Hyperfest 2013 SpecE30 crash video / both perspectives

xflowgolf wrote:

ransom wrote: The flipside is that the lead car now only has to get his butt ahead of the trailing car's front wheel, and now he gets the whole track and isn't compelled to leave any pavement for the trailing car. Pretending that the trailing car vanishes (or is compelled to make itself vanish) at that instant seems awkward at best...

That was my general disagreement, even with "citing the rule". I don't think that was ever the "intent" of the rule. I understand it in the context that one shouldn't dive bomb on a corner when they don't have room to pass. The flipside is exactly as you say... go door to door through a corner, then coming out of a corner, drag race down the straight. As soon as the car next to you is less than 1/2 a car next to you, you can run them off the track? That doesn't make sense either.

Someone with familiarity compare this situation to SCCA rules? Say me and a competetior go 2 wide extly even coming out of a corner. I miss a shift and he slowly gains on me. What happens in NASA and in SCCA when my front tire is "Behind HIm". In SCCA my understanding is I have to give up the "line" in a corner but he must not hit me. In Nasa it seems he can act like I don't exist the second the front tire is behind HIM not his car.

Also the first 3 laps of that race look like Gran Turismo. And not in a good way. I know those guys are fast and they where "Racin" but it looked like amatuer hour at the local Indoor Kart track.

In reply to nocones:

No need to lift . . . just bump draft them outta the way

In reply to nocones:

Familiar with implementation and real-world enforcement? No. But I can copy-paste out of my PDF of the GCR:

6.11.1 On Course Driver Conduct

D. The overtaking driver is responsible for the decision to pass another car and to accomplish it safely. The overtaken driver is responsible to be aware that he is being passed and not to impede or block the overtaking car. A driver who does not use his rear view mirror or who appears to be blocking another car attempting to pass may be black flagged and/or penalized, as specified in Section 7.

Now from what I've read and from talking to a friend or two who do run in the SCCA, this incident would probably result in a "talkin' to" for both drivers by the race official after the event. My gut says the red-car driver violated part D.

I agree the amount of gratuitous contact was surprising. If David says that's normal in SE30, I'm glad I never pursued it with my car. Still, each balled-up E30 just increases the potential value of my car, so let them bang into each other for all I care.

GameboyRMH wrote: "Red car was racing to the rules instead of physics" is the best way to sum up what happened here.

One of my fellow hillclimbers posted on similar subject....unsure if it was him repeating something he heard or an original.

"I'd rather contest the laws of man, than the laws of physics"

The trees, rocks and cliffs might hurt while hillclimbing, but I'm fairly confident no other car will take me out.

Maybe I'm just getting old, but watching those videos makes me not want to race Spec E30. I've heard that the spec leagues have a lot of contact, but seeing it "live" like that... no thanks. Looks more nerve-wracking than fun. I guess when I win the lottery I'll stick with vintage racing.

I notice that on youtube the original commentary about getting punted is gone; it's just the video.

I don't know whether his view has changed, or whether he's just calmed down and doesn't want the rant up, or what.

Strikes me as basically a positive thing, though I wouldn't read too much into it either way.

In reply to ransom:

Probably was told to remove it to quit looking like a douche.

I've never raced a single lap against other cars, and I probably never will, but as a fan of racing, that looked like a clusterberkeley.

From our Mid-Atlantic director, and former multiple time Spec E30 champion Chris Cobetto:

From Chris Cobetto: "Y'all, Upon request by the trailing driver I have reviewed the videos multiple times. It is important to understand that, as NASA officials we are required to rule based upon the CCR. Every decision we make has to be based on something that can be supported. There is some leeway built in to allow for making a decision that is fair based upon specific incidents. The over taking driver had position yet had not completed the pass. He had the right to the line. The overtaken driver also had the right to the line and was responsible to provide "racing room" generally accepted as 3/4 of a car width. 25.4.2 Punting The term “punting” is defined as nose to tail (or side-of-the-nose to side-of-the-tail) contact, where the leading car is significantly knocked off of the racing line. Once the trailing car has its front wheel next to the driver of the other vehicle, it is considered that the trailing car has a right to be there. And, that the leading driver must leave the trailing driver enough “racing room.” In most cases, “racing room” is defined as “at least three quarters of one car width.” If adequate racing room is left for the trailing car, and there is incidental contact made between the cars, the contact will be considered “side-to-side.” In most cases, incidental side-to-side contact is considered to be “just a racing incident.” If, in the case of side-to-side contact, one of the two cars leaves the racing surface (involuntarily) then it may still be considered “a racing incident.” Based upon my review I feel that the Race Director used the proper rules when making his decision. Based upon the rules the penalty handed out was technically correct. However....... This in my opinion was not a classic punt in which a driver dive bombs another driver and punts them off of the track or impedes severely the direction of the car being overtaken and therefore while the overtaking driver has responsibility in this incident it does not match with the assessed penalty. This was closer to the "incidental side to side contact" mentioned in the rule above but not completely incidental. It is important to understand that the lead driver was still the lead driver and had the right to a line. Under his interpretation of the rules applied at the moment he was only obligated to give 3/4 of a car width which is in the rules and a legitimate point of view. It is also important to understand the trailing driver, who had a right to the line, needs to anticipate that the lead driver may choose to have the 3/4 car width interpretation in his head and be ready to adjust accordingly. In the NASA Mid Atlantic Super Comp school we go over these rules and we regularly say that one could be "right" but that being "right" is no consolation when you are on your roof watching the race go by you. We encourage leaving room for the other guy. I see nothing malicious here. What I see here is two racers racing hard and both having shared responsibility in the incident with the trailing driver having the great majority. The reality is that the guy in front only has his mirrors but the guy in the back has his whole windshield in which to assess the situation. In the end both drivers will receive 1 point on their license. The trailing driver will be repositioned from DQ to last and will not be assessed a suspension of racing license. And since I have your attention...... Leave room. Close racing is fun and makes the beer taste sweeter after the race. Fixing bodywork is not fun and decreases proportionally one's intake and quality of the cold golden (amber) beverage."

Here's the entire thread on the Spec E30 forum. It actually makes for interesting reading, if you're into the rules interpretation: Spec E30 forum

re: bump drafting (a different topic, but someone brought it up).

Nose to tail bumping on the straights is common and accepted in our series. The lead car wants the bump as it give momentum to both cars to pass or gain on another car. It's called working together. Our cars have big, sturdy bumpers and standardized ride height. You'll typically see hand gestures from the front car in video indicating thumbs up or "go, go, go!".

I know several of you are critical about the driving that is presented in the front pack of cars. I don't think you'll find SCCA Spec Miata to be much different. Probably looks a little worse in SE30 because our cars aren't as low and rigid as the Pinatas, but the carnage in a given SM race is typically much higher than what I've personally observed in SE30. Repeat: these are the front runner cars, with drivers who have a skill set and cajones several times multiplied over mere mortals like myself. I'm in awe of most of them. Until you've raced side by side with these guys, armchair judgement needs to be a bit reserved. If I felt these guys were dangerous, I wouldn't be out there with them.

I understand and I have little desire to race in Spec Pinata for that reason. I suppose as soon as you build a race car to drive in w2w competition, you must be prepared to write it off at any given weekend, regardless of class. Maybe that's one reason I'm more attracted to F500 - there is no "casual bumping" in an open wheel car, so allowing for more racing room isn't just a nice thing to do, it's damn near mandatory.

Of course, I have one friend who would beg to differ since it seems his car is a magnet for FV drivers... In the last 4 years I've known him, I don't think he's come home yet from the Watkins Glen Fall race with an undamaged car. While the cars have similar speeds, an F500 seems to brake better.

Again, someone who has never raced, I'd call it a racing incident, but I find the 3/4 width of a car is considered "racing room" a bit strange. Which means putting someone in the grass is legal?

With the exception of NASCAR, all the other "production body" pro-series and open wheel series all deem the width of the to be racing room.

Tom_Spangler wrote: Maybe I'm just getting old, but watching those videos makes me not want to race Spec E30. I've heard that the spec leagues have a lot of contact, but seeing it "live" like that... no thanks. Looks more nerve-wracking than fun. I guess when I win the lottery I'll stick with vintage racing.

So I'm going to side track this thread a little...

Tom- Vintage racing does not seem to need a lot of money, if you chose the correct car. One that can be done on challenge $$.

Had we really done a second challenge car, it was going to be an Alfa who's chassis was going to be a vintage car, yet still a challenge car. It's very, very possible. Wait, not just possible- done. IIRC, a challege car is now vintage racing.

On an Alfa front- I see pre '74 Spiders going for some very nice $$ that would make great challege cars to vintage cars.

Just sayn.

back to the crash debate.

Vintage racing has "no contact" rules.

Rules don't help giant egos with big wallets when they are behind the wheel.

In reply to ddavidv:

Yep. I watched 5-6 open wheel cars pile into each other at Watkins Glen the first year I was there. A guy spun going into the Esses where he was easy to see and the flaggers were (IMHO) slow to respond, so drivers kept driving into him. It was painful to watch.

I've seen other cars gain some new "battle scars" over the years.

Here's some more fuel to the "by the rules" fire...

I've raced with Steve DeVinney in SE30, and he's a fine driver and gentleman. He has since moved to SM for reasons that escape me but I don't hold it against him. Here's a video from a SM race where the same rule was applied. (It comes real early in the vid) SM race at VIR

Steve (the driver) said: I was deemed to be at fault because I hadn't completed the pass initiated coming out of T2. The other driver admitted that he hit me because he accidentally hopped the inside curb. The ruling said I should have driven further left (i.e. into the grass). I'd hate to see how many cars that would have collected.

Something is truly wrong here...the rules need revamped, and/or video replays should be allowed to allow "common sense" decisions to override rules that don't quite apply to all circumstances (particularly when those involved agree to who is at fault).