That's not exactly what I meant ...

Within the same rungroup, you had multiple vintage classes and CUP.

While none of these drivers want to harm their car - they're all expensive to fix and we have races on the calendar - I think the vintage classes (generally, not a rule of course) raced in a way that I would consider typical for vintage races: they left more room; they didn't defend quite as hard; most passing happened on straights rather than in corners; they generally weren't bumper-to-bumper.

In CUP, however, there was/is a much more competitive impulse. CUP defended harder; they didn't give up the position until they absolutely had to; they raced through a lot more corners side-by-side and spent most races bumper-to-bumper; the cars were sliding around a lot more. I wouldn't call it recklessness - and generally everyone was quite gentlemanly towards one another - but it was very, very tight and very competitive. And unfortunately, when mistakes happen in that kind of proximity, contact is more likely.

So when I say there is a different mindset, this is what I'm getting at ... I think many PCA classes exhibit this same mindset, and it stands in contrast from the vintage bodies we're comparing PCA to. Thats why I think a comparison to incident rates in SCCA, NASA, etc is more appropriate.

 

Right on the mark.

This mindset delineation is exactly what the rules HELP define as limits.

@Jas0nn I hear you and respect what you you’re saying about how you perceive the 911CUP competition to be enhanced by more aggressive, less margin driving with a shrug when inevitably someone makes a mistake and gets into someone they’re racing against.

This is the standard argument that vintage is somehow 5-7 on the scale and the type of racing you do, to make it more competitively and personally rewarding, is up around 9-10, with occasional lapses at 11.

Either way can be supported by the organization operating the event to support the culture they’re trying to promote.

It doesn’t work that way, in my experience. There are much more individual, much more nuanced and individual motivations for how much drivers are willing and able to hang it out, in close proximity or not with their competitors.

I can assure you that a majority of front runners in any class or group, any race organization, race as hard and as close as they possibly can. In pro and some see with this change, PCA CR has become more accepting that contact is a part of the game. In other series, not so much.

As CI for the country’s largest historic racing organization for almost twenty-five years, my main mission was to help drivers that had competed and won at the highest level (like George), as well as many, many drivers who were experienced and more than competent coming from other series where cut, thrust, blocking and contact were either tacitly accepted or even encouraged to spice up the show, to strike a balance and drive in such a way that there was personal responsibility for all their actions on track. That if they made a mistake, it was a result of a choice that they put themselves on a path where the risk was greater than the reward.

Over decades, Hurley Haywood, Jim Pace, Doc Bundy and others have all said and supported this idea. The idea that you can race others so hard that you scare the corner workers, but if you make a decision that results in contact, it was YOUR mistake.

IMO, that is what is missing here. Everyone seems to be focused on the cure, not the disease…

 

I don’t think that’s the boast you think it is…

 

It’s exactly this mindset that almost ruined Spec 911 racing in the group that created the Spec 911 class, the Porsche Racing Club (PRC) out here in California. The PRC had to really rein in the group to get the incident rate back down to almost none. The last few years the Spec Boxster group has seen some issues as well all in the guise of great hard racing.

 

This is still a penalty, you just have to run 9 clean races to clear yourself. If you screw up before this your out for six months. Why is this not adequate for you? The long and short of it is that PCA needs to retain racers. There are too many other options today. The points system gives some of us encouragement to participate in more races so retaining points encourages more racing. Further, we have too many two/three car classes. This turns our races into glorified DE's and hurts all of us. Losing more racers just creates more underrepresented classes. As for anyone exhibiting worse behavior, I am sure our membership would be able to take care of things with a quick visit to those in the paddock. We are adults and, at least in my class, are not afraid to call others out for being a problem.

 

I have yet to hear an actual problem statement from PCA. But let’s assume as you say, it’s retaining racers then let’s play it out. My perception is aside from forcing drivers to drive out their probation which seems reasonable, letting them have points and shortening the suspension time doesn’t seem to encourage clean racing in and of itself. So it seems that the thought process taken is, hey we can’t lose these people (who are making contact in what is supposedly a no contact league). However, has pca considered that they will also lose people who believed it’s a no contact league but are mislead by this notion due to the amount of “rubouts” allowed?
what I’m saying is if you cater to the people who make contact, you can lose the ones who don’t want it.
Contact is THE problem in my opinion, of which this rule doesn’t address. But perhaps that’s the problem I personally have and not what’s being addressed. However the natural extrapolation of the rule adjustment implies to folks (not only me) that this is may encourage more contact, not less. Even if it’s incrementally so.

 

This is a key point and exactly why we need people to participate (i.e. race 9 more races without a problem) instead of vacating the club for 13 months. You prove that your learning to be better by showing that you can avoid contact for 9 races rather than sitting out for 13 months and come back (if you don't just choose to go elsewhere) without any additional race experience.

 

OF COURSE, CONTACT IS THE PROBLEM. The revised rule did not abolish a penalty for contact. We have always been and are still a no contact series. Like many of our pandered youth, people need to stop looking for big brother to solve all of their problems. Have you heard of a race series with a perfect set of rules and regulations, PCA is doing its best. At some point, we have to believe in the integrity of those around us. If a racer is not exhibiting proper racing practices, I will suggest that their peers will let them know. This is simply called taking responsibility.

 

I don't see why/how this encourages contact ...

If you are found at-fault after a contact, you now have no choice but to actually race through your probation! You can't just sit it out anymore - as you could with the old system. Because there are so many other options available to us today, I believe this is a smart solution. You're effectively forcing those "guilty" drivers to alter their driving, or risk an actual suspension. And its worth noting that a suspension from PCA could inhibit your ability to race in other series (at least hypothetically, since that is a question on most license applications when you're using one series' license to qualify).

The reality is that Club Racing has changed a lot in the time since the 13/13 was created. For one, no one is driving to/from the track with full interiors anymore!! I think its about time we reframe the way in which we calibrate our expectations around contact. While I don't think this is perfect, it is a step in the right direction.

Personally, I would like to eventually see a points-based system that addresses bad decision making itself, rather than just the consequences. Sometimes minor mistakes from solid drivers result in big damage; that's part of the risk of racing, imo. But I think the more dangerous threat is the driver constantly making mistakes, who skirts by because they were lucky enough that no/minimal damage resulted, or because those mistakes only affected them!! These drivers are only ever forced to correct their driving AFTER its too late. We should nip these in the bud!

Two very real examples:

1. I had a very, very close weekend of racing with a fellow CUP racer whom I've enjoyed racing with for the past few seasons. We raced nose-to-tail for the entirety of two sprints and went through many corners side-by-side. Between us, I think I counted in excess of 30 pass attempts. In the final few minutes of the second sprint, we were P1/2 and we went through a fast corner together. I was ahead on the outside; he was on the inside. I left him as much room as I could, but he went in a bit too fast and understeered into me on the exit. I was on the curbs at that point, so couldn't save it. The resulting contact wasn't too bad, but there was enough damage that it was not a rubout.

2. During an enduro at the same track a year earlier, I exited the uphill and stayed track right to enter the pits for my stop. I put my hand out the my window to indicate I was pitting. Just as I was about to turn into pit entry, an SPB driver passed me on the grass - I tried to move over at the last second, but his LF contacted my RF. For context, I was leading this race in CUP and was turning laps several seconds a lap faster than the SPB - so even if he couldn't see my hand, or couldn't recognize that I was all the sudden off-line, it shouldn't have been a surprise to this driver that I was pitting. The damage to my fender - a freshly painted, brand new 930 fender - was as ruled a rubout.

Which driver is the greater threat?

 

I’ve mentioned I do agree with this point.

 

The notion that this is a no contact league keeps slipping by the wayside as rubouts continue without consequences. I remember asking a question during the licensing meeting about driving standards and was told if you see poor driving standards, bring it to the stewards. That said, I’ve seen poor driving standards that led to contact which was deemed a “rubout” with no reprimand. So what’s the point of even considering raising driving standards as an issue.
Ive personally taken responsibility to make no contact and have never had any. But i can not take responsibility for everyone else. Nor is it fair that i should just not race a “certain racer” who people know will not leave room. The point is all racers need to have the similar mindset at the limits.
all I’m really saying is that my personal issue is that contact is becoming more common and inconsistent deeming of penalty vs rubout is a thing as well. So not seeing a problem statement from the ruling to begin with is confusing at best.
I never said any other group is “perfect” but PCA should not be developing the reputation that drivers have less care rubbing Porsches than other race groups. Sadly that reputation is breeding. I’d personally rather have a truer “no contact” league that draws those type of drivers, not any driver.
perhaps I’m in the minority…

 

In PCA - I believe, please correct if I'm wrong - someone is determined to be at fault for every contact, whether the contact is a rubout or not, and that responsibility is recorded.

I also believe its true that every instance of contact that isn't ruled a rubout, requires that the at-fault party receive a penalty.

Lastly, that decision can be appealed - but PCA will only overturn a penalty, not shift the penalty to the other party. For example: if I'm at fault and given a penalty, but am deemed NOT to be at-fault upon appeal, the other party does not then receive a penalty.

Paging our RL stewards - is this accurate?

 

This thread proves that PCA needed to take a wholistic approach to redefining the passing rules, instead of just changing the penalty time period.

Not many people were complaining about the time period and everyone wanted clarity for the passing rules. That's what happens when you don't talk to the actual drivers.

 

This wasn't intended as a boast. Its simply a call to make sure we're making relevant comparisons before we go down a path of making inferences from those comparisons ...

 

All correct

Pete