Video of my rollover


#101

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)!


#102

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.


#103

[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.


#104

[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


#105

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.


#106

AMEN!


#107

[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…


#108

[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.


#109

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.


#110

[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]


#111

[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


#112

[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


#113

[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.


#114

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.


#115

I hope you wouldn’t close the thread. So what if it’s not all happy joy joy and everyone is slapping each others backs?? A car landed on it’s roof, the driver changed his story and now has gone silent, the officials ruled and then THEY changed their story. I’d say there are still lots of questions here, AND there’s a pretty significant problem identified. Why not use the thread to understand the unanswered questions, and draft a better way?


#116

Awkward questions often go unanswered.

SpecE30 is one of the greatest bunch of guys I’ve every been among. But each region has a bit of a different culture, and the front runners kind of have their own micro-culture sort of thing. SpecE30 started in Mid-Atl and they’ve long had a deep field of really fast drivers.

My perception is that the mid-Atl front runners developed their own culture that is a little more aggressive than the rest of us. In my early days I kind of got my panties in a wad in some threads over that casual acceptance of aggressiveness, but as the years came and went I grew to understand them better. I also figured out that my problem wasn’t protecting my sheetmetal from them, but instead trying to keep them in sight as they pulled away.

We have a video here that shows some of that aggressiveness. We have posts that contend that coming across the track to hit Jeff was acceptable. Go read the bimmerforums version of this thread. I’ve tried to mitigate the damage there, but some of those guys are kinda shocked.

This incident, the video and this discussion has done us some damage. Here we are some of the greatest guys it’s ever been my pleasure to share beer with and some outsiders are pointing at us as a reason to never race with NASA. That’s why I’d like to lock this thread. I’m biased. I’ve really grown to love SpecE30 so it’s hard to see it take body blows.


#117

First of all, SpecE30 is awesome. As Ranger points out this is a great group of guys. I’m proud to call SE30 home. I also hate to see us take such a beating. It’s undeserved. Most important is that we all stick together and defend what we love so much. We’re not a bunch of hacks, but a committed and serious group of racers who love to race each other hard on the track. When the race is over guys will drink beers together, joke around, fix cars, whatever it takes to help a fellow brother. Lets keep that spirit in mind as we move forward. I for one am here to stay and I look forward to racing with all of you sometime in the future.

As for the rules change discussion, I am in the process of doing a comprehensive review of other sanctioning bodies rules and compiling those for us to look at. I’ll post a link to this once it’s ready. Best place to start in my mind is looking at other rule sets and determining best practices. Lets join together and do what’s not only best for SE30 but all of our racing brethren.

Take care everyone


#118

^ I agree and Ranger is a douchebag. :whistle: