December 08 is up
- Thread starter Greg Amy
- Start date
Andy Bettencourt
Super Moderator
Greg,
Shoud we try and have a united front on this? Otherwise they will get letters that read like this:
To whom it may concern re: manditory H&N:
No.
Thank you,
Joe Blow.
*****************
I would think that some substance would be great and I know you and Kirk are passionate about this...suggestions?
planet6racing
New member
Mr. Gomberg:
Thank you. You comminicated well and made things happen. I am much happier with the way things have worked over the last 2 months than the previous 4.
Thank you. You comminicated well and made things happen. I am much happier with the way things have worked over the last 2 months than the previous 4.
Well, if we were to assume a standard opinion (and that would NOT necessarily be a good assumption) then we do need to clarify points.
There's two issues here:
- One, should HNRs be mandatory
- Two, if yes to the above, do they need to conform to SFI?
- Two-point-One: If not, should SCCA require any that are voluntarily used to conform to SFI.
I suggest that if the answer to One is "yes, then Two quickly follows, as SCCA really has no choice but to require a "standard" for "required equipment". So, effectively, a "yes" answer to requiring HNRs is a mandate for SFI cert.
We need to vet this idea thoroughly.
GA
Andy Bettencourt
Super Moderator
I agree - but we must be swift in our responses.
A few Court things of note:
- Anyone notice the "monocoque" argument? Reminds me of how we got to the "ship in a bottle" cages to full-up purpose-built cars in GT.
- The Knowles/Ziegler last lap incident at the Runoffs. I saw that on TV and thought Knowles crowded him (or to be exact, didn't leave enough room); I didn't know there was a protest and Ziegler was tossed from the win. Seems the Court of Appeals agreed with Knowles.
I may go looking for that broadcast to look at it with a more-jaundiced eye.
- SM shocks. They apparently had a shock dyno; one guy "repeatedly tested approximately 100% over the baseline readings from the sample sets". He used the old SpecMiata argument of "but there's no specs!" Pwned.
- Anyone notice the "monocoque" argument? Reminds me of how we got to the "ship in a bottle" cages to full-up purpose-built cars in GT.
- The Knowles/Ziegler last lap incident at the Runoffs. I saw that on TV and thought Knowles crowded him (or to be exact, didn't leave enough room); I didn't know there was a protest and Ziegler was tossed from the win. Seems the Court of Appeals agreed with Knowles.
I may go looking for that broadcast to look at it with a more-jaundiced eye.- SM shocks. They apparently had a shock dyno; one guy "repeatedly tested approximately 100% over the baseline readings from the sample sets". He used the old SpecMiata argument of "but there's no specs!" Pwned.
Let's start a new topic to vet it. - GA
JoshS
New member
- The Knowles/Ziegler last lap incident at the Runoffs. I saw that on TV and thought Knowles crowded him (or to be exact, didn't leave enough room); I didn't know there was a protest and Ziegler was tossed from the win. Seems the Court of Appeals agreed with Knowles.
All of the in-car videos and such were posted and discussed over on sccaforums immediately after the Runoffs.
http://sccaforums.com/forums/thread/326310.aspx
I read all about it then and I would say that the Speed coverage doesn't change my mind: the stewards blew it by even starting an investigation, and once started, the wrong decision got made.
In reality, if anything was going to happen, it should have been initiated by Knowles, not by the stewards. It looks like a racing incident to me and unless one of the competitors wants to do something about it, the club should have just left it alone.
Josh, I agree, based on only my viewing of the Speed coverage. I have not looked at those links you posted but I will; but I did look at that speed coverage of the incident several times (I have a DVR). Based on that, I am in the "racing incident" camp.
However, I have a lot of respect for Brian Holtz; there must have been a damn good reason for that. I'll reserve further judgment on the incident 'til I see what's already been presented.
NOTE: I've Dan's and Tom's posts to a new HNR topic I started; please continue the discussion there. I am sure we have very little time to provide feedback to the CRB on this issue; I would not be surprised if there's already a consensus forming, one way or the other... - GA
JoshS
New member
Oh, me too ... but even good guys make bad calls every once in a while.
Brian posted in the sccaforums thread:
So he wasn't intending to pass judgement, but just by issuing the RFA, he was causing judgement to be passed. Perhaps there was a standing "rule" for the operating steward that he was to do that, in which case it wasn't his call, I'm just not sure.
I'm not really trying to put blame on anyone but "the system." I just think it should be a competitor-policed sport. This is no different, in my opinion, than people assuming that tech will notice someone else's illegal car. A competitor should have to file paper if they suspect an illegal car, and a competitor should have to file paper if they didn't like some on-track behavior.
lateapex911
Super Moderator
I do wish that we could have a driver based protest board and appeals court on things like this. Every driver I've spoken with that has seen this thinks it's a big pile of poop, and the guy got the shaft.
Jeremy Billiel
New member
4. ITA – Help the 1.6 Miata (Whitton). The car is appropriate as classed.
dj10
New member
Why can't the people that don't want to wear them sign a waiver?
That way the SCCA will be protected & we won't be forced to buy some $1000.00 pos that may or may not work."- SM shocks. They apparently had a shock dyno; one guy "repeatedly tested approximately 100% over the baseline readings from the sample sets". He used the old SpecMiata argument of "but there's no specs!" Pwned."
I got a kick out of this one.:~)
Last edited:
Rabbit07
New member
In regards to the Knowles/BZig thing. I was standing on the hill overlooking the front staight when it happened and it looked to me to be an intentional block gone wrong. Knowles moved over and BZig was already there turing Knowles into the wall. There should have never been any intervention by the stewards.
Wow. Was Ziegler even with the door? No. Had Knowles driven essentially the same line the previous lap (see video)? Yes.
Hard to reconcile the above statement with this from you...
http://www.roadraceautox.com/showpost.php?p=463394&postcount=57
According to you, it was Knowles corner and Ziegler is completely in the wrong.
This club racer is from my region. He finished 2nd in championship points this year. I do not understand what he means "help the 1.6 miata!!!" There were 1.6 Spec Miatas in my run group at the last race who were 2 seconds faster per lap than I was in ITA.
JoshS
New member
Actually, not really if you watch Ziegler's in-car. Knowles was never anywhere as close to the left side of the track during the prior few laps. Not sure about early in the race.
Ziegler's video at youtube.com only shows the previous and incident laps. Knowles moves right to left leaving somewhere about a car to less than a car-width on DL.
None-the-less, Ziegler wasn't even with the door - the standard maintained by some.
Both drivers were at fault. Knowles for failure to leave racing room. Ziegler for failing to avoid contact (Zielger's video seems to indicate that he never lifted as Knowles moved over - that's failure to avoid contact).
Both drivers should have been penalized, regardless of the fact that Knowles already was punished with a hurt car.
In a perfect world, Ziegler could have lifted and, armed with a tape showing hat there wasn't room left, Knowles would have been penalized. In the real world, few, if any stewards, would enforce such a penalty w/o contact in a normal race, let alone the Runoffs for the win.
As for stewards not getting involved... ANY official may file a protest. I would like to see the stewards get MORE proactively involved for contact. It protects people not involved in the immediate incident from later being a victim when the not-at-fault driver whimps out and doesn't file paper.
I've been in groups with a loose cannon and it wasn't until the third or fourth incident before the guy who got hit filed a protest. Bad on the earlier victims for settling it with a handshake instead of paper. The final victim shouldn't have been hit and under the self-enforcement idea, wouldn't have had standing to file a protest.
bzzzzztt wrong!!!
if spec miatas are beating you, then you need to look at what YOU are doing. while i don't necessarily agree that the 1.6 car needs help, it has nothing to do with the ability of SMs to beat any IT cars.