Special Stage Forums banner

1 - 20 of 70 Posts

·
400 flat to crest
Joined
·
5,777 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
Doug Havir,
You have said in this new corporation YOU will be the guy making the decisions.
This is your first wonderful heaven sent opportunity to show that REASON and logic will be the basis for your plans for Rally America.

To review by simple analogy:

Objective: Mitigate the deliterious effects of "anti-social behaviour"
and 'evil ways' in beginning Rally drivers.

means: restrict them to certain (to be figured out on a radom unstated case by case basis) P and Gp2 (or with a thought to the future) GpF cars, and several others which have been already via the underground telegraph lobbied thru.

Now let's look at if we were writing LAW.
Would society be placated if we were to write a drunk driving law that said:
In an effort to reduce crashes and anti-social behaviour of new drivers, drunken drivers will be restricted to only 2wd low powered cars.
Previous drunk drivers may continue to drive and crash their higher powered cars for as long as they wish regardless of continued crashing as long as their pocket books survive..

IF it is the anti-social behaviour and evil ways that one wishes to proscibe, then it is that which should be addressed.

You have been lulled by the relatively modest prep level combined with the high average weight of some of the lower powered Gp2 cars currently running into thinking that all Gp2 cars are mild things.

Doug this is your opportunity to show you listen to outide sources than your immediate circle of contacts within the sport.
Look at the reponses on the other thread.
It is lame in the extreme to parry the issue by saying "The SCCA done did it already"

Look at the figures about 175 bhp Gp5 cars with stock motors but carefully and safely built, strong shells, good brakes, good steering and a lot of advise and emphasis in to need for Practise Practise Practise prior to worrying about entering events.

When reading these word you should know that I advocate making what is essentially expanded Gp2 the Premier class, I have nothing against 2wd normal aspirated cars. I believe they best show who knows how to drive a car in difficult conditions, but Gp5 cars allow the guys to spend their money on shell prep, brakes, suspension, steering, tires and event costs since they have all the power they need without touching the motors, and EASY broad_street car_ power delivery which allows them to concentrate on DRIVING their _familiar_ cars in the new enviroment of the woods with the lower grip and limited sight.

Not everybody has the money to buy different cars in a couple of years space.

It is YOUR new private Company, you will do what you want, but this is your chance to begin on the right foot by showing that you respond to obvious bluders in a logical and serious way.


And while some here feel compelled to discount and poke fun at some of what I may say because I haven't entered an event in recent years, I suggest to you that logic is not dependant on entering amature SCCA competition on a continous, unbroken stream.

Sometimes a bit of distance allows a clearer view.

Do the right thing.




John Vanlandingham
Seattle, WA. 98168

Vive le Prole-le-ralliat!
Vive Le Groupe F!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
366 Posts
RE: Call for Logical revision to the Newbie Plan

I have to say that what I've read regarding the "newbie" plan is IMO a waste of time. I find it interesting that folks think there is a problem that needs fixed that really doesn't exsist. Limting new drivers to what is precieved as slower class cars lacks thought. Will new drivers have off's? Yes- does speed play a part? Maybe but not as much as skill.

Does the new plan create skill? No! In fact it really is nothing more then the exsisting seeding plan with a log book tossed in. There are many drivers with low seed numbers that crash on a regular basis, how is this really any different? How would Colin M. stack up-as a top WRC driver he had several hard crashes a year-yet was at the top of his game and the sport.

This is a subject that was started by other drivers that feel their skills were lacking and that all others are on the same level as themselves-that they themselves lack self control and go be on their limits and others should be made to pay for their short comings.

I've read the arguments for licenseing and track racers are licensed-yet their licensing program is based on understanding the flaging system-not driving skills.

Anyone that has a state drivers license has been tested and shown the skills required to drive down the hiway at 70mph with on coming traffic 2 feet away. This is much more dangerous then running 1 car down a road by itself without other cars to contend with.


Wouldn't the time spent trying to fix something that really is not a problem be better spent finding sponors for the rally program, finding ways to reduce entry fees, finding monies for organiser, making the sport all inclusive and growing?

As always IMHO.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
789 Posts
RE: Call for Logical revision to the Newbie Plan

I concur...a waste of time.

While I also agree with John about making 2wd "premier", confining novices to particular classes does not address the big liability issues; to wit, transits and injured spectators.

Frankly a 2wd can create as much real liability (accident with a civilian or spectator) as any fire breathing Turbo AWD monster. People advocating novice restrictions think that the insurers are more concerned with on-stage crash and burns than anything else.

If those crash and burns do not involve a spectator, such do not generate liability claims--unless, of course a forest fire starts.

"Liability claims" (not statistically fascinating "participant incidents")are what need to be reduced to preserve the insurability of the sport.
 

·
5 right opens
Joined
·
859 Posts
RE: Call for Logical revision to the Newbie Plan

Kovalik echo syndrome... LOL!!! :D

Well said everyone :)

Scott - ;) - Kovalik
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,368 Posts
RE: Call for Logical revision to the Newbie Plan

>
>If those crash and burns do not involve a spectator, such do
>not generate liability claims--unless, of course a forest
>fire starts.
>

Not true, claim pending.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
2,738 Posts
RE: Call for Logical revision to the Newbie Plan

<<< How would Colin M. stack up-as a top WRC driver he had several hard crashes a year-yet was at the top of his game and the sport. >>>

Maybe because it wasn't his car, he got paid a lot of money for what he did, would get the best medical attention if he injured himself, did not have to pay for increased insurance premiums while he rallied and probably had a LOT more experience driving than a lot of newbies. Did I leave anything out?




Can't see me in your mirrors?
I must be in front of you!
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
2,738 Posts
RE: Call for Logical revision to the Newbie Plan

<<<< Wouldn't the time spent trying to fix something that really is not a problem be better spent finding sponors for the rally program, finding ways to reduce entry fees, finding monies for organiser, making the sport all inclusive and growing? >>>>

Aren't we back to the "gimme, gimme" attitude again?

Money doesn't solve ALL the problems.



Can't see me in your mirrors?
I must be in front of you!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,998 Posts
RE: Call for Logical revision to the Newbie Plan

>If those crash and burns do not involve a spectator, such do
>not generate liability claims--unless, of course a forest
>fire starts.

This is not necessarily true. A driver or codriver - or their heirs - can file suit based on an accident.

>
>"Liability claims" (not statistically fascinating
>"participant incidents")are what need to be reduced to
>preserve the insurability of the sport.

The "statistically fascinating" participant incidents, as you call them, are also something the insurance companies are unhappy with. An incident that causes a Life Flight trip (which there have been an unsettling number of lately) will cost several times the premium paid by the event - and that ain't how insurance companies make money. They're especially expensive when the injured person has no medical coverage of his own...and that has happened an unsettling number of times recently, too.

Granted, multi-million-dollar lawsuits are hideously expensive even if you win...but that's far from the only problem.

Bruce
 

·
Straight At "T"
Joined
·
297 Posts
I'm all for logical revision. First, we should start by identifying concisely whether or not there really is a problem.

If a brand new driver with zero competition experience shows up at their first rally with a 450hp AWD car and a brand new co-driver, do you sign them up and turn them loose on the stages or not?

Things to consider:
a) if they crash and injure themselves, Rally America will likely be named in a lawsuit
b) even if they or their families don't sue, the participant accident insurance will likely be hit to cover some if not all of their medical expenses
c) if they crash and injure someone else, Rally America will definitely be named in a lawsuit
d) any lawsuit, no matter the outcome or how frivolous it is, will cost significant time and money to defend
e) any insurance claim adds to the premiums for everybody
f) enough lawsuits and insurance claims will either result in astronomically high entry fees, or the cancellation of the sport entirely

So is there a problem, or not? Some say definitely yes, some say definitely no. Let's come to a consensus on that issue then we can move on from there.

Cheers,
-Doug
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,757 Posts
>
>If a brand new driver with zero competition experience shows
>up at their first rally with a 450hp AWD car and a brand new
>co-driver, do you sign them up and turn them loose on the
>stages or not?

NO !

>
>Things to consider:
>a) if they crash and injure themselves, Rally America will
>likely be named in a lawsuit
>b) even if they or their families don't sue, the participant
>accident insurance will likely be hit to cover some if not
>all of their medical expenses
>c) if they crash and injure someone else, Rally America will
>definitely be named in a lawsuit
>d) any lawsuit, no matter the outcome or how frivolous it
>is, will cost significant time and money to defend
>e) any insurance claim adds to the premiums for everybody
>f) enough lawsuits and insurance claims will either result
>in astronomically high entry fees, or the cancellation of
>the sport entirely

Doug, while I favor some sort of novice program, I read the above 6 reasons as being applicable to any injury for any level of driver. I don't think that is persuasive by itself.

Your first example is the key; it goes against common sense to allow the total novice to hop into the 450 HP AWD car.

My vote is that there are 2 problems:
1. too much car for in the hands of too little experience
2. spotting those who are just inherently a danger to themsleves and others (a direct reference to the Sawmill tragedy, at which my son was driving his first event also)

We can solve 1) IMO without class restrictions on cars......ooops, I am getting ahead......

There may be other problems (like can we sneak in some self activated brakes on DM's car?) but we have to identify and solve each problem.

Mark B.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,027 Posts
Doug:

I am not taking sides (yet)

But none of these points would be different for a driver of any experience with any type car...

I think the issues are different than the issues outlined below. You and JB can help the group by outlining the types of questions asked by potential insurers.

The group can help by outlining and addressing issues that are past, current, or future potential hazards to our own well being and the viability of the future of the sport. (I'll try and start a list in another thread).

Fun Stuff, eh?
Mike

>Things to consider:
>a) if they crash and injure themselves, Rally America will
>likely be named in a lawsuit
>b) even if they or their families don't sue, the participant
>accident insurance will likely be hit to cover some if not
>all of their medical expenses
>c) if they crash and injure someone else, Rally America will
>definitely be named in a lawsuit
>d) any lawsuit, no matter the outcome or how frivolous it
>is, will cost significant time and money to defend
>e) any insurance claim adds to the premiums for everybody
>f) enough lawsuits and insurance claims will either result
>in astronomically high entry fees, or the cancellation of
>the sport entirely
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
234 Posts
I agree your scenario but question how often such a situation occurs. With a 34mm restrictor in place, there aren't going to be many 450hp awd cars. And the same accident can occur with a 250hp G2 car.

That's why I like the logbook idea. At least the theory makes sense to me. A competitiors record/expereince should be tracked and if it shows they are dangerous to themselves and potentially others a suspension of their license may be needed. Limiting what cars they can run doesn't seem to really address the situation.

Again, maybe I've missed something somewhere but from what I have seen more of the big accidents, not all mind you, have been experienced teams. The people I run with toward the back of the pack are just interested in finishing and improving their seed. Speed comes with experience and a majority of the people I have met realize this.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,812 Posts
>If a brand new driver with zero competition experience shows
>up at their first rally with a 450hp AWD car and a brand new
>co-driver, do you sign them up and turn them loose on the
>stages or not?


My gut says they shouldn't be turned loose, but I don't necessarily like the idea. However, if they can afford $100+ K car, they can afford to rent something less powerful for a little while.


>So is there a problem, or not? Some say definitely yes, some
>say definitely no. Let's come to a consensus on that issue
>then we can move on from there.


1. Buried in some post somewhere you mentioned gathering empirical evidence. The data for the past 5-10 years probably is available.

2. Someone mentioned checking people's public driving records. I don't know if there would be a correlation, but intuitively it makes sense.

3. If someone starts out fine, but later starts crashing often that needs to be looked at. People change. Experience is important, but not the only thing.

4. There should be some form of punishment for numerous crashes.
(I know of people who take pride in their crashes. It makes me cringe.)
 

·
codriveur
Joined
·
1,385 Posts
>If a brand new driver with zero competition experience shows
>up at their first rally with a 450hp AWD car and a brand new
>co-driver, do you sign them up and turn them loose on the
>stages or not?

The Stewards and organizers have the right to refuse entry for ANY reason, no?

Isn't percieved liablity a reason?

Bernie
 

·
5 right opens
Joined
·
859 Posts
>I'm all for logical revision. First, we should start by
>identifying concisely whether or not there really is a
>problem.


then later...

>...Rally America will
>likely be named in a lawsuit



I think that now that we have correctly and specifically identified the "problem" we need to look at it less polictically and more functionally.

Just say what nobody wants to...

To reduce the risk of liability, we need to remove the opportunity for getting sued NOT neccessarily increase safety.

Of course, I believe in Safety and I believe that taking certina steps WILL increase safety but nothing really matters if we CAN'T get insured becuase of the Liability or if we do get insured but at astronomical rates.

Either way, we're sunk.

I read mention of the one lawsuit currently in process that had nothing to do with spectator injuries or physical damages. That suit was brought specifically under the premise that the Driver, a Novice with no certification, no experience and no way to prove he had really ever BEEN in a Rally Car before, was turned loose on a stage and killed his Navvie.

Regardless of the Waiver, the argument stands that the Waiver "assumes" that all reasonable steps have been taken to protect the signators and allowing a totally green driver to go out and kill someone means that ALL RESONABLE STEPS were NOT taken to ensure their safety.

While it hurts my cause, I do agree that is true. I have NEVER understood why the SCCA allowed this when they require schooling, provisional, tiered and classed lisencing.

Yet for Rally, the undisputed MOST DANGEROUS motorsport, the SCCA lets any yahoo with a car race. Not right.

As an organizer, a Steward, a Competitor and a Fan... I would feel MUCH better knowing that somone of clout has taken a peak at each and every driver and given an opinion and certification of their ability to drive the car they are in.

I can look at their logbook and see that, see the status of their lisence, see how many Provisional runs they have, etc.

NOW I know their general RISK Level and can act accordingly.

As an Insurer, that would help me sleep easier as well. Plus, I might be promted to lower my rates knowing the sactioning body was taking an active part in the safety of the teams.

Putting folks in a different car to crash anyway just means the cars crashed might cost a little less than a full Open car but it still doesn't answer the question of whether or not they WILL crash. Or better yet, WHEN they will crash.

The ONLY thing that does, is an proactive program to get drivers certified. Why? Because we can THEN say they have every right and ability to be there and Driver's Error is exactly that... Driver's Error. NOT the Event's Error. Not the Tech's Error. Not a Licensing Error.

DRIVER ERROR. And THAT limits liability.

Scott - yeah, I'm fired up - Kovalik
 

·
don't cut
Joined
·
2,252 Posts
>
>There may be other problems (like can we sneak in some self
>activated brakes on DM's car?) but we have to identify and
>solve each problem.
>
>Mark B.

Brakes are for pussies! }>

Dennis Martin
[email protected]
920-432-4845
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
590 Posts
The days of 400+ hp AWD cars are long gone

The best you're likely to see with a 34mm restrictor is 325 and that is stretching it pretty thin at that point.

Matt
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
73 Posts
I don't think restricting novice drivers to a particular class is the answer. Then again, I'm biased because I just spent $25,000 collecting spares, putting together a team, and building a PGT Impreza 2.2 L AWD (137 HP), but haven't been able to drive it yet due to ClubRally events getting canceled in NEDiv in both 2003 and 2004. :'(

http://www.trunkmonkeyracing.com/pics/lil.gif http://www.trunkmonkeyracing.com/
 

·
Slid'n around 'n havin a ball
Joined
·
2,953 Posts
RE: impossible

Sean:
Monkey guy:
Blaming the SCCA for not competing up till now is a copout.
NASA and Canadian rallys have been run all around your area.
Galway-Cavandish would have welcomed you had you asked, as would have many others. Rally is about adapting, not waiting for perfect conditions.
A 2.2, according to Fasttrack and M.Hurst is OK so calm down.
rz
 
1 - 20 of 70 Posts
Top