Guys,

I have ben following the GTS rule change threads, and the following proposal struck me as interesting. This is something we could pursue if there is interest:


NOTE: The suggestion below is to add a rule to the GTS rules which expands on an existing NASA CCR rule.

Type
Modification to an existing rule

Existing rule section (if applicable)
25.4.2 Punting

[DELETED] In most cases, “racing room” is defined as “at least three quarters of one car width. [DELETED]

Proposed change
Change 3/4 car width rule to 1 car width.

Reason
Numerous incidents in NASA plus other organizations have shown misuse and misunderstanding of this rule. Drivers assume they can crowd other cars two wheels off (3/4) and have caused loss of control that results in crashes, damage, or injury. "3/4" is too ambiguous (and could result in a lot of arguing, ex. you needed to move over 6 more inches) and the definition is being interpreted in different manners by drivers. The intent is not to allow drivers to crowd others into the dirt. Hence change references to 3/4 width referred to in section 25.4.2 (and any other areas) from 3/4 car width to 1 car width. Prototyping this in GTS and then will propose to Nationals if successful.

Proposed new wording
In most cases, “racing room” is defined as “at least one car width.” (and other references in Notes and illustrations.

I'd suggest staying with the NASA rule. When running in mixed class run groups confusion will exist when we have one rule and the other classes don't. GTS saw that problem with their contact rules when running in mixed groups too

Stay with 3/4 car width. We are all familiar with that run and understand it. Additionally if one argues about 3/4 they will argue about 1 car width as well so not solve anything. Agree with Jerry mixed class racing would present a serious problem.

I love the idea of the proposed 1 car width rule.

We are amateur racers and forcing someone to go two wheels off just invites car control issues. Additionally, the NASA rules require one car when there is a barrier/wall at the edge so someone can not put another driver into it legally. Most all other racing groups require one car plus (POC, PCA, ???)so it is a better standard.

In addition, the Porsche Racing Club (that the Nor Cal 944's race with), has an additional rule that I believe makes sense for us amateur racers. They require that the lead car leave one car ANY TIME there is ANY overlap, meaning even a bumper. This removes a leading cause of contact, turning in on someone. NASA's rules allow us to turn in if the overtaking car is not far enough along side, inviting contact that is legal for the lead car to cause.

We are not NASCAR, we are amateur racers. Leaving room should always be our idea. I believe the NASA passing rules allow the lead car to drive in a way that opens up many more opportunities for contact, contact that we do not want. It does not lessen the racing, it opens up more close racing with both cars leaving room for each other.

I am with Eric on this one and would like to see the overlap rule as well. I know that multi-class racing is a challenge, however, as amateur racers we should all race this way anyway and give room to anyone. We should all know that we can not "expect" it from other classes when we are overtaking and that is fine but we can give it when we are being overtaken, IMO.

Jim Foxx

Jim - you just like this because you spend more time in the dirt than the paved surface

I don't disagree with Jim, but the 3/4 car rule is in the general racing CCR's and can only be changed by NASA, while most of the other rules we are discussing are specific to the class. I would be happy to participate in discussions about any of these issues, I'm just suggesting that proposed changes to the general CCR rules might be better addressed in a separate thread to keep things focused. I would suggest the same for a discussion of the dyno rules, because even though we adopted them as a class, NASA apparently intends to unilaterally enforce them on their own terms.