[Sans Peur]

I wanted to probe into the logic of rule 7.6.D of the Rally America rules.

It states:

"When a stage has been stopped, for whatever reason, before the last
competitor has completed it, a time for that stage will be assigned to
each competitor who has not completed the stage before the stoppage.
This time will be equal to the slowest time set before the stoppage.
Should the steward(s) consider that the slowest time set is abnormal, he (they) may choose a time that seems most suitable amongst the three
slowest times set prior to the stoppage. No competitor who is totally or partially responsible for the stoppage of that stage may benefit from this measure."

This method only seems to hinder the competitors that were never given the opportunity to set their own stage time.

If there's a blockage, why not just throw the whole stage?? That way nothing's gained by anyone. I doesn't seem fair that the folks in front of the stoppage get to determine their stage time and folks behind the stoppage have no control over their time?

I know it negatively impacted my, as well as others, overall time at Oregon Trail and it?s impacting the Pikes Peak results/times.

Thoughts, questions, concerns?.go!


Andrew Sutherland
UniversalRally.com

 

[mattjohnston]

RE: Logic behind "Slowest stage time prior to stoppage"????

At Sno-Drift this year,

We got stuck behind another competitor that was stuck in a bank for 4 minutes, then finished the stage.

The cars behind us never started the stage because of some issue, and the stage was thrown.

I believe that all the competitors behind us got my +4 minute time...

Which is BUNK.

But, whatever.

 

[jeffy]

RE: Logic behind "Slowest stage time prior to stoppage"????

The reason for the rule is two fold;

1. If the 10th car on the road has a stage stopping issue, then the 9 other cars that did get to run have the times they earned.
So they are not penalized.

2. The slowest stage time is simply a way around "force majeure".
I am not sure when it became part of the rule book, but in the "old days" if the road was blocked while you were in the stage (or transit)
you were SOL.

 

[Sans Peur]

RE: Logic behind "Slowest stage time prior to stoppage"????

>The reason for the rule is two fold;
>
>1. If the 10th car on the road has a stage stopping issue,
>then the 9 other cars that did get to run have the times they
>earned.
>So they are not penalized.
>
>2. The slowest stage time is simply a way around "force
>majeure".
>I am not sure when it became part of the rule book, but in the
>"old days" if the road was blocked while you were in the stage
>(or transit)
>you were SOL.

Again, under the current rule, the folks behind the blockage get screwed! If you just threw out the stage times for everyone, then everyone gets screwed together!

How does that not make more sense?


Andrew Sutherland
UniversalRally.com

 

[Jens]

RE: Logic behind "Slowest stage time prior to stoppage"????

>Again, under the current rule, the folks behind the blockage
>get screwed!


Yup.

There is nothing fair about it. It is another "the washed vs. the unwashed" rule.

The stage should be thrown for EVERYONE, or everyone should be given the FASTEST time.

I ran a "turn around" stage at Maine a few years ago. Due to some dust the first run was slow going. The front markers whined and cried "boo hoo" that there was too much dust for their delicate sensibilities, so the out-going run was thrown and we had to transit out of the stage.

The whiners should have been parked until we back markers ran the stage. Then, the whiners could have transited the stage without screwing up the stage for everyone else. But... someone will cry "Then the seeding order would have been screwed up". Well, for one: it was the last stage of the night. Two: if there were other stages the front markers could have been put up front again at the next stage start to make them happy.

The rules have been tweaked and played with for years to satisfied the washed.

 

[MDBodnar]

RE: Logic behind "Slowest stage time prior to stoppage"????

To Matt's reply:

The cars behind should not have been given your time, but actually a better time because you were blocked -- In this case Matt truely suffered Force Majure, while the remaining cars recieved a time awarded by the rule.

General:

The real reason for the rule is that if you have 50 of 60 cars finish a stage, it does not make sense to toss the stage because a few cars were unable to complete it. Especially if after a re-seed, there are very few arguements about the reasonableness of the time assigned; the last cars tend to be slower in sequence, so they would recieve an "equalizing" time by being given a time that they were unlikey to achieve.

If we applied Jens squeaky clean mantra, we would further refine the rule to say if 1/3 of the field completed the stage then the rules applied, but if 1/3 did not complete the stage then the rule does not apply. A percentage of finishers certainly would help clarify when to apply the rule.

To me the basic philosophy is that we want to allow as many stages to count as possible, for as many competitors as possible. If we strated throwing stages becuase of stoppages, we could go back to the issues created by throwing the red cross at STPR a few years ago. Winning your class, cars down on power, park accross the middle of the stage so the stage is blocked, have it thrown and without the rule, you win.

The rule is a needed function in a sport with Force Majure and mother nature battling us around every corner.

Mike

 

[Adrian Wintle]

RE: Logic behind "Slowest stage time prior to stoppage"????

>Again, under the current rule, the folks behind the blockage
>get screwed! If you just threw out the stage times for
>everyone, then everyone gets screwed together!

Since they are theoretically in order from fastest to slowest (which is what seeding and now SpeedFactor is supposed to do), giving competitors the time of the slowest clean run through the stage (and they won't use a stage time where the team obviously had a problem as the baseline time) actually potentially benefits the cars at the back of the field.

It is really a way of not having to throw a stage. Consider that it could be car 50 of a 52 car field that causes the blockage - should the stage be thrown because two cars got held up? That's what you seem to be suggesting.

Its in the rulebook. We all know how it works, and we know that it can potentially be an advantage or a detriment. We live with it.

Adrian

 

[Doug Woods]

RE: Logic behind "Slowest stage time prior to stoppage"????

Andrew:

This rule has to be applied very carefully by the Stewards, to ensure that all competitors have been treated as fairly as possible. If the Stewards deem that they cannot apply the rule fairly, then they should cancel the stage. Usually, organizers (and the Stewards) try to avoid cancelling a stage since a lot of effort has been put by the organizers into obtaining permission to run the stage, by the workers in preparing and running the stage, and by the competitors in driving their valuable vehicles flat out over the stage.

Without the rule, the stage would either be cancelled (which might be viewed as unfair if say 39 competitors completed it with no problems and only one competitor was affected) or the stage would count with force majeur applying (which also might be viewed as unfair to those impacted).

The WRC has a similar rule and it has been applied several times already this year.

Looking at the Pikes Peak results, it does appear that some competitors have suffered from the rule being applied, but I am not there and do not know all of the details involved, so I might be completely wrong.

Doug Woods

 

[Paul Jaeger]

RE: Logic behind "Slowest stage time prior to stoppage"????

>At Sno-Drift this year,
>
>We got stuck behind another competitor that was stuck in a
>bank for 4 minutes, then finished the stage.
>
>The cars behind us never started the stage because of some
>issue, and the stage was thrown.
>
>I believe that all the competitors behind us got my +4 minute
>time...
>
>Which is BUNK.
>
>But, whatever.

Matt,

I believe you are referring to stage 6 Greasy Creek. Five cars also had the same time as your 16:51.4. But there were also three cars with slower times (18:52.3, 19:48.1 and 20:42.6) I think that the organizers tried to pick the time they felt was the slowest representative time. Cars recieving that time could have filed an inquiry if they felt it was not a representative time. I think this is the fairest way in an unfair world to resolve the problem. Generally cars starting ahead of you are faster and cars behind you are slower so the slowest time is a pretty good bet for an assigned time.

Rallies today have relatively few but long stages. If we threw out all stages where only a few competitors had problems we could lose most of the stages on some rallies. It also would wipe out the stage times of cars that caused the stages to be blocked. This could lead to someone deliberately blocking a stage if they had a problem. For instance on STPR stage 7 was blocked by Travis Pastrana. If the stage was thrown out he would have been unpenalized. The stewards gave him the actual time he took on the stage and everybody else (all but the first three cars) got the slowest time of the first three cars.


Paul Jaeger KC8YRY
PRIMO Stage Crews
For a Good Time, Call PRIMO!

 

[Jens]

RE: Logic behind "Slowest stage time prior to stoppage"????

>To me the basic philosophy is that we want to allow as many
>stages to count as possible, for as many competitors as
>possible.


That works... but...

Give everyone the fastest time, not the slowest. No one changes start position, no one gains an advantage, no one is hurt.

The front few are going to win anyway, so there is no point to penalizing the rest of the field. Of course the team running 2nd or 3rd will start whining, "Oh, we were going to win the other stages, but we were so upset that we couldn't concentrate for the rest of the rally."

Giving everyone the fastest time makes the stage fair for everyone, but fairness isn't the point.

 

[RichardM]

RE: Logic behind "Slowest stage time prior to stoppage"????

Give every one the fastest time they could possibly have achieved. Since the cars started in speed order (especiallly after a re-seed) then the fastest a car could go is as fast as the car ahead. Well kind of sort of. It is possible that from the back of the pack, I could go down a stage faster than Stig. Highly unlikely but possible. Well only possible in the same way that faster than the speed of light is possible. :7 But possible.
Richard

 

[Jens]

RE: Logic behind "Slowest stage time prior to stoppage"????

>Give every one the fastest time they could possibly have
>achieved.

I like that idea even better.

>I could go down a stage faster than Stig.

Yeah, and I'm the Easter Bunny.


I beat Buffum on a stage... once. My single moment of rally glory was even chronicled a sentence in Sports Car magazine. Was I faster than John? Well... to be honest... no. He had missed a turn (or something) and therefore missed a stage start. I beat him fair and square

 

[RS WRC]

RE: Logic behind "Slowest stage time prior to stoppage"????

I think I'm missing a point in here...

Imagine...
It's Wueddibuddyboo Rally and you are 8th car to start Stage #6; it's been fierce competition in the last 5 stages, there seems to be only 25 seconds between you and 1st place(since you had two punctures and lost a lot of time -that's why you're re-seeded to 8th, otherwise you would have been leading;-)), 3 more stages to run.

Suddenly you hear that the stage was stopped due to a mishab on 6th car. The stage will be run as transfer. Everybody will get 4th car's time(since 5th car had a puncture halfway thru the stage and their time was unusual)
And you are officially "screwed": Because this stage is the repeat of 2nd stage -which fits your crew the most- (you were 25seconds faster than anybody on 2nd stage!)And oh no, now you're getting a slower time than the cars you were supposed to make time on! It hurts. It's not right. It's not fair to you.

Well, actually, those 5 cars get to run the stage, only because they somehow managed to stay in front of you. Whereas, you and the rest of the field gets a scenic drive without hurting your equipment.

I don't want to bring more extremeties, examples, imaginary situations in, but I think it's quite possible, and it actually happened...

Now throw the stage and ask yourself:
1.Is it fair to erase the time of -let's say 2nd car- who risked everything, sweat and blood, hurt their car, tires, themselves in the process but managed to get a 20sec faster time than others?
2.Is it fair to erase the 5th car's run-flat time?


I think this rule is there to allow the organizers to run a smooth operation, at the same time making it fair, and I personally believe they do.

Why change it?

 

[jeffy]

RE: Logic behind "Slowest stage time prior to stoppage"????

>>I think this rule is there to allow the organizers to run a
>smooth operation, at the same time making it fair, and I
>personally believe they do.
>
>Why change it?
>

Exactly (and yes, it has happened very much this way)

 

[kenwhite]

RE: Logic behind "Slowest stage time prior to stoppage"????

Seeing that im not running anymore, i have not studied the RA rules,
but SCCA had a rule that a rally must have a minimum number of miles
and if too many stage were dropped then the rally didnt qualify for
nationlal points.
I remember a national when a top top driver high centered his car
but needed to finish. He put his comealong across the road, flagged down the next car and then proceeded to stop the whole rally. he
was lst at the time. he got the stage thrown and they let him stay
in the rally.. ha
ken

 

[jeffy]

RE: Logic behind "Slowest stage time prior to stoppage"????

I recall a story of a fellow Michigander doing the same on a bridge.
- hehe
The RA rule book reads that an event must have 100+ stage miles to be a national, 65 to 100 to be a coef 3, and 30 to 65 to be a coef 2.
That said, I know that events in the past that have had to cancel stages have been treated with "the intent to run" and the event kept its national or coef status. (As they should).

Anyway, as we drift this thread, Andrew, I hope you have an idea (right or wrong, like it or not) of why the rule exists.
Most of those replying have been helped and hurt by it I'm sure,
some of us have had to make rulings on it as well.

No one likes the politics of it.
(but that's why drag racing is popular still eh?).

 

[Sans Peur]

RE: Logic behind "Slowest stage time prior to stoppage"????

All

I understand why we have a rule of this nature. The last thing I would want is throwing out stages that were 80%+ complete etc.

All the ?what if?s? and arguments are valid?like, ?the guys that got stage times had to punish their cars and run the risk of breaking while the rest of the field gets to cruise and save it for the next stage? That?s true?but that?s an unknown detriment and/or advantage?.we don?t make rules based on ?what if?s?.

Also, I don?t think rules should be structured around the potential abuses of them! Meaning, if someone blocks a stage on purpose, then there?s a much bigger issue than how to treat the ?stoppage??.that?s misconduct on a competitors part and should not be allowed to determine the outcome of a rally!!

The spirit of the rule is to even out the timing for those that were not allowed to set their own stage time. My opinion is that while it works as a method to limit the number of stages that are cancelled, it negatively impacts those behind the blockage.

Is there an argument for not using the fastest stage time, as Jens mentioned above? Just looking for informative healthy conversation here?.not attacking anyone?s thought process.

Andrew

 

[Jens]

RE: Logic behind "Slowest stage time prior to stoppage"????

>Is there an argument for not using the fastest stage time, as
>Jens mentioned above?

If there isn't, they will find one. Why? Because Jens is the pariah of rally.

A year or two down the road they will institute it, call it their idea, and crown someone (any one but me) for "thinkin' it up". Believe me... it has happened more than once.

 

[Jens]

RE: Logic behind "Slowest stage time prior to stoppage"????

> The RA rule book reads that an event must have 100+ stage
>miles to be a national, 65 to 100 to be a coef 3, and 30 to
>65 to be a coef 2.
>That said, I know that events in the past that have had to
>cancel stages have been treated with "the intent to run" and
>the event kept its national or coef status. (As they
>should).

Jeffy, Jeffy, Jeffeeeeee.....

I looked for the finished milage of Oregon Trails 2003, but couldn't find it so I don't know if they completed 100+ miles. They still finished the rally and scored it. However, in 2000 I ran a rally in which a co-driver was killed (3rd or 4th stage???). Not only was the stage cancelled, but the rally was cancelled. No times, no points, no anything were recorded. That was the same year I was running 1st in class in my division. I had one more rally to run, but my heart told me to f-off, so I finished 2nd. Would I have won if the cancelled rally had been calculated? I dunno. Personally, I think it was silly to cancel the rally just because someone died. Now... I'm sure someone will be angry for me saying that, but I can assure you I'd be upset if I had been killed and they cancelled the rally for everyone else. Granted, winning G5 in NEDiv wouldn't be the highlight of my life, but it would have been nice.


>Anyway, as we drift this thread, Andrew, I hope you have an
>idea (right or wrong, like it or not) of why the rule exists.

I have rallied in 2 millennia (1000's and 2000's), and 4 decades (70's, 80's, 90's, and 00's), and I still don't have a clue why half of these silly rules exist (including this give 'em the slowest time nonsense).

 

[jeffy]

RE: Logic behind "Slowest stage time prior to stoppage"????

HA ! - this is a test to see if I still have my 03 OTPR notes eh?

Hard for me to believe, but I think we only lost the one stage (Louie, Louie) and thus recorded 106.89 of the scheduled 120.36 miles.

I recall SSM in 00 as well, a good friend had taken the school and Sunday was to be his first event as a driver. I could hardley believe the event "never existed" ... but they did keep his money.