Drift vs. Grip SCC article.
 

Interesting article in Sept. issue of SCC. While it is far from the definitive answer, it has some interesting results.

On Tarmac, the short of it is drift = slow even in the tightest of corners. (The article doesn't say it, but the exception would be something that required a 3 point turn otherwise.)

And what I like best is that CORNER EXIT SPEED IS KING!!! Long live the type 1 corner! A stock STI outperformed a well prepared one in a couple areas, and it was largely due to faster corner exit.

Some of the other interesting stuff from the graphs from stock to grip are that smooth is fast as is being on the gas earlier and using more of the course width... Imagine that.

Take a read...

I stopped subscribing to SCC when Jacquot and Coleman left. Is that article on the website?

Nope, at least not yet.

I got a "Kevin, please come back to us" free issue. Sorry I kept it :lol:

Bastard! :lol: I got a begging issue from GRM too, but Jake ate it. :(

Haha. It wasnt that great anyway, you didn't miss much. :lol:

Dean you split the answer off into Tarmac, and ???

and then didn't finish. I'm sure its Snow and Dirt , Drift the piss out of it, so that you get higher exit speed ?? But i haven't see the article, care to enlighten me ?

The article is specific to tarmac and is a combination of medium to super tight corners with short/medium to no straights between them, and in no case is throwing the back end out faster.

Is it the ultimate definitive answer, no, but an interesting read.

I think Eric, in the black AS STI added some anecdotal fuel to the fire on Saturday. He threw the Diff in full lock and drifted the whole course. He actually came to a stop with all 4 spinning a couple times. His times sucked of course, but he was having fun.

Yeah, and he managed to get ME in trouble again!!! :mad: Yesterday, with Nick in the car: "was that you who was drifting all over the place out here yesterday!?" Dammit!!!!!!one!11

Full lock on tarmac?

Poor tires. Poor differential. Poor times.

He tried to protest Alex for his front sway too. :D

Yeah well, Dick Lewis had a protst of his own for Mr. Knobikoff. And he had some ground to stand on.

Did some shit go down that I didn't hear about?

I had the "drifting" discussion with Jim and Dave, and my primary thought is this.

SCCA National, who underwrites the insurance for these events needs to be made aware that there are potential participants who may intentionally induce oversteer on multiple occasions during a given run for purposes other than to minimize time on course.

Is this acceptable/permissible behavior for events sanctioned for Solo?

Depending on the response to such a question, we can pose more. Right now, I do not think there is a rule against it, either at the national or local level.

My primary thought is that people with lesser car control skills than Erik will think that they too can come out and go driftering. It's not so much that Erik is being unsafe (although I heard a secondhand report that he had an "off" that nearly brought him to a worker station while he was still in the throttle) but the potential for injury at worst and intermittent red flags at best.

Erik drifted the course all day on Saturday. Several of us felt this was not appropriate. At the end of the day Dick told him that if he continued to intentioally break traction he would not be allowed further participation. This is the report I got from John Riggs III, who didn't give specifics of the conversation except to say the Dick was not happy.

I agree, but unless there is a rule against it, then it is permitted in terms of on course driving technique.

You also open a significant debate with the high HP crowd that often have significant slip angles.

Before a Safety steward can interject, something must be unsafe. Skilled or unskilled drivers drifting or not have hit workers. We have participants who have regularly failed to brake for corners and run over many cones, timing lights, slid onto taxiways, headed for fences, etc.

IMHO drifting is not inherently any more unsafe especially at speeds like Saturday's course.

I think this is first an insurance question, second a realistic safety question and third a site damage question. Personal opinions on drifting don't count.

I thought we already didn't allow people to do that? Certainly e-brake use, and donuts aren't allowed... and anyone that's off course and still on the throttle is warned, and then kicked out, no? Why was there a discussion about it?

And, what was the part about the swaybar?

Certainly this isn't an issue about slip-angle. This is an issue about control. Anyone that's intentionally controlling the car with dynamic friction rather than static friction has less control than someone trying to maintain grip, at least in terms of available traction. It's an awful lot harder to stop a car that's drifting sideways than one that's rolling straight.

And unless he's somehow fast (and thus legitimizing the driving technique, which isn't likely since drifting is slow) then he's just showboating, which we already don't allow.

Anyway, I'm sure I'll hear more through the BoD.

Donuts are the only thing I think we as a local entity have identified related solely to alleged site damage. Even that isn't in the sups as far as I know, so technically, we can't enforce it especially when we don't announce it consistently.

Emotion and opinion appear to be fevered on this topic, but ultimately in a rules bound sport such as solo, those are irrelevant. Maybe we should ask the FIA for a ruling. :)

I have no issues with drifting. If I had an appropriate car I'd be trying it myself. But the SCCA has made it clear that they want none of it at Solo events. So between National not wanting it and the obvious potential for risk to person and property, it should not be allowed at our events.

I didn't even know about that until I read it here. Maybe Alex will respond to this in less than a week. :lol:

To be clear, I am not a fan of drifting and would prefer if it was not done at our events, but playing devil's advocate, show me why I can't.

You can't make a rule related to "control". If we did, 50% of our novices would be sent packing as would you and I on occasion.

Where does oversteer end and drifting begin?

We have a rule against showboating? And how is that defined?

Like pornography vs. art, most of us know it when we see it. Getting all 4 tires spinning in an STi that is moving on an axis matched by neither the centerline of the car nor the steering angle is porn. I mean, showboating.

Has National posted a policy or written a rule on this? If so, great. If not, we certainly don't have one as far as I can find.

Where is the rule?

Here's the rule:

"I'm a Safety Steward. I don't think your driving is safe. Stop drifting."

A lady told Alex and I that she "heard" that "someone" was trying to "turn Alex in" for having an illegal front sway bar...or something like that. I had talked to Eric during tech and asked him if he had a front sway. He thought it was illegal and didn't seem convinced when I told him otherwise. I then told him, sarcastically, that Alex was "cheating" then.

Take it with a grain of salt, my initial comment was based on hearsay and assumption.

I wouldn't call what Erik was doing "drifting" as so much as braking hard, turning the wheel, and punching the throttle in first gear in a 300hp car, and hoping to still be relatively on line.

Sure he broke traction but it was about a 1/10 for drifting afaik.

<---not impressed with so called "drifting"

Yes Cody was mentioning to Erik that i have upgraded my front swaybar and Erik apparently not having ever read the rule book, thought it was illegal in Stock class and wanted to protest me. some how Peggy Jones was the person who ended up asking me about my sway bars. And at first I thought (but said nothing of it ) that Randy had noticed how i went form almost 2 seconds behind (events 10 & 11) to this past weekend.

So i brought up that my sway bar was actually Bolted on properly unlike the last 2 events where (unknowingly to me) one of the end link Nuts had back almost 100% off. which lead to lots of clunking and was a small factor in my poor times.

She must have read my body language, Or is just used to people blaming Randy and mentioned it wasn't Randy who was currious, but someone really wanted to protest me, so i quickly listed off my Mods. Mud Flaps, Cat Back exhuast, Whiteline 27-29 swaybar set to 27, Motul 600 brake fluid, EBC Yellow brake pads and 255/40/17 Azenis 615's on stock rims. I noted that my rear sway bar is indeed stock and that i would even drive up on Ramps so that anyone who wanted a peek would have an easier time looking at it. (as she mentioned my swaybar being the issue)

Some runs i DO play with my DCCD. (Run No Points) Realizing that it won't make me faster, but it Does increase my enjoyment that i get for my runs, that i paid for. I also think that driving on street tires with the DCCD open makes my car a little squirmy on exit, Which might help me in learning car control skills. (teaches me throttle oversteer recovery techniques, and it gives real life proof to Dean and everyone else who says if you touch your DCCD your times will suffer, and gives everyone some extra fuel to poke fun at me with :) ) and as long as i'm paying for my runs, and i'm following all of the rules, shouldn't i be able to Put it on a manual setting? If anyone here wants to pay for my runs i'll drive the course exactly how you want me to (as long as you don't ask me to violate any rules) :cool:

On a Side note, I was thinking of coloring in a magnetic strip that looked like the DCCD display in the dash with something like "DCCD Set to Spaz" based on a Joke MikeK made towards me over a month ago at the flowing tide, but I felt it would probably be lost to everyone, and chances are he wouldn't remember it either...

All I know is: I have a new rule... encounters between Eric and I will likely be less and less cordial the more he gets me in trouble. SCCA sanctioned or not.

RTFRB!!! You don't have the authority to tell a driver anything, much less how to drive his vehicle especially if they are staying within the boundaries of the course. Go read section 4.2 of the rule book and appendix E if you don't believe me.

For the purposes of this discussion, the only real recourse you are authorized with is to change worker positions or suggest to the course designers that the course be changed.

You're right. I was pissed when Helen asked me to keep it under control, the SSS has no right to tell someone how to drive.

"This course is not safe as the driver that's decided to drift all over the place is endangering the courseworkers since the worker stations are not 600 ft from the course. Event over, blame the guy that's 'legally' drifting."

How's that? :roll: 'Course back in reality, you have a driver that's intentionally driving in a manner that lowers event safety for the sole reason of hot-dogging, and I think a Safety Steward has a responsibility to curb the behavior. If the driver refuses, you kick him/her out, if they refuse to leave citing "RTFRB!!!", then you cancel the event.

Drop the opinions and emotions and RTFRB. You are talking about taking responsibility and actions you are not authorized to do. Go reread section 4.2 and Apendix E. A SSS is not an all powerful SAFETY GOD! They have very limited authority and responsibilities.

It is possible the chief steward may have some recourse with drivers not staying within course boundaries, but even that probably has to be be more than one instance.

Okay, I'm reading the rule book, and I see where it says the SSS has a "prime responsibility and vested authority to ensure all necessary safety precautions are taken with respect to spectator, worker and driver (i.e., course layout) safety." But I can't find the part where it tells me I have to throw out all common sense in order to do that job.

And since you seem to want to throw around "reading the fucking rule book"... how about following your own advice:
So, in my example, where I deemed that the minimum safe distance from the course due to the idiot driver is 600 feet (as the SSS I'm allowed to make that judgment call, read Appendix E), I have the authority to cancel the event because there would be no way to adjust the course to meet the safety requirement.

Or you could just apply common sense and kick out the unsafe driver.

Edit: On an aside... is there really a reason for the whole RTFRB attitude crap? What's the point you're proving? All you do is inflame what was a benign situation into yet another semantics only argument. Or do you really believe that if a driver decides to disregard the safety of others the SSS should just be like "oh well, there's nothing I can do, I read the rule book!". I can't believe that you truly believe there's an argument that the SSS's hands are tied to stop a drifting demonstration at an event. If someone's not playing nice, they're asked to leave, and that's the end of it. It's worked in the past, it'll work in the future, where's the problem?

Again, I am playing devil's advocate, and all you keep doing is throwing out your opinion that drifting is somehow inherently unsafe.

If they are within the course boundaries, how is it unsafe? You do not have the authority until a rule or policy from nationals says so to critique and comment on a driver's method of completing the course if they do so within the boundaries of said course!

You have failed to site a single rule that permits you to do so, and that is my point. The SSS roles and responsibilities are very small, and telling a driver how to drive is not one of them!

You keep throwing in value judgments with no facts in evidence. We get "idiot driver[s]" at every event who can't keep it between the cones including you and I. I don't see you advocating 600 foot distances because of that? Why so for "drifting"?

Drifting, like skateboarding is not a crime!

Are you prepared to throw out every prepared and mod car as they power oversteer the exit of most corners leading onto straights of any length? Or set 600 foot worker clearances for them?

The SSS does not have the authority to ask anyone to leave an event unless they have failed to sign the waiver! Get off your high horse. That is why the SSS role is so strictly defined, so they don't go off claiming to have authority over everything and everyone at an event.

Otherwise as a SSS, I could claim MikeK's method of driving the course faster than mine is unsafe and threaten to shut down the event if he didn't drive to my liking.

Common sense says that if a driver can complete a course within it's boundaries then it is as safe as pretty much any other driver who does. Value judgments on how they complete the course not withstanding.

Until National publishes something regarding this, I really don't think you have a leg to stand on according to the rules. That is my point.

On a completely unrelated note, I have just realised that I need to be a safety steward at future events.

Dean and Scott are arguing?


must be Tuesday.

You mean a day ending in "y" :)

Never have I stated that drifting is inherently unsafe. I said a driver driving unsafely is unsafe. If someone is drifting, and I as a SSS deem it's unsafe, then by definition, it's unsafe, since that's the SSS's judgment call. At no time does the label of "drifting" need to be applied, nor do National or Supplemental rules need to have any language regarding someone's "style" of driving. If it doesn't look safe, that's enough, that's what's in the rules.

So once again, apply just the tiniest drop of common sense to this situation: if someone is out there hot-dogging around; be it burnouts, drifting, sticking his hands out the window, drinking a Coke, driving the course in reverse gear, stopping and running around the car, etc, the SSS has every right and the authority to take whatever actions necessary to keep the event safe. I'd *love* to see someone call up the National office to file a "the SSS is unfair and wouldn't let me drift the course" complaint. :roll:

I see what you're trying to get at with the Devil's advocacy regarding the lack of specifics towards determining what is and isn't allowed, but the simple fact is that the rules are written such that it doesn't matter. They're intentionally vague specifically to give the SSS whatever leverage he/she needs to keep things safe. If a SSS doesn't like what's going on, they put the event on pause until the event chair sorts it out. If that means changing the course, moving a worker station, or kicking out a competitor, that's what it means, or the SSS has the duty to shitcan the event.

They are in no way vague. They are very restricted.
You do not have any other authority.

Your authority only goes to course design. You cannot dictate driver's actions in any way, and your only recourse is through the event chair and chief steward. Them's the rules.

And Mr. common sense, you can't kick out the "idiot" because...

If the "idiot" is within the boundaries of the course as you approved it, then by definition, he is not unsafe. Your authority only extends to the course, not driver's within the course!!! You do not have the authority to identify a driver as "unsafe", you can only say the course as unsafe as it is being driven!!!

I'm not saying the SSS has the explicit authority to kick someone out, I'm saying they have the authority to end the event over what they judge to be safety issues.

Read your own quote.

If a SSS deems the course unsafe, and the course can't be fixed, the event is over. If the course is unsafe because someone shows up with a 1200 hp car that can go 150 mph on a straight, thus making an otherwise safe course unsafe, then the SSS can end the event, provided there is no way to "fix" the course. Similarly, if you've got one person that insists on driving in a manner that makes the course unsafe, the SSS can end the event.

Or the event staff can use some common sense and ask the offender to leave, thus allowing the event to continue. Either way, the SSS has the authority, leverage, and duty to ensure the event is safe... their word is final, as they can make a phone call and drop the event insurance.

Just because someone's within the cones does not make them safe beyond question. That's why the rules are written such that the SSS is allowed to make a judgment call regarding the course. I know if I'm the SSS on duty and I see someone intentionally losing control of their car out there, I'm going to talk to them about it, whether or not the car stays within the cones is immaterial.

Once again, you're making this out as a semantic issue. The defacto reality is that the SSS can take the steps necessary to keep the event running safely, or we all go home.

What offense are the "offenders" guilty of? POINT TO THE RULE!!!

This discussion started because Eric was driving in a controlled and safe manner at reasonable speeds in the eyes of the SSS on duty during that run group, Dave Deborde.

Other SSSs said it was "drifting" and implying somehow inherently unsafe.

This is the issue I would like guidance on from national. Comparing Eric's driving to that of some of the high HP/weight ratio RWD cars, Eric was significantly safer and yet he was singled out and spoken to.

That is not an acceptable SSS action IMHO. Just because someone is more experienced or even a national champion and only has two wheels spinning does not make the course any safer.

This sport exists right on the edge of control for many cars/drivers, often just outside the boundry. That is the level a course designer and safety steward reviewing a course should be thinking about.

Singling out any driver that is in a legally classed and inspected car who is within a reasonable margin of control is unacceptable! There is no rule allowing a SSS or other event official that I can find to take any action with the driver in any way. Common sense or no, there is no rule permitting it other than baring all competirors in Karts or Jr. kart mostly to decapitation. but again, that is a course being deemed unsafe for karts, not the drivers being unsafe.

We have karts and X/A/B mod cars, so you better get used to cars going 100+MPH and think about that as well as cars at extreme slip angles when designing or approving a course or you may well need to make last minute changes or cancel an event.

Until there is a rule, supp or guideline against it, cars at high slip angles on one or both ends of the car are legal and a SSS cannot change that, they can only take it into consideration when approving a course. End of story.

What the F are you rambling about?

I said, a SSS can use their own judgment about what's safe and what's not safe. That includes the skill level of a driver, the car he's driving, the way he's driving, etc. If a SSS thinks someone is unsafe, that's it, they're unsafe. It's a judgment call. If I think a n00b out there simply can't complete the course safely, I'm doing something about it. To let them go out there and risk themselves and course workers 'cause there's no specific rule about skill level ain't gonna float the boat if and when that guy hits someone. If I could have reasonably predicted an incident and didn't prevent it from happening, I'm not doing my job as a SSS.

Now, I wasn't there, I didn't see how Erik was driving. Dave may not have had a problem with it, but if other SSS didn't think it was safe, they have a duty to bring it up with Dave. Plus, any participant has a right to tell another "I don't think you're driving safely and I'd appreciate you stop doing X unsafe behavior". No rule book given "authority" needed, and no definition regarding slip angles or other such crap needed. If the SSS feels the event is unsafe for whatever reason, they do something about it. I think the authors of your hallowed rule book would laugh that you're suggesting they'd want something less.

You are arguing that as a SSS you get to decide who is safe and who isn't, and you don't! You cannot judge someone as not worthy to run on your course!

You get to decide if a course is safe for all competitors within reasonable expectations.

This is not semantics, it is a clear distinction to make sure competition is fair for all competitors and a SSS authority dos not affect individual competitors unjustly.

I am not saying you have to run an unsafe event, but a SSS cannot tell a driver how to drive just because they don't like it.

Either a course is safe for all Solo vehicles or it isn't.

If a driver is not outside the boundaries of the course, you have a hard time convincing me they are unsafe or jeopardizing workers or spectators.

If they have left the course, spun multiple times, disrupted the event or such, the stewards may well have recourse with the driver, but that is not what we are discussing!

If they are within the boundaries of the course approved by the safety steward, how can that same safety steward logically claim they creating an unsafe situation?

This appears to be your logic... Course is safe for all solo classes and competitors. A competitor is driving within the course. SSS doesn't like how the competitor is driving. Therefore the competitor is unsafe. Please Venn diagram that for me would you???? :rolleyes:

Your failure to understand what I've posted like 5 times now makes me believe you have a deficiency to understand. I'm not going to keep repeating myself, here it is for the last time:

If a SSS judges the event to be unsafe, he has the duty to request changes from the event staff to make the event safe, if those changes aren't made, the SSS's responsibility is to cancel the event. Whether or not someone is within the cones doesn't have anything to do (rule-wise) with whether or not the SSS determines level of safety. It's a pure judgment call. If you disagree w/ the SSS's decision, file a protest.

If you really believe that a SSS shouldn't take steps when faced with unsafe behavior because you don't see explicit text in the rulebook, you should turn in your Stewardship. The existing rules give the SSS plenty of leeway in determining what's "unsafe" and plenty of authority to have the problem corrected or else the event's over.

With the specific case of the "rogue drifter"... as you say the course must be safe for all competitors, so if you've got one competitor that's not safe because he chooses to drive "differently" enough that the course must be changed to accommodate him, then the event is flawed and should be canned unless that competitor is removed or no longer drives improperly, or the course is actually changed such that sliding around under limited control is still safe.

Nowhere am I contending that a SSS gets to make a call about whether or not he "likes how a competitor is driving", the call is about whether or not the driver and course workers are safe. If Petter Solberg shows up in a WRC rally car and drifts the course, I wouldn't have a problem with it, since I would assume he'd be in control. But if Tooly McDrifterson, age 17, in a busted-ass 240sx with Fast-N-Furious decals all over the thing shows up and starts e-braking into every corner, I'll probably say something about it even if he's within the course. Plainly and simply, as a SSS I have the right to make a judgment call about the potential for disaster, and I'm responsible for acting in a manner to prevent unsafe situations.

Only in regards to course design! You do not control drivers on the course you have approved!

Your description alone of the 17 year old is reason is exactly the reason you cannot tell him how to drive and why your authority does not extend to him, but only to the course!

If you can't understand the logic of why the rules are written that way to ensure fair competition and avoid abuse of power by SSSs, then perhaps it is you who should turn in your credential.

Oh come on. That's not an abuse of power, it's common sense.

Jesus. Your head is broken. If that one driver is unsafe on the course because of his driving, how is that not covered under saying the course is not safe for all drivers?