SCCAForums.com

vetteman:

I give the man credit for filing the protest, BUT don't say there's a problem with the speed of the course, then go make your runs and protest. That makes it souond like I got my Butt kicked ,so I'm gonna fix that---I'll protest the course like i wanted too and see what happens. I don't think thats the case here, but one might wonder????

Is it conceivable that the course didn't reveal itself to be too fast until he drove it?  I know that I'm not all that good at guessing where I will and will not have to shift into third.

I know that at a Pro at this location several years ago, we were all bummed out walking the course because it was way too tight. By Sunday we were bouncing off the limiter all over and what was tight on the walk was nothing more than a quick gasp and flick of the wrist. Do it right and you gained a lot of time, do it wrong and you got the cone. Sounds like typical solo to me, but it just was not that obvious.

I can understand being upset about having times taken away, but compared to my last experience after a 15 hour overnight drive to an event in Ft. Myers you would be happy to have had the runs. It rained, and then it really rained. All the timing equipment was soaked. We started up the first heat, and instantly had issues. So they tried this, and that, and for nearly (ok its been a while so I may be off here) 2 hours we sat out on course. Only to be told in the end that we were going to start up again, with afternoon runs, BUT, keep the AM workers on. So I got to sit out on the concrete for another hour and police cones. Fun stuff. I think I would have rather taken the runs, and had them taken from me (and everyone else) than to sit on the concrete wondering why it had to rain on Friday intead of Thursday.

But, alas, I was not there this year for the tour, and it sucks that some people ended up worse for the protest, but it sounds like speaking up and filing the protest was the right thing to do. I know in the past, we have had incidents around the area, and afterwards people say how they KNEW this would happen, but DID NOT say anything about it at the time. So rather than debate top speeds, or who has the credentials to make the decisions, or who should have preemptively made a decison, lets just say thanks for putting on the event in the first place. Be happy no one was hurt (physically), and everyone got a chance to compete on a legitimate course, and have fun on a course that was faster than it should have been.

Thanks SCCA, for doing these events for us, and structuring them so that when we feel something is not right we have a way to resolve the issue. Now, lets talk about moving National to August....

Do you guys think course designers are going to have trouble keeping the speeds up to an interesting level on the nice big lots while making sure the rules arent being broken? I have confidence that we can keep the courses legal and keep the watered down needlessly slow courses out.

---

Dominic Stone #77 2005 Dodge SRT-4 ACR >:) -- G-Stock

Oregon Region Chief of Safety
myspace.com/vvt4me

I would say sometimes yes, but more times than naught if you think about going to 3rd gear it's more than likely a high 2nd gear course or a low 3rd gear course. I didn't go to the nationals this year but just looking at the course maps i knew it was going to be a fast course if it stayed dry, and after talking to some who went they stated it was the fastest nationals they had been too. I was just looking at thge course map from Florida and the only true turn it looked like there was was the turn around. My question would be what is the definition of a turn? I wasn't trying to bust his chops, just making a statement.

Yes, I really do think that course designers will be able to create very interesting courses, even while they are following the rules.

It's not the speed, it's the "impression of speed" that makes a course "fun," in my opinion. You can move a cone here, add a cone there, and have a course that is quick and fun, and yet never go beyond 50 MPH.

---

Glenn L. Austin, Computer Wizard and Race Car Driver
2005 Ultra Yellow Nissan 350Z Track Model
Austin-Soft.com
Author of AXAnalyst and PAXitis

---

Alan Sheidler
F125#21
Honda/Renpeed

In another Forum, Bill Headlee had these profound thoughts about this situation.  I'd like to share them.

The important thing (I think) is that there is not a common interpretation on what the rules allow as far as max speeds (independant of whether or not at a specific event at a specific site on a specific day, those speeds present a physical danger).  This conclusion (lack of common interpretation) has been very well supported by comments on both sides of this protest and the ruling on it so far.  I hope the end result of this is...

- The definition of "turns" as it relates to maximum speeds in section 2 of the rule book is clarified so that we, the members, understand it with a common interpretation

- The definition of an "unprepared car" as it relates to maximum speeds in section 2 of the rule book is clarified so that we, the members, understand it with a common interpretation.

- The definition of "normally allow" as it relates to maximum speeds in section 2 of the rule book is clarified so that we, the members, understand it with a common interpretation.

- Future events have a better and more consistent understanding of what is allowed by the rulebook.

---

SCCA RoadRally 2009 National Tour Champion, Sportsman

Alan brings up a very profound point, if after the first group or 2nd group the course was found to be that fast why wasn't the event stopped and the course changed. Seems the protest committee was was having a hard time saying the course was to faast in the turns.

I simply cannot keep quiet on this any longer.

You can argue the merits of this situation all you want, but at this point it's irrelevant.  This protest will not be reviewed or judged upon by it's merits.  Simply, there is no protest.  This is only an illegitimate abortion that will be tossed out for improper procedure.  A protest committee doesn't have a blank check to do as they please.  The PC is as bound by the framework of the ruleset as much as anyone else.  If this whole situation wasn't so tragic your use of the words "illegal" and "logical" would be quite humorous, as would the utter arrogance you've displayed in defending your incorrect actions.

First, you cannot have a protest without two parties; a protester and a protestee.  A course cannot be a protestee.  The officials who allowed competition to occur on the approved course would have to be the protestees.  In this particular case the protest would have to be filed against the Chief Steward(s), Safety Steward(s), etc.  This means they have to be served the protest paperwork and allowed the opportunity to be heard and present their own case.  Apparently this did not occur.  If there is no protestee this begs the question on how an Intent to Appeal was filed and what exactly they were going to appeal since they had never been served or seen the supposed protest at the event.  This precludes the fact that nowhere in the rulebook is a PC chartered to impose a penalty against an entire field of non-protested competitors by tossing out a whole days worth of competition. 

Further, if the course was indeed inappropriate, as an SEB member you and/or the other SEB members in attendance with which you consulted for this abortion have the responsibility and authority to shut the event down until it is brought into compliance.  This in itself would be considered the final extreme measure to be taken only after exhausting numerous other ways to address the situation with the senior event officials, which apparently you never bothered with bringing into the loop on what was happening.  To allow a whole days competition to occur and then disallow it without recourse is inexcusable for someone in your position.  As inexcusable as the event officials not learning about it until after firing up their computers later that evening to witness one of the most negatively damaging debacles to hit the SCCA Solo2 program that I have witnessed in my 12 years of participation.

As the person who handpicked you to be my replacement on the Board I am shocked, ashamed, and completely embarrassed by your actions.  This is undeniably one of the biggest mistakes I have ever made.  I cannot apologize to the SCCA and it's membership enough for what has happened as a result.  Your lack of understanding of the Solo2 rules is only trumped by your complete lack of judgement and forethought.  The entire episode reeks of a self-imposed hidden agenda.  If that's not the case then the only other alternative is total ignorance of the Solo2 ruleset. 

I would strongly urge you to save yourself any further embarrassment and resign your post before all the facts become known to the general membership.  It's clear that you are not fit to serve on the Solo Events Board.

Mark Sipe

 

Steve Hoelscher:

I was expecting the forums to virtually explode with the typical Monday morning second guessing, safety stewarding, chief stewarding, finger pointing, blaming, character assassination, rampant speculation and name calling but this has gotten completely out of hand.   I was the Chief of Protest at the Ft. Myers National Tour and to set the record straight I believe it now necessary to make some kind of statement regarding the facts of the protest filed by Robert Carpenter.   This is not an official response from the SCCA or the SEB.  I have no intention of debating, in any of these forums, the Protest Committee’s decision or its merit.  The PC’s decision stands on its own and is wholly supported by the facts.   Nor will I respond to those who find it necessary to attack and defame the Protest Committee.  Such statements say more about the author’s character than the character of those they are intended to assail.   The purpose here is to provide the solo community with information as to why the PC took the action it did.

 

*******

 

Robert Carpenter was one of several people who approached me Sunday morning expressing concern regarding the course.    I know Robert well and know that he would much prefer for the competition to be settled on the course not in the protest shed.   Robert raised the issue of a protest and I advised him that filing a protest would guarantee the course issue be dealt with.   Robert thought it through and filed the protest after he drove in heat one.  He was VERY surprised when I later informed him that the PC had upheld his protest and that Sunday’s times were thrown out.  He even stated that he never considered that the protest would be upheld, let alone that the results would be affected.  In fact, he told me that he “had not intended for this to affect the results and mess up anyone’s event”.   I commend Robert for having the guts to file the protest.  I have heard a lot of whining over the years but seldom does anyone ever step up and take the heat for actually taking action.

 

Once a protest is filed, the Protest Committee must deal with it.  The committee cannot simply sit around and whine and argue on various forums, they must make a decision and that decision carries with it the responsibility of its effect.   It would have been easy for the PC to dismiss the protest or pass the buck.   However, the protest committee has the responsibility of ensuring the integrity of the event and protecting the interest of the competitors at the event and the membership as a whole.   This is a big responsibility and one that the PC takes very seriously.  Nor is it an easy job and one that few people will take on because of the potential for controversy.   That the members of the Ft. Myers National Tour Protest Committee took on this issue knowing their decision would result in extensive armchair quarterbacking is to be commended.

 

On the issue of the ruling:  The protest committee must first determine legality.  The course was protested under 2.1.A.    The protest committee found the course was in excess of 2.1.A in respect to this sentence: “Turns should not normally allow speeds in excess of 45 mph in unprepared cars.”   Members of the PC spent much of the afternoon observing the competition and monitoring car speeds through all sections of the course.  I also interviewed various competitors in a variety of stock and street prepared cars as to speed in gears and speed at rev limits.   What the PC determined was that the majority of turns were taken in excess of 45 mph.   In fact, that turns at or below 45 mph were the exception not the norm.  This fact contradicts the quoted statement in 2.1.A. Whether or not a Super Stock GT3 Porsche went 83 mph or 73 mph was never an issue.   The PC must follow the rules and based on our investigation it was determined that the course was not in compliance with 2.1.A. 

 

Results:   The second step in the process is the action taken by the protest committee once it votes to uphold a protest.  Because the course was found to be in excess of the rules times resulting from said illegal course are illegitimate.   Therefore, the logical course of action was to throw out all times from that course.  Without this action, the final results would have been, at least in part, determined by times that were illegitimate.  Allowing illegitimate times to stand undermines the credibility of the event.  This was not a decision taken lightly.  In fact, during the process of hearing this protest, the PC adjourned several times for the purpose of investigation, review and consultation.  I personally met with another member of the SEB, Howard Duncan and (via telephone) SCCA Risk Management.   The Committee was well aware of the impact that its decision would have and anticipated that there would be considerable public debate among the membership.   However, The Committee also knew that they could not allow their decision to be influenced by the prospect of such debate. 

 

Timing of the protest:  I cannot speak for Robert Carpenter but clearly he did not anticipate this result.  It is also important to note that the protest committee cannot act proactively.   A protest must be filed before it can take action.    Remember that it is the responsibility of the competitors to police the sport.  Not only the legality of competitor’s cars but also the courses and the actions of event officials.  When event officials drop the ball it is up to the competitors to take action.   No one wants to be branded a whiner and therefore most are naturally reluctant to take action.   Robert did what he thought was right; the expected reaction on these forums has proven that axiom to be true.  

 

The Protest Committee Members:  I will not identify the individual members here.  If they want to identify themselves they can do so.  I can tell you that, much to the dismay of its critics, the Ft. Myers National Tour Protest Committee members had the best interest of the competitors and membership in mind when they made their ruling.  The three members represent nearly 50 years of National level experience and collectively have more National Championship jackets than will fit in your closet.   Also, they each posted some of the fastest times of this event.  All were chosen for the committee based on their high level of experience, ability, knowledge and integrity.  As a competitor at that event, you could not have been better represented.

 

Conclusion:  It was anticipated by the Protest Committee that their decision would be appealed.  The SEB acts as the National Appeals Committee and will therefore have the responsibility of reviewing the ruling on appeal.  The Protest Committee cannot predict the actions of the Appeals Committee but is confident that whatever action the Appeals Committee takes will best serve the competitors and membership.

 

Steve Hoelscher

Chief of Protest,  Ft. Myers National Tour

Solo Events Board member

 

 

 

---

"Understeer is when you hit the wall with the front of the car and oversteer is when you hit the wall with the rear of the car.
Horsepower is how fast you hit the wall, torque is how far you take the wall with you." --Anonymous

ooooooo kkkkkkk .....I too feel the need to speak up on this one.

Mark, I dont know you at all,just to see you at an event is the extent of it. And although I'v a-x 'd for 27+ years,Iv only been on the National scene a mere 4 years,so I guess I am a bit "in-experienced" in some ways...

But sometimes on these boards people get 10 ft tall and bullett proof in their own lil surroundings,feelin real safe 'n all.

Lots of times some things need to be kept to themselves and their lip   zipped. I think this is one such case.

There are lots of ways of saying lots of different things...I think you overdone it a tad.

 

 Where I come from....this jez might get a mouth mashed...

my .02   for what its worth....

jb

If it weren't for the lack of typos, I'd suspect PWI ... posting while intoxicated.  It is Saturday night.

- Jtoby

 

---

"All your boost are belong to us"

Howdy,

Mark, what are you really trying to say?

:-)

(everyone take a damn breath.  We're going to need it to *** in again after the "appeal" gets heard/resolved... :-)

Mark

Hmmmm, Mr. Brown really doesn't know Mr. Sipe, does he?  If he did, he would know that Mr. Sipe ALWAYS speaks his mind, does not mince words or smooth egos, and is quite knowledgable regarding the topic to which he speaks...You may not like his tact, but you have to give him credit for having balls BIG enough to address this topic, warts and all...

---

OzCop

"It's never too late to have a happy childhood."

In other words, that is mAs to you. :)

P.S. Was it hoping too much to keep one thread without any references to anyone's balls?  I am just saying....

:p

---

XP MR2 or Noble M400
CHASECAM the global leader in motorsport video acqusition. Designed and made in the USA! Sponsor for SCCA ProSolo, Runoffs, SPEED World Challenge, SCCAForums. Supplier to MazdaSpeed, V8Supercars, Formula 1 teams, etc.

It does not take large balls to write what he wrote.  Mere lack of common sense will suffice.  Hence my suspicion that he was drunk.

- Jtoby

 

---

"All your boost are belong to us"