The Tim K LRP Qualifying Story
- Thread starter Tkczecheredflag
- Start date
Mr. Pot, let me introduce you to Mr. Kettle. Mr. Kettle, this is Mr. Pot.
Considering that you have managed to make some of the "most utterly ridculous comment
Of course, there is always an exception. The great "Piggly-Wiggly" comments in the prod forum were really, really stupid as well.
But, wasn't it you who made those as well?
You can't possibly be serious. That is the most utterly ridculous comment and supposition I've ever heard in defense of a worker's right to protest.
[/b]
It is a logical consequence of your desire to remove the ability of officials to protest drivers for the drivers' on-course behavior. No other driver in the field has a dog in the hunt. Driver stops at the station, checks car, tries to leave without doing his belts and gets verbally abusive when I won't let him. Since you want to remove my ability to protest that driver.... who is going to protest him for his -
1. Failure to obey the directions of an official
2. Abuse of an official
3. Unsportsmanlike conduct
(I would define these, but I understand that you are well aware of these infractions.)
No other driver was involved.
And please get this straight skippy... I'm not a worker... I am an official and an official's responsibility is to ensure that potential violations of the rules are investigated. If I see a pass under the yellow that endangers my co-officials and the power's that be do nothing about it... you bet I'll file a protest because it's my arse that's going to be mowed down when some stupid driver blows a flag and plows into me or my barrier. Remove my ability to protest a driver who ignores a yellow flag and you remove me from officiating your event.
You want to make me a worker... fine. Give me an hourly salary, workers compensation when I get hurt and an OSHA inspection of my work area. You've just seen the last of your hot-pulls and every time a car needs to be yanked, you'll go FCY because no way OSHA will let anyone out on a hot track.
I'm sorry your brother was a real chowder head at Mid-Ohio and got penalized for his boorish behavior. I'm sorry that your brother was ignorant and unaware that he could have protested the actions of an abusive official. I'm sorry that you are unable to realize why your brother was penalized, but it had more to do with what he did when he came in to the pits then for ignoring the direction of an official.
Mr. Pot, let me introduce you to Mr. Kettle. Mr. Kettle, this is Mr. Pot.
Considering that you have managed to make some of the "most utterly ridculous commentand supposition" in this very topic, of any I have ever read in any racing forum, anywhere, if find this statement very, very funny.
Of course, there is always an exception. The great "Piggly-Wiggly" comments in the prod forum were really, really stupid as well.
But, wasn't it you who made those as well?
[/b]
Can you tell me what comments I made that were even close to as outrageous as a driver running down a worker on track with intent to harm, maim or kill? Think about that supposition for a moment, please. Do you really forsee that as a possibility? And please tell me what was stupid about the "piggly wiggly" comments other than the fact that a worker of the year lied out his ass along with numberous other officials and workers and when yet another worker lied about witnessing here on the net and later recanted they used the whole piggly wiggly thing to create a joke and diffuse the situation? All you're doing is trying to discredit the messenger in order to avoid the truth. Give me some comments I made that compare. Give me something I said that was as unreasonable as a driver running down a worker. Post them. I doubt we'll see anything from you other than more unsupported pro-official commentary and opinions without backup. But I'm sure you'll say anything to keep that shiny whistle and the ability and opportunity to blow it.
Excuse me, but where did I say that there was intent?
How about just plain old incompetence - like over driving a yellow, spinning and hitting an official?
How about this scenario... driver has loose exhaust, violates sound level, gets black flagged while leading, looses temper when told at black flag that he has to park it, roars away at excessive speed from black flag, looses exhaust entering paddock (nearly hitting pit official with the flying exhaust) and proceeds to race back to his paddock space at a speed well in excess of paddock speed limit.
Hypothetical? Unlikely? Well it happened at Waterford Hills in the early 1980s and the driver was a National Champion.
What punishment do you think is fitting for such a driver?
More importantly, since none of the people he was racing against say the incident, whose going to protest them?
Is the intent of your proposal simply to allow your brother to behave as boorish as he would like to the race officials?
Simple... It's a non-racing incident. Protest all you want. This thread is about a worker critiquing a totally legal line under the rules. THat's what I find objectionable. I also find it objectionable that officials are regularally protesting drivers for on-track racing situations where even the drivers admit to a "racing incident". Joanne Jensen was overturned three times in one month on such protests. Does that mean the system worked or that an official caused unecessary hassle for drivers putting her official nose where it shouldn't be? I think the latter.
p.s. I love a one time example almost 25 years old of something that "nearly" happened. Typical.
lateapex911
Super Moderator
p.s. I love a one time example almost 25 years old of something that "nearly" happened. Typical.
[/b]
LOL...well I had made a comment about the hypocrisy in that statement, but then we had a power dip, and Poof! it was gone. Which is good in a way, because I know all of you will be thinking, "Not woth your time to debate the senseless"....and you're right!
I'm going to go work on a car.
But that's not what you proposed. You said you wanted to remove the ability of officials to protest - period.
It means the system worked. The system specifically allows such protests. It allowed them when you joined the club and it still allows them. You got a problem with that rule... you probably shouldn't have joined the club.
And here's a racing incident... standing yellow flag. Driver overdrives turn and spins causing the officials responding to scatter. Driver continues. Is that a racing incident? What other driver was involved? Shouldn't the driver who spun under a standing yellow be punished? Who's going to start the action against the driver?
Has it happend? Yep... a couple of times each year.
The "innocence" of your brother relies on some vast conspiracy of officials. Poppycock. /R/E/A/D/. it's very easy to infer from the Appeals Court summary why the the driver penalized in the Runoffs pit out incident got dinged - what he did when he came back in.
SCCA consists of the most cantankerous individuals you will ever meet and there is NO way that 10 people would cooperate long enough to "get" a driver by covering up a lie.
The protest that started this entire thread was ridiculous and the Steward who accepted it should have strongly encouraged the official making it to drop it.
lateapex911
Super Moderator
His drive in the actual race was rather "spirited"...remember what expert commentator Jonny O'Connel had to say about it on the SPEED telecast??
(I think the driver in question would likely forget the whole incident. Day to day he's a great guy with a paddock FULL of friends. Judgement was lacking for a short period, (A couple days) however.)
StephF
New member
I've known John for many years now, and he's always been a nice guy and a good racer. Too bad he had Mr.Personalities footsteps to follow in. It made it tough on him when he first came around in the late 1980's. He literally used to hide his face when people asked him if he was Matt's brother. 
I hoped he hadn't turned into an asshole too.
Matt, I said it before and I'll say it again.
You just don't get it.
And you never, ever will.
Why don't you go into politics or something? Spend all this energy on something else instead of riling up people who are here to have some fun doing what they love, whether it's driving or working. There is absolutely no reason or excuse for some of the remarks you have been making at the track, here and on the production site. Such as:
Calling a worker a "welfare bitch"
Making a reference to workers that starts with "fat-assed donut eating..."
Taunting someone online, telling them that they ought to stick a shotgun in their mouth because you have stocks in IBM and they have nothing
Saying that all the folks on the IT site were a bunch of ass kissers
The list goes on and on and on and on. Unbelievable some of the garbage spouted by you.
I skimmed through some of the posts by you on the prod site and it was disgusting. If I didn't know better, I'd think it was done by a 12-year old looking for attention.
It's one thing to question finances or rules interpretation. Or to debate merits of a car, or hypothetical situations.
It's quite another to sling nasty, vindictive crap at people on a personal level, to the point of name calling and taunting.
You have no class at all Matt. And everytime you sling this garbage around, you sink even lower.
I hoped he hadn't turned into an asshole too.
Matt, I said it before and I'll say it again.
You just don't get it.
And you never, ever will.
Why don't you go into politics or something? Spend all this energy on something else instead of riling up people who are here to have some fun doing what they love, whether it's driving or working. There is absolutely no reason or excuse for some of the remarks you have been making at the track, here and on the production site. Such as:
Calling a worker a "welfare bitch"
Making a reference to workers that starts with "fat-assed donut eating..."
Taunting someone online, telling them that they ought to stick a shotgun in their mouth because you have stocks in IBM and they have nothing
Saying that all the folks on the IT site were a bunch of ass kissers
The list goes on and on and on and on. Unbelievable some of the garbage spouted by you.
I skimmed through some of the posts by you on the prod site and it was disgusting. If I didn't know better, I'd think it was done by a 12-year old looking for attention.
It's one thing to question finances or rules interpretation. Or to debate merits of a car, or hypothetical situations.
It's quite another to sling nasty, vindictive crap at people on a personal level, to the point of name calling and taunting.
You have no class at all Matt. And everytime you sling this garbage around, you sink even lower.
RacerBill
New member
Quote from post #85 - Mattberg
"Jake you like to argue with me but the facts are that the club is no longer ours. Paupers with nothing more than a passing interest can protest us. Makes them feel good. THey can ruin a $80K investment with a single lie and get it backed up by ten people just based on the fact that I have more money than they do and the jealousy of such. Makes them feel better. I've seen it happen first hand so don't tell me it can't happen."
I have not taken the time to read subsequent posts in response to this particular communication. Please tell me if I am mis-quoting your statement!
I spent 14 years in the American military to protect yuor right to say whatever you want. I was also protecting my right to say what I want to refute your statements. In particular, one sentence - 'Paupers with nothing more than a passing interest can protest us.' I can find no requirement in the GCR that you can only be an official if you make less than x dollars per year, or if your net worth is below such and such. '...passing interest...' I still have my log from 1969, the year I graduated from college and was on my own to spend weekends as I wished and can count 29 days I worked corners from New Hampshire to Watkins Glen to Reading, PA. That's about 300 hours, not including the time and expense to drive to the tracks. Now this might be my only my humble opinion, but that is more than just a passing interest. I spent 18 YEARS as a Sound Control official (speaking of under appreciated specialties) in Central Division, maintaining sensitive electronic equipment, in order to fend off the efforts of outside interests to put an end to racing. The officials that are my closest friends are National License drivers, who give back to the sport by volunteering their time - time that they could be spending out on the track. I knew corner officials who traveled from Philadelphia to Indianapolis to volunteer their time to our sport.
One of the questions on the new corner worker evaluation forms that we used in New York Region was 'Would you trust this worker to work green flag with you?' implying would you put your life in his hands and watch your back while you were watching out for YOU!. People with just a 'passing interest' do not do these things!
I first became a member of SCCA in 1966 - that's forty years! I resent you saying that officials have a passing interest. My interest will 'pass' when I pass on!
The purpose of the officials is 1) to provide a SAFE environment in which to race, and 2) enforce the rules that all participants agree to operate under, many of which are there for our SAFETY. It is their RESPONSIBILITY to inform the officials that are controling the event of unsafe situations.
'backed up by ten people just based on the fact that I have more money than they do'. Can you provide witnesses that will swear that these ten people got together and said 'let's all lie about what happened because he has more money than we do'. If not, then I submit that your statement is a contention on your part and may in fact not be 'fact'. BTW, I also own IBM stock!
I do not deny that there are occasions where officials may act in a questionable manner. Hopefully, those incidents have been delt with appropriately. I personnaly know of at least one individual who was permenantly banned from a track, and had his membership in SCCA revoked for inappropriate actions, so I know the system works. Luckily, this situation did not involve on-track safety and there were no injuries or worse.
'Jake you like to argue with me but the facts are that the club is no longer ours' Approximately 10% of the total club membership are licensed drivers. When you use the word 'ours' are you referring to just drivers? Where on your membership card does it say that you have a 'driver membership' as opposed to a 'official membership' or a 'solo membership'. Mine says I have a family membership and have a Crew License, a Competition License, a Pit/Grid License, and a Starter License. With the exception of the yuts (I grew up next to Brooklyn NY where that is a proper word - youngin's to those other parts of the country), there is only one membership.
OK, I have said my piece in defense of the 'paupers' who protect us drivers.
Sorry for the hijack, don't think it was too far off the path. I also apoligize to any others who were offended by Mr. Mattbergs comments on officials and posted before me.
"Jake you like to argue with me but the facts are that the club is no longer ours. Paupers with nothing more than a passing interest can protest us. Makes them feel good. THey can ruin a $80K investment with a single lie and get it backed up by ten people just based on the fact that I have more money than they do and the jealousy of such. Makes them feel better. I've seen it happen first hand so don't tell me it can't happen."
I have not taken the time to read subsequent posts in response to this particular communication. Please tell me if I am mis-quoting your statement!
I spent 14 years in the American military to protect yuor right to say whatever you want. I was also protecting my right to say what I want to refute your statements. In particular, one sentence - 'Paupers with nothing more than a passing interest can protest us.' I can find no requirement in the GCR that you can only be an official if you make less than x dollars per year, or if your net worth is below such and such. '...passing interest...' I still have my log from 1969, the year I graduated from college and was on my own to spend weekends as I wished and can count 29 days I worked corners from New Hampshire to Watkins Glen to Reading, PA. That's about 300 hours, not including the time and expense to drive to the tracks. Now this might be my only my humble opinion, but that is more than just a passing interest. I spent 18 YEARS as a Sound Control official (speaking of under appreciated specialties) in Central Division, maintaining sensitive electronic equipment, in order to fend off the efforts of outside interests to put an end to racing. The officials that are my closest friends are National License drivers, who give back to the sport by volunteering their time - time that they could be spending out on the track. I knew corner officials who traveled from Philadelphia to Indianapolis to volunteer their time to our sport.
One of the questions on the new corner worker evaluation forms that we used in New York Region was 'Would you trust this worker to work green flag with you?' implying would you put your life in his hands and watch your back while you were watching out for YOU!. People with just a 'passing interest' do not do these things!
I first became a member of SCCA in 1966 - that's forty years! I resent you saying that officials have a passing interest. My interest will 'pass' when I pass on!
The purpose of the officials is 1) to provide a SAFE environment in which to race, and 2) enforce the rules that all participants agree to operate under, many of which are there for our SAFETY. It is their RESPONSIBILITY to inform the officials that are controling the event of unsafe situations.
'backed up by ten people just based on the fact that I have more money than they do'. Can you provide witnesses that will swear that these ten people got together and said 'let's all lie about what happened because he has more money than we do'. If not, then I submit that your statement is a contention on your part and may in fact not be 'fact'. BTW, I also own IBM stock!
I do not deny that there are occasions where officials may act in a questionable manner. Hopefully, those incidents have been delt with appropriately. I personnaly know of at least one individual who was permenantly banned from a track, and had his membership in SCCA revoked for inappropriate actions, so I know the system works. Luckily, this situation did not involve on-track safety and there were no injuries or worse.
'Jake you like to argue with me but the facts are that the club is no longer ours' Approximately 10% of the total club membership are licensed drivers. When you use the word 'ours' are you referring to just drivers? Where on your membership card does it say that you have a 'driver membership' as opposed to a 'official membership' or a 'solo membership'. Mine says I have a family membership and have a Crew License, a Competition License, a Pit/Grid License, and a Starter License. With the exception of the yuts (I grew up next to Brooklyn NY where that is a proper word - youngin's to those other parts of the country), there is only one membership.
OK, I have said my piece in defense of the 'paupers' who protect us drivers.
Sorry for the hijack, don't think it was too far off the path. I also apoligize to any others who were offended by Mr. Mattbergs comments on officials and posted before me.
RacerBill
New member
Mr. Mattberg Post #105
You really need to look beyond your backyard window to get the bigger picture. You made some typical rationalization comments. First, people "intending to build cars"... I wish I had a dime for every time I heard that one. Pure fiction. People who talk about it rarely get to the track. The ones who do are few and far between Second, the fixed income argument... You really shouldn't be involved in racing if that's the case. It's an expensive hobby. But the club is catering to those people and the results are what we have now which was the original point. We try and protect investments and make it possible for those old junkers to keep running competitively and nurture those who can't afford $100 for gas. Meanwhile, we push the growth element off to other organizations. I think you've allowed your own personal situation and perhaps a few others close to you generate your overall view.
What am I going to do about it? Nothing. Look for other organizations and keep my SCCA membership for as long as the club stays afloat. I personally can't fix the problems and certainly can't fight the masses who control the club and have steered it in a terrible direction. I can bring the facts to light and see if it can generate change.
You want some changes that will keep the drivers now being lost to other organizations? Here's a couple of suggestions:
1. Leave the racing to the racers. No worker or official protests.
2. Revise voting. One vote per paid license.
3. Reduce the number of classes. Combine and consolidate.
4. Create a CoA of drivers only.
5. Create an event based CoA of 6 participating drivers selected randomly that carry final word over any protests.
6. Create policy that at least 6 active drivers sit on the BoD.
7. Reduce insurance benefits and coverage for non-drivers/workers.
8. Eliminate membership fees for workers.
9. Open up the books in Topeka.
10. Eliminate the National convention and SCCA University
11. Pay workers but not officials unless they also work a specialty.
12. Universal common internet entry system and common software for every region
13. Universal live timing and scoring
14. All safety issues to be determined by driver CoA.
15. The BoD may not meet or talk with anyone related to business operations of the club.
'First, people "intending to build cars"... I wish I had a dime for every time I heard that one. Pure fiction.
People who talk about it rarely get to the track. The ones who do are few and far between '
And you point is???? These folks are inferior???? I am one of those folks. Bought a car that had been a SSB and built it into an ITA. I have spent two race weekends sorting it out. Only one finish, but I have been having a blast. I've waited 40 years to do this and for you to say that people like me should not be racing is elitist bullnuggets.
'Second, the fixed income argument... You really shouldn't be involved in racing if that's the case. It's an expensive hobby. But the club is catering to those people and the results are what we have now which was the original point.'
But we don't prohibit people who receive food stamps from buying lottery tickets, do we? As an extremem example, if the club was catering to the less financially endowed, we would require all race cars to be flat towed or driven to the track - NO MORE TRANSPORTERS!!!!!!
'Meanwhile, we push the growth element off to other organizations'
Just what is the ITR proposal?
Let's go down Mr. Mattberg's list. I know I will disagree with a couple of responses, but this is my opinion.
1. Leave the racing to the racers. No worker or official protests.
So, you are saying that as long as another driver does not see you doing something stupid that endangers the people who are enabling you to race, you have gotten away with it. How long do you think officials will continue to support you with that attitude.
2. Revise voting. One vote per paid license.
Yeah, I'll go along with that. Let's see, I paid my membership, thus I have paid for my licenses. My membership card says that I have four licenses, so I get four votes. My wife has three, so she gets three votes, and my daughter who has no votes now because she is a minor, has one license, so she now gets one vote.
3. Reduce the number of classes. Combine and consolidate.
There is already a procedure for this, and it is working. Witness GTL.
4. Create a CoA of drivers only.
From the registered drivers at an event, or from drivers who are not, and are not racing at another event, and agree to give up a weekend, and pay all their own expenses? If the COA is made up of registered drivers, how are you going to deal with conflicts of interest ie a member who must judge on an event that occurred in the race he was in. Not a simple as you suggest.
5. Create an event based CoA of 6 participating drivers selected randomly that carry final word over any protests.
Item 5 is just item 4 with more words. Same response.
6. Create policy that at least 6 active drivers sit on the BoD.
Then I insist on a BOD of at least 60 members since the licensed drivers are only 10% of the club. Let's see, how many rally BOD members, Solo, Time Trials, T&S, F&C oh, and lets have at least one BOD member for Sound Control!
7. Reduce insurance benefits and coverage for non-drivers/workers
So, if I am working a corner, and get injured pulling you from a burning car, I get less money. Even though my medical expenses would be the same for the same injuries (just to talk apples to apples). Oh, okay, so my insurance coverage is less if I go work sound control or grid, or pass out victory flags to drivers between on track sessions (cause our worker base is low this weekend). Are you a lawyer of something to come up with that idea? Whose going to keep a log of when I was working and when I was driving? Only a lawyer could come up with that administrative and litigation nightmare!
The concept of insurance is to spread the risk across a large base in order to provide the coverage at a lower cost. Now I admit that a registration official has a much lower risk of injury than a driver, but the driver pays a higher premium when he renews his license every year.
8. Eliminate membership fees for workers
So, now we have to make up for that lost revenue by driving up driver license fees and entry fees even higher, making driving more of a rich persons sport. Workers are already paying less, by the fact that they do not have to pay license fees. Eliminating all membership fees might have legal consequences as the membership is a form of contract in which the member pays a fee and receives services.
9. Open up the books in Topeka.
Already being done. Not a new idea.
10. Eliminate the National convention and SCCA University
National convention - how else are you going to exchange ideas with a membership of 60,000 that live and work thousands of miles apart?
SCCA University does not turn me on that much, although the intention is good. I would be more for it if there was a better way of getting the information out to the people.
11. Pay workers but not officials unless they also work a specialty.
Again, you are separating workers and officials. But anyway, if you pay someone, they are either employees or contractors. If they are employees, then you are going to have to factor in payroll processing costs, workers comp. and on and on. Who is going to administer this - National? the Regions? OK, there contractors. IRS says that to be a contractor, you supply your own tools. Now you are going to require that the workers sorry, contractors supply their own tools (above and beyond the personal tools they already provide)?
12. Universal common internet entry system and common software for every region
I agree in concept, but how would this be implemented? Would National dictate the software, How you you get all the regions to agree on what it would look like?
13. Universal live timing and scoring
I agree in concept, but how would this be implemented? Would National dictate the hardware and software, How you you get all the regions to agree on what the configuration would be?
14. All safety issues to be determined by driver CoA.
Here I am going to defer to the previous remards of others. The SIT and steward program is providing educated officials in this area. To rely on untrained individuals just on the basis that they are 'drivers' would
be a big step backwards, and not in the best interest of all concerned.
15. The BoD may not meet or talk with anyone related to business operations of the club.
What 'business operations' SCCA Enterprises, Pro Racing? Enterprises may not be much of an issue in the near future. Pro Racing? You want to spin them off too? If not,then someone has to oversee the operations.
and your added point: Add regional classes to the participation formula for the Runoffs 24 classes. At our club's showcase event I'd rather see a good IT battle than 12 CSRs with two of them lapping the field.
While I don't like to see the types of race you describe, one has to look at the potential long term effects of having IT go National. Not sure if I like that. But if a good proposal were made, I would listen to it.
Anyway, those are my comments. I am impressed that at least these were all positive ideas, and got me to think about important issues.
You really need to look beyond your backyard window to get the bigger picture. You made some typical rationalization comments. First, people "intending to build cars"... I wish I had a dime for every time I heard that one. Pure fiction. People who talk about it rarely get to the track. The ones who do are few and far between Second, the fixed income argument... You really shouldn't be involved in racing if that's the case. It's an expensive hobby. But the club is catering to those people and the results are what we have now which was the original point. We try and protect investments and make it possible for those old junkers to keep running competitively and nurture those who can't afford $100 for gas. Meanwhile, we push the growth element off to other organizations. I think you've allowed your own personal situation and perhaps a few others close to you generate your overall view.
What am I going to do about it? Nothing. Look for other organizations and keep my SCCA membership for as long as the club stays afloat. I personally can't fix the problems and certainly can't fight the masses who control the club and have steered it in a terrible direction. I can bring the facts to light and see if it can generate change.
You want some changes that will keep the drivers now being lost to other organizations? Here's a couple of suggestions:
1. Leave the racing to the racers. No worker or official protests.
2. Revise voting. One vote per paid license.
3. Reduce the number of classes. Combine and consolidate.
4. Create a CoA of drivers only.
5. Create an event based CoA of 6 participating drivers selected randomly that carry final word over any protests.
6. Create policy that at least 6 active drivers sit on the BoD.
7. Reduce insurance benefits and coverage for non-drivers/workers.
8. Eliminate membership fees for workers.
9. Open up the books in Topeka.
10. Eliminate the National convention and SCCA University
11. Pay workers but not officials unless they also work a specialty.
12. Universal common internet entry system and common software for every region
13. Universal live timing and scoring
14. All safety issues to be determined by driver CoA.
15. The BoD may not meet or talk with anyone related to business operations of the club.
'First, people "intending to build cars"... I wish I had a dime for every time I heard that one. Pure fiction.
People who talk about it rarely get to the track. The ones who do are few and far between '
And you point is???? These folks are inferior???? I am one of those folks. Bought a car that had been a SSB and built it into an ITA. I have spent two race weekends sorting it out. Only one finish, but I have been having a blast. I've waited 40 years to do this and for you to say that people like me should not be racing is elitist bullnuggets.
'Second, the fixed income argument... You really shouldn't be involved in racing if that's the case. It's an expensive hobby. But the club is catering to those people and the results are what we have now which was the original point.'
But we don't prohibit people who receive food stamps from buying lottery tickets, do we? As an extremem example, if the club was catering to the less financially endowed, we would require all race cars to be flat towed or driven to the track - NO MORE TRANSPORTERS!!!!!!
'Meanwhile, we push the growth element off to other organizations'
Just what is the ITR proposal?
Let's go down Mr. Mattberg's list. I know I will disagree with a couple of responses, but this is my opinion.
1. Leave the racing to the racers. No worker or official protests.
So, you are saying that as long as another driver does not see you doing something stupid that endangers the people who are enabling you to race, you have gotten away with it. How long do you think officials will continue to support you with that attitude.
2. Revise voting. One vote per paid license.
Yeah, I'll go along with that. Let's see, I paid my membership, thus I have paid for my licenses. My membership card says that I have four licenses, so I get four votes. My wife has three, so she gets three votes, and my daughter who has no votes now because she is a minor, has one license, so she now gets one vote.
3. Reduce the number of classes. Combine and consolidate.
There is already a procedure for this, and it is working. Witness GTL.
4. Create a CoA of drivers only.
From the registered drivers at an event, or from drivers who are not, and are not racing at another event, and agree to give up a weekend, and pay all their own expenses? If the COA is made up of registered drivers, how are you going to deal with conflicts of interest ie a member who must judge on an event that occurred in the race he was in. Not a simple as you suggest.
5. Create an event based CoA of 6 participating drivers selected randomly that carry final word over any protests.
Item 5 is just item 4 with more words. Same response.
6. Create policy that at least 6 active drivers sit on the BoD.
Then I insist on a BOD of at least 60 members since the licensed drivers are only 10% of the club. Let's see, how many rally BOD members, Solo, Time Trials, T&S, F&C oh, and lets have at least one BOD member for Sound Control!
7. Reduce insurance benefits and coverage for non-drivers/workers
So, if I am working a corner, and get injured pulling you from a burning car, I get less money. Even though my medical expenses would be the same for the same injuries (just to talk apples to apples). Oh, okay, so my insurance coverage is less if I go work sound control or grid, or pass out victory flags to drivers between on track sessions (cause our worker base is low this weekend). Are you a lawyer of something to come up with that idea? Whose going to keep a log of when I was working and when I was driving? Only a lawyer could come up with that administrative and litigation nightmare!
The concept of insurance is to spread the risk across a large base in order to provide the coverage at a lower cost. Now I admit that a registration official has a much lower risk of injury than a driver, but the driver pays a higher premium when he renews his license every year.
8. Eliminate membership fees for workers
So, now we have to make up for that lost revenue by driving up driver license fees and entry fees even higher, making driving more of a rich persons sport. Workers are already paying less, by the fact that they do not have to pay license fees. Eliminating all membership fees might have legal consequences as the membership is a form of contract in which the member pays a fee and receives services.
9. Open up the books in Topeka.
Already being done. Not a new idea.
10. Eliminate the National convention and SCCA University
National convention - how else are you going to exchange ideas with a membership of 60,000 that live and work thousands of miles apart?
SCCA University does not turn me on that much, although the intention is good. I would be more for it if there was a better way of getting the information out to the people.
11. Pay workers but not officials unless they also work a specialty.
Again, you are separating workers and officials. But anyway, if you pay someone, they are either employees or contractors. If they are employees, then you are going to have to factor in payroll processing costs, workers comp. and on and on. Who is going to administer this - National? the Regions? OK, there contractors. IRS says that to be a contractor, you supply your own tools. Now you are going to require that the workers sorry, contractors supply their own tools (above and beyond the personal tools they already provide)?
12. Universal common internet entry system and common software for every region
I agree in concept, but how would this be implemented? Would National dictate the software, How you you get all the regions to agree on what it would look like?
13. Universal live timing and scoring
I agree in concept, but how would this be implemented? Would National dictate the hardware and software, How you you get all the regions to agree on what the configuration would be?
14. All safety issues to be determined by driver CoA.
Here I am going to defer to the previous remards of others. The SIT and steward program is providing educated officials in this area. To rely on untrained individuals just on the basis that they are 'drivers' would
be a big step backwards, and not in the best interest of all concerned.
15. The BoD may not meet or talk with anyone related to business operations of the club.
What 'business operations' SCCA Enterprises, Pro Racing? Enterprises may not be much of an issue in the near future. Pro Racing? You want to spin them off too? If not,then someone has to oversee the operations.
and your added point: Add regional classes to the participation formula for the Runoffs 24 classes. At our club's showcase event I'd rather see a good IT battle than 12 CSRs with two of them lapping the field.
While I don't like to see the types of race you describe, one has to look at the potential long term effects of having IT go National. Not sure if I like that. But if a good proposal were made, I would listen to it.
Anyway, those are my comments. I am impressed that at least these were all positive ideas, and got me to think about important issues.
Did I say inferior? My point was that we build too much policy around longshots. If they build one great but to put the dependence and/or survival of a class on the fact that someone says there are potentially cars being built? Like I said I've heard it many times and seen the results. It's the most common response in extending policy for something that is most likely dying. The focus should not be there. Build your car that's great. I'm not saying to not allow you. I'm just saying let's not bet the farm on the belief that "they will build them" sooner or later because most, unlike you, won't.
Who's talking about prohibiting anything or anybody from doing anything. Again I'm just saying that building policy around a certain demographic or bringing fixed income into the equation doesn't make sense. There's also a dangerous ledge when policy caters to the less fortunate where you lose the more fortunate. THose people are needed and bring steady and readily disposable dollars to the club. It's sad to me when I hear of a gung ho racer who says he can't afford this race or that race. I've let guys drive one of my cars and I've paid an entry or two in my time for a couple friends who were in that position. But to lose the regulars who drive full schedules and have no budget concerns like that because policy has limited their recreation?... not a good idea.
A proposal and nothing more. Tell me how it keeps people upset with officiating from leaving the club or helps those who want to race Nationals in prod in a car less than thirty years old?
Enabling me to race? That's a stretch. If every worker and official decided not to go to a race, the racers would still race. I've seen it happen. Regardless, I am not saying a driver should be able to get away with doing something stupid. I'm saying that officials and workers should not be judging blame in racing incidents if the drivers see no foul. But I'm seeing it almost every race. It's like third man in on a hockey fight. But if there's no fight, they create one.
The idea was to curb multiple voting by a single person through family memberships. Should a dog or a three year old be voting. Yes, I know of someone who has a dog on their family membership. Does a person with four kids and a wife deserve six votes versus my one?
THere is no procedure I know of. Please let me know where I can find such. As far as I know, the guys in the classes got together and worked it out on their own. But we have other classes that are dying yet the participants are reluctant to combine or consolidate because it provides an easy road to the Runoffs. Unfortunately it takes up class space and puts us at a disadvantage in bringing in new cars, new classes and new blood.
Licensed ACTIVE drivers. Maybe 6 picked out of a hat or assigned by the BoD? Sort of like a Supreme Court. Maybe an alternative or two to take care of conflict of interest concerns. And what are they giving up. If being on the COA takes that much time then yes we need to fix the protest rules. Outside of the protests from officials there are very few as I read Fastrack.
I disagree. Being the minority population but the majority bread winners is a big reason for some of the problems. Without road racing there is no club. Period. All of the others are basically cost centers and to dicipher the Topeka books (another big problem) I'm sure this would be proven true. How the club can assign half a million plus in expenses to administration of licensing for just road racers is just silly. That's more than the membership. Just ain't so. But the expenses are spread to raod racing to protect those other areas and the members who enjoy them. Unfortunately there are no safeguards to stop that from happeneing except for having more road racers in a position of oversight.
You didn't read what I wrote. I said non-workers/drivers/officials. But over insuring for non-participants should be examined. We are over insured in a lot of areas as I see it. It's only an invitation to get sued. If there weren't any insurance no lawyer inthe world would touch it. What are they going to get? The $32,000 in non-trust cash? Our tapped out $600K letter of credit? Furthermore I'd love to see a program that allows people to waive the insurance. Maybe that would get us a price break. I have to pay an additional premium for coverage on three separate policies (life, medical and keyman) just because of racing. I've got to pay it regardless of other coverage. I'll waive it if it will help. The idea is to reduce the coverage to help control entry costs.
I'll pay extra. So will a lot of others. Another reason not to cater to those in questionable financial condition. I don't think we should be looking to workers for revenue. It's just wrong. And trust me, read the financials. We don't make a whole lot on memberships given the cost and support of those 50,000 people. Sportscar alone is a huge expense that wipes out a big chunk.
No it hasn't been done. They create generic balance sheets that no person could ever decipher. I'm talking about details but they say that information is confidential.
Exchange ideas? C'mon. It's a party for officials. OK, so maybe some are really there for purpose. Have it at the Runoffs. Maybe we'd get more spectators. It's a HUGE waste of cash, effort and administration as a separate event.
Sure there will be details. I guess I'll pay the extra. THe return will be worth it.
If we had it, it's usable and drivers were happy it wouldn't matter. It's an easy deal. If the regions don't accept it they don't get sanction numbers. Tough love baby.
These systems are not rocket science. Develop a system and implement it. Heck, a worker from Iowa could work a race in New York or Monterey. It's a no-brainer. Unfortunately you have too many egos on the regional level who think they have a better idea. Funny, because I don't know of any regions that have decent systems that are anywhere near what they should be.
Instead we'll depend on the untrained individuals who aren't drivers? THe CoA of drivers can be educated and informed every bit as well as the non-drivers. Two year belts would never have been approved by drivers. It's just too simple. A group of officials got wined and dined by SFI and the drivers paid the bill. Either that or they played the insurance card and that might even represent a crime. I might check into that.
There is a difference between overseeing operations and corporate governance to "running the operation" which our BoD has been doing over the years. They are not qualified and legally bound not to. They are to oversee Topeka's implementation and make decisions based on results of their performance and nothing more. That's why we just paid Fran Am a big pile of dough.
I didn't say anything about going National. Just take the numbers from all racing and take the top 24. If ITS and ITA have better numbers than HP, guess who goes? Just a better product for the fan, worker, official, driver and spectator.
ulfelder
New member
I ignored this thread for weeks because I couldn't see what Tim K's qualifying had to do with me. But this morning, having noted the astonishing number of posts, curiosity forced me to check it out, and so I say ...
Bravo!
Hilarious stuff. Don't know who made up this Mattberg, but he's the funniest character since Kramer.
Steve U
05 ITS
Flatout Motorsports
Bravo!
Hilarious stuff. Don't know who made up this Mattberg, but he's the funniest character since Kramer. Steve U
05 ITS
Flatout Motorsports
Learn the rules of your club. Other than the SoM, the volunteer officials - I am unaware of any workers - do not judge blame in any racing incident. We give witness statements that are submitted to the SoMs. An official might be asked his opinion based on his experience, but it is the SoMs that determine the value of that opinion.
The Tim K LRP protest is an oddball event and I will agree that the protest was ridiculous - but the system worked.
Your proposal, however, is an incredible overreaction to an extremly rare occurance that eliminates those instances when a protest lodged by an official is justified.
Case in point - A national at Summit. Driver of fast formula car has about one-half lap lead over second place. He is trying to set the lap record. He goes through turn 10, where a waving yellow is being displayed for a car into the pit wall and the attending EVs - latter on course. Driver does not lift, darts to the right to go around a backmarker and causes the EV people to scatter.
The overtaken driver didn't see a foul - he didn't lose a position. The second place driver didn't even know about the pass. Sooooo should this driver get off without any punishment? The ONLY people in position to lodge a protest are the officials who witnessed the pass.
This driver just made a STUPID decision that endangered people responding to a car into a wall and in Matt's world nothing happens.
Now, some would argue that the Stewards should be licensed or ex-drivers. Great. Excellent. Find me enough of these who are willing to do the job.
Worse yet, such a rule would prevent on the most respected, knowledgable, restrained and fair members of the club from serving as either a steward or member of the Court of Appeals because, as far as I know, she never raced. I'd rather have SR in the chair or as an SoM than all of the Runoffs champs in the world.
Hmmmm.... they already can.
jj,
A LOT of people feel the same about her.
Back when she was the C/S at the runoffs I worked for her as the protest steward, basically a full time job tracking all the protests, fines, SoM decisions, and CoA decisions. I watched her be level headed and very, very fair when a communications issue between tech (they said X, meant to say X') and a driver (who did X) got tech all bent out of shape. Wanted the driver tossed. Her listening to the driver and then deciding what to do was pleasent to watch. And, Boris got to keep his win as well.
She gave me a nice present as a thank you (a Swiss Army pocket knife) that I still carry.
I've had to talk a few matters over with her from time to time and have always known that the fair and proper thing would be done. That has never been a question.
Out of all the stewards and any other person I have ever met in SCCA, I have more respect for her than anyone else, and as a rule I really don't like stewards all that much.
D
These systems are not rocket science. Develop a system and implement it. Heck, a worker from Iowa could work a race in New York or Monterey.
"Hmmmm.... they already can."
What dream world are you living in? We had half of our times at the Homestead National lost and waited a more than a week for final results with workers familiar with the system. Mostly because a T&S official didn't know what they were doing and refused help from a worker from a different specialty who knew what was wrong. Then claimed, "drivers are never happy" and laughed. I was there and heard it FIRST HAND. A whole room of officials laughed along. That is pitiful.
Why were there fifteen T&S people in the tower? THey say we need to keep the manual system in place for just such an occurrence. What were they doing that weekend? PLEASE TELL ME. EXPLAIN THAT TO ME. From what I saw of the nice buffet they had layed out there I can pretty much surmise...
"Hmmmm.... they already can."
What dream world are you living in? We had half of our times at the Homestead National lost and waited a more than a week for final results with workers familiar with the system. Mostly because a T&S official didn't know what they were doing and refused help from a worker from a different specialty who knew what was wrong. Then claimed, "drivers are never happy" and laughed. I was there and heard it FIRST HAND. A whole room of officials laughed along. That is pitiful.
Why were there fifteen T&S people in the tower? THey say we need to keep the manual system in place for just such an occurrence. What were they doing that weekend? PLEASE TELL ME. EXPLAIN THAT TO ME. From what I saw of the nice buffet they had layed out there I can pretty much surmise...
Should I take the lack of a rebutal for the inane "limit who may protest" proposal as a sign that you recognize its lack of merit?
Boy, bad things just seem to happen to you everywhere you go. I'm vacillating between whether it is a case of karma payback or indications of BPD.
1. Some Regions are better than others in terms of competency and treatment of entrants. It is well known which are good and which are bad and wise drivers avoid those Regions that are in need of improvement.
2. The T&S person didn't know their own system... what makes you think they would know how to operate a universal system? Nor would a universal system have prevented a T&S official from refusing the help of someone in a different specialty.
3. Gauging your attitude, I believe the statement made by the official to be correct.
4. What were they doing? Perhaps dealing with chowderheads who immediately copped an attitude because everything was going right in the world?
You are correct. We need a standard T&S system and online entry system for the entire club. I suggest we finance the purchase of all of this new equipment and the training of the officials by dramatically increasing the cost of obtaining a National driving license because Regions that already have invested in systems that work fine should not be forced to pay for new equipment simply to satisfy out of region drivers. In fact, I would recommend that the increased fee be permanent and used to finance a per diem to send insular officials to out-of-region tracks so that they gain a better understanding of how other people do it.
Yep.... a $200 or more fee for a national license should cover it.
Boy, bad things just seem to happen to you everywhere you go. I'm vacillating between whether it is a case of karma payback or indications of BPD.
1. Some Regions are better than others in terms of competency and treatment of entrants. It is well known which are good and which are bad and wise drivers avoid those Regions that are in need of improvement.
2. The T&S person didn't know their own system... what makes you think they would know how to operate a universal system? Nor would a universal system have prevented a T&S official from refusing the help of someone in a different specialty.
3. Gauging your attitude, I believe the statement made by the official to be correct.
4. What were they doing? Perhaps dealing with chowderheads who immediately copped an attitude because everything was going right in the world?
You are correct. We need a standard T&S system and online entry system for the entire club. I suggest we finance the purchase of all of this new equipment and the training of the officials by dramatically increasing the cost of obtaining a National driving license because Regions that already have invested in systems that work fine should not be forced to pay for new equipment simply to satisfy out of region drivers. In fact, I would recommend that the increased fee be permanent and used to finance a per diem to send insular officials to out-of-region tracks so that they gain a better understanding of how other people do it.
Yep.... a $200 or more fee for a national license should cover it.