SCCAForums.com

edited out

---

"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

Yes, well, I guess I'm just a hopeless optimist.  I tend to believe that a significant number of conflicts arise out of miscommunications or lack of dissemination of information.  I believe that most of our members (from whom event officials are drawn) basically want to do the right thing by each other, and if an opportunity to correct/improve something in a way that makes sense is brought before them in a non-hostile way, they'll respond.

Competition does not have to be synonymous with conflict.

---

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

TeamRX8:

Rick,

You are correct that the rules were blatantly broken and that there was no cooperation, except that it will ultimately come out that it is the PC, not the event officials, who perpetrated this. 

Your judgement is very clouded.  I hope you enjoy the taste of your feet.

ps: Ft Myers results are now updated as FINAL:  http://scca.org/Event/Result.asp?Ref2=245

MS

My feet tast like chicken... dosent everyone's? :)

My post was phiosophical in nature.... I've got zero dog in the fight, other then knowing the parties involved and the event chair/hosting club.  How my judgement is clouded I don't know... I'm pretty clear..... now my judgement may be a little jaded after being in this club for 25+ years... ;)

I spoke with Robert at the SEDIV divisional and while we have slightly different opinions, I think we both have a comfortable understanding and appreciation of each others posistion on the matter.

As for what this will look like in the end.. time will tell...


One last point... being able to protest (or be protested by) your competitor, and still maintain a profisional/friendly relationship with him or her is a sign of true sportsmanship.

Rick

---

Rick Cone
Atlanta Region Director

STS2 #98
1991 Mazda Miata - Aqua

sorry Rick, it didn't read that way to but if you say so I believe it, I edited my comments out

Mark

---

"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

No harm no foul....

As someone I once protested told me.... "Its all good!"

Rick

---

Rick Cone
Atlanta Region Director

STS2 #98
1991 Mazda Miata - Aqua

I'm still trying to figure out which rules were blatantly broken? To me "not normally"  means if I have a course with a 100mph straight away and a 60 mph turn, I'm still abiding b y the rules, if everything else is slower and there's no danger to anyone else. Am I wrong with this thinking, I've never designed a course that fast, but the way I read I could and still be legal according to 2.1. ???? 

vetteman,

I know I am going to take flak for this but, you see, that is the problem.  To me that is not an autocross course and violates SR 1.2.1. among many others.  Your course no longer maintains the hazards to those encountered in normal street driving as stated in this section.  It could be safe but violates this section none the less. [Edit:  In this case I am using safe to mean that there is lots of runn-off area and no obstacales.  The increased hazard is caused by more kenitic energy, incresed chance of equipment failure and most peoples unfamiliararty with the increased speed.] If people are going to make and interpret rules they need to start at the beginning.  Through out the Solo II rulebook, it emphasizes that Solo II is a test of vehicle handling, driver skill and maneuverability, not performance. 

We use those words, and the SCCA insurance, to convince property owners to allow us to use their land as a place to hold our events.  "No sir, we are not racing, we are conducting a non-speed driving skill contest."  That is a darn hard sell at 100 MPH.

Perhaps these sections such as SR 1.2.1 and 1.2.2. are what should have been protested since they too are mandatory.  What ever SCCA definition of madatory turns out to be?

---

Mike Whitehouse

I agree, but if you just use those rules you get into the last part of 1.2.1  "legal highway driving", which in California is 65 mph and 70 mph. So by that rule as long as I have no hazards to spectators,property or participants- I can run my whole event at 60 to 70 miles an hour. again the extreme, (but by this rule legal I think as I read it)

It doesn't say "speeds" encountered in legal highway driving.  It says "hazards" encountered in legal highway driving.  The manuveurs executed during an autocross are not present in normal highway driving.  You don't have course workers standing by the side of the road in normal highway driving (not counting the occasional convict forced to pick up trash).

---

177 STX

Good point about selling to site owners.  I hadn't thought of that.

I think we're all basically in agreement here in that we seem to all believe that solo courses can, under the right circumstances, contain sections allowing speeds in excess of the guidelines in 2.1.a.  I think we may also be in agreement that the rules allow for exceptional circumstances where this would be permitted.  Should this be clarified?  Perhaps.  Is this kept intentionally vague for risk management (read as legal) and site acquisition reasons?  I have no idea.

My suggestion is to change the wording to say - "Courses shall be laid out so that it is not possible for the fastest stock and street prepared cars to achieve speeds in excess of 65mph in straight sections and 45mph in corners.  Exceptions shall be allowed when, in the judgment of the SSS, such speeds shall not pose an undue hazard."  That's what was in my letter to the SEB.  However, as you folks have wisely pointed out, Risk Management and Site Acquisition might not like that.

---

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

hullaj:

Good point about selling to site owners.  I hadn't thought of that.

I think we're all basically in agreement here in that we seem to all believe that solo courses can, under the right circumstances, contain sections allowing speeds in excess of the guidelines in 2.1.a.  I think we may also be in agreement that the rules allow for exceptional circumstances where this would be permitted.  Should this be clarified?  Perhaps.  Is this kept intentionally vague for risk management (read as legal) and site acquisition reasons?  I have no idea.

My suggestion is to change the wording to say - "Courses shall be laid out so that it is not possible for the fastest stock and street prepared cars to achieve speeds in excess of 65mph in straight sections and 45mph in corners.  Exceptions shall be allowed when, in the judgment of the SSS, such speeds shall not pose an undue hazard."  That's what was in my letter to the SEB.  However, as you folks have wisely pointed out, Risk Management and Site Acquisition might not like that.

While I like the wording, to some degree - it's definitely more objective than the current wording - I think probably it wouldn't work, because I could see the situation where someone makes a course on a small skid pad or parking lot that adheres to this statement, but is highly unsafe, and someone would cry foul, either due to the course not being safe and the SSS not acting, or the SSS altering a course and the designer complaining that the course was "compliant". I think the wording of 2.1 and 1.3 is intentionally vague because they want to emphasize that site conditions, and hazard, play so much in to what a safe course can be for a particular site. I'm sure litigation also plays a big part in the wording, as well. Ultimately, the course designer, event chair, event steward, and, most importantly, the SSS have to be ever vigilant to make sure that the intents of 1.3 and 2.1 are met, taking the site and other conditions into consideration.

That doesn't mean that the language couldn't be made more objective. Maybe better defining the meaning of "not normally", "unprepared", and "turn".  I'm not sure what the best way to handle this situation is, though.

I think your on the right track with wording. but how about

" Courses need to be designed with appropriate and managable speedlimits in mind" using a stock car for reference or something to that extent.

What is an "un-prepared car", in stock the minute you change something let's say the exhaust, you have just prepared that car for racing or to improve it's performance. So, to me that can't be used as an "un-prepared" car for setting the speed. I agree some courses have gotten too fast, but the cars have also gotten better since this rule was written. We have some events where a SS Corvette takes TTD by seconds over some really good prepared cars. The only way I see policing the speed of an event (Nat. Tour, Nationals,etc) is set the course up rent a car and run it, if it exceeds the limit redesign the course until it doesn't. We need to stop getting all Butthurt over speed more than 1/2 of Us drive the highways (un-controlled environment) at more than the posted speed limit and theres a better chance of getting hurt there than on an Auto-x course (controlled environment). Yes, the speeds have gone up, but so have the cars. just a humble opinion.

Unprepared should read "a car not set-up to run in Street Prepared or higher"

C Stock or STS cars might be the benchmark or if that's too fast, E Stock.

---

Bob Beamesderfer '94 CSP Miata
Cal Club and SDR

Sidewinder:

Unprepared should read "a car not set-up to run in Street Prepared or higher"

C Stock or STS cars might be the benchmark or if that's too fast, E Stock.

Maybe the SEB will clarify this for us, but on the face of it, the word "unprepared" implies - in my mind, at least - much less than you describe. I don't think there is one car owner at a National Tour that would answer the question "What did you do to prepare your car?" with the answer "abolutely nothing". And whatever was intended, why wouldn't they use the defined term "stock class car" instead of unprepared, when in the previous sentence they use the term "stock class car"?

When I see "unprepared" in the rule book, I take it to mean any car that is legal to run in a category lower than Prepared.  The word does need to be defined as to its meaning in the rule book. 

---

2002 Mercedes C230k, retired, 2005 Nationals STU DFL

1969 Beach Solo Vee and 1985 Lynx B Solo Vee

Lynn:

When I see "unprepared" in the rule book, I take it to mean any car that is legal to run in a category lower than Prepared.  The word does need to be defined as to its meaning in the rule book. 

Absolutely. Without a definition, the last three posts define "unprepared" in three different ways, each of which could reasonably be argued:

Sidewinder -         Less than Street Prepared Class, non-inclusive.

NotAMurasama - Stock Class with no preparation.

Lynn -                   Less than Prepared.Class, non-inclusive.

 

Lynn:

When I see "unprepared" in the rule book, I take it to mean any car that is legal to run in a category lower than Prepared.  The word does need to be defined as to its meaning in the rule book. 

Then why does it not say "un-Prepared" or even "non-Prepared"?

In discussing this with current and former SEB members, there seems to be differing opinions as to the original intent of this word.  However, knowing from personal experience how closely all the SEB's on which I served looked at rulebook language, I have to believe that the reference here was to a novice who comes to his first SCCA event with his daily driver, IOW, a completely "unprepared" vehicle.

Section 1.3 says in part, "...by definition a Solo II event is open to a total novice in any car that can pass safety inspection, and courses must take this into consideration."  Now in that same context, go read the sentence in 2.1.A that uses "unprepared cars".  See the connection?  See how sometimes you have to read more than one sentence, paragraph, or section of the rulebook to get the big picture?

GH

Yes, a definition needs to be hammered out and should be applied on an emergency basis. And even Stock class would be too broad. Which Stock class car? C6 SS Vette or H Stock Focus?

---

Bob Beamesderfer '94 CSP Miata
Cal Club and SDR

GH Sharp:

Lynn:

When I see "unprepared" in the rule book, I take it to mean any car that is legal to run in a category lower than Prepared.  The word does need to be defined as to its meaning in the rule book. 

Then why does it not say "un-Prepared" or even "non-Prepared"?

In discussing this with current and former SEB members, there seems to be differing opinions as to the original intent of this word.  However, knowing from personal experience how closely all the SEB's on which I served looked at rulebook language, I have to believe that the reference here was to a novice who comes to his first SCCA event with his daily driver, IOW, a completely "unprepared" vehicle.

Section 1.3 says in part, "...by definition a Solo II event is open to a total novice in any car that can pass safety inspection, and courses must take this into consideration."  Now in that same context, go read the sentence in 2.1.A that uses "unprepared cars".  See the connection?  See how sometimes you have to read more than one sentence, paragraph, or section of the rulebook to get the big picture?

GH

But GH how do you know the connection is really there? The sections don't cross-reference, so drawing a conclusion is purely conjecture. If the SEB wants it that way, then it needs to be phrased that way. Anything else leaves us with the guessing game we have here.

---

Bob Beamesderfer '94 CSP Miata
Cal Club and SDR

I'm still not suggesting that we change the first or the last sentence of 2.1.a, just the ones in the middle to clarify "should not normally" and "unprepared cars".  In fact, the "fastest portions...most remote" part should probably stay too - perhaps modified to say "from any potential hazards", since a bottomless crevasse, as a ridiculous example, is really neither property nor spectator.

It's just hard, per 1.3 to let the rule be common sense and sound judgment.  You'd hope that could work, but, as the saying goes, "common sense is an uncommon virtue".  The challenge is to balance giving enough guidelines to guard against foolish judgment while allowing enough flexibility for the wise to exercise judgment.  If you don't mind officials adhering to the spirit of the rules, while possibly violating the strict letter of them, then you can write a very elaborate and specific set of rules.  However, if you have a bunch of paddock lawyers, you have to either keep the rules vague in order to allow officials to defend their exercise of judgment (informally and/or through protest), or you are stuck with strict compliance to the letter of the rules, which may result in less interesting competitions.

---

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