Real rules vs sorta-rules

[Chief Geek]

First, let me say that I fully support NEHA's safety regulations as they stand. I think they make sense and draw a reasonable compromise between the competing needs of responsible competition, cost, and risk. Also, our workers and tech inspectors do a great job and make a huge contribution to the club. I hope they feel recognized because they deserve it.

The reason for my post is that some rules seem to have slipped into a grey area that I don't think is healthy or sustainable. To my mind, rules should either be A) enforced or B) removed. When we allow ambiguity and fuzziness to seep in, people will get out of sync with which rules are really rules vs those that have degraded into suggestions. I think this grey area risks the integrity of the club and can only lead to unhappiness or worse.

Some of the grey areas aren't too life-threatening like the several cases I saw of driving in nylon sneakers. Others are much more serious such as warp-speed fam-runs, un-caged cars continuing to run after more than one breakout, and un-caged cars putting in a monster breakout run last.

In my understanding, the breakout rule is there to prevent cars from exceeding the limits of their crash structure, even if the driver doesn't understand the ramification of that on themselves and everyone else on the hill. Uncontrolled fam runs, sand-bagging timed runs, and saving breakouts for last do not comply with the logic behind the rule.

My point is that if a rule no longer needed, let's remove it. If the club majority has said a rule is important enough to keep, we ALL must help enforce it by friendly persuasion and peer-pressure at a bare minimum.

There will always be those that don't care what their peers think of them, but Regulations rule #34 gives the chairperson the responsibility (not option) to reward "unacceptable behavior" with exclusion. No one wants to be the break-out-nazi, but, in my experience, functioning and healthy organizations place the groups goals above any one person.

We can't delegate the responsibility for maintaining our club's health to a few volunteer workers and organizers, this responsibility falls on all of us.

I bet the number of "indiscretions" will be greatly reduced with a few words, in private, between an over-cavalier driver and a chairperson or respected member. In all but the most extreme cases, people that get the same advice from multiple sources tend to change their behavior.

It's rare to find a person foolish enough, stubborn enough, or selfish enough to put the work of so many people, over so many years, at risk. If the club stumbles on to one of these unfortunate people, and official action is required, that person will decide if they will live within the club or not. Either way the club must maintain it's reason for being.

Paul

[Rabbit Farmer]

I can't disagree with anything you said.

One point I would like to echo is that we need to be self policing. People who breakout (more than likely they know it) need to make sure they don't do it again. The organizers and volunteers can't do everything.

As for the super fast end-of-the-day runs in a fast car.... that has bitten two people that have tried that. Philo in the first corner and Ascutney at the last corner. I hope that is a deterrent for future events. We spend the weekend working up to our fastest run to determine what does/doesn't work.

Unfortunately, it is a hard rule to enforce unless we have split times at various checkpoints.

Steve

[walterclark]

I agree with you Paul.

I am not sure rule or procedure changes would produce the desired results. Peer pressure may be more effective.

I think that if everyone made it clear that such acts are unacceptable behavior, rather than cheering them on (and by doing so making the responsibility of the event chairs even more difficult) it would have a more chilling effect on these than more rules. This of course requires that each individual participant adopt this attitude. I doubt that any of us would tolerate reckless behavior (outside the breakout) from anyone involved in an event, such as speeding thru the pits or racing on the bring down as those directly endanger others. Why do we appear to secretly (or publicly) applaud someone who deliberately puts all our hillclimbs at risk (I am speaking of the blatant breakout, not the one where someone in a fast car is a few seconds under the minimum).

From this point forward I plan to make it a point to the offender that I disapprove of such UN-sportsmanlike behavior. I can either be a lone jerk in this regard, or one of an overwhelming group, but it has to start somewhere.

[sachilles]

First, 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.

The non caged car thing has always been a tough issue. We want to enable folks to give the sport a try without the investment in a cage. I support that.
The problem are these bonzai runs. OUR rules as written permit them. Violate them and uh oh, your car can't comeback to that hill without a cage. Many times, the x cars are getting shakedown runs because the owner hasn't got the cage in there just yet. There is some sort of red mist that causes a driver to want to see just how fast their car can go....its natural, that is why we like this stuff. The red mist clouds your judgement, and away you go faster than you should. Who gives a flying fart, the rules let me do it, it must be ok. I know I was going to do it at philo, with my uncaged car. I was lined up a few cars behind Ryan in his beautiful VR4. I was getting a cage over the winter, I'll go fast this once, no harm, no foul. Then Ryan wrecked.

Anyone who runs restricted by the break out is timing themselves somehow. It might not be as accurate as the hill time, but it's close enough so they are in the ball park. There is NO reason on the planet, that if someone is determined to go slower than the breakout, that they CAN NOT accomplish that, NONE, ZERO. We allow it, so people do it.

My suggestion for the next rules meeting, based on Rule E.2.(b).
Non Caged cars get 10 seconds grace time for a whole hillclimb weekend, 5 seconds at Philo. The moment you are cumulatively 10.01 seconds faster than the breakout, your car is done forever at any hill. Doesn't matter if you cage it, your car is not welcome.
Example:
Ascutney long course break out 4:20
Car 123x posts a 4:19, 4:18, 4:17 and another 4:17. At this point they've used up 9 seconds. If they take more runs and go 4:19 or faster, then their car is done forever.
Car 456x posts a 4:21,4:21, 4:21 then does a 4:09, their car is done forever. (11 seconds)
car 789x posts a 4:30, 4:25, 4:16 then a 4:13, their car is done forever. (11 seconds)

Gives folks plenty of wiggle room, in case they goof timing themselves once or even twice. The more runs, the less wiggle room you have per run, but so what? Your first few runs before lunch were too fast, before you found out your times....not NEHA's problem. We shouldn't have to notify someone for this restriction to be in place. However, this should still allow a cushion for these folks so they know they have to be slower for the rest of the weekend. Don't feel like you can live with that risk, park your car.
I'm all for forgiving mistakes, but the bonzai run just needs to be against the rules.
Sandbagging is a whole different ball of wax, that I'm not sure how to govern without using the judgement of the control worker, or hill workers. That is where policing ourselves comes in to play.....but as drivers it's tough to know when that is happening without getting reports from the hill.

I guess my point is this free run seems awfully foolish. If it's a bad idea for every other run, why is it OK once a weekend?

[KevinGale]

We already have a rule that was put in to handle the banzai run. If you break out by more than 10 seconds (5 at Philo) on any given run you are done. Or more accurately the rule prevents two banzai runs.

[sachilles]

We already have a rule that was put in to handle the banzai run. If you break out by more than 10 seconds (5 at Philo) on any given run you are done. Or more accurately the rule prevents two banzai runs.

It's that first one, that I have a problem with.
Essentially we are saying you can go as fast as you want so long as you promise to come back with a cage next time.

[KevinGale]

We already have a rule that was put in to handle the banzai run. If you break out by more than 10 seconds (5 at Philo) on any given run you are done. Or more accurately the rule prevents two banzai runs.

It's that first one, that I have a problem with.
Essentially we are saying you can go as fast as you want so long as you promise to come back with a cage next time.

I understand I was just pointing out we already have a rule designed for this. Allowing 10 seconds total still won't prevent the end of the day on Sunday banzai run.

[sachilles]

gotcha...that is why I was suggesting the car get banned for life. I'd be content with the current rule on the 10 second thing if the ramifications for violating had some sort of teeth.
If you are planning to cage your car anyway, there is no incentive to care much about it.
Wrestling with the idea of how we discourage that one bonzai run, as i don't think peer pressure will be enough to prevent that last run scenario.

For the breakout in general
I don't like putting the responsibility of judgement on the chair, that if they failed to notify someone, somehow they driver can still break out until notified.

[3rdgendennis]

Just for the sake of argument...This still wouldn't stop "banzai runs". Someone could bring a new car to every event.

The breakout was added to not exclude newcomers who don't yet have a cage, or veterans who would prefer to drive an uncaged car. There will always be a gray area unless uncaged cars are completely banned, which I personally would not support.

[sachilles]

true, but at considerable expense, even if it was a beater car each time.
It would give them one bonzai run per car I guess.

Now you can do one bonzai run per hill with the same car currently. We've had folks come back with different cars the next time, only to get the next car banned until it's caged.
Changing to a neha wide restriction, rather than just per hill(per course). Makes it more restrictive, but doesn't completely discourage it.
Course we can just ban the driver if that is what is desired.

I just find it odd, that we care enough after you do it once, but don't care enough to ask you not to do it the first time.

I don't want to ban uncaged cars. I also don't want the series ruined by some one getting hurt by violating the spirit of the rules but not the letter of the rules. I'd really not like to have to lay a guilt trip on everyone that doesn't have a cage....nor isn't an obvious "rule breaker".

I'm beating a dead horse. I'll stop.