, because he MUST follow the rules strictly. There is no room for leeway or judgement. Regardless of the situation, the rules say this, so this is what someone making the judgement must do.
A rule change would be needed for them to rule the way Scott suggests.
-Scott[/quote]
I entirely disagree. This “MUST follow the rules strictly” is complete BS. A human decision maker uses the agreed upon rules, the precise circumstances of the incident, and their own wealth of experience to render a fair and responsible judgement. It took us the last 100million years to add the forebrain to it’s reptile underpinnings. As a result we are now capable of making reasoned decisions, as opposed to responding reflexively to external stimuli. I vote for the former over the latter.
Ethnically I’m 3/4 German. I spent much of the '90’s there and loved the place and the people. But the Germans are nutjobs about rules. They, as a culture, find much comfort in being surrounded by rules and when faced with a choice between a “rule” and “the Right thing to do”, end up in a terrible quandary. Americans, in contrast, when faced with a rule that prevents a clearly Right action, generally don’t feel like they’re in much of a quandary. They’ll just shrug their shoulders, blow off the rule and do the Right thing.
We had an expression in the military…“Regulations are for the “guidance” of the commander”. That means that the expectation is that the commander do his/her very best to do the Right thing. Hopefully there’d be a way to do the Right thing that was congruent with the regs, but if not, so be it. As the commander you were ultimately responsible for everything. The regs were handy guidance, but your job was to DO THE RIGHT THING. If you had to break the Regs to do THE RIGHT THING, if you f**king had to kill people to do THE RIGHT THING, then you did it. You just had to be emotionally prepared to stand in front of your boss and justify your actions. And if he wasn’t impressed, it was your ass waving in the breeze.
Said another way…the purpose of rules is to make things run fairly and efficiently. Occasionally you will find that a rule impedes fairness and efficiency. When that occurs, the officious bureaucrat will sacrifice fairness and efficiency on the altar of their treasured rule. In contrast the self-actualized type will see how the peculiar circumstances that lay before them put the rule, and the rule’s objective, in conflict, and find their own reasoned way to meet the rule’s intent.
Think about what that means…if a rule leads to something that’s just crazy, do you really blindly follow the rule? If following the rule ensures that you don’t meet the rule’s intent (safe behavior), we still follow the rule? Have we lost our minds?
We cannot mindlessly follow rules that lead to bad outcomes. Mindlessly following anything, defined as strictly following as opposed to thoughtfully following, is a really bad idea.
Always do the Right thing. Rules are meant to be thoughtfully applied.
There’s some good ideas for rule changes here that would cover the situation, so lets adopt one of those ideas. Easy enough to submit a rule change.
One thing I forgot. SCCA appoints a driver’s advocate just for this purpose…to represent the driver during a protest or such. I would suggest that be considered, too.
[quote=“catsailor” post=72973]
We simply look at what happened and then use the rules to determine if and where fault should be placed and then apply the appropriate penalties as stated in the CCR’s.[/quote]
[quote=“Ranger” post=73001]
I entirely disagree. This “MUST follow the rules strictly” is complete BS…[/quote]
[quote=“catsailor” post=72962] There is no grey area in this incident it is simply a case of a driver not following the passing rules as stated in the CCR’s, whether or not the driver fully knew and understood those rules. Location on track, IE: entering a turn, on a straight, etc makes no difference.
Nothing else matters, not his position in the race, the class he is in (out of class racing), etc. the overtaking car must give room. If he gives room, goes 2 wheels off (clearly trying to give room) and there is still contact then fault could possibly shift to the lead car. However, that was not the case here, this is a clear cut classic case of a “punt resulting in damage”, look up the penalty for that infraction and you’ll probably want to avoid doing it, not to mention wanting to avoid causing serious damage and possible injury to a fellow racer.[/quote]
[quote=“catsailor” post=72970]
Jake, that is not my opinion it is the rule, does not matter where the cars are on track when a pass is being attempted the rules apply. The appendix in the CCR’s just happens to show the graphic example at a corner rather than a straight. [/quote]
Tom is just doing the job as he was instructed to. I don’t see anywhere in the rules a provision for discretion or judgement like there is in the IMSA rules that were shown before. Also based on what he said, it appears to be out of Tom’s hands to be able to use judgement based on common sense and the situation. If a rule was broken, a penalty must be assessed according to the rules.
-Scott
[quote=“Ranger” post=73001]
I entirely disagree. This “MUST follow the rules strictly” is complete BS…[/quote]
[quote=“catsailor” post=72962] There is no grey area in this incident it is simply a case of a driver not following the passing rules as stated in the CCR’s, whether or not the driver fully knew and understood those rules. Location on track, IE: entering a turn, on a straight, etc makes no difference.
Nothing else matters, not his position in the race, the class he is in (out of class racing), etc. the overtaking car must give room. If he gives room, goes 2 wheels off (clearly trying to give room) and there is still contact then fault could possibly shift to the lead car. However, that was not the case here, this is a clear cut classic case of a “punt resulting in damage”, look up the penalty for that infraction and you’ll probably want to avoid doing it, not to mention wanting to avoid causing serious damage and possible injury to a fellow racer.[/quote]
[quote=“catsailor” post=72970]
Jake, that is not my opinion it is the rule, does not matter where the cars are on track when a pass is being attempted the rules apply. The appendix in the CCR’s just happens to show the graphic example at a corner rather than a straight. [/quote]
Tom is just doing the job as he was instructed to. I don’t see anywhere in the rules a provision for discretion or judgement like there is in the IMSA rules that were shown before. Also based on what he said, it appears to be out of Tom’s hands to be able to use judgement based on common sense and the situation. If a rule was broken, a penalty must be assessed according to the rules.
I’ve asked several times; please show me where in the rules it says differently!
-Scott
[quote=“sbarton” post=73005]
Tom is just doing the job as he was instructed to. I don’t see anywhere in the rules a provision for discretion or judgement like there is in the IMSA rules that were shown before. Also based on what he said, it appears to be out of Tom’s hands to be able to use judgement based on common sense and the situation. If a rule was broken, a penalty must be assessed according to the rules.
I’ve asked several times; please show me where in the rules it says differently!
-Scott[/quote]
We have a different view of rules. I don’t mean as in racing rules, I mean as in philosphically in life in general. As I perceive your view of the rules I could t-bone you in the paddock and say “there’s nothing the rules against it”. That’s not how rules are meant to work. They are a common framework that help us predict behavior and help the decision-maker evaluate an incident. Strict adherence to rules assumes that rules cover all actions. The 3/4 rule is a little clumsy in a long straight. That’s ok, rules aren’t going to be perfect. IMO Mid-Atl ultimately called this one well.
Tom’s role, as he described it, is to gather info on the incident and then cite applicable rules to the regional dir. I’m entirely cool with that. What grabs my attention is when people start talking about “strict adherence” to the rules, but “strict” sounds to me to be at odds with “thoughtful” adherence. If the objective is good decisions, rules have to be applied thoughtfully, not as a knee-jerk. And, IMO, they were applied thoughtfully.
My perception is that Tom supported the “rigid interpretation” when he still perceived the initial Jeff-pounding to be in affect. Tom was trying to support his boss, which can be tricky sometimes. I’ve no criticism of Tom. He and I go way back. We don’t swap spit in the shower, but Rigley (his dog) and I do.
There’s still room for a good rule change recommendation here tho. Rob said that he knew Jeff was there when he moved towards him. A rule to discourage that sort of thing would get my vote. I do not like my car getting banged up and I expect people to give me a little space just like I give them a little space. That doesn’t mean I’m going to roll over like a patsy but if you get along side of me, I’m going to give you enough space to make it. Heck, if you’re all over my ass, unless it’s the last laps of the race, I’ll just let you by because I figure you earned it.
Those of us that are not near the front tend to be a bit more gentlemenly then the folks that are racing hard for a podium finish.
Re. closing the thread. I can’t, in fairness, close the thread just after I’ve had the last word. So if we want the thread closed someone needs to jump in, call me a douchbag, and then I can, in good conscience, close the thread.