The Tim K LRP Qualifying Story
- Thread starter Tkczecheredflag
- Start date
RSTPerformance
New member
PS:
I just want to thank Dave for getting back to me offline. I think his post here looked a bit different than how he felt. We have talked a bit and it was great to get his feedback on what he liked about me as a potential future steward.
To all workers,drivers,crew,pets, etc. I think it is always important to get/give feedback be it positive or negative. Negative feedback (and involvement) encourages changes while positive feedback helps keep things going in the right direction.
Mattberg- YOu sort of halted in your path of a "debate" a little while back. Have you thought things through and made any changes on your view? If you have that is great!!! If not I really do hope you try and get back into the SIT program to A ) make changes or B ) understand the organization a little better.
Hope all is well;
Raymond
PSS: Jake- Did you compliment me??? Thanks I think that is the first ever public compliment you have ever given me... Maybe I will need to find one for you
:119: 
(Just kidding I know that we are always bashing each other in good fun, thus the need to point out how you were nice to me!!!)
I just want to thank Dave for getting back to me offline. I think his post here looked a bit different than how he felt. We have talked a bit and it was great to get his feedback on what he liked about me as a potential future steward.
To all workers,drivers,crew,pets, etc. I think it is always important to get/give feedback be it positive or negative. Negative feedback (and involvement) encourages changes while positive feedback helps keep things going in the right direction.
Mattberg- YOu sort of halted in your path of a "debate" a little while back. Have you thought things through and made any changes on your view? If you have that is great!!! If not I really do hope you try and get back into the SIT program to A ) make changes or B ) understand the organization a little better.
Hope all is well;
Raymond
PSS: Jake- Did you compliment me??? Thanks I think that is the first ever public compliment you have ever given me... Maybe I will need to find one for you
:119: (Just kidding I know that we are always bashing each other in good fun, thus the need to point out how you were nice to me!!!)
lateapex911
Super Moderator
Me?? bash you??? naaaaa..! (Well, I might have quoted your brothers comments about you here and there..;0PSS: Jake- Did you compliment me??? Thanks I think that is the first ever public compliment you have ever given me... Maybe I will need to find one for you
[/b]
No compliments needed in return.
I'll just put it in my pocket for later. Just don't come after me when you read the new Audi weights in the GCR next year...
lateapex911
Super Moderator
Kidding!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Raymond,
Not that I've changed my view, it's just that there are certain safeguards that result from a worker protesting that I hadn't considered and are very significant. That said, I think those safeguards are exceptions to the rule. First is schools. Obvious need there for MORE worker involvement. A bad CS or other high ranking official that does nothing or ignores a problem? That's a reach and true exception and it's also a whole separate problem and he/she shouldn't be a high ranking official. I'd rather see the worker protest the official for doing nothing as it addresses a far greater problem. Either way the safeguards address the exception not the rule. Sometimes that's what safeguards are for but when they also open the doors to abuse or misuse I start thinking of better ways if possible to do it.
Specifically, and what sparked me on this issue, is when drivers get protested and the drivers involved see no violation and it happens too often. The 100 RFAs at the Runoffs is a perfect example of system abuse for no other reason than to create a situation and an ego booster for officials and workers to "lay down the law" and show the drivers who's the boss not to mention getting into the mix despite not driving. There is no other explanation. There is no excuse. Ergo, I do think that workers and officials protesting drivers for on-course incidents needs to be somewhat more regulated and restricted.
I like the idea of a "seconding" of a worker against driver protest by another driver. Seems to me that controls the situation without losing the safeguards or integrity of the system. IN the case of a worker protesting an official, a "seconding" from another worker would be in order. It takes the personal factor out of it for the most part and limits potential abuse or a misguided protest as well intentioned as it may be. Remember also that protests shouldn't be seen as a member's right but as a mechanism for protecting the event, sport and participants. Is it really so terrible to require a consensus of sorts before a driver gets hauled down to the tower?
You see, in Tim's case, hopefully, a driver, when asked to support the protest would say, "He wasn't breaking any rules. Take it up with the CS". Problem solved. No hassle for Tim and perhaps the CS talks with him but the whole nasty protest process is avoided and this thread ceases to exist.
Without driver support, perhaps the worker protests the official and gets support and a bad official gets written up and/or ousted. Good thing there. Either way I think it's a system that can be improved. Right now it's sort of like a single voice in a community being able to take action unilaterally with or without any support of that same community. No petition, no meeting. Makes the accused guilty until proven innocent. When the violation is a corner worker's judgement of driving technique I really have a problem.
Lastly, I have definately not changed my mind about a worker or official passing judgement on driving technique such as choice of racing line. Totally out of line (excuse the pun). Unless a rule is broken it can't be heard even with support. The worker is not there to judge technique. As I said before, if the captain feels something is unsafe, talk to the CS or walk off the corner. Make it the CS's problem or protest the CS.
Hope all is well with you also.
p.s. Go BORIS! NEDIV SCCAer!
Not that I've changed my view, it's just that there are certain safeguards that result from a worker protesting that I hadn't considered and are very significant. That said, I think those safeguards are exceptions to the rule. First is schools. Obvious need there for MORE worker involvement. A bad CS or other high ranking official that does nothing or ignores a problem? That's a reach and true exception and it's also a whole separate problem and he/she shouldn't be a high ranking official. I'd rather see the worker protest the official for doing nothing as it addresses a far greater problem. Either way the safeguards address the exception not the rule. Sometimes that's what safeguards are for but when they also open the doors to abuse or misuse I start thinking of better ways if possible to do it.
Specifically, and what sparked me on this issue, is when drivers get protested and the drivers involved see no violation and it happens too often. The 100 RFAs at the Runoffs is a perfect example of system abuse for no other reason than to create a situation and an ego booster for officials and workers to "lay down the law" and show the drivers who's the boss not to mention getting into the mix despite not driving. There is no other explanation. There is no excuse. Ergo, I do think that workers and officials protesting drivers for on-course incidents needs to be somewhat more regulated and restricted.
I like the idea of a "seconding" of a worker against driver protest by another driver. Seems to me that controls the situation without losing the safeguards or integrity of the system. IN the case of a worker protesting an official, a "seconding" from another worker would be in order. It takes the personal factor out of it for the most part and limits potential abuse or a misguided protest as well intentioned as it may be. Remember also that protests shouldn't be seen as a member's right but as a mechanism for protecting the event, sport and participants. Is it really so terrible to require a consensus of sorts before a driver gets hauled down to the tower?
You see, in Tim's case, hopefully, a driver, when asked to support the protest would say, "He wasn't breaking any rules. Take it up with the CS". Problem solved. No hassle for Tim and perhaps the CS talks with him but the whole nasty protest process is avoided and this thread ceases to exist.
Without driver support, perhaps the worker protests the official and gets support and a bad official gets written up and/or ousted. Good thing there. Either way I think it's a system that can be improved. Right now it's sort of like a single voice in a community being able to take action unilaterally with or without any support of that same community. No petition, no meeting. Makes the accused guilty until proven innocent. When the violation is a corner worker's judgement of driving technique I really have a problem. Lastly, I have definately not changed my mind about a worker or official passing judgement on driving technique such as choice of racing line. Totally out of line (excuse the pun). Unless a rule is broken it can't be heard even with support. The worker is not there to judge technique. As I said before, if the captain feels something is unsafe, talk to the CS or walk off the corner. Make it the CS's problem or protest the CS.
Hope all is well with you also.
p.s. Go BORIS! NEDIV SCCAer!
Tkczecheredflag
New member
Raymond,
You see, in Tim's case, hopefully, a driver, when asked to support the protest would say, "He wasn't breaking any rules. Take it up with the CS". Problem solved. No hassle for Tim and perhaps the CS talks with him but the whole nasty protest process is avoided and this thread ceases to exist.
p.s. Go BORIS! NEDIV SCCAer!
[/b]
Matt - I beleive more tha just the Captian were feeloing uncomfortable with my line. and they might have been supportive - not sure though.
Other drivers did offer to appeal the protest and I beleive were supportive. I am not sure what was happening off the record but I beleive other drivers/officials might have been makinfg a case for me too - Not sure here either.
Matt,
<blockquote>Not that I've changed my view, it's just that there are certain safeguards that result from a worker protesting that I hadn't considered and are very significant. That said, I think those safeguards are exceptions to the rule. First is schools. Obvious need there for MORE worker involvement.
</blockquote>
Schools or races, the rules are the rules. If it had been a race, I would have protested the driver in my case. And, by the way, the flagger in question is a good friend, but I personally think he was incorrect in this case.
The safeguards are important, and that is why the GCR says the officials, drivers, entrants and organizations can file protests for anything covered by the GCR. Note that CREW cannot.
<blockquote>A bad CS or other high ranking official that does nothing or ignores a problem? That's a reach and true exception and it's also a whole separate problem and he/she shouldn't be a high ranking official.</blockquote>
It's not a reach or an exception. It happens all the time, and it is often dealt with in different ways that are more effective than a protest. I have been a race chair, steward, or a speciality chief a number of times, and my wife has been the chief registrar as well as our regional comp board chair. You see a lot that, but because it is a club, you either ignore or have a private discussion to cure the problem.
<blockquote>I'd rather see the worker protest the official for doing nothing as it addresses a far greater problem. Either way the safeguards address the exception not the rule. Sometimes that's what safeguards are for but when they also open the doors to abuse or misuse I start thinking of better ways if possible to do it.</blockquote>
Two ideas here.
First, you seem to make a distinction between "Workers" and "Officials". What is that distinction? The SCCA considers all the F&C, Tech, Grid, et. al. workers to be "Officials" with respect to the GCR.
Second, your statement about safeguards vs abuse reminds me of a quote: "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety".- Benjamin Franklin. I am willing to deal with the occasional abuse for the sake of assuring the safeguard. What has not been discussed is that the Stewards of the Meet failed to apply any correction to the system and retain the protest fee. If you lose the protest fee for an abusive protest (and I'm not sure that this one was abusive), then the system tends to self correct, but only if the SoM keep the protest fee.
<blockquote>Specifically, and what sparked me on this issue, is when drivers get protested and the drivers involved see no violation and it happens too often.</blockquote>
That is why we have Stewards of the Meet, and why the thought of a bunch of stewards who have never driven a race car is a very disturbing idea to me. It should not be a requirement, but the stewards program needs to find people like Ray to keep things in balance.
<snip the part about the RFAs, as that is a whole different topic. RFAs are not like a protest in a few very significant ways.>
<blockquote>Ergo, I do think that workers and officials protesting drivers for on-course incidents needs to be somewhat more regulated and restricted.</blockquote>
$25 dollars per protest, and you lose it if it is not well founded, will certainly cut it right down.
<blockquote>I like the idea of a "seconding" of a worker against driver protest by another driver. Seems to me that controls the situation without losing the safeguards or integrity of the system. </blockquote>
Nope, another driver may not have seen the incident being protested. $25 works just fine.
<blockquote>IN the case of a worker protesting an official, a "seconding" from another worker would be in order. It takes the personal factor out of it for the most part and limits potential abuse or a misguided protest as well intentioned as it may be. Remember also that protests shouldn't be seen as a member's right but as a mechanism for protecting the event, sport and participants. Is it really so terrible to require a consensus of sorts before a driver gets hauled down to the tower?</blockquote>
Same Issue, there may not be another witness that could "second" the protest.
Also, you are still making a distinction between workers and officials. They are one and the same.
<blockquote>You see, in Tim's case, hopefully, a driver, when asked to support the protest would say, "He wasn't breaking any rules. Take it up with the CS". Problem solved.</blockquote>
Or, the SoM listen, tell Tim "have a nice day.", and the club gets $25 richer. Yea, there is a bit of a hassle, but we need to have that to prevent the other abuses that we could have if the ability to freely protest was not there. Your idea puts the other driver in the position of being the judge. He may not have been able to tell if there was a violation, given his perspective. And some drivers cannot be trusted to tell you the correct time of day. The SoM have time to interview more than one person, deliberate, and make a reasoned decision. The other driver would probably think they don't want to get involved, so they simply shut up and refuse to admit to anything.
<blockquote>No hassle for Tim and perhaps the CS talks with him but the whole nasty protest process is avoided and this thread ceases to exist. Without driver support, perhaps the worker protests the official and gets support and a bad official gets written up and/or ousted. Good thing there. Either way I think it's a system that can be improved. Right now it's sort of like a single voice in a community being able to take action unilaterally with or without any support of that same community. No petition, no meeting.</blockquote>
Anyone can walk into a police station and file a criminal report. It is up the the police and the DA to sort it out and decide if it should be acted upon. If you file too many vexatious ones, there is a cure for that as well.
<blockquote>Makes the accused guilty until proven innocent. When the violation is a corner worker's judgement of driving technique I really have a problem.</blockquote>
I only agree with part of this. The system almost worked, Pete didn't lose his $25. I think it would be a big mistake to require that there be two or more people who see a rule infraction and both be willing to file a protest, no matter what or where, on track, off track, be it driver, official, or others.
<blockquote>Lastly, I have definately not changed my mind about a worker or official passing judgement on driving technique such as choice of racing line. Totally out of line (excuse the pun). Unless a rule is broken it can't be heard even with support.</blockquote>
Well, yes it can be heard, and, as in this case, the SoM determine that there was no rule broken, thank you very much, now go home. Only they gave Pete his $25 back.
<blockquote>The worker is not there to judge technique. As I said before, if the captain feels something is unsafe, talk to the CS or walk off the corner. Make it the CS's problem or protest the CS.</blockquote>
While I agree that the worker is not there to judge technique, he is there to make sure that the track and the racing is as safe as possible. If he sees a driver do something that he feels is very unsafe, he should take action. IIRC, 14.1.4 was the actual rule, and the protest effectivly said that, in his opinion, Tim was in violation. That is like the DA bringing the case before a judge. Let the SoM make the judgment, as that is their job. That is not an abusive or vexatious protest. It caused everyone a bunch of hassle (more than just Tim), but that is the price you pay for having a system that can work.
As for the protest that I wrote about, you said I should protest the steward who didn't take any action. Well, using your own logic says that is exactly the wrong thing to do, as the steward did nothing that was against the rules. The GCR (6.11.3) says that the steward MAY, not MUST, deal with the infraction. Big difference. His decision to do nothing was fine, and the only recourse, by the book, is for an official (worker) to protest the person who did break the rules. If you lose a civil case in Federal court you can appeal it, and if you lose that, file an appeal with the SCOTUS. I know of one woman who did this, numberous times, until the courts told her she had to ask for permission to file an appeal in the future. But she had to really, really abuse the system before that point was reached.
<blockquote>Not that I've changed my view, it's just that there are certain safeguards that result from a worker protesting that I hadn't considered and are very significant. That said, I think those safeguards are exceptions to the rule. First is schools. Obvious need there for MORE worker involvement.
</blockquote>
Schools or races, the rules are the rules. If it had been a race, I would have protested the driver in my case. And, by the way, the flagger in question is a good friend, but I personally think he was incorrect in this case.
The safeguards are important, and that is why the GCR says the officials, drivers, entrants and organizations can file protests for anything covered by the GCR. Note that CREW cannot.
<blockquote>A bad CS or other high ranking official that does nothing or ignores a problem? That's a reach and true exception and it's also a whole separate problem and he/she shouldn't be a high ranking official.</blockquote>
It's not a reach or an exception. It happens all the time, and it is often dealt with in different ways that are more effective than a protest. I have been a race chair, steward, or a speciality chief a number of times, and my wife has been the chief registrar as well as our regional comp board chair. You see a lot that, but because it is a club, you either ignore or have a private discussion to cure the problem.
<blockquote>I'd rather see the worker protest the official for doing nothing as it addresses a far greater problem. Either way the safeguards address the exception not the rule. Sometimes that's what safeguards are for but when they also open the doors to abuse or misuse I start thinking of better ways if possible to do it.</blockquote>
Two ideas here.
First, you seem to make a distinction between "Workers" and "Officials". What is that distinction? The SCCA considers all the F&C, Tech, Grid, et. al. workers to be "Officials" with respect to the GCR.
Second, your statement about safeguards vs abuse reminds me of a quote: "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety".- Benjamin Franklin. I am willing to deal with the occasional abuse for the sake of assuring the safeguard. What has not been discussed is that the Stewards of the Meet failed to apply any correction to the system and retain the protest fee. If you lose the protest fee for an abusive protest (and I'm not sure that this one was abusive), then the system tends to self correct, but only if the SoM keep the protest fee.
<blockquote>Specifically, and what sparked me on this issue, is when drivers get protested and the drivers involved see no violation and it happens too often.</blockquote>
That is why we have Stewards of the Meet, and why the thought of a bunch of stewards who have never driven a race car is a very disturbing idea to me. It should not be a requirement, but the stewards program needs to find people like Ray to keep things in balance.
<snip the part about the RFAs, as that is a whole different topic. RFAs are not like a protest in a few very significant ways.>
<blockquote>Ergo, I do think that workers and officials protesting drivers for on-course incidents needs to be somewhat more regulated and restricted.</blockquote>
$25 dollars per protest, and you lose it if it is not well founded, will certainly cut it right down.
<blockquote>I like the idea of a "seconding" of a worker against driver protest by another driver. Seems to me that controls the situation without losing the safeguards or integrity of the system. </blockquote>
Nope, another driver may not have seen the incident being protested. $25 works just fine.
<blockquote>IN the case of a worker protesting an official, a "seconding" from another worker would be in order. It takes the personal factor out of it for the most part and limits potential abuse or a misguided protest as well intentioned as it may be. Remember also that protests shouldn't be seen as a member's right but as a mechanism for protecting the event, sport and participants. Is it really so terrible to require a consensus of sorts before a driver gets hauled down to the tower?</blockquote>
Same Issue, there may not be another witness that could "second" the protest.
Also, you are still making a distinction between workers and officials. They are one and the same.
<blockquote>You see, in Tim's case, hopefully, a driver, when asked to support the protest would say, "He wasn't breaking any rules. Take it up with the CS". Problem solved.</blockquote>
Or, the SoM listen, tell Tim "have a nice day.", and the club gets $25 richer. Yea, there is a bit of a hassle, but we need to have that to prevent the other abuses that we could have if the ability to freely protest was not there. Your idea puts the other driver in the position of being the judge. He may not have been able to tell if there was a violation, given his perspective. And some drivers cannot be trusted to tell you the correct time of day. The SoM have time to interview more than one person, deliberate, and make a reasoned decision. The other driver would probably think they don't want to get involved, so they simply shut up and refuse to admit to anything.
<blockquote>No hassle for Tim and perhaps the CS talks with him but the whole nasty protest process is avoided and this thread ceases to exist. Without driver support, perhaps the worker protests the official and gets support and a bad official gets written up and/or ousted. Good thing there. Either way I think it's a system that can be improved. Right now it's sort of like a single voice in a community being able to take action unilaterally with or without any support of that same community. No petition, no meeting.</blockquote>
Anyone can walk into a police station and file a criminal report. It is up the the police and the DA to sort it out and decide if it should be acted upon. If you file too many vexatious ones, there is a cure for that as well.
<blockquote>Makes the accused guilty until proven innocent. When the violation is a corner worker's judgement of driving technique I really have a problem.</blockquote>
I only agree with part of this. The system almost worked, Pete didn't lose his $25. I think it would be a big mistake to require that there be two or more people who see a rule infraction and both be willing to file a protest, no matter what or where, on track, off track, be it driver, official, or others.
<blockquote>Lastly, I have definately not changed my mind about a worker or official passing judgement on driving technique such as choice of racing line. Totally out of line (excuse the pun). Unless a rule is broken it can't be heard even with support.</blockquote>
Well, yes it can be heard, and, as in this case, the SoM determine that there was no rule broken, thank you very much, now go home. Only they gave Pete his $25 back.
<blockquote>The worker is not there to judge technique. As I said before, if the captain feels something is unsafe, talk to the CS or walk off the corner. Make it the CS's problem or protest the CS.</blockquote>
While I agree that the worker is not there to judge technique, he is there to make sure that the track and the racing is as safe as possible. If he sees a driver do something that he feels is very unsafe, he should take action. IIRC, 14.1.4 was the actual rule, and the protest effectivly said that, in his opinion, Tim was in violation. That is like the DA bringing the case before a judge. Let the SoM make the judgment, as that is their job. That is not an abusive or vexatious protest. It caused everyone a bunch of hassle (more than just Tim), but that is the price you pay for having a system that can work.
As for the protest that I wrote about, you said I should protest the steward who didn't take any action. Well, using your own logic says that is exactly the wrong thing to do, as the steward did nothing that was against the rules. The GCR (6.11.3) says that the steward MAY, not MUST, deal with the infraction. Big difference. His decision to do nothing was fine, and the only recourse, by the book, is for an official (worker) to protest the person who did break the rules. If you lose a civil case in Federal court you can appeal it, and if you lose that, file an appeal with the SCOTUS. I know of one woman who did this, numberous times, until the courts told her she had to ask for permission to file an appeal in the future. But she had to really, really abuse the system before that point was reached.
The other flagger onthe corner is both a Nationally licensed flagger and a Nationally licensed ITA driver.
lateapex911
Super Moderator
The other flagger onthe corner is both a Nationally licensed flagger and a Nationally licensed ITA driver.
[/b]
I talked to the other flagger who is an ITA driver. He thought Tim was scaring himself and the other flaggers...he wasn't happy with the "line". But, when I asked him what he'd do if he was driving, he said he'd probably try the same line.
Which is a pretty good example of how issues can be very dependent on your point of view.
As for the concept of using other drivers as the judge and jury, if i understand correctly, it's certainly going to be a conflict of interest if you use active drivers in the same group and or class. Of course, you could use drivers from other groups, but now you lose the guys who were out there in the same conditions and car types.
I do agree that I like to see Stewards (and SITs) that have race experience, such as Ray is trying to do.
Andy Bettencourt
Super Moderator
I don't know the answer to this but those other organizations have policies in place to penalize on the spot. They review video and data and hand down penalties in a dictatorship. It works.
The last time I worked at a pro race, I was one of the "control" radio operators. I was running the Flagger radio net and feeding information to the stewards, and relaying the stewards orders out to the flaggers. While the session was running, I would be about 2 feet from the steward all the time. I saw lots and lots of fines handed out in two short days. When a crew chief was called to the tower, he brought his check book.
Why do they not have tons of RFAs? Because their organization is a benevolent dictatorship. No need for RFAs. The steward is the DA, the judge, and the jury all in one.
We have RFAs because we are a club and we act like a club. Sometimes that is good, and sometimes that is bad. Someone going crazy with RFAs is not so good. Maybe if the steward files a RFA and it is overturned, either by the SOM or on appeal, the steward should get a note in his folder (they have folders, just like drivers.) Too many notes over a few years and you are invited to a license review.
If there is a problem at a pro event (stupid driver, silly crew, illegal car), the pro steward tells the crew chief that his team was just fined $500, $1,000, $5,000, or whatever he thinks is right. Plus probation, suspension, disqualifcation, loss of points, etc. No SOM that has to get involved, no-one to second guess his every move. Yes, there is an appeal process, but you pay the fine first. Unless there is a clear indication that the rules were not followed you don't have a chance of getting the decision overturned. If you are questioning the stewards judgement, you may find the fine doubled. Teams know this. In the case of a fine, like $5,000, and you lose the appeal, and the fine is doubled, it makes the appeal fee be something like $5000. Way more than the $25 for a protest or $100 for an appeal. It really cuts down on the BS.
Pay the fine or take your car home is the only choice the pro teams really have.
Bottom line is that if you don't like the Sports Car CLUB of America acting like a CLUB, then spend you nickels elsewhere. NASA is a dictatorship, and I'm sure they are willing to take money from you.
Marcus Miller
New member
The only fine I've ever seen given in 3 years of running with NASA is $50 for not wearing nomex, as outlined in either the CCR (CLUB codes and regulations - empahsis mine.) or regional supps. Now, DQs? Yes. Suspensions? Yes. Do something stupid with evidence available to prove it and get penalized. Pretty simple.
Edit: example of "something stupid" that garners a penalty:
http://images.miller-motorsports.com/thill...alify_start.wmv
This driver was sat down for the weekend.
Marcus
lateapex911
Super Moderator
So the RX-7 decided to play the role of a matchmaker? "Mr Porsche 944, meet Mr Toyota MR2"!
Worked well for you though, eh?/
So, a standing start? Cool!
Worked well for you though, eh?/
So, a standing start? Cool!
Marcus Miller
New member
You got it! The Mr2 had already been in one scuffle that weekend, and it was finally DOA.
It worked our fantastically for me, at least until I put two offand ended up 2nd.
Not only a standing start, but a 25 minute Qualifying race... Last year, we had 4 races each weekend.
Marcus
It worked our fantastically for me, at least until I put two offand ended up 2nd.
Not only a standing start, but a 25 minute Qualifying race... Last year, we had 4 races each weekend.
Marcus
dickita15
New member
The huge difference in a pro series is you have the same stewards in charge and the same driver pool every event. This allows a repore to be built. In club racing the stewards can’t really say “I am keeping an eye on you”. At a club race we probably never see the same chief steward twice in the same year.
Bill Miller
New member
Marcus,
What exactly was the infraction that the driver was penalized for? Looked like the Porsche was asleep at the switch when the flag flew. It also looked like he moved to the left.
Except for "The Book."
For NEDIV Nationals, it is (was) the "Red Book" (or it used to be.) At each race the CS fills out what some of the issues were, who needs to be watched, if there were drivers who acted like idiots, etc. It is delivered from race to race so the next CS has an idea of what was going on. When you are the CS at the next race you can read the history of the last few seasons.
I know at one time this was going to be done for NARRC races as well but I'm not sure if it ever became part of the routine.
I don't think it is as much an issue with MARRS, as that is, for all intents, just one region.
Since I don't consider NASA as a "PRO" series, but still a dictatorship, all those actions make a lot more sense than fines. In a pro race, teams are businesses, and the event is all about the show, so fines have a much more direct impact on the teams in terms of profit/loss. You don't want to force teams to sit out a race, as that hurts the show. But you can take a few thousand without blinking and it does get their attention.
Just look at NASCAR. "Probation", yes. "Points", yes (hurts standings, and hence sponsorship potential plus end of year money.) "Fines", Yes, Yes, Yes. But almost never making a driver sit out the race, and then, the team brings in another driver, so the car is still running, keeping the sponsor happy. And, never anything that changes the "results". You don't get disqualified for an illegal car, but the car (or the illegal part) gets confiscated, you lose points, and the fines are rather heathy. The sin: "Actions detremential to NASCAR", which can mean anything. I bet some stewards would love to have a rule like that in the GCR, but that would open the door for more abuse than you (or Matt) could ever imagine. This "worker protesting a driver" stuff is small change.
The fact that you don't consider NASA "pro" racing and that you make a distinct differentiation is indication of the problem. You don't respect the drivers in the same way and that's a big issue for me and I think a lot of workers and officials feel the same way as you do. That's a problem IMHO.
I watched the greatest farce I've ever witnessed a few years back when at least ten workers LIED in their testimony to protect another worker's misdeeds and an official's need to go after a specific driver. The audacity to do such can only come from lack of respect for what we ("amateur" drivers) are and do. I read the reports and ten workers claimed a driver drove on a cold track, yet there were six cars behind him when he came in including two others that were called into black flag BEHIND him. Only the one driver was sanctioned. Please explain that.
I've changed my mind. The safeguards aren't worth it. Even in schools. Let the instructors take care of it. Workers are there for ONE thing. If they don't like it, walk away. But most do and it's why they're out there. It's why I did it. I NEVER would protest a driver, EVER if I weren't on track. But some think it makes them more a part of the action... peer level, important. That's ruining the club. It's becoming a status club not a racing club. I say change the protest rules.
I watched the greatest farce I've ever witnessed a few years back when at least ten workers LIED in their testimony to protect another worker's misdeeds and an official's need to go after a specific driver. The audacity to do such can only come from lack of respect for what we ("amateur" drivers) are and do. I read the reports and ten workers claimed a driver drove on a cold track, yet there were six cars behind him when he came in including two others that were called into black flag BEHIND him. Only the one driver was sanctioned. Please explain that.
I've changed my mind. The safeguards aren't worth it. Even in schools. Let the instructors take care of it. Workers are there for ONE thing. If they don't like it, walk away. But most do and it's why they're out there. It's why I did it. I NEVER would protest a driver, EVER if I weren't on track. But some think it makes them more a part of the action... peer level, important. That's ruining the club. It's becoming a status club not a racing club. I say change the protest rules.
lateapex911
Super Moderator
This wouldn't be the famous incident where your brother, John Weisberg, ignored (I know, "allegedly"
) a stop command and drove onto a closed track at the Runoffs in Mid Ohio, is it? Might the sanctions be due to the huge altercation and screaming match that ensued? (Which I understand you were involved in) Reports from non involved observers (not workers) listed that one as quite the spectical!