Question to organizers

[SagSert]

Would you ever allow a car that did not start your rally (but passed tech) to join in after missing the opening stages and run stages and exchange time cards with your control people.

If that driver gets involved in an accident/incident who would be responsible. Would event insurance cover anything ?

How logical and responsible is it to let that happen ?

I know I am an A-Hole but I also hold a law degree and as most attorneys I look at the worse case scenario and the implications it may present to OUR sport.

I'd love to get some sort of response totally off the record, PMs are OK aswell.

[SagSert]

Seriously, no takers ?

Is it that nobody has the answer or nobody cares ?

[misushavoc]

I don't think it is that nobody cares, but I am not sure how much traffic this board gets on the weekends...

If you want to get a faster response, you might give Anders a quick email or something.

I care.... but I have no idea because so far I am spectator only.

:confused:

[Anders Green]

Hmmm, interesting question. It might have to be passed up through legal. If they left Time Control Zero at the start, but died on the transit to SS1, that's similar to any of the re-insertions that are already done. If they didn't make it through TC0, I guess that's more of uncharted territory with respect to insurance.

So, is this some sort of late breakfast you're planning, Mustafa?? Want to rally but need your beauty sleep? ;)

Anders

[SagSert]

So, is this some sort of late breakfast you're planning, Mustafa?? Want to rally but need your beauty sleep? ;)

Anders

Nooooo never, I wake up at 5 every morning, rally or not. I am just trying to figure out some hows and whys.

[starion887]

Hey Mustafa,

So, are we talking about a scenario where a car passes tech and then get to start, but has not been registered and the driver/co-driver has not signed the waiver? As I understand it, one must be registered, sign the waiver, AND pass any other required activities such as tech, to be able to start and be covered by the insurance. (Please correct me if I am wrong; I need to know!)

BTW, it was good to finally shake your hand at Sandblast. Also, please instruct Burak that he cannot damage the new Focus until after you guys start RWV; see you there!

Regards,
Mark B.

[SagSert]

Mark,

Car passes tech, starts first transit, never makes it to first SS, returns back to the hotel. Car gets fixed, rejoins rally after first few stages are done. Car does not get timebarred, doesn't get re-teched, time card is not taken from the crew.

[JB Niday]

I'm sure I'm missing some fine point you're trying to make, which I hope you'll find I've missed and make clear to me.

Clearly, such a car is no longer part of the competition. Their score is DNF, you say they passed the first MTC, so they get a starting point, but that's the extent of their scoring.

The only way this car can continue to drive is as an exhibition vehicle. Some organizers are dead set against this, others are only too willing to let people back in. There's points to consider on both sides. If good judgment is exercised, then it is possible.

[Jeff Hagan]

Car passes tech, starts first transit, never makes it to first SS, returns back to the hotel. Car gets fixed, rejoins rally after first few stages are done. Car does not get timebarred, doesn't get re-teched, time card is not taken from the crew.
I think it would depend entirely on the series rulebook... and the supps, if they address the issue.

In NASA, for example, wouldn't they be covered by this clause in the GRRs?


2.19.1.9 Failure to Pass or Stop at a Control
Failure to stop at and pass through each control will result in the
competitor being given a maximum penalty for the current and all
following sections in the current Leg of the event.

It doesn't say that can't keep going, only that they receive a time penalty.

Under Canadian rules, if I remember correctly (and I might not be remembering correctly), you'd be excluded for missing a control... but most exclusions can only be applied at the end of a leg, which for most events is the end of the rally anyhow.

I'd say that insurance and legalities get iffy when you start throwing away rules, but if you keep going according to the rulebook, personally (and definitely not with any sort of "expert" hat on), I don't see what the problem would be (edit: legally. I can see how a car in the event that doesn't care how it places can cause problems for the competition).

[SagSert]

No, there is no fine point I am trying to make. I am simply trying to figure out how these things work.

[starion887]

Ok Mustafa, is this a quiz? I know I'll fail it.

2 questions back at ya:
1) Is the concern driving this here question about the insurance coverage? Seems like if the car is in the event in any way, it should be covered. It would seem that is would hardly matter that a car is following the rules that effect scoring to stay under insurance. (But like I said, I have a sneaky feeling that I'll fail the quiz.)
2) Does the term 'A-Hole" stand for 'attorney-hole'?????

Regards,
Mark B.

[dch]

The distinction of being part of the event, or not being part of the event, can be easily handled by allowing people to rejoin the rally in a not-for-points or exhibition status. If the competitor is entered, paid up, waivered, and passed tech, I don't see the fact that they will not be able to win a trophy nor receive an official standing with regard to their fellow competitors as invalidating the insurance coverage that they paid their fair share of.

If a car failed to start the rally because it wasn't running right, but was not involved in any type of incident, I see no reason why it would need to go through tech a second time. If a car was involved in any type of incident where damage was incurred, then it should be looked at before being allowed to continue regardless of whether or not there was a DNF involved. Of course a scratch on the fender isn't worth spending time on, I'm talking about any type of damage that might affect safety (bent cage, missing window glass, fuel tank damaged and so on).

The idea of letting people rejoin even though they're not going to score points, is so the competitor can at least get the seat time they paid for and worked hard to get instead of being told to pack it up and haul the car home. Some think that's an obviously great idea, others think that if a non-points rejoiner causes an issue and holds up someone who's still chasing down points it's a huge problem so nobody should be allowed to rejoin ever.

Then there's the problem of where to put the rejoined car on the road. Do you put them last on the road with strict instructions not to pass anyone ever, or do you put them about where they would normally run? Again, people argue both sides with vigor.

All in all, I see it as more of a help the competitor get some seat time vs. don't let someone's non-points winning seat time get in the way of someone still chasing points issue than a safety or insurance issue.

Which way do you lean, Mustafa? Is this something where guidelines should be set by the sanctioning body (eg: DNF a National, option is to rejoin next day's regional if possible (perhaps with a fee), DNF regional, option to rejoin same day or next day without a fee, or no rejoining ever) or are we better off leaving it more or less up to the organizer's discretion?

Cheers,
-Doug

[SagSert]

The distinction of being part of the event, or not being part of the event, can be easily handled by allowing people to rejoin the rally in a not-for-points or exhibition status. If the competitor is entered, paid up, waivered, and passed tech, I don't see the fact that they will not be able to win a trophy nor receive an official standing with regard to their fellow competitors as invalidating the insurance coverage that they paid their fair share of.

How does the insurance company look at this situation, do they still consider the competitor as an insured party ?


If a car failed to start the rally because it wasn't running right, but was not involved in any type of incident, I see no reason why it would need to go through tech a second time. If a car was involved in any type of incident where damage was incurred, then it should be looked at before being allowed to continue regardless of whether or not there was a DNF involved. Of course a scratch on the fender isn't worth spending time on, I'm talking about any type of damage that might affect safety (bent cage, missing window glass, fuel tank damaged and so on).

Makes sense, I don't think anybody in their right mind would allow an unsafe car continue an event.



Which way do you lean, Mustafa? Is this something where guidelines should be set by the sanctioning body (eg: DNF a National, option is to rejoin next day's regional if possible (perhaps with a fee), DNF regional, option to rejoin same day or next day without a fee, or no rejoining ever) or are we better off leaving it more or less up to the organizer's discretion?

Neither way actually, I am not an organizer.

As a competitor, if I entered a National that has 2 Regionals, if I paid for both Regionals and the National and DNF'd during the first Regional, I would want to start the second Regional the next day, as long as the car is fixed. Naturally I would only score points for the second Regional. Since I already paid for that Regional there shouldn't be an extra fee. I wouldn't even think about rejoining the same regional I DNF'd at.

Here is the reason, if I get involved in an incident that ends up at the insurance company's desk I wouldn't want to give the insurance company an opportunity to play on the gray area. It wouldn't be good for me, for the organizer or for the sport. For third parties it wouldn't be "The X guy who was running outside the competition and just for seat time that was involved in an incident" instead it would be "The Rally Guy was involved in an incident".

Is the risk worth taking ?

[dch]

My understanding is that even though a competitor was running in a non-points status, they would still be covered. I will query the insurance company with exactly that question though, and get a definitive answer back to you. Let's see here, speed dial JB... (ah, the lifestyle of the truly lazy!) :D

The idea of continuing in the second of two regional events is pretty clear cut if you were entered in both. My personal preference (note that my personal preferences do not turn into rules just because "I said so") would be that a DNF in a national means you can't rejoin the national, but you can enter the second regional if you pay the proper fee and it of course isn't already underway (national licensed drivers can't earn points in regional events anyway, but they can still run them). For regionals, I like the idea of rejoining at a sane time (MTC out for example) on the road approximately where the competitor should be so crews can maximize their expensive and not frequent enough seat time. I look at it this way- The national guys already have the regional guys, who aren't entered in the national, mixed in with the national competitors. Same goes for the regional competitors having the national guys mixed in. So what's the big deal about 1 or 2 of those mixers simply not dropping out when compared to the 20 or 30 that are still there and running? Maybe it's just because I crash too much, but I like the idea of being able to get more seat time for regional competitors after a relatively minor incident.

Cheers,
-Doug

[starion887]

The distinction of being part of the event, or not being part of the event, can be easily handled by allowing people to rejoin the rally in a not-for-points or exhibition status. If the competitor is entered, paid up, waivered, and passed tech, I don't see the fact that they will not be able to win a trophy nor receive an official standing with regard to their fellow competitors as invalidating the insurance coverage that they paid their fair share of.

If a car failed to start the rally because it wasn't running right, but was not involved in any type of incident, I see no reason why it would need to go through tech a second time. If a car was involved in any type of incident where damage was incurred, then it should be looked at before being allowed to continue regardless of whether or not there was a DNF involved. Of course a scratch on the fender isn't worth spending time on, I'm talking about any type of damage that might affect safety (bent cage, missing window glass, fuel tank damaged and so on).

The idea of letting people rejoin even though they're not going to score points, is so the competitor can at least get the seat time they paid for and worked hard to get instead of being told to pack it up and haul the car home. Some think that's an obviously great idea, others think that if a non-points rejoiner causes an issue and holds up someone who's still chasing down points it's a huge problem so nobody should be allowed to rejoin ever.

Then there's the problem of where to put the rejoined car on the road. Do you put them last on the road with strict instructions not to pass anyone ever, or do you put them about where they would normally run? Again, people argue both sides with vigor.

All in all, I see it as more of a help the competitor get some seat time vs. don't let someone's non-points winning seat time get in the way of someone still chasing points issue than a safety or insurance issue.

Cheers,
-Doug

Thanks for the well written post, Doug. This pretty well sums up my thoughts and opinions (for what they may be worth). Being scored or not is irrelevant IMO as far as liability. Service crews and stage crews are not scored in any way, but their actions are part of the liability scene. Any rally car damage needs to be inspected, whether a car is, or is not, time barred, but participates in the event in any way. If you find out any difference from an insurance query, it would be appreciated by all to know that.

Allowing the competitor's to get all possible seat time is an important customer service thing to do. The decision of where to re-start 'exhibition competitors' is very important in my mind. IMO, for competitive fairness to those still in the rally, it is paramount to not allow any interference to the regular running of the rally. If a non-compteting car is placed back within the competing field, then this presents the very real possiblity that the non-competing car could cause a force majeure situation, which if properly allowed to be force majeure as it should be, could then cause severe time penalites for vehicles still in competition. IMO, this would be a very wrong thing to do.

For this very reason, it's my feeling that non-competing cars should only be at the back of the field. If one of these non-competing cars is very fast, then they definitely should not pass any slower cars; this may be vexing to the team in the fast non-competing car, but that should be part of what they have to endure for experiencing a DNF. This problem can be helped somewhat be putting a few minutes' gap before this fast non-competing car starts, but not to the extent that it hinders rally operation. Again, any inconvenience to DNF'd non-competing cars is regrettable, but running at all is far better than it was up until a few years ago when this practice was started; prior to just a few years back, if you were DNF, then you never got back on-stage.

One more IMO: On this issue of where to re-start fast non-competing, DNF'd cars, it seems to me to be tied strongly whether you view the rally more as a show for non-competitors, or a sport for competitors. To me, if it's a show, then placing fast but non-competing cars in their normal place in the field would be the best decision. If one feels that sportsmanship issues are paramount, then avoiding any possible unfairness to teams still in competition drives the decision to put DNF'd cars at the back to avoid any possible disruption.

Regards to all,
Mark B.

[Adrian Wintle]

For this very reason, it's my feeling that non-competing cars should only be at the back of the field. If one of these non-competing cars is very fast, then they definitely should not pass any slower cars; this may be vexing to the team in the fast non-competing car, but that should be part of what they have to endure for experiencing a DNF. This problem can be helped somewhat be putting a few minutes' gap before this fast non-competing car starts, but not to the extent that it hinders rally operation. Again, any inconvenience to DNF'd non-competing cars is regrettable, but running at all is far better than it was up until a few years ago when this practice was started; prior to just a few years back, if you were DNF, then you never got back on-stage.

One more IMO: On this issue of where to re-start fast non-competing, DNF'd cars, it seems to me to be tied strongly whether you view the rally more as a show for non-competitors, or a sport for competitors. To me, if it's a show, then placing fast but non-competing cars in their normal place in the field would be the best decision. If one feels that sportsmanship issues are paramount, then avoiding any possible unfairness to teams still in competition drives the decision to put DNF'd cars at the back to avoid any possible disruption.

Regards to all,
Mark B.

This brings us back to the whole discussion when the SCCA dropped the 5-minute gap between National and Regional competitors. Ultimately, the discussion focussed on safety. Integrating the field and starting competitors in approximately the place where their seed/speedfactor/demonstrated speed would place them means that ideally the gaps between them remain fairly consistent. This means that the non-competitors (marshals/spectators/etc.) don't get surprised when a car appears at a significantly faster speed than the previous few (which would appear to be the end of the field). This is not so much of a problem with 'controlled' spectating, but it was a big concern when spectators would start to move around after the faster cars had passed. Also, adding an artificial gap in the field means that the first responder for the last scored car is that much further back.

I have actually run a rally where we DNF'd (dead battery on the start line, no hope of pushing the car out of the control zone), and were allowed to run after the last car, but ahead of closing/sweep, with strict instructions not to pressure the last competing car for two stages. We were running about 10th O/A pace before the DNF. They allowed this because the only way we could get from where we were to service was to run through the two 25 km (16 mi) stages so the organizer wanted us to be ahead of sweep for safety reasons (ours - it was cold out there and if we'd gone off and been behind sweep we'd have been there for a while). We gave the car ahead a 5+ minute gap at the start of each stage and still stopped for at least one 5 minute wait in each stage - and we weren't pushing or taking risks, it was just a 4wd experienced driver vs a 2wd rookie on ice.

My opinion is that, IF you are going to let competitors re-join when they are outside of the scoring, you have to insert them into the field at the appropriate place based on their speed (not the case in the scenario above, but we weren't really re-joining, just getting home). The concept of the time penalty for missing stages simplifies this in a way because nobody is ever out of the competition, so there is no distinction between scored competitor and non-scored competitor (so the same rules apply to all). I personally don't like the concept of giving out scores for not running stages, though.

Adrian

[Don Kennedy]

I agree mostly with what both Doug and Mark said. Although for some reasons, I'd rather be in the field where I belong, I'd rather be at the back and getting seat time/experience than not. Even if I have to go like a bandit, and stop if I catch a car, then take off again. I do think it's getting to the point though where it should be some kind of rule or STRONG suggestion to start with, not left up to the individual organizer. If it's good enough in one situation, I can't think of another situation where it would not be good. And if we're trying to grow (or in some cases just maintain) the sport, it's critical for customer satisfaction.

[Jeff Hagan]

No, there is no fine point I am trying to make. I am simply trying to figure out how these things work.
I think I was trying to speak to your point, even if it didn't come across.

Effectively, the insurance companies are basing their risk decisions (and hence premiums, as well as the decision whether to insure at all) based on the established rules.

If an organizer breaks the rules and something happens, the insurer can cry "change in material risk!" and disallow coverage. If the organizer plays by the same rules that the insurance provider signed off on when deciding their rates, then the material risk hasn't changed - anything that happens is something that can be reasonably expected to have some probability of occurance within the normal, foreseeable risk for the event.

The rules spell out how the organizer will behave, and the insurers provide coverage on that basis. If the rules allow a competitor to continue in the rally after the situation you describe, why would the insurance provider have a problem with that after the fact?

[MDBodnar]

Good discussion; some thoughts...

We typically see rookies crash out, rejoin, and then crash again, they may have been a DNF or they may have just got stuck along the way only to get in over their head again.

We sometimes see mid-pack and upper-mid-pack teams consistently drive over their heads and crash frequently - or near crash with the pattern above. After a few rallies these folks are easy to identify and the stewards and/or organizers of the rally will usually be aware of these foolish folks.

To recommend a consistent path for organizers:

(Until just today I had not been a fan of inserting non-competing cars in the middle of the competitors but...)


1) Seed 8 (and 7?) DNF rejoin at the back of the pack, start at one minute intervals and are instructed not to pass. If the competitor in front of them agrees they are the faster car and knows they are no longer in it for points or trophies, then road position may be swapped (At Time Controls). A simple form would work for this, just have the car in front initial the form with their car number. (This would depend on honesty and sportmanship, but typically the last car on the road is just hanging on after a few stages and is not concerned about road position.)

2) More experienced drivers (Seed 6 and above?) are placed into their approximate position, as far back in the field as reasonably safe.

3) Organizers and Stewarts can refuse to let any competitor re-enter based on current or previous scoring, driving, technical, sportmanship and any other reasons issues they deem reasonable (the GOD cluase).

4) Log books are required to note DNF's and Re-entries. (Somehow computerizing these records to be shared from event to event would be ideal, I think RA already has a notation system in place to go with your license...)


These would seem to be reasonable guidlines. To address concerns about #2, this really is the safest practice if the concept is agreed to in principle. We have and should respect the rule of Force Maujeur (SP?), it can happen anywhere, anytime, to anyone: I need to brush up on the rules, but if a non-competing car did hinder your effort a protest for a time consistent with your previous times might be upheld.

[dch]

[awaiting return phone call from insurance company...]

As far as rejoining goes, I don't think it's a matter of being about the competition vs. being about the show. The fact of the matter is that at any given time there are 20 or so cars on the road that are not part of whichever event you're running with the possibility of harshing on your gig. It already exists and happens, so, I don't see a benefit to disallowing a car that had DNF'd because it won't make a measurable difference in the odds of you getting boned by someone not in your event. You could even extend this to having someone not in your class have an incident in front of you and cost you time and a class win. If we ran all national cars class by class then all regional cars class by class then I can see having a rejoiner plopped in front of you as being more significant because you wouldn't need to deal with issues from cars not in your class or event as the norm. But as things stand, it's already a grab bag of who's in front of whom in which event and class. Therefore I say let the people rejoin where they should be to minimize passing and improve and enjoy themselves in the regional events. National guys? Boned! :D

Edit: Interesting suggestion of basing placement on experience Mike.

Cheers,
-Doug

[starion887]

Say Doug,

I'm having one problem in understanding your thoughts: I have checked several dictionaries here in VA, and cannot find the technical term 'boned' anywhere. Nor does it show up in the R-A, NASA, CARS, or FIA rules that I have yet been able to find. Please help!

Regards,
Mark B.

[dch]

You just need to get the Futurama dictionary.

Leela: I can't see what's happening. Are we boned?
Bender: Yep, we're boned.

In my particular context, it means National competitors don't get to rejoin. You need to give up doing constructive stuff and spend more time watching stupid TV shows Mark. Then it will all become clear. :D

Cheers,
-Doug
[still no response from insurance dude... I wonder if he knows he's being timed on a public forum]

[starion887]

Mike,

So what you propose it to allow re-joining at the speed factor (or seed) level for higher expereinced drivers, and automatic back to the tail end for the new cars. Makes logical sense. I could probably buy into this, but I still need to reconcile this with my reluctance to anyone running 'clean' having their rally negatively effected by force majeure caused by a DNF'd car's problems/actions. It's often more than just a matter of giving a team the suitable time to make up for this problem.

I feel one has to consider the mental and emotional aspects of a force majeure incident running a good event. If one is pushed 'out of the groove' by an incident, then often the effected team will lose their rythm and mental poise, and push harder, not knowing that they will be given a time allowance, an dsomtimes wrekc as a result. It would be unfortunate if incidents not in the control of a team putting in a good performance, negated that good performance, and if those incidents were avoidable by decision of the orgnaizers or event stewards.

If this were to become the way of doing things, then it certainly seems wise to add it to the rules as a standard practice type of thing. After all, force majeure is written in the rules as a sort of standardized 'tough luck; no allowances" general policy, and no one should reasonably expect any exceptions; this includes no exceptions if force majeure is caused by an 'exhibition' car. This suggested procedure is creating a situation where exceptions would be made, and I think it would be 'bought into' if codifed in the rules.

And Doug, I have to repsectfully not agree in analyzing with probabilities of a force majeure incident. As a group, we don't like force majeure situations, but it is bought into pretty universally. This has never included being effected by a non-scored car, however. And I think you need to re-think what the impacts would be of re-inserting a DNF'd car driven by a top team near the front of the field; an incident involving this re-inserted top car at a late season event like LSPR could really negatively effect a PGT championship, for example, that was being settled between several cars running round 7th-10th place. I truly believe that type of thing would not set well with many folks.

Edit: And now that I see your elaboration on the subject of 'boned', it's clear that not letting National competitors rejoin solves this. Yes, I think I saw Futurama maybe 3 times while it was actively running; sad, as it was about the only new show I've in years that I actually wanted to watch again. This is definitely a sign of too much work, not enough play!

Regards,
Mark B.

[SagSert]

I guess the insurance compay is too busy to answer :rolleyes: .

Patiently waiting.

[SagSert]

http://www.fotosearch.com/thumb/BSM/BSM148/vb2979980.gif

[dch]

Okay got the response back (last week actually, but I was battling with various germs and generally being a slacker, sorry for the delay). The answer is that competitors rejoining even after a DNF are definitely 100% covered. Basically all who enter the event and waiver up are covered by insurance for all stages regardless of their official standing in the points or event or championship. Skipping a couple of stages makes no difference, either.

So there you have it.

Cheers,
-Doug

[dch]

Oops. Double posted.

[RichardM]

Thank you sir! And get over the crud that was spread among the 100AW participants. At least Juanita and I think that is where we each caught it.

[SagSert]

Tht was the answer I was hoping to get. Thank you Doug.

[Mad Mike]

Now that Mus has gotten his answer I should add that stewards still have the option (if not the duty) to harsh on someone's gig ("harshing on your gig" - what a quote!) if said someone is clearly a safety/sportsmanship risk. I've only run across one person in my 35 years rallying who was repeatedly, unrepentantly unsportsmanlike and apparently unconcerned about other's safety (worse, there were reports he yelled at workers) but I heard his style of money management left him unable to secure a license.

Sooooooo, in much the same vein as keeping a racer from re-entering the track when it's pretty clear there's nothing more than retribution (or nefarious team tactics) to be gained I'd hope that organizers, stewards and workers would be aware (as much as possible) of any such situations and make the best possible call for those still competing.