Can someone who understands the PCA rules please answer this simple question: Which of the two scenarios were the rules meant to enforce: a or b?

Car A is starting a pass on Car B on the straight and on the inside ahead of the next turn. The overlap between the cars is increasing. At turn-in, the passed Car B is still ahead of A by 1/4 car-length.

a. Car B goes for the apex, forcing Car A to hit the brakes and line up behind Car B. ("The car ahead at turn in has the corner...")

OR

b. Car B leaves racing room for Car A and both cars go through the turn side by side. ("...but doesn't own the corner. Everyone must leave racing room.")

Thx.

You’re really missing the point, aren’t you?

In scenario a), the overlap is not complete, nor IS THE OVERTAKING CAR AHEAD. The overtaking car is making a number of assumptions, including the idea that by its very presence and the “growing, but not complete, overlap” will make it self-evident that the overtaken car WILL YIELD or otherwise give way.

The overtaking car is the ONLY car that has full view of BOTH cars, conferring upon it a more informed, complete and RESPONSIBLE view of what is going on. The overtaking car makes the decision to pass or not to pass, based on that more complete information.

In scenario b), there is no such assumption, because both drivers are (and have been) aware of the proximity of the other, know and like each other, respect EACH OTHER’S RIGHT TO EXIST and most importantly realize that the passing car’s position at corner entry is NOT a STATIC exercise. Ideally, this is what happens between friendly and respectful competitors.

Unfortunately, in scenario a), an ASSUMPTION by the overtaking car leads to several BAD decisions by the driver and at EVERY “go/no-go” moment that could prevent potential contact, the overtaking driver presses on. With predictible results, FAR too common in PCA Club Racing.

13/13 is a deterrent. Without it, people THINK less than they already do...

You Tube

So which is it, a or b?

Because BOTH people can’t be trusted to make the right decision (scenario b), including you, a) guides the process and sets the expectation.

scenario b) is what we all wish for, scenario a) is reality...

IMO, of course.

Thx. In your opinion, is it OK when two contradicting scenarios are expected and enforced by the same set of rules?
If you wish for b) and if you want to make it a reality (instead of a) wouldn’t it be better to just clearly say so and not confuse people with a) ?

Appreciate your answers.

I appreciate you posing the question and I have made the same mistake(s), assuming I could overtake and complete a safe pass when overlap was still there or my nose was not quite ahead until after THEIR turn-in point but by the area of approach to the apex. And I have been sanctioned for that...

The seemingly variable assignment of responsibility in contact incidents, plus the introduction of the “rub out” does introduce confusion.

I wrote a cover article in Grassroots Motorsports magazine twenty years ago September about this exact issue and how inconsistency in identifying and “calling” enforceable incidents, variable assignment of responsibility and specifically variations in penalties erode competitor’s mindfulness, as well as proper and desirable decision-making, when confronted with the inevitable question; “do they SEE me?”

It’s a very tough job to adjudicate these issues. Having done so (and contributed to numerous examinations of incident forensics) for many years, so much more “behavior modification” can be accomplished when the penalty matches the expectation, but in an effort to simplify, sometimes the add-on language adds confusion.

That said, I’m not certain that they are two conflicting scenarios. The first one is pretty clear, the second one kicks in only when people go beyond the first one.

No simple answer and will have to think more about your query. It’s a good one.

IMO, they are as conflicting as they can be. Here's why:

At what point does the passing Car A determine whether scenario a) or scenario b) is about to play out? If it assumes scenario b) while passed Car B assumes scenario a) and a contact occurs, whose fault would that be? Both cars intended to play out scenarios allowed by the rules. The passed Car B thinks it "has the corner" and goes for the apex (scenario a) but at the same time the passing Car A expects that the passed car "doesn't own the corner and that everyone must leave racing room" (scenario b).

If the passing Car A would be judged to be at fault for such a contact, wouldn't this imply that all passing cars should expect and drive by scenario a), just to be safe -- in which case scenario a) becomes the one that is de facto expected and enforced by the rules? If so, what's the point of having the conflicting scenario b) in the rules ("...does not own the corner. Everyone must leave racing room.")?

On the other hand, if the passed Car B would be judged to be at fault for the contact, wouldn't this imply that all passing cars should reasonably expect and drive by scenario b), in which case scenario b) becomes the one that is de facto expected and enforced by the rules? If so, what's the point of having the conflicting scenario a) in the rules ("The car ahead at turn in has the corner...")?

Thx!