Drift vs. Grip SCC article.

[Dean]

Originally Posted by BAN SUVS

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.

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.

[Dean]

Originally Posted by BAN SUVS

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.

Where is the rule?

[sperry]

Originally Posted by Dean

Where is the rule?

Here's the rule:

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

[cody]

Originally Posted by BAN SUVS

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

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.

[tysonK]

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"

[A1337STI]

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)

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...

[MPREZIV]

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.

[Dean]

Originally Posted by sperry

Here's the rule:

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

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.

[sperry]

Originally Posted by Dean

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? '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.

[Dean]

Originally Posted by sperry

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? '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.

[sperry]

Originally Posted by Dean

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:

Originally Posted by The fucking rule book

2.1
M. Participants and non-participants must be kept at a safe distance
from the course, particularly at the outside of turns and at the
start and finish lines. Unless protected by substantial barriers,
non-participant areas must be roped off. SSS shall have the
authority to set minimum viewing distances from the course but
such minimum viewing distances may not be less than 75 feet
from the course edge in unprotected areas (areas without adequate
barrier protection such as concrete or tire walls). A Region
may request a waiver of this minimum distance requirement
from its DSSS.

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?

[Dean]

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.

[MikeK]

Originally Posted by Dean

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.

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

[MPREZIV]

Dean and Scott are arguing?


must be Tuesday.

[MikeK]

You mean a day ending in "y"

[sperry]

Originally Posted by Dean

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

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.

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.

[Dean]

Originally Posted by sperry

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.

Originally Posted by rulebook 5.4

The SSS will also verify that the Certificate of Insurance is present at the event site and correct before the event begins. If this is not in order, the SSS must confirm corrections or issuance of the certificate with SCCA Risk Management prior to the start of the event. If outside of business hours, the SSS must call the Insurance/Incident Emergency Number, 1-800-770-9994.

The duties of the SSS shall concern the safety of the spectators, workers and driver safety relative to course design. Control over course design extends only to such issues as course or near-course hazards and not to design philosophy. In Solo events safety issues are those such as listed in SR 1.3 and 2.1. This includes course security, which is defined as maintaining control over spectator access to the course.

You do not have any other authority.

Originally Posted by appendix E

In viewing an event site prior to or during an event, a Safety Steward must focus on taking proper precautions (those that would be taken by reasonable, prudent people) to eliminate danger to spectators from competing vehicles and to assure driver and worker safety hrough proper course design and layout. With the addition of karts to the Solo program, special attention should be paid to potential low-lying hazards adjacent to the course. In viewing all potential spectator areas adjacent to the course, the Safety Steward should consider the probability of competing vehicles entering this area due to driver error or mechanical failure. Consideration should also be given to vehicle component explosions, (i.e., engine, flywheel, and/or clutch) and proper precautions taken in this regard. If there is a reasonable expectation of spectator danger, appropriate recommendations for the safety of spectators shall be made to the Event Chairman or Chief Steward, whichever is applicable. The Safety Steward’s recommendations may include the placement of a restraining physical barrier in the spectator problem area, assignment of Crowd Control Marshals for the area, moving spectators further back from the course, completely eliminating the area as a spectator viewing location, movement or redesign of the course, or the relocation of worker stations. Discussions with the Event Chairman or Chief Steward should include all of these options and a solution should be agreed upon prior to the start of the event. Although it should be noted that the Event Chairman or Chief Steward is as concerned about safety as the Safety Steward, certain aspects of event safety are the sole responsibility of the SSS. Therefore, a Safety Steward’s final recommendation(s) for the control of spectators, and driver or worker safety (relative to course design) becomes mandatory for the host region. It is the responsibility of the host region to implement safety controls to the satisfaction of the SSS. Failure of a region to implement these controls can cause the cancellation of the event for safety reasons, which include loss of insurance coverage as outlined in the Introductory Section, Rule 4 of the Solo Rules.

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...

Originally Posted by 1.3 COMMON SENSE AND SOLO COURSES

...by definition a Solo event is open to a total novice in any car that can pass safety inspection, and courses must take this into consideration.

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!!!

[sperry]

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.

It is the responsibility of the host region to implement safety controls to the satisfaction of the SSS. Failure of a region to implement these controls can cause the cancellation of the event for safety reasons,

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.

[Dean]

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.

[sperry]

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.

[Dean]

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????

[sperry]

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.

[Dean]

Originally Posted by sperry

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.

[AtomicLabMonkey]

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

[sperry]

Originally Posted by Dean

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.

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?