SCCAForums.com

hullaj:

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.

 

Excellent, excellent points. Regardless of the motivation - or the outcome - this protest points out several items that ideally should be clarified, the most obvious are the meanings of the terms: "turn", "unprepared", and "should not normally".

"Should not normally" alone, While Robert took one view (and the PC agreed with him), I see three obvious possible interpretations (there are probably more), in the order of least restricitve to most:

1. "Normally" referring to events. As in most events are under these limits, but given proper site and conditions, speeds outside the defined norm would be allowed.
2. "Normally" referring to curves at a particular event (i.e., the definition Robert and the PC used in this case). Most curves should be within the limits, but some of the corners for some cars could be outside the limits.
3. "Normally" referring to normal driving. As in the limits should not be exceeded unless someone takes a really bad or unanticipated (i.e., not normal) line that allows them to temporarily exceed the limits (probably to the detriment of their time shortly thereafter).

IMO, the Ft. Myers course was definitely not adherent to the 3rd definition, possibly - and arguably depending on the definition of "unprepared" and "turn" - not adherent to the 2nd, but was probably adherent to the first definition. That is, I thought that given the site and conditions, while the course and speeds may have in some cases exceeded the normal guidelines, the course was safe with limited hazard. Many elements of the Ft. Myers course, without question, would be very unsafe on the typical parking lot site, though. But as stated in my earlier post, I'd hate to see hard rules that make for a safe course on small lots, unnecessarily restrict the courses for larger locations (such as Buckingham Field).

You touch on something else that I haven't seen discussed here or anywhere else. That is whether 1.3 and 2 are design rules for fairness of competition, safety, or both. Personally, I've never read into the solo guidelines/rules anything relating course design to fairness of the competition or class equity, or, as some have suggested, what is and what is not a Solo II course. One might point to 1.2.1 or 1.2.2 as providing this kind of language, but in my opinion, those paragraphs are purely subjective, and there is nothing concrete enough to be usable for that purpose - in a protest. In my understanding, safety and "hazard" are the operating factors for the rules/guidelines in 1.3 and 2, and as such, the SSS's should be the people consulted if the course is deemed to be outside the rules.

Incidentally, I do not know whether in this case the event SSS was notified or consulted regarding the concern, but I know first hand that other on-duty SSS's (e.g., myself and other friends working as heat SSS's) were completely unaware of the situation until Monday morning.

NotAMurasama:

You touch on something else that I haven't seen discussed here. That is whether 1.3 and 2 are design rules for fairness of competition, safety, or both. Personally, I've never read into the solo guidelines/rules anything relating course design to fairness of the competition or class equity, or, as some have suggested, what is and what is not a Solo II course.

Many of the course design rules are intertwined with the rest of the ruleset in just this manner, whether it is called out explicitly or not.  Perhaps a clearer example would be the minimum gate width (2.2.B) or the stage line to start line distance (6.5.A) -- by changing those you could affect the competitive balance in many classes, but that is not called out explicitly in the rulebook.

Granted, those examples have little wiggle room, unlike many of the other course design rules, but I think they serve to illustrate the interconnectedness of the rules.

msirota:

Many of the course design rules are intertwined with the rest of the ruleset in just this manner, whether it is called out explicitly or not.  Perhaps a clearer example would be the minimum gate width (2.2.B) or the stage line to start line distance (6.5.A) -- by changing those you could affect the competitive balance in many classes, but that is not called out explicitly in the rulebook.

Granted, those examples have little wiggle room, unlike many of the other course design rules, but I think they serve to illustrate the interconnectedness of the rules.

I concur that those rules are arguably related more to competition than safety. As you point out, those examples are far more concrete in their wording. 2.2 in particular is full of "shall"s which in most legal matters are treated differently than "will"s or "not normally exceed". The protest in the Ft. Myers case - if internet rumour is correct - is founded on 2.1.A, in section 2.1 which is titled "Course Safety and Layout Rules", and every clause within 2.1 appears to be directly related to making the course safety and limiting hazard.

Does 2.1 affect the competion? Absolutely. But so does variation within course design in general. Is it a point and shoot kind of course? Is it a speed maintenance course? Do some cars have to drop to 1st gear to be competitive where others do not?

Certainly if the intent of 2.1 is to insure a "proper" competition, some clarification would be in order. Personally, I'd prefer to - at least in the written rules - keep safety and competition rules separate, say in section 2.1 and 2.2. One might argue that that was the intent of 2.1 and 2.2 already, even if it is not clear. But it makes good sense to keep them separate, just as it makes sense to keep respsonsibility for safety and fair competition separate in the running of events. It eliminates the possibility of conflict of interest. It's one of the reasons why - I believe - event chairs are not allowed to be SSS for an event.

NotAMurasama:

Does 2.1 affect the competion? Absolutely. But so does variation within course design in general. Is it a point and shoot kind of course? Is it a speed maintenance course? Do some cars have to drop to 1st gear to be competitive where others do not?

Certainly if the intent of 2.1 is to insure a "proper" competition, some clarification would be in order. Personally, I'd prefer to - at least in the written rules - keep safety and competition rules separate, say in section 2.1 and 2.2. One might argue that that was the intent of 2.1 and 2.2 already, even if it is not clear. But it makes good sense to keep them separate, just as it makes sense to keep respsonsibility for safety and fair competition separate in the running of events.

I don't disagree with your concept, but it just won't work -- sure, the course design rules can be quite clearly all about safety, but that doesn't prevent the classing system from being dependent on them.  It's a commutative relationship.  Once something not safety related depends on it, it's no longer just a safety rule; it's impossible to keep safety rules separate from everything else.

To clarify, it is not necessariliy the intent of 2.1 to ensure proper competition, but 2.1 is still part of the system of rules that work to ensure fair competition.

I think you're trying to determine who's job it is to enforce 2.1, and trying to make the answer be the safety steward.  Certainly the safety steward does have a considerable amount of responsibility here, but that doesn't mean that others don't also have responsibility.  It is possible for 2.1 to be violated without there being a safety issue.

5.4 basically states that the SSS is responsible for 1.3 and 2.1.  That clarifies it a little for me.

Perhaps we need to lay down a little more formally in the rules what most people probably know, which is that it's only reasonable to approach the responsible event official and give them an opportunity to address your concern before you file a protest.  [This is not a reference in any way to Ft Myers because I have no idea whatsoever what went on there]

BTW, Mark, I had to look up commutative.

---

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

hullaj:

5.4 basically states that the SSS is responsible for 1.3 and 2.1.  That clarifies it a little for me.

Perhaps we need to lay down a little more formally in the rules what most people probably know, which is that it's only reasonable to approach the responsible event official and give them an opportunity to address your concern before you file a protest.  [This is not a reference in any way to Ft Myers because I have no idea whatsoever what went on there]

BTW, Mark, I had to look up commutative.

Good catch. I'd never noticed that before, but it confirms what I've always thought, and was trying to articulate here. That is that 1.3 and 2.1 were primarily present for safety and limitation of hazard purposes.

msirota:

I don't disagree with your concept, but it just won't work -- sure, the course design rules can be quite clearly all about safety, but that doesn't prevent the classing system from being dependent on them.  It's a commutative relationship.  Once something not safety related depends on it, it's no longer just a safety rule; it's impossible to keep safety rules separate from everything else.

To clarify, it is not necessariliy the intent of 2.1 to ensure proper competition, but 2.1 is still part of the system of rules that work to ensure fair competition.

I think you're trying to determine who's job it is to enforce 2.1, and trying to make the answer be the safety steward.  Certainly the safety steward does have a considerable amount of responsibility here, but that doesn't mean that others don't also have responsibility.  It is possible for 2.1 to be violated without there being a safety issue.

I definitely agree that 1.3 and 2.1, as a system of rules helps to define - even with its loose wording - the courses that are acceptable from a safety standpoint for solo events, and that indirectly affects and helps to define the competition itself. IMHO, 2.2 is more directly related to the competition itself, and probably not coincidentally is worded with much more objective language. In any case, I see little in the wording within the rules that ties 1.3 and 2.1 to the fairness of the competition. I see nothing in 2.1. Possibly 1.3 where it says "speed alone is not the operative factor in determining what is and is not a proper Solo event.". But any strength in that statement is immediately weakened with the next statement which emphasizes the primary purpose of 1.3 as safety: "Hazard is the operative word, and hazards must not exceed those encountered in legal highway travel.".

In any case, I believe you are correct that it is commutative in practice, and the relationship is there from a practical standpoint. But I don't personally believe that the relationship is definitive enough for 1.3 or 2.1 to be used specifically to protest the course from a fairness of competition standpoint. I think the proper route to address 1.3 or 2.1 is through the SSS. Incidentally, in Robert's post explaining his position, he never hints that his protest was for fairness of competition standpoint, only safety ("I was concered that with he speeds that we saw on Sunday that people would take these kinds of course designs home and try to design one on a lot smaller than the one we saw. The course was a saftey nightmare and there were several people that had a hard time stopping at the finish."). Having been there, I disagree with his 2nd statement, although I would agree that the finish could have been made easier than it was (hard as it was to stop, AFAIK noone hit cones after the finish). And his first statement is - IMHO - absolutely ludicrous. No responsible course designer would blindly use portions of the Ft. Myers course without taking the location and hazards of any lot into consideration, and no responsible SSS would allow it.

Another related thought to ponder... I've always thought it was ironic that 1.3 specifically states that there are exceptions given within 2.1 ("WITH LIMITED EXCEPTIONS AS DESCRIBED IN 2.1"), although I've never really been able to identify specifically what those exceptions are. Furthermore, 1.3 gives an example where something outside the guidelines is safer than something within the guidelines ("...it is quite possible to set up a course on which speeds do not exceed 45 mph, but which is more hazardous than another course on which 65 mph is attainable."). That is, of course, assuming 65 mph is not "in the low 60's".

I humbly feel I am qualified to chime in here: not only was I at the event, I was one of the SSS for the 4th heat and (though I am loath to admit it) I took the video of Ian's run that has been posted on this and other forums. If you replay the video and ignore the awe-inspiring driving and concentrate on the surroundings you will notice (or not notice, depending on the video frame) the extremely large amount of runoff room on either side of the course in either direction. The sheer size of this venue, coupled with the grippy concrete surface, lends itself to course designs that few other sites can accomodate. Thus, this is not what I would consider a "normal" site and therefore falls in the grey area of the ambiguity of the various rules refenced above. I can also tell you first hand that, as a SSS, I was not consulted regarding the perceived safety of the course and only learned of the protest while waiting for the trophy presentation. As both a SSS and a competitor I never considered this course unduly unsafe. Like Terry, I have no dog in this fight as my position did not change from Saturday to Sunday, but I am hopeful that this entire situation will serve as a learning experience so that a (I'm looking for a word a little less harsh than fiasco here) such as this can be prevented in the future.

---

If you choose not to decide you still have made a choice.

So, how does this all tie in with the 3-5 Feb, SEB meeting's minutes in the March fastrack stating, "Regions are reminded that Solo speed constraints are among the mandatory provisions of the Solo Rules,..."   What does mandatory mean in this usage? 

 

Michael

---

Mike Whitehouse

Just a quick question: Maybe someone has already asked this but,

how many people spun out or DNF'd this course?

NEWS FLASH

Dateline Topeka......

The law firm of Howard, Fine, and Howard has just come back with a binding opinion on the event.

It was all a dream.  It seems that when Dorothy Gale went out into that storm, upset of course because Ms. Gultch was going to take Toto away........

Well anyway as you all know she dreamed the whole thing up in her head.

There never was a SCCA.  Autocrossing never existed.  Traffic cones are supposed to direct traffic, not driven around by lunatics in parking lots.......

However there is still the issue of all these credit card charges to "Tire Rack", that still need to be looked into.

now back to our regularily scheduled program...."my co-driver is a crack whore"

---

Trying to get faster

vetteman:

Just a quick question: Maybe someone has already asked this but,

how many people spun out or DNF'd this course?

I can't say how many spun, and then finished the course, but from the results, I count 32 DNF's of approximately 660 total runs. Incidentally, there were far more (maybe 100?) DNF's on Saturday's non-protested course.

matchbox:

So, how does this all tie in with the 3-5 Feb, SEB meeting's minutes in the March fastrack stating, "Regions are reminded that Solo speed constraints are among the mandatory provisions of the Solo Rules,..."   What does mandatory mean in this usage? 

 

Michael

I haven't read the fastrack in question, but the mandatory provisions of 1.3 and 2.1 are worded with such vagueness, that one could (IMHO) reasonably argue any safe course is compliant. Such words as "generally", "are contemplated", "reasonable and prudent", "not normally",  "unprepared", and "does not preclude reasonable..." leave the exact speed constraints identified as mandatory ambiguous - as long as the course is safe. In fact, as I pointed out in an earlier post, section 1.3 has a specific example where it states a course that is above the numbers (65) stated in the guideline (low 60's) is safer than one that is far below (45)  the guideline numbers.

All that being said, the numbers that have been reported online and that are fairly reliable are within the guidelines. I'm speaking of Darrin Disimo's data logger numbers of 62 on his car and 64 on a BSP car, both driven well and fast. Also of the A-Stock S2000's all hitting there rev-limiters in 2nd gear (62-64 MPH depending on tire). I firmly believe that Ian in the GT3 was doing considerably more than that, although the apocryphal tales of him being clocked at 83 MPH are AFAIK pure fable. ARAIK, there was nobody there "clocking" anybody. Further, he states emphatically he couldn't have been going that fast based on gearing and lack of rev-limiter hits. My personal guess is Ian may have been doing ~68 two times on the course, and maybe ~75 at one place on the course. Outside the guidelines, but then again, Ian's driving is "not normal".

As for the cornering speeds, I don't know of anybody who checked their speedometer during cornering. Darrin might be able to give info from his data logger, but I've not seen that data. My guess is many of the turns were at or above 45 MPH. But, again, the rules are very vague, from "not normally", to "unprepared", to "turn" itself. In this context, what is a turn anyway?  Apex of every corner? Corner entry? Corner exit? Slaloms?Anytime the wheel is not straight? And what is prepared? If you ask Peter (owner of the GT3), myself, Darrin, or any of the drivers at the National Tour what he/she has done to prepare his/her car, I doubt any would say "absolutely nothing"? Why refer to the ambiguous "unprepared" when the previous rule refers to specific classes of cars?

I think everyone who reads these rules and evaluates them critically can and will have differing opinions. They will also recognize, with all the abiguities and imprecise terms, that one could successfully argue a wide variety of different "hard" rules. The sections 1.3 and 2.1, as pointed out by section 5.4, are safety rules, and violations should be brought to the attention of and policed by the SSS, not the protest committee.

I believe they are written ambiguously for a number of reasons (litigation, site and condition considerations), but that doesn't mean the guidelines could not be better written with less ambiuous wordings, while still not putting hard and fast limits. If as a result of this situation they reword the guidelines to give better guidelines, that would be the best outcome of this whole thing.

---

Mike Whitehouse

matchbox:

Of course this is all just my opinion and worth every penny you paid for it, zero.  :)

Right on the mark - IMHO.

PS. Your opinion, that is, not your guess at the worth of it

NotAMurasama:

The sections 1.3 and 2.1, as pointed out by section 5.4, are safety rules, and violations should be brought to the attention of and policed by the SSS, not the protest committee.

I was with you until here.

Through this entire thread, you've been trying to pin down these rules as "safety rules", and have been trying to say that the SSS has the exclusive authority over them.  That simply isn't true.

Certainly the SSS has the responsibility of enforcing these rules for purposes of safety.  Nobody's arguing against that.

However, there is nothing that says that the standard protest procedure does not apply to these rules.  The non-safety aspects of the rules can and should be enforced through the protest procedure, and there potentially are non-safety violations with regard to classing fairness.

I don't pretend to know what the protest or PC decision were really about, and I wasn't there, but conceptually speaking there is nothing inherently wrong with a protest being filed or heard on these rules.

msirota:

NotAMurasama:

The sections 1.3 and 2.1, as pointed out by section 5.4, are safety rules, and violations should be brought to the attention of and policed by the SSS, not the protest committee.

I was with you until here.

Through this entire thread, you've been trying to pin down these rules as "safety rules", and have been trying to say that the SSS has the exclusive authority over them.  That simply isn't true.

Certainly the SSS has the responsibility of enforcing these rules for purposes of safety.  Nobody's arguing against that.

However, there is nothing that says that the standard protest procedure does not apply to these rules.  The non-safety aspects of the rules can and should be enforced through the protest procedure, and there potentially are non-safety violations with regard to classing fairness.

I don't pretend to know what the protest or PC decision were really about, and I wasn't there, but conceptually speaking there is nothing inherently wrong with a protest being filed or heard on these rules.

I'm afraid will have to agree to disagree then. And that's okay.

Yes, my opinion is that 1.3 and 2.1 are safety rules, and are the concern of the SSS. That was my sense from the beginning based on the wording of those paragraphs. Nighttrain pointed out the statement in 5.4 defining the duties of the SSS that "In Solo events, safety issues are those such as listed in SR 1.3 and 2.1.", and I take that - right or wrong - as confirmation of my prior understanding of 1.3 and 2.1. I've since found further wording, in multiple places in appendix E explicitly detailing the SSS as responsible for 2.1.

It indeed may be that I'm reading too much into it, and that 1.3 and 2.1 may in practice and common usage be used to protest more from a contest issue, as opposed to safety. I would definitely not argue that these paragraphs do not effect the contest, as they certainly do.

The 5.4 paragraph specifically limits the SSS control of course design to safety issues (1.3 and 2.1), and hints that the SSS is not in control of other aspects of course design (I'm thinking 2.2 and elsewhere). This I think implies the separation that I've alluded to in prior posts. I agree with you that there is nothing limiting someone from protesting based on 1.3 and 2.1, but it is my opinion, that if it's not a safety issue, it's going to be - and should be - a hard sell. First, because the rules themselves point to 1.3 and 2.1 specifically as safety issues, and within the SSS's domain. Second, because the rules themselves (1.3 and 2.1) are worded so vaguely, it would be very hard to draw the lines of where a rule is broken from a competition standpoint. After all, you have to be fair to the people affected negatively by an exact "hard" limit inferred from 2.1, when all of the statements in 1.3 and 2.1 are so "softly" worded.

Furthermore - and as I think about it, this is very important -  if I'm the SCCA risk management folks, I'd certainly want there to be absolutely no doubt that if any of the safety rules (1.3,2.1) are in suspected violation, then the first person notified should be the SSS.

If nothing else, this situation and the debates that have been going on here and elsewhere have shown that there are several things that definitely could be clarified. A good lawyer could argue the words of 1.3 and 2.1 to suit whatever his needs were, which is maybe not a good thing. Whether the SEB does anything to clarify or not remains to be seen. But here's to hoping...

I feel a this point (having been quoted) that I need to clarify MY position in this, which is that: a) the rules do state that any decision, action or omission by any official is protestable; but that b) we need to re-look the way we address issues before they become protests.  If we make it easy for a competitor to determine the right official to approach for their specific concern (or the Chief Steward, if they don't know) then we can have the opportunity to address their concern (either by correcting it or by showing them why it's not a problem) before holding the results hostage with a protest.

It's a member-driven club.  Let's give cooperation a chance before we litigate.

---

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

hullaj:

I feel a this point (havin