National Tour Course Protested for speed and upheld!

[Dean]

Want proof SCCA is serious about controlling speed in Solo2?

The Sunday course at the first National Tour in Ft. Myers, Fla. was protested for excess speed (82MPH for SS), and the protest was upheld!!!!

The event will be scored based on Saturday scores only!

How 'bout thems apples?

[MikeK]

I hope they don't find out about the lovelock course

[Kevin M]

At least not until after we're done there for the year.

[AtomicLabMonkey]

Pussies.

[autox7]

I have a real problem with that whole episode. No please understand that everything I know about the situation is what I have read on the 'net. I have not honest first hand account of anything that went on.

Having said that, where were the safety stewards and the officials during course set up and design? Why wasn't this even thought of until after somebody protested? You mean to tell me that during the course walk it never occured to anybody that the course "looked" fast?

Maybe it's just me, but I would think that if you suspect something is not right, you should say something BEFORE HAND!!!! Let's not run the event, find out a Porsche GT3 SS car can break 80 and then allow somebody to protest for safety reasons.

I guess maybe I am out in left field here, but it sure seems to me that something stinks here. I'm afraid of what kind of precedent this might set for future events, both at the regional level, and the national one.

[tysonK]

What if you set up a course and there are bunch of noobs driving all the "fast" classed cars. Just because they don't get to 80mph does that mean the course was still too fast because somebody could have gone 80mph with proper skill.

[autox7]

I don't know what it means. Maybe that is what's so disconcerting to me. The rule book allows for good judgement to be made by course designers and safety stewards.

I guess it just seems to me that there are some pieces of the puzzle missing. And maybe that is why this stinks to me.

[tysonK]

I know you can't have like 300ft straight sections IIRC.

[autox7]

From the Chief of Protest at the event:

I was expecting the forums to virtually explode with the typical Monday morning second guessing, safety stewarding, chief stewarding, finger pointing, blaming, character assassination, rampant speculation and name calling but this has gotten completely out of hand. I was the Chief of Protest at the Ft. Myers National Tour and to set the record straight I believe it now necessary to make some kind of statement regarding the facts of the protest filed by Robert Carpenter. This is not an official response from the SCCA or the SEB. I have no intention of debating, in any of these forums, the Protest Committee’s decision or its merit. The PC’s decision stands on its own and is wholly supported by the facts. Nor will I respond to those who find it necessary to attack and defame the Protest Committee. Such statements say more about the author’s character than the character of those they are intended to assail. The purpose here is to provide the solo community with information as to why the PC took the action it did.



*******



Robert Carpenter was one of several people who approached me Sunday morning expressing concern regarding the course. I know Robert well and know that he would much prefer for the competition to be settled on the course not in the protest shed. Robert raised the issue of a protest and I advised him that filing a protest would guarantee the course issue be dealt with. Robert thought it through and filed the protest after he drove in heat one. He was VERY surprised when I later informed him that the PC had upheld his protest and that Sunday’s times were thrown out. He even stated that he never considered that the protest would be upheld, let alone that the results would be affected. In fact, he told me that he “had not intended for this to affect the results and mess up anyone’s event”. I commend Robert for having the guts to file the protest. I have heard a lot of whining over the years but seldom does anyone ever step up and take the heat for actually taking action.



Once a protest is filed, the Protest Committee must deal with it. The committee cannot simply sit around and whine and argue on various forums, they must make a decision and that decision carries with it the responsibility of its effect. It would have been easy for the PC to dismiss the protest or pass the buck. However, the protest committee has the responsibility of ensuring the integrity of the event and protecting the interest of the competitors at the event and the membership as a whole. This is a big responsibility and one that the PC takes very seriously. Nor is it an easy job and one that few people will take on because of the potential for controversy. That the members of the Ft. Myers National Tour Protest Committee took on this issue knowing their decision would result in extensive armchair quarterbacking is to be commended.



On the issue of the ruling: The protest committee must first determine legality. The course was protested under 2.1.A. The protest committee found the course was in excess of 2.1.A in respect to this sentence: “Turns should not normally allow speeds in excess of 45 mph in unprepared cars.” Members of the PC spent much of the afternoon observing the competition and monitoring car speeds through all sections of the course. I also interviewed various competitors in a variety of stock and street prepared cars as to speed in gears and speed at rev limits. What the PC determined was that the majority of turns were taken in excess of 45 mph. In fact, that turns at or below 45 mph were the exception not the norm. This fact contradicts the quoted statement in 2.1.A. Whether or not a Super Stock GT3 Porsche went 83 mph or 73 mph was never an issue. The PC must follow the rules and based on our investigation it was determined that the course was not in compliance with 2.1.A.



Results: The second step in the process is the action taken by the protest committee once it votes to uphold a protest. Because the course was found to be in excess of the rules times resulting from said illegal course are illegitimate. Therefore, the logical course of action was to throw out all times from that course. Without this action, the final results would have been, at least in part, determined by times that were illegitimate. Allowing illegitimate times to stand undermines the credibility of the event. This was not a decision taken lightly. In fact, during the process of hearing this protest, the PC adjourned several times for the purpose of investigation, review and consultation. I personally met with another member of the SEB, Howard Duncan and (via telephone) SCCA Risk Management. The Committee was well aware of the impact that its decision would have and anticipated that there would be considerable public debate among the membership. However, The Committee also knew that they could not allow their decision to be influenced by the prospect of such debate.



Timing of the protest: I cannot speak for Robert Carpenter but clearly he did not anticipate this result. It is also important to note that the protest committee cannot act proactively. A protest must be filed before it can take action. Remember that it is the responsibility of the competitors to police the sport. Not only the legality of competitor’s cars but also the courses and the actions of event officials. When event officials drop the ball it is up to the competitors to take action. No one wants to be branded a whiner and therefore most are naturally reluctant to take action. Robert did what he thought was right; the expected reaction on these forums has proven that axiom to be true.



The Protest Committee Members: I will not identify the individual members here. If they want to identify themselves they can do so. I can tell you that, much to the dismay of its critics, the Ft. Myers National Tour Protest Committee members had the best interest of the competitors and membership in mind when they made their ruling. The three members represent nearly 50 years of National level experience and collectively have more National Championship jackets than will fit in your closet. Also, they each posted some of the fastest times of this event. All were chosen for the committee based on their high level of experience, ability, knowledge and integrity. As a competitor at that event, you could not have been better represented.



Conclusion: It was anticipated by the Protest Committee that their decision would be appealed. The SEB acts as the National Appeals Committee and will therefore have the responsibility of reviewing the ruling on appeal. The Protest Committee cannot predict the actions of the Appeals Committee but is confident that whatever action the Appeals Committee takes will best serve the competitors and membership.



Steve Hoelscher

Chief of Protest, Ft. Myers National Tour

Solo Events Board member

Here is a link to the complete thread from SCCA Forums:

http://sccaforums.com/forums/thread/177845.aspx

[sperry]

Originally Posted by tysonK

I know you can't have like 300ft straight sections IIRC.

It's not quite that simple. We had a straight nearly 400 ft long in our course last year, but we made sure the turn leading to it was extremely slow, allowing up to keep top speeds at the end of the straight down.

As far as the NT course. I'm guessing that course, or something very much like it, had been used before. Just no one cared about the high speeds. We've have courses that are way "too fast", but they're not necessarily "unsafe". Hell, I remember one course where I spun at about 85 mph and ended up with a rear wheel across the yellow line that separates us from the runway. IIRC, Dean spun in that same spot, twice. Was the course too fast? Yep. Was there a problem with the layout? Yep, the designers used a manuver at high speed to "keep speeds down" instead of a manuver at low speed to lower the enterance speed onto the fast section. Was the course "unsafe"? I would say no... between me and Dean, we had 3 big "offs" on that course, and the end result was just some long sliding. Would I suggest running that course again? Nope, not because it wasn't safe enough, but because it violated the charter for Solo speeds.

Another example: Hawthorne. That event every year is "famous" for its high speeds... they're probably one of the reasons the event's so popular. However, because we're afraid of things getting out of hand, and because we're afraid of Nationals killing the event for high speeds, we made a very direct effort to reduce speeds at that event. So what happened at the event? Someone ignored the gates, then made a rediculous manuver at much higher speeds than they should have been at, and hit a course worker. Was the course too fast? Nope. Was the course unsafe? Nope, it was by the book. Does shit happen? Sometimes.

My point is that a course with high speeds aren't necessarily unsafe, and that courses with lower speeds, even ones that are designed well, still can't prevent all incidents from happening.

But my guess is that at that NT event, someone had a bone to pick (seems to be pretty common in Solo at the upper levels) and noted that the course was technically too fast. They protested, and the protest was upheld, because it was a valid protest. My guess is that there wasn't anything unsafe, or the safety stewards *would* have said something about it before or shortly after the 1st runs at the event.

But then again, I wasn't there, and I too have no 1st hand knowledge of the particular situation, or the region that it was run in. All I know is what I've seen here in Reno/Sac/Atwater, which is that there are some damn fast autox courses that are perfectly safe... you should see the type of events AAX puts on... 100+ mph for the faster cars, and less intimidating than going 70 mph at Lovelock.

[MattR]

Originally Posted by sperry

But my guess is that at that NT event, someone had a bone to pick (seems to be pretty common in Solo at the upper levels) and noted that the course was technically too fast. They protested, and the protest was upheld, because it was a valid protest. My guess is that there wasn't anything unsafe, or the safety stewards *would* have said something about it before or shortly after the 1st runs at the event.

Scott, Exactly my feelings after reading thru the SCCA threads about this event. The fact that it was enforced AFTER the event really bothers me. Almost as if the protest was used as an "Oh yeah, F-U" move.

As a safety steward myself, I know that you can't always tell 100% that the course will be too fast...and if cars do run, and it's deemed to be too fast, changes can be made. The fact that it got all the way to the end of the event before actions were taken is just a failure to evaluate the course and plan the event properly.

If the SCCA wants to focus on slower speeds at solo, then I'm all for it. But it has to be a unified attitude in the region (or at the National event), not just a pack of a few stewards who have to fight everyone on the speeds. I think RE's everywhere need to address this with the boards, and the boards to the masses, to really drive home the region's stance on the speed control issue. It will definatley take a good deal of effort to drive this into everyone's heads.

[sperry]

With the expansion of out Time Trials program, I've got no problem really reducing the Solo speeds. A 60mph course can still be tons of fun if it flows really well, and is probably better for learning and refining driving technique. Any asshole with a heavy right foot can go fast on a straight... it takes a driver to do it when things are really twisty.

[MattR]

Agreed, I get my high speed fix at trials, and don't mind the technical solo's.

[Dean]

Straights, or corner speed is important for one reason most competitors forget.

There are workers, fixed objects and other cars out there!

The number of stock cars that can stop in a straight line from 60MPH in under 100 feet is damn close to if not zero. GT3 = 113ft. R tires may increase that number, but I would be surprised if it was much into double digits. But that is ideal conditions with full ABS. A spinning car with tires locked is going to take quite a bit longer to stop. Yet our courses are 100ft from a chain link fence, and competitors at Stead, and worse at some other locations.

The forums I have been reading have people commenting that cars are getting faster, so the numbers should be bumped up. This is silly. Physics hasn't magically changed. If anything, things have gotten worse, not better, and courses need to be even slower than in the past...

It is not uncommon today for sports cars to make .1 to .15 Horse Power and more per pound. Tire technology has progressed to where 1 lateral G is possible even on street tires, on a stock suspension.

And yet many cars still weigh 3000 lbs, and when things go wrong, have the same dang inertia as a 70s mustang. In addition, with the advancements in tires, many have sacrificed progressive failure, and recovery characteristics for maximum grip. And in a sport where running at eleven tenths is extremely common, complete loss of control may well be more common than in the past

As somebody who has spun at about 80MPH twice at an autocross, and nearly missed a fence, and chaired an event where a worker was hit, I rather go slower and safer please.

[M3n2c3]

Originally Posted by Dean

As somebody who has spun at about 80MPH twice at an autocross, and nearly missed a fence, and chaired an event where a worker was hit, I rather go slower and safer please.

As someone who's just getting started with Solo2 and would like to avoid experiencing the above events (or worse), I'd have to agree. If people wanna get nuts, well, that's what Trials and track days are for.

[dknv]

The Protest was appealed, Appeal is upheld. Sunday results reinstated. Bottom line: you can't protest a course, the protest has to be directed to a person/people.

http://www.scca.org/garage/forum/for...?TID=3380&PN=1

[Dean]

I fugured that would happen, but the message has been sent, and hopefully heard.