SCCAForums.com

welll - Ian was driving the GT3, and he stated he was trying to hit the rev limiter in 2nd, but never could.  That would mean he never hit 83 mph. 

Peter Leir's GT3, with Peter, Ian or myself driving it has never found the rev limiter in 2nd on any solo course, even this one.

adamb

---

Adam Breakey

Mazda Mp3 SSC
Founder - http://www.autocrossforum.com

http://www.peanutbutterward.com/sundaysized.jpg

Above is a map from Sunday, I worked first heat standing south of Cone number 60. From my view point cones 45 threw 52 slowed the cars way down but by cone 60 several cars were bumping 2nd gear limiters and some going into 3rd gear. It was higher speeds than I'm used to but never felt unsafe.

---

Paul Ward
2000 Miata Cstock, garage queen
2000 Camry Point A to Point B

The rule on corner speeds is specific about speed, but doesn't define what all constitutes a corner. Is a slalom a corner? How about gated sections, which are really just slaloms? To me, a slalom is not a corner. Overall direction of travel doesn't change.

So, was the protest filed over speeds in sweepers or through slalom or gated sections?

---

Bob Beamesderfer '94 CSP Miata
Cal Club and SDR

Wow........what a bland looking course on paper.

---

Wayne Onyschuk
#375 was STX now ESP(THANKS SCCA!)

The course looks like many I've run before down there... amazing they don't change much... Home field advantage anyone... :)

The turn around is typicall for down there, and I'm usually grabbing third at cone 60 in the Celica, a little eary, and carrying 3rd gear the entire way back... if not you just bang the snot out of the rev limiter...

You can focus much more on getting the rhythm down and looking ahead on the way back, and I must say its a hoot...! 


Rick

---

Rick Cone
Atlanta Region Director

STS2 #98
1991 Mazda Miata - Aqua

I applaud Mr Carpenter and the PC for making the tough call. Anyone can make easy decisions, it takes real intergrity to make the hard ones. We should remember that Solo is NOT a speed sport. If we kill or maim some course workers Solo could go the way of Rally. Time trials are there for those who need to "dance at the edge of control" at speed with safety, Solo is meant to be different.

 

---

97 Miata ES
93 RX 7 SS

Yeah that's great--------

You will make solo so thrilling ---THAT IT REALLY WILL BE SOLO

 

It will become so boring that you will be lucky to get 5 drivers show up.

PS---If only one person shows up, then who runs the timing equipment ?

---

Trying to get faster

David Lehman:

Yeah that's great--------

You will make solo so thrilling ---THAT IT REALLY WILL BE SOLO

 

It will become so boring that you will be lucky to get 5 drivers show up.

PS---If only one person shows up, then who runs the timing equipment ?

 

Are you mentally disabled, or just acting like it to make us feel sorry for you?

No one has suggested slowing down Solo ... only preventing a rogue region (who decides that someone is over the sound limit without using a meter, and has more major incidents than most) from setting up single throttle position course that also happen to be stupidly and boringly designed.  You don't need to design only transients down, same old 180 at the bottom, and transients back.  Unless you really have no talent at course design whatsoever .... oh, that must have been it.

As for the protest, it wasn't so much an issue of safety, it was more that the Solo class structure is not based on what cars could do on that course.  

As for national staff allowing that course, they already made some changes prior to allowing walk throughs, or weren't you watching?   It's hard to force a region or designer to make more than a couple of major changes.  That course sucked so bad it really needed to be completely redesigned, preferably by someone from the planet earth.

 

Highest speeds were reached at gate 40/41 and 66/67. The course was actually very exciting to drive. Constantly doing something, no time to think. offline by 1 inch lead to being late for the rest of the run. Very important to be percise.

---

1999 Civic Si SSC

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????

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 >:) -- D-Stock
2004 Oregon Region STS Champ
2006 EESCC STS Champ
Oregon Region Chief of Safety

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
2007 Packwood ProSolo "first loser" (0.081)
2007 SCCA Solo National Championships - 10th place

---

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.

---

Once you go Mac, you never go back!

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