[gilfeather]

In talking with people who witnessed one of the incidents that may have caused the recent flurry of activity it seems clear that the class of the car had little to do with the incident. The crash speed was easily obtainable on the given stretch of road by any car in the event.

The problem seems to be driver attitude and driver expectation of success. Perhaps, new drivers, or more experienced drivers who are pushing too hard, should have a probationary period where they are allowed to run the rally but are not given a time. No speed factor, no stage time, nothing to compare to and thus no expectations of granduer.

Just a thought...

 

[Jens]

>No speed factor, no stage time,
>nothing to compare to and thus no expectations of granduer.


They can figure out their own stage times. "We won the stage, but weren't scored." etc.....

 

[psychorallyfreak]

No Official Timing???
What are you, nuts?
How's about you just don't SCORE their times?
What's the point of even competing if you're just gonna end up saying, "According to US, we won the stage." Like anybody's gonna believe that.

 

[HJracing]

why would any new compedeitors join the field then? If they have no chance of even being legitimately scored in the rally, why would they pertake in it at all. every one was new at some point, this i 'believe' would reduce the number of new compeditiors.

i understand where you are comming from but i dont believe this is the way to do it. i support the idea of restricting classed much more than eliminating timing from rookies.

 

[Chris Gilligan]

I agree with Jens, whether it's scored officially or not, we're still going to compare times.

The only way to really begin making drivers smarter is to educate them. Make sure we all know what can happen when you push too hard, and maybe give them some tips on WHEN to push, and when not to. Teach them risk management.

Like a lot of new drivers, I went into the 2003 season thinking that I was invincible - I had a solid car, good cage, all the safety equipment. Then Mark and Roger's crash happened, and it became very clear that in no way are any of us invincible. That realization made me think twice about how I drove, and the risks I took.

So, do I still drive hard? Of course, when I know it's approproate. If I can see the corners and read the conditions, I'll be braking late and pitching the car all over. But if I can't read the road, I don't go into the corner at 10/10ths - call me a p*^%y is if you want. Blind fast corner over crest? Yep, I usually lift. So what if I lose 2 seconds - at least I assure myself that I'll make it through the stage. This isn't WRC, I'm not going for a world championship, and I never will be, so what's the point? I'm still having fun!

Plus - I still believe there's more time to be gained in improving my technique than growing bigger cahones. In my mind, the key is finding a way to go faster WITHOUT taking more risks.

Chris Gilligan
#527

 

[JD Ackley]

I'm sorry, but I have to chime in on this topic as being one of the most absurd things I have heard in a while. No scoring? What are you nuts? You're proposing that I spend thounsands of dollars of my own money to show up to an event, which I stand no chance of winning a penny, and not even be competitive with others in my class? I need to talk to your dealer. Who would be interested in this, and why? If you want seat time go to school. If you want to race go to a rally. Please remove head from anus in the quickest, least painful manner.

 

[gilfeather]

Not nuts. Very serious. Too fat to get near my anus.

All the complaining is by people who want to race and compete. The whole point is NOT to race or compete in your first couple of events.
Finishing and learning are much more important. If the driver truly has the right attitude then not receiving a time or a score for the first couple of Rallys is not an issue.

You can go off at 50 mph on a downhill curve and put your A-pillar into a tree if you are in a 4wd turbo or in a 3500lb 80hp yugo. Class limits don't solve the problem. The whole point is not to be pushing hard so you don't take a downhill curve at speed. Instead you take it slower, notice that it seemed worse than it looked, and learn something about downhill off camber curves.

 

[Pete Kuncis]

That is what rally school is for. Spend $1500 on a rally school and not get timed and do it right instead of spending $1500 on an event and not get timed and do it wrong.

Pete

 

[KevinG5Hahn]

Find me a driver that honestly wouldn't start pushing in an event, especially a new driver. Better yet find me a driver that wouldn't time them selves if no rally-america wasn't timing themselves.


Competitive people always find a way to compete, they don't need anybody else to help make that happen, especially in a car. Not timing/scoring them won't make things better. They will still find a way to time themselves if they want to. I'd hope in this plan you took into account putting a real fast car in the back of the field, a car thats fast enough to catch multiple vehicles. If you're not scoring them are you just going to guess on where to put them in the field?



A big swing and a miss IMO.

 

[rightseat]

No Timing = No Racing = Crazy Idea

If people pay to put a car and a team on the start line, they gotta be able to race SOMEHOW, otherwise why bother?

Car class limits are not a panacea, but they ARE a necessary first step. Let's just start with that.

Dave G

"...Embrace loose gravel, beware big trees..."

 

[Jens]

>The whole point is NOT to race or compete in your
>first couple of events.

It won't work. They will still compare their times to other competitors. I would even if I was a so-called "newbie".


>Finishing and learning are much more important. If the
>driver truly has the right attitude then not receiving a
>time or a score for the first couple of Rallys is not an
>issue.

Finishing and learning are the important things. You are correct.

However, attitude and common sense can neither be legislated nor dictated. To quote a line from a movie that is a true celebration of stupidity (Forrest Gump) , "Stupid is, as stupid does".


Your heart is in the right place, but your proposed system will not work.

Jens Larsen
Flying Kiwi Racing

 

[Femme]

I have only been involved in volunteering at one SCCA/PRO rally and I loved everything about it. I lived vicariously through watching the race. I know very little but I'm hungry to learn all I can about the sport and daydream of maybe co-driving someday.

My question is; why is everyone so focused on the rookies? I'm propably way off, but it seems like the vets get in just as many if not more inccidents than the newbies. I understand insurance as I am an agent (don't throw anything at me pleeease :+ ), and it seems to me insurance rating is based more on experience (what actually happened) and less on what you perceive may happen while it still factors into it.

If that is true for rally insurance, then the focus should be on what common factors run through the accidents, driver attitude not experience. Perhaps if drivers that show a pattern of disregard for safety should pay an insurance penalty since they are the actual causes for the insurance increase?

Am I on left field? I welcome your input to my learning about your sport.

P.S. I look forward to many more rally's and would be very deflated if the future of the sport is at risk because of insurance, so my intent is only to bring an idea to the table.

Femme

"If you drive in the left lane, go faster!"

 

[John Vanlandingham]

Welcome aboard Mary,
You're right that the critical element is not car, or even lack of it but in fact attitude.
How to asses that in the actual "heat of battle" is the huge problem.

As the boy KevinGp5Hahn accurately pointed out, people that are interested in rally driving are competitive, and many many feel a compulsion to 'prove' something, especially the inexperienced, and those unsure of their position in the heirarchy (of whatever they believe is important).
A wise man once said "And driving is the OTHER thing that every man thinks he's above average at..."

I know I have some 'markers' of what I know to be probable problem drivers, but that's a result of watching literally hundreds of beginners come into a similar motorsport, and 20 years watching people come into, and then out of this sport.
A major 'marker' of probable problems is aggressive confidence with little or no specific experience, but that takes extended contact and investigation, and is open to accusations of favoritism.

But a reliable method for predicting is nearly impossible.

You are right that it _should_ be based on a _record_ of driving but it seems the argument is settled, Newbies driving P or Gp2 cars will be invulnerable.

Anyway, welcome aborad, and tell us if you can research the specific things which Underwriters would LIKE to see us doing to make them happier.





John Vanlandingham
Seattle, WA. 98168

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

 

[Gravel Spray]

Been watching these newbie discussions, lots of ideas.


One thing we cannot afford to do is turn off potencial new teams to the sport. The current automotive market has produced cars that are pretty damn fast stock. It's hard to justify(in my mind anyway) "racing" a car that is half as fast/powerfull as my wifes Forester XT. My point is, that we are going to see people contunially approch this sport with one option in their mind, to rally a WRX, or Evo, or eclipse. A guy that drives a Evo for a streetcar is not going to dig even a potent g-2 car, if these people cannot rally what they are motivated to rally, they will do something else with their car, time and money. Some people interested in rally are enthusiasts of a brand first, and rallist second, they do not care about what is the correct progression to make them selves the best possible driver. They only want to rally their WRX or Evo for fun.

It's obvious the human element is really the issue here, a lower classed car does lessen the potencial danger, but this notion is highly questionable as we all know it boils down to the human, making a mistake. Any car is dangerous with an idiot.


One thing that did strike me as interesting was brought up by Doug Havir. He pointed out that we need to identify the "manics", as they are most likley to be the problem.

What if we were to require a newbie, regardless of car class and prevoius motorsport experiance(which by the way is NOT an indicator of danger) to have a "sponsor", not a money paying sponsor, but a person within the rally community that has vouched for, and will tend to, the new team during the teams first 9 co's. Kind of a shaparone.

As in, Jerry the racecar driver, has seen WRC on TV. He took a couple buddies to a local event and was hooked. But before Jerry can get into an event, he needs to find a liecenced guy/gal within the rally community that has already finished the 9 co's, and is willing to be responsable for the new team during probation. The Sponsor or "shaparone" reports to event steward on progress and issues during the events. Steward can then make notes and voice concerns to the team, and the RA staff for future monitoring. Like, "hey that #so and so is on the entery list for rallywamo, at our event last month they were shetchy and did this, keep an eye on em"

Something like this might work for everyone. We the rally community have to put effort into this, the above senario allows us to shape the >culture< of rally with regards to what is correct and incorrect behavior. We must be proactive, not make rules ala SCCA, and let them be words on paper to cover our ass later.


Peter

 

[Femme]

Hi John...Thanks for your comments.

I can understand the same drive that makes a competative spirit wisper: "push the envelope" "race better than the rest". It's that wisper in all who love to rally and race that make the sport so exciting to be in and for the rest, exciting to watch.

But....could drivers use more self-restraint in order to be able to afford the insurance so they can continue to race by knowing they would face a stiff penalty if they continue to push TOO far, ie. repeated costly accidents that raise the cost for every other competitor?

Just wondering why you couldn't rate drivers objectively by simply scoring amount of damages and quantity of "at fault" incidents similar to how our driving records and personal insurance is scored. Maybe give one grace incident per year as a warning. Getting to wallets could help re-evaluate how much risk is worth the cost.

Underwriters are charged with protecting the companies assests by making safe decisions. If there are repeated incidents, nothing will make you a safe risk and could create a mind set against providing insurance at all. I see more and more companies taking the stand, "We will not insure ie. homes with trampolines (fill in the blank) under any circumstances because history tells us it is not a good risk."

I've seen people have to sell their homes, cars, farms, restaurants simply because they could not find a company that was willing to insure them At All, At Any Price, because of a pattern of claims. I am only trying to explain that insurance companies have and do plum refuse to insure if their management gets concerned enough. x(

Please understand that I am not in any way defending insurance companies, only trying to explain that things could get worse for rallies if the patterns continue. I'm a consumer too and have had to be more careful or my insurance costs will eat a big whole in my wallet.

I'm only wondering if you can use the same principal to help insure the sport stays affordable and insurable. There is of course always the option of being self-insured, but would that limit the growth of the sport too much?

Just food for thought.....


Femme

"If your in the left lane, go faster!"

 

[KevinG5Hahn]

Way to be mature John.



People who race cars are typically inherently competitive, if they weren't competitive and didn't want to compete and push themseleves and their abilities they wouldn't race cars, simple as that.

Part of the new driver solution needs to be identifying problem drivers very early (before being on the stages if possible), and possibly preventing them atleast initially from entering the sport (force them to take more steps to become more experienced and skilled in an even more controlled environment). An other part of the equation needs to be to provide real consequences for new drivers to be pushing too hard too early and to closely monitor them to manage the risk they pose to themselves and others in addition to the sport as a whole.

Cars are not the problem, they are just an easier fix than the drivers. With that said a rally/racing virgin in a fully built to the hilt Open car is still not a good idea....

 

[John Vanlandingham]

>Way to be mature John.

If you're refering to the term 'boy' then WTF?
I took Kevin to be a boy name.

I oafish-ally apologize about the confusion.

By the way, I would see YOU as a major potential risk.
Far too cocky, far too much concerned with an appearance of seriousness.
Too little experience.

And that is the problem with subjective evaluations.
I am highly suspect of verbally agressive, inexperienced guys.
Regardless of their age.
And 25-30 hours of total stage time spread over 2-3 seasons isn't really much experience either.

So this IS very difficult, more than half the current field including many in the upper reachs of results would be considered low experience, and high risk (and their driving records DO show that).

>
>
>
>People who race cars are typically inherently competitive,
>if they weren't competitive and didn't want to compete and
>push themseleves and their abilities they wouldn't race
>cars, simple as that.
>




John Vanlandingham
Seattle, WA. 98168

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

 

[Femme]

Hi Kevin

I don't mean to argue...what am I saying, yes I do... , but again isn't a virgin driving a maxed out car in an open class showing a less than prudent judgement, but yet can you tell me that all virgins drive maxed out cars in open classes? or are there plenty of virgins that show better track records than some vets?

Seriously, is there a greater claim experience for all newbies in general or not? I would love to see the reference point to drivers' judgement and attitude not just experience. I totaly agree that newbies should go through a training period of some sort, but how will that address the vets that have bad track records? Maybe there aren't any, I don't know. You tell me.



Femme

"If you drive in the left lane, go faster!"

 

[randyzimmer]

RE: sponsors

In the earliest SCCA, you needed both a sponsor and a (recognised)sports car to join. Those were the days of open road racing. I mean OPEN.
One early race was fastest time from milepost A to milepost B on the just opened PA Turnpike... on the honor system. Send in your time and results sent back after the deadline. (everyone cheated)

When I joined, you didn't need a sports car but you needed a sponsor to vouch for you as an enthusiast and co-sign the application.

In road-racing there are schools but you have to judge from afar. A rally driver has a Navvie and his judgement could be the best way to license new drivers.

I'm concerned with the pay-as-you-crash-plan because when the too rich for words crasher goes away, the sport still has the bad numbers lingering on.
Some crashes are just bad luck, (Petter in AUS) some are bad circumstances but few are just stupid. Is one-for ten JD an unsafe driver that should have been priced out of the sport or a real unlucky guy?
http://www.randyzimmer.com/video/CT2002/jdsrallywreckmovie.mov
His results at RNYUSA (using the first car he has prepped by himself) were fine.
http://gallery.speedmethodperformance.com/Rally-New-York-2004/hairpin6

rz

 

[Femme]

RE: sponsors

Point well taken Randy...thanks for your insight. I can see my suggestion would not be a good long term solution....for the very reasons you pointed out. Shoulda seen it...

Femme

"If you drive in the right lane, go slower"