Real rules vs sorta-rules

[Rabbit Farmer]

irst, I had a discussion with Paul about shoes at Ascutney. Re-reading the rules I was wrong. Somewhat confused by rally rules but that is no excuse. I had nylon on my shoes. I won't repeat that.

Julie didn't know about this rule until I mentioned it to her while packing for Ascutney (Thursday night or Friday morning of that weekend). She ended up purchasing men's (what looks like) skating shoots. Leather... they work. I normally shoot for running flats.

[Challenger392]

Would it work to just expand the 2 strikes rule to include multiple events? As in, 2 breakouts at a single event bans your car for that hill, but being banned from 2 hills gets your car banned completely until it is caged? Just an idea. Still let's you tryout your car but keeps people from a bonzai run at every hill for a year.

[Mopar 151w2]

Unfortunately, the last thing the individual involved wants is a reasonable solution. I think that our "death penalty" is plenty strong enough, as a rational deterrent. Much as I would disagree with Dan Whitney (aka "Larry the Cable Guy"), there is one principle of his that applies here: You can't fix stupid!

[Chief Geek]

Sorry for poking a hornet's nest and then being off-line for a couple days.

It seems like everyone that has posted agrees with the same basic principal. I heartily agree that "cultural pressure" should be used by all of us to prevent our hard-working, generous, and sometimes under-appreciated chair-persons, timing-scoring workers, and safety inspectors from having to do the unpleasant.

The hard part is writing a rule where the actual risk is created by something that's immeasurable, driver intent.

If this were easy, we'd have done it already. I think the best we can do is adjust the rules to reduce "gaming the rules" best we can, and, as people figure out new "tricks", adjust to handle them.

Since our goal is to limit risk, and the actual amount of risk is controlled by the driver, I think any penalty should apply to the driver only. My irresponsibility shouldn't punish Rich, the co-owner of my uncaged car.

Here's my proposal:

1) The driver of an uncaged car receives a "safety warning" when they set a time less than the breakout time and more than, or equal to, 93% of the breakout time.

2) The driver of an uncaged car receives a "safety ban" when they set a time less than 93% of the breakout time.

3) When a driver receives a 2nd "safety warning", they receive a "safety ban".

4) No driver with a "safety ban" may run at NEHA events.

5) A driver's "safety warning" begins upon the first of: a) public release of the results containing the breakout run or b) verbal notification of the driver by any worker that they broken-out or have received a "safety warning". It is each driver's responsibility to be aware of the latest public release of results.

6) A "safety warning" persists until the completion of the next 5 NEHA events, independent of the driver's attendance.

7) A "safety ban" is removed after the driver has performed worker-duties at NEHA events for 4 days (equivalent to 4 mornings & 4 afternoons). Safety bans have no expiration time. Worker-duties performed prior to the ban have no bearing.

8) Unless otherwise specified during that day's drivers' meeting, the maximum speed during familiarization-runs & return-runs must be substantially below breakout pace for the entire run.

9) Any driver not following the spirit of the fam-run & return-run speed limit may, at the discression of the event-chair, control, or finish workers, receive a "safety warning" or a "safety ban".

10) The points-keeper is responsible for recording drivers with safety warnings or safety bans. Prior to each event, the points-keeper must inform the event chairperson(s) of which drivers have warnings and bans. Within each event, the chairperson is responsible for ensuring control and start workers are aware of which drivers are banned.

11) It is the banned driver's responsibility to inform the each event chairperson and points-keeper, in a timely manner, of each day they have worked. The points-keeper must credit banned-driver work-days upon consent of the event's chairperson(s).

12) Cars with more than 300 hp (crank or wheel) must have a roll cage. During tech, the Technical Inspector(s) will decide if a car meets this rule. When uncertain, the they must rule that a cage is required. The Chief Technical Inspector's ruling is final.


The goal of #12 is to prevent sandbagging. Looking at Ascutney's results, every car that might have run afoul of #12 actually broke out. Every one.

Paul

[Number_5]

1st endorsement.
Could stand a lot of refinement, but covers the problem very well.
John Marsha

[BugEyeRex]

Why not take the competition away from uncaged cars? Have an uncaged class that is an exibition class. No rank, no points, no trophies, limited incentive. If we can make it easier for the uncaged cars times that go over breakout NOT to be printed that would be good. Many lunch breaks have shown uncaged cars times that brokeout by accident.

I know scoring can be difficult.

[Rabbit Farmer]

Chris. We do not want to penalize those uncaged drivers who are trying to follow the rules. For example, the daewoo cannot breakout, but it is still fun trying to beat the other drivers for time and Daewoo-points (trademark pending).

[kindabratty328]

Not to cramp anyone's style, but I would love to see this much thought and energy being put into talking about the FUN, positive aspects of racing up a mountain. Burke is right around the corner and we could really use some upbeat chatter to get a few more entries, new and old. So, how about a little help here, everyone. Remember it's supposed to be FUN

Michele

[BugEyeRex]

Steve- Good point! Can't kill the Daewoo challenge!

Michele- You are absolutely right! We can all be worried about a potential accident causing us to shut down as an organization, but the reality is lack of entrants and volunteers will do it faster. Sometimes we forget that it take a lot of money and volunteer time to put on events.

[skimobile]

Figures lie and liars figure.
You never be able to completely eliminate the potential for people gaming the system. I do think however that (for lack of better argument) that OEM vehicle stock HP levels should be considered for having the "potential" to easily surpass the breakout time, and therefore require a cage for a speecific model.
ie.,Porsche 911, Shelby Mustang, etc... A new driver (such as myself) could easily gain rediculous speed on the straights and therefore increased potential to not make the next turn that follows.
Really the breakout time has no relevance, it's the potential for people to get in over their heads and crash (badly) that is the worrying part.
That said, I have an 03 WRX that I probably won't hit a breakout time but you know what? I caged it anyway.