Special Stage Forums banner

1 - 20 of 26 Posts

·
5 right opens
Joined
·
859 Posts
Thanks for posting the Fast Track...

I may be one of the odd ducks out there to have actually read this stuff when it comes out but hey... there's this one special seat in the house that you'll read just about anything ;)

ANYWAY....

I noted a couple of interesting points...

1 - It makes special mention of the fact that the COSTS increases of Insurance resulting in the elimination of Rally is due "not so much from participant activity but rather litigation from general liability"

Pg 288 - September 16 Mintues - Section 4.a.i.1

2 - Pg 288 - September 16 Mintues - Section 5.et all

Mentions a proposed Novice Driver's program and the concept of forcing G2 and P on Novice, but also is ambigeous about the standards for the "to be evealuated" option for NOT running a G2 or P car for Novices. I suspect this is where that Liability Issue mentioned in section 4 will raise its ugly head again.

3 - In the same section, it outlines 9 Insturctional Cos and 9 Providional Cos. Again, that's 18 COs and at 2 or 3 per year, that's relagating a Novice to the standard of Novice for SIX YEARS in most cases. Unless you have someone "move you along" on a "case by case" basis and then, where's the standard gone? Hello Liability! Not to mention the arguments about what's fair and what's not concerning moving a Novice Driver along versus holding another back.

4 - Pg 288 - September 19 Mintues - Section 1.a.ii

Just 3 days later... it reads:

"need to have a little felxibiliy regarding non-P and G2 car but remain equitable"

Sounds like they're onto the fact forcing everyond into a G2 or P car isn't going to work.

In typical SCCA Fashion, they go on to over complicate the process by writing opinions and making lists of exceptions to the rules. Why?

Just certify the drivers for their class. That's it. That's as complicated as it should be. It sounds like that's what the SCCA was getting to anyway, but to little to late. Sticking everyone in a G2 car is just going to convince someone right up until they crunch the numbers and figure out that it's mostly the Newbies in P or G2 that are doing the crashing.

Besides... IF the REAL issue, as mention in the Minutes, is NOT the participants but the "LITIGATION FROM GENERAL LIABILTIY", then restricting the participants isn't really dealing with the issue at hand.

We need to limit the liability, NOT the competitors. Looking at it from an Insurance Underwriter's perspective, that means closing the holes for lawsuits. Safey, sadly, is secondary to that perspective but none the less, it's true. In the end, the Insurer is looking at his probable payouts over the year and they are basing that on the ABILITY for people not neccessarily to prevail but to bring suit in the first place.

Putting drivers in seats on courses (in ANY car) without ANY determination of their ability, qualifying them in any way, without requiring even the LEAST amount of training is the BIGGEST most OBVIOUS mismanagement of liability in the HISTORY of Lawsuits.

That is like having a nice big puddle of water in a grocery store and doing nothing about it. Nobody will fall by accident, they'll fall on purpose and GET PAID to do it. It's a wonder the SCCA got away with this as long as they did.

In SCCAs defence, I think they KNEW that taking away Rally Driver's cars would cause them NOT to participate with the SCCA and that would mean LESS money to pay out in Insurance. So it was a win, win anyway.

Who was it that said it was okay to screw a few of the guys that can't afford to play so the "rich folk" can go on withought them? I forget.

In any case, Go back to the Convention being placed on top of Sno*Drift and tell me the SCCA didn't know about all this eight months ago.

Could it mean they KNEW the Rally Division wounldn't be here to offend OR they didn't mind offending us in the first place?

You decide. If it's the latter, then we need to think about the decision making process outlined in the Minutes. Hmmmm?

Scott - I just wanna Rally - Kovalik
--------------------------------------
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
30 Posts
Huh, anyone more familiar with the fuel delivery system of the open-class Tiburon? I take it they use a secondary fuel injector that injects water instead of gas. In that case I can see how it could be classified as a fuel. I kind of doubt they mix the two together before combustion.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
142 Posts
RE: Dec 04 fastrack - Liability

Wouldn't you agree that true libility is not nearly as important as percieved liability by the insurance company. If they think G2 and P is safer then the argument about how much safer it is or isn't compared to a turbo AWD car is mute. The arguments put forward by some that it is silly to restect new folks to NA 2WD cars becuase they can still be wicked fast may be true, but like it or not we may have to cater to the impression that G2 is acceptably slow and turbo AWD is not.
I would guess that the number of offs are not as important as the number of offs that involve medical attention. If you have 100 offs per season for G2 and 30 for Open, but the open offs result in 2 red crosses or medical crew dispatch, that would effect insurance rates more. just a guess.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,757 Posts
>
>3 - In the same section, it outlines 9 Insturctional Cos and
>9 Providional Cos. Again, that's 18 COs and at 2 or 3 per
>year, that's relagating a Novice to the standard of Novice
>for SIX YEARS in most cases. Unless you have someone "move
>you along" on a "case by case" basis and then, where's the
>standard gone? Hello Liability! Not to mention the
>arguments about what's fair and what's not concerning moving
>a Novice Driver along versus holding another back.
>
Scott, again, fer crissake...where are you coming up with this 6 years garbage that you have been slinging all across the forum? A coefficient 2 rally carries 2 co's, a coef 3 carries 3 co's and I would be willing to bet that a national carries 5 co's. (That was in the rules for years.) Why don't you try finding some facts BEFORE you jump to such fantastic conclusions? You're not helping yourself, guy!

Mark B.
 

·
5 right opens
Joined
·
859 Posts
>Scott, again, fer crissake...where are you coming up with
>this 6 years garbage that you have been slinging all across
>the forum? A coefficient 2 rally carries 2 co's, a coef 3
>carries 3 co's and I would be willing to bet that a national
>carries 5 co's. (That was in the rules for years.) Why don't
>you try finding some facts BEFORE you jump to such fantastic
>conclusions? You're not helping yourself, guy!
>
>Mark B. [/b]


Mark....

Here's where, and by the way, no hard feelings :)

In Oregon, we get to run one club Rally, that's usually a Co 1 or 2.

We also, if we can afford it, get to run the PRO Rally Oregon Trail (if we have one next year). and get that bigger Co Count.

So, if I take ALL the "points" available to me for and entire year, that adds up to 5 at best, as I said, usually about 3.

At 5 per year, needing 18, it would take 3.5 years to get my License

At 3 per year, needing 18, it would take 6 years to get my License

Assuming I can take a Rally School and get those points too, that would sure speed things up.

Incidentally, as long as we are on the topic of math, two, now three posts, doesn't add up to "slinging all across the forum" ;)

What YOU are thinking, and I see your point, is that folks will follow the Rally Series around the Country and therfore get their checklist taken care of in less than a Year.

What I am saying is to consider that the people we are speaking about, those that cannot afford a G2 AND a PGT car (for instance) don't have the money and/or sponsors to pack up their gear and trailer their car all around the Country to get their Lisence augmented.

For MANY of the NEWBIES in this country, just getting to their LOCAL event once a year, maybe twice, is hard enough.

So is it reasonable to take X number of years to get 18 checks off your punch card? Sure it is. Has it always been that way? "Always" is relative but it has been.

I'm saying that to add another CAR to the mix makes it just that much harder and less likely that someone will stick with it for a car they don't really want to drive becuase they feel it was FORCED on them.

Just a though.

Best,

Scott - I see your point - Kovalik
--------------------------------------
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
678 Posts
Scott, I checked the NW clubrally schedule on the left here on the site and I counted 28 coefficients per year in the Pacific Northwest!

Couldn't you complete all the requirements in less than a year, or am I missing something here? I can understand someone in the SE being out of luck though.
 

·
Slid'n around 'n havin a ball
Joined
·
2,953 Posts
That's the "Maine Appeal" part of the fasttrack link.
Apparently, Hyundai America swore that when they designed the Mitsubishi Evo water injection system they made water fuel.
rz
 

·
5 right opens
Joined
·
859 Posts
>Scott, I checked the NW clubrally schedule on the left here
>on the site and I counted 28 coefficients per year in the
>Pacific Northwest!
>
>Couldn't you complete all the requirements in less than a
>year, or am I missing something here? I can understand
>someone in the SE being out of luck though.


28? I guess I need to pay more attention. You must be counting the NWR as well as the ORG and perhaps some others.

Seems that the NWR has more events than we do and you're right, it's not that far to go I guess.

So, if I were to shop outside my Region and be willing to travel some, I can see how I might be able to get my requirements taken care of in a year.

Which means, I will only have to pay for a car I DON'T currently own for a year before I get to finally drive the car I've been putting my money into.

Sounds like Rally Rental is the business to get into :)

Thanks for pointing that out... 28 Cos... whoda thunk?

I'm going to check that out too... sounds like WAY to many though.

OTPR, Mt. Hood in Oregon.

What are the events in NWR besides WW and Doo ****?

There IS hope!!! :D

Scott - I don't do math, I have a Navvie for that - Kovalik
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
239 Posts
Water injection? So what?

>That's the "Maine Appeal" part of the fasttrack link.
>Apparently, Hyundai America swore that when they designed
>the Mitsubishi Evo water injection system they made water
>fuel.
>rz

Um.... am I missing something? Beyond the semantics of what "fuel" was defined as, I never really understood why there was such a public outcry over the adding water thing, and why there continues to be skepticism out there (Randy, not implying that you are one of those skeptics). Not that I want to play sides, but water injection? So what?

<geek alert>

In cylinder water injection can be (and has been) used in high performance turbo gasoline engines. Mixing water into the pre-combustion fuel effectively lowers combustion temperatures. This, in turn, lowers the propensity for knock, which then means that the engine can run at higher boost levels with less detrimental effects to the engine. Further, you can also use water injection in Diesels for the same thing, as well as controlling emissions. Heck, even gas turbines use water mist injection to control emissions and improve stage efficiency.

With that explanation, one can conclude that water injection is a power enhancer. And since the amount of water used is controlled by the ECU, it is an integral part of the engine system. Given an engine control strategy that uses water injection to control engine parameters, lack of said water can adversely alter engine temperatures (and maybe more) which would cause the engine to operate incorrectly. Therefore, I would agree with the outcome that overturned the protest. In this case, water IS fuel!

</geek alert>
______________________

Mike Moyer
Eclipse GSX #302 (I can't use water injection)
CRS GT
SCCA PGT
______________________
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
678 Posts
Hehe... I'm glad I gave you some hope! :)

This is based on the Northern Pacific clubrally calendar listed to the left here

<---- (click on SCCA club rally and then Northern Pacific and scroll down)

It shows 18 coefficients in Washington and 10 in Oregon.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
46 Posts
RE: Water injection? So what?

>>That's the "Maine Appeal" part of the fasttrack link.
>>Apparently, Hyundai America swore that when they designed
>>the Mitsubishi Evo water injection system they made water
>>fuel.
>>rz
>
>Um.... am I missing something? Beyond the semantics of
>what "fuel" was defined as, I never really understood why
>there was such a public outcry over the adding water thing,
>and why there continues to be skepticism out there (Randy,
>not implying that you are one of those skeptics). Not that
>I want to play sides, but water injection? So what?
>
><geek alert>
>
>In cylinder water injection can be (and has been) used in
>high performance turbo gasoline engines. Mixing water into
>the pre-combustion fuel effectively lowers combustion
>temperatures. This, in turn, lowers the propensity for
>knock, which then means that the engine can run at higher
>boost levels with less detrimental effects to the engine.
>Further, you can also use water injection in Diesels for the
>same thing, as well as controlling emissions. Heck, even
>gas turbines use water mist injection to control emissions
>and improve stage efficiency.
>
>With that explanation, one can conclude that water injection
>is a power enhancer. And since the amount of water used is
>controlled by the ECU, it is an integral part of the engine
>system. Given an engine control strategy that uses water
>injection to control engine parameters, lack of said water
>can adversely alter engine temperatures (and maybe more)
>which would cause the engine to operate incorrectly.
>Therefore, I would agree with the outcome that overturned
>the protest. In this case, water IS fuel!
>
></geek alert>
>______________________
>
>Mike Moyer
>Eclipse GSX #302 (I can't use water injection)
>CRS GT
>SCCA PGT
>______________________

In other word - They got away with it because of who they are.
Fuel goes in the fuel tank.

F the Lawyers
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,757 Posts
>Couldn't you complete all the requirements in less than a
>year, or am I missing something here? I can understand
>someone in the SE being out of luck though.

This brings out a good point. If you are in the SE, there are several NASA events that would contribute a number of coefficients. So a good point to come out of all this is that 3 series' events should count towards counting coefficients.

Mark B.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
30 Posts
RE: Water injection? So what?

I think everyone understands the benefit of WI. I've used it successfully in the past. I was just wondering about the specifics of their setup. Generally you want the water mixed with the air entering the chamber, not the gas.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
239 Posts
RE: Water injection? So what?

>I think everyone understands the benefit of WI. I've used
>it successfully in the past. I was just wondering about the
>specifics of their setup. Generally you want the water
>mixed with the air entering the chamber, not the gas.

OK, Phil, maybe I was missing something. The impression I got from a large number of posts dealing with this subject was that people didn't understand how water injection can be an integral part of engine management - maybe I was just reading them all wrong. In any case, the official release reads that they were adding water to a water tank, not the fuel tank. That suggests that fuel and water were seperate until they met up at the intake manifold or combustion cylinder, which I would agree with you, is the logical way to do it.

Eric, settle down. I don't think they "got away with it b/c of who they were". They were successful in their appeal because 1) water is probably an integral part of their fuel system, and 2) they backed it up with a reasonable explanation by credible sources. Why the witchhunt? Besides, it's pointless to argue about it now, as the decision has been made.
______________________

Mike Moyer
Eclipse GSX #302 (being rebuilt)
CRS GT
SCCA PGT
______________________
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
117 Posts
Ballast were are you? We need some experience!

Funny, if you go and train all these drivers, it would imply that you( the organizer) are now even more liable. As apposed to how other forms of motorsport work. Take circle track. No training programs, well defined ones, for newbies that I can find.

Actually before I go on with this rant would "Ballast"/aka Dick Furman care to speak up?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
117 Posts
The other part you guys are forgetting in the arguement is WHAT ABOUT THE CAR?. I cann't afford to buy another car. And I sure as ##### can't afford to rent one. I have to drive 300mile for any rally I may want to attend (THANK YOU, AGAIN, SCCA FOR DESTROYING THE ONLY NATIONAL IN MY BACK YARD, F*@kers!) Now if PGT cars were allowed, and why the fack not?, I do have a car right now that I could build for what would still be a considerable amount, but just maybe doable.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
222 Posts
Why the witchhunt?

They were successful in their appeal because 1) water is probably an integral part of their fuel system, and 2) they backed it up with a reasonable explanation by credible sources. Why the witchhunt?
Why the witchhunt? Did you even read the appeal? :D
 
1 - 20 of 26 Posts
Top