multi21

Please provide the quote or post #

Streak

The 2nd sentence of the rule coupled with the actual enforcement of the rule.

The chop resulting in contact results in a 13 for the person chopped. Please provide examples where PCA has found in favor of the person chopped vs the chopper?

"I have video of someone chopping across the bow of a driver (attempt on the inside of a left hand corner), but the driver backed out of it and put 2 wheels in the dirt to avoid contact. The trailing driver understood that it was a risky maneuver (rookie by the way who backed out and veteran who chopped). If contact would have happened however, the racing room (part 3 of the rules) could have been invoked because the driver does not own the corner (part 2 of the rule)."

This statement of yours above is untrue. If the passing car had not backed out he would have gotten a 13 because of part 1 of the rule that part 2 of the rule. You even state that it was risky. Culpability established by your own words right there. That's just the truth because there are hundreds of examples of the passing car getting the 13 in that scenario. Please post one where the car being passed got the 13 when someone tried to duck under him in a corner.

Worth noting here that history says you are 100% wrong but also that there could be two different ways to read the rule because why? Because it's ambiguous, left up to the interpretation of which ever officiant is there and there is no explanatory language or clarification in the rule.

We should fix that.

multi21

Dude, you're either seriously confused or disingenuous!!! I just went through the PCA rule book and did a search on "CHOP, APEX, TURN IN" and nowhere in the entire 64 page document did it show any of those words. You might be referring to the POC rules you posted in your post #30. That's why you couldn't answer my question despite asking for the quote a million times. :roll eyes: Smoke another

Streak

I keep answering it. You are ignoring the answer. You posted an example yourself

And you must not have looked very hard but at this point in the conversation I'm not surprised:

2.The car ahead at turn in has the corner but does not “own” the corner.

Derp!

And since you continue to be obtuse I'll say it again: it's as much about what NOT in the rule as what is. Historically the car trying to pass underneath another car must back out or get the 13 which allows the car being passed to chop the passing car. The rule is far too easily weaponized. You have video of it.

multi21

That's exactly what I thought and why you couldn't answer the question! You can't site the wording, because there is none. YOU ARE A ****ING FRAUD. NO WHERE DOES IT SAY THAT A CHOP IS LEGAL. NO WHERE DOES IT SAY THAT!!! As opposed to the NASA rule where driving someone off track is perfectly legal because you have to give only 3/4 car width (with the exception of 1 class -- how the **** does that make any sense)???

Does not own the corner, has to give room... 99% of the people understand this... You and hf1 do not. You're a waste of time!!!

Sorry to everyone else for losing it, but this f*cking guy must just be here to pull everyone's dick.

Coochas

Looking at this thread and other recent ones, the one thing I will cleanly pass on is ever doing PCA racing!

The way people treat each other here is like insecure bullies on a child's playground. There's usually one douchebag at any given track event but they seem to be hyper concentrated here lately. IF some of you find yourself driving on track with me, kindly put a "D" on your back bumper to identify yourselves.

Streak

You still haven't cited a single example where the car being passed in a corner was given a 13 for contact. Not one. Your hypothetical is just that. In practice you are wrong.

You also haven't answered the question about how clarifying language harms you as a PCA racer.

All the other series rules I posted and you only focus on one (which you are wrong about, see below). Why? Can it be that the clarifying language in other series rules makes some sense?

And your NASA point shows a bit of ignorance. I raced with NASA for a few years and they put the GTS class in it's own group hence the reason the differing racing room stipulations work. GTS also has a 13/13 rule. They don't run GTS with Spec Miata. That's how it makes sense.

BTW, if a passing car has to put wheels in the dirt because the car being passed "has" the corner and 100% of the burden is on the passing car how is it any different than NASA? The result is the same. What exactly is "racing room" according to PCA? Nobody knows.

That's a chop btw.

In practice, the car ahead at turn in always wins the 13 decision if there is contact. Always. So in practice the car ahead at turn in does "own" the corner. That's just real life right there. At the very least the 3rd sentence of the PCA rule should be the 1st to establish the spirit of coexistence on the race track.

Here's a good quote from the Chief from 2 years ago in CRN:

"Look Ahead. Think Ahead.
There is a lot of continuing misunderstanding
about passing rules and etiquette — Where cars
must be relative to each other as a pass is attempted
in or near a corner. It is really pretty simple. To
make things easy for drivers (and the stewards
when the pass does not work out so well) the rules
selected a single point where the car ahead maintains
his right to the corner, and the car behind
should give way

For a rule that doesn't establish "ownership" of the corner this is how the rule is enforced. Sounds like the rule forces the trailing car to give way. No need to leave racing room the way the Chief is telling it.

Then this quote this year seems to contradict two years ago and itself in two sentences:

"What we are trying to prevent is racing to the apex. Continuing to race to the apex is what causes most of our car-to-car incidents. The car ahead at turn-in cannot immediately move to the inside since he does not own the corner (rule 2) and (rule 3). The car who is behind at turn-in does not have the corner and should slow to follow through (rule 2 and rule 3). The car ahead at turn-in should reasonably expect the car behind at turn-in to slow and follow since the car behind at turn-in does not have the corner (rule 2 and rule 3). If the car behind at turn-in continues to push and race to the apex and we have contact, that car will likely be found a fault in the incident. Notice I did not say the overtaking car who is ahead at turn-in. The car ahead then could be the overtaking car or not. The corner rules remain the same"

I guess when you run out of logic and facts you resort to insults and foul language

Streak

Actually found a report of the car ahead at turn in getting the 13!

"We also had several issues where a driver
chose a line that told the other drivers he
was giving them the corner. In some
cases he was actually driving a very
inefficient line with a very wide and very
late turn in. In this racing situation the
driver was actually not being predictable.
The trailing car moved into the very
wide open door and was surprised when
the door was slammed shut. These
situations are tough for the stewards to
work. The car on the bad line was ahead
at the normal turn in. However he did
not own the corner so, when the passing
car filled the empty space, the car on the
bad line owed the passing car racing
room. We are trying very hard to stop
dive bomb passing, but that is not what
this is. The passing driver in these
situations was on a reasonably regular
line and not trying to jam his nose in by
racing the car to the apex. The passing
car’s expectation was, due to the wide late
turn in, that the car being passed would
slip in behind and follow him out of the
corner. In these incidents the car “off of
the normal line” was found at fault."

Streak

Well this is interesting. The original rule as proposed by the Chairman form 2013:

I actually have thought several
times we should put passing rules in the
rule book. They are so simple that it
gets overlooked. They will be included
in the 2014 rule book. Here are the
passing rules in my words. The rules put
in the 2014 rule book will be developed
with input from the stewards and our
racers.

1. The car making a pass has the
responsibility to complete a
clean pass.

2. The car ahead at turn in has the
corner.
That means if you are not at
least even, you should back out
and follow the other car
through the corner. If you are
even then you must leave racing
room.

3. Everyone must leave racing
room.
That means you can’t hit people
on purpose or run them off
the track. It means if you know
or should know the car is there,
you can’t hit it. It means you
can’t keep pressing when you
have not earned a right to be
there by your position at turn
in (See rules 1 and 2). It means
when the other guy does get
even with you at turn in you
can’t hit him. It does not mean
you will not get a 13/13 sanction
if the guy you are passing
hits you when you continue to
push a pass when you have not
earned by being even or better
at turn in (See rules 1 and 2). It
means that in some situations
it is possible for two or more
drivers to get a 13/13 sanction
for the same incident.

Much more discussion of overlap and awareness.

Just a quick note that the common sense passing rule that everyone should understand implicitly with no clarification needed has been the subject of a column in CRN 12 times since 2013. For a magazine that's quarterly that's a whole lot of column inches devoted to a rule that needs no explanation.

One stat I saw was that PCA had inducted 200 rookies in a single year. 200 cars on track with little to no experience that may not be reading our rule the same way as others on track with them. No logical reason to not add a bit of clarifying language so the rookies don't have to dig thru years of CRN to get an answer.

Veloce Raptor

I remember that. Seems very clear to me!

996SPECticle

Are you sure? You might get a trophy.

One good thing about a vague rule is it allows latitude for interpretation and for the stewards to make judgments using their discretion more. They (I hope) learn quickly and keep mental notes of who the D's are

Streak

That's exactly the problem with the vagueness. Consistency of enforcement is critical and often an issue. That you would want each steward to have their own interpretation of the rule so it changes event to event is absurd.

Nizer

Exactly.

None of this "if I sneak my bumper under your bumper at the last possible second you have to give up the apex" crap.

It's club racing. If you can't present yourself clearly then you didn't get it done. Period.

ProCoach

^^THIS^^

I spend a LOT of time with drivers on just this...

Streak

Agree 100%

Overlap, reasonable overlap, should be defined so there is no question. As someone else mentioned with a Halo seat when is it reasonable to expect the car being passed to be able to see you? Front bumper up to the mirror? Front bumper to front wheel?

12" is not reasonable to expect the lead car to see you or give up the corner IMO