SCCAForums.com

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

---

2006 Noble M400 (E-Mod?)
CHASECAM the global leader in motorsport video acqusition. We innovate, not copy or import. 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"

Did someone mention balls ?

Mine have been quite itchy as of late.

Mr. Sipe doth speaketh the truth as far as I can tell, and  to agree or disagree is up to you.

---

Trying to get faster

jtmcinder:

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

PWI? I've done that (you all probably say I do it every post). I never knew there was a name. I think I should work PWI in my sig. "Everything written above is affected by PWI."

Sipe? Naw, I think he's sober. He posts like that all the time. Toned down and his message would have been more effective. Remember his old sig was "mAs."

---

Matt Murray

I am perfectly capable of learning from my mistakes. I will surely learn a great deal today.

TeamRX8:

the utter arrogance you've displayed...

That is like the Pot calling the Kettle an a$$hole. 

I particularly enjoyed repeated use of the word abortion, likening this to a social hot button, in an effort to recruit readers to the writers point of view.  I know that it work on me, hook, line and sinker.  I mean, it is like this gay marriage between the Protester and the PC threatens the very fabric of our sport. 

This is a war on protesters, if we give up the protesters win.  Freedom is on the march!  Bravo Mr. Sipe, Bravo!

On personal note, I would like to thank mAs for reminding me why stepping down from STAC was a good idea.  I clearly do not respond well to this type of communication.

---

Heyward Wagner
Team Underdog Racing
#48 STS Civic Si

For everyone's enjoyment (but not my camera work or driving), here is a link to a video (external shot from near the finish line) of the infamous "clocked at 83 MPH GT3" driver on one of his runs.

http://www.mrsideways.com/run2sunday.wmv

Judge for yourself as to the danger/non-danger of the top and turn speeds of this run, but the driver states categorically that he could not be doing 83 MPH based on his gearing and lack of rev-limiter hits - and AFAIK, there were no external clocking devices being used at the site. The A-Stock S2Ks were maxing in 2nd gear on rev limiter at ~63 MPH. Darrin Disimo's data logger gave his top speed as 62 MPH. Based on the GT3's times relative to others, I'd be surprised if he was going faster than 75 MPH.

Was this car beyond the speeds referred to in the "guidelines" of the stated in the SCCA rulebook? Almost certainly. Were these speeds unsafe given the site, and conforming to the guidelines given "reasonable and prudent consideration of the conditions encountered"? IMHO, no.

BTW, I've no dog in this fight as I trophied the same Saturday as I did Sunday. Well not entirely true. My only dog is that I hope the fall-out of this is not a set of stict rules (as opposed to the current guidelines) that forces speeds and maneuvres that are safe for 300' x 600' skid pads to be used for courses on beautiful wide/open sites such as Ft. Myers. That being said, I wouldn't mind better and more precise language, to better allow us as couse designers, SSSs, and Event Chairs to judge what is and what is not conforming to the guidelines of section 2.

One must remember it is important to combat pubic lice at every opportunity.

Please note that I have inside knowledge of a pubic lice problem at numerous autox cites around the nation.  And unbeknownst to the Ft Myers competitors, that I had the port-a-potties at the tour pre-inspected for a pubic lice check.

The Florida Department of Health insisted that the event be cancelled until this infestation of blood sucking bugs were killed and prevented from giving anybody a itchy ***.

However the regional direction of the department of health, Mr. Nicolas Testiculas, decided that the economic damage of not having the tour participants, patronizing the local strip joints was to great for the economy to bear.  So the event was allowed to proceed.

May I submit to the membership that it might be within reason that the protest committee, contracted "itchy balls", at the event, and was therfore not able to think clearly.

---

Trying to get faster

The real question on this whole thing is this statement on the results: 'Sunday results have been protested and the protest has been upheld.  An Intent to Appeal has been filed and will be heard by the Appeals Committee as soon as practical.'

What is considered practical?  10 days, 3 weeks, 2 months, etc.?  8 days after an event, one would think a timetable should have been established.  - AB

---

'06 Chrysler Crossfire - #87 DS
'04 RX-8 #87 BS (retired)
'01 Celica GTS #193 STS (retired in '05)

B1mmer:

The real question on this whole thing is this statement on the results: 'Sunday results have been protested and the protest has been upheld.  An Intent to Appeal has been filed and will be heard by the Appeals Committee as soon as practical.'

What is considered practical?  10 days, 3 weeks, 2 months, etc.?  8 days after an event, one would think a timetable should have been established.  - AB

 

From the Solo II Rules:

10.6.3 Hearing The AppealThe appointed AC shall use its best efforts to convene and hear theappeal no earlier than two weeks from notice to the parties and nolater than four weeks from said notice.  At a hearing all partiesconcerned shall be entitled to call witnesses and present, withinreason, other evidence of their choice.  They may present their casepersonally, be represented by an advocate, or may submit the caseto the committee on documents without personal appearance.  TheAC may hear such evidence in such manner as it deemsappropriate, relevant, and necessary under the circumstances

I don't know any of the "parties" involved in this whole issue, but after reading through the various posts, Sipes' comments, couched in politically correct terms or not, strike me as being directly in line with the rules, as written. Coincidentally, the only thing that could even come close to salvaging this situation, in terms of fairness, would be if the protest were thrown out as being filed incorrectly. Clearly, the debate will continue in a very visible way, regardless as to the outcome of the protest.

---

In slow, out fast.
In fast, out backwards.

Jim G:

From the Solo II Rules:

10.6.3 Hearing The AppealThe appointed AC shall use its best efforts to convene and hear theappeal no earlier than two weeks from notice to the parties and nolater than four weeks from said notice.  At a hearing all partiesconcerned shall be entitled to call witnesses and present, withinreason, other evidence of their choice.  They may present their casepersonally, be represented by an advocate, or may submit the caseto the committee on documents without personal appearance.  TheAC may hear such evidence in such manner as it deemsappropriate, relevant, and necessary under the circumstances

Thanks Jim.  At least it's spelled out and it's already a week into the process.  It might be resolved by the time Walnut Ridge rolls around - AB

---

'06 Chrysler Crossfire - #87 DS
'04 RX-8 #87 BS (retired)
'01 Celica GTS #193 STS (retired in '05)

TeamRX8:

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. 

Mark Sipe

 

I have known Mark for a while now and I have no doubts about his knowledge of Solo Rules nor of his competence on the SEB, but perhaps I'm missing something.  IIRC, there were 3 members of the PC in Ft. Myers.  I know this because I was actually there AND personally gave a statement to them regarding two other protests.  I seems to me that Steve Hoelscher did not personally decide to throw out the results, but the committee voted on the action as a whole.  Since so few of the people spouting off here were not in Ft. Myers and since on other members of the PC have made statements, I can see how it would be easy to go after Hoelscher as Chief of Protest but it is ludicrous to assume (and we all know what that does) that he had some hidden agenda for tossing the results.  It is entirely possible that Hoelscher could have been the one "Nay" vote in a 2 to 1 decision.  I'm not trying to stand up for Steve (he's a big boy and can do that for himself) but to call for the resignation of someone because a poor decision was made in his presence is foolish.  If that was the case, we would have been able to get Dub-ya out of office a loooong time ago.  Besides "As the person who handpicked you to be my replacement on the Board" sounds a lot more like a hidden agenda than anything else.

---

Cliffie "The Wrench"
www.ChattanoogaMafia.com

Fastech Motorwerks
DSP 98 BMW 328iS

"I don't know where we are going, but there is no sense in being late."

Just who was on the protest committee, or was it a secret tribunal.

Will you confirm or deny that the members were

1) Harry V. Gina

2) Clint Torus

3) Shelly Farts

 

---

Trying to get faster

David, dood, ya gotta give it a rest....

---

In slow, out fast.
In fast, out backwards.

NotAMurasama:

Judge for yourself as to the danger/non-danger of the top and turn speeds of this run,

It seems to me that the issue is whether, if similar  speeds became the norm across many events at many different sites with varying degrees of boundary hazards, that would create an undue risk to competitors, spectators or property.  It seems that this is the intent of the rule under which the protest was filed.  Unfortunately, "should not normally" is not a bright line standard.

My observation is that 2.1.a. is a "course safety and layout" rule, as opposed to a "course design" rule.  Is this relevant, or am I splitting hairs?  Perhaps we should clarify to whose attention perceived violations of various sections of the rules should be brought.  If this had been brought to the SSS as a safety concern, we would have all been more comfortable with the application of judgment to the decision, would we not?  However, being brought to the Protest Committee, who, IMO, are more strictly constrained in their rulings by the letter of the Solo Rules than an SSS, the opportunity for the application of judgment was more restricted.

Taking out the emotion of lost times or fear of impact on future course designs, I think it's only fair to ask yourself how you think you could possibly give a technical ("legal" if you will) ruling on "should not normally".  The first sentence of 2.1.a. says that "courses must".  This is much more clear.  Of course, "lower gears" is less so, but I think there's a point in here somewhere.  Oh yeah, it's that the current wording of the rules, without clarifiction on whether non-compliance with this "guideline" should be brought as a rules or a safety issue, puts whoever is asked to rule on the issue in an un-enviable position.  I trust that everyone inovlved did their best, within the current rules, as stated, exercising judgment and integrity.

---

Aaron Hull
Northwest Ohio Region
Occasional co-driver of: STS - '91 Saturn SC; FS - '95 Z28 1LE

David Lehman:

Just who was on the protest committee, or was it a secret tribunal.

Dave -

You're not funny so give it a rest.  Every time I see a post from you, I go looking for the ignore button.

If you don't have something to say that's relevant to the conversation, please STFU.

---

Bradley Lamont
2003 Chevrolet Corvette Z-06
#198 SS - SCCA Solo II/ProSolo

Sorry Lamont,

I really do need to STFU.

By the way do you and your dad Fred, still have that junkyard in El Segundo.

 

I am done----unless others wish me to respond.

till next time........

 

PS----Sorry to hear the bad news about Aunt Esther

---

Trying to get faster