Jump to content

The modified 13/13 (or lack thereof) in action


JSG1901

Recommended Posts

NOTE: I have edited this yet again and removed any references to actual on-track events as they are not needed to make my point and their inclusion has caused concern among the community. At the end of the day it was a poor decision on my part to have included that information in the first place and I apologize to those affected. The first round of beers are on me. -- Scott Good, 19 May 2012

 

There has been a lot of talk both here and elsewhere about contact in GTS as opposed to contact in PCA or BMWCCA or other organizations, particularly with regard to the 13/13 rule. I'd like to spend a few minutes on this topic.

 

Like all of us, my perspective comes from my own experience. I currently have four roles with NASA. I'm the GTS National Director, of course, but I'm also the regional GTS Series Director for Great Lakes, one of two Race Directors with Great Lakes, and I'm a driver. So, for whatever reason, I'm in a somewhat unique position with regard to rules like the 13/13.

 

It's not much of a secret that I am not a big fan of the 13/13 rule, particularly as it is used in organizations like PCA, a group of which I am both very fond and of which I have been a member since I was 15 years old (minus a year or two somewhere in there). So, in other words, I've been a PCA member for 40 years, give or take, and raced with them prior to finding NASA but my loyalty to that organization does not extend to their interpretation of the 13/13 rule.

 

What I don't like about the 13/13 are several things.

 

First, in my opinion, it is both too absolute and too inflexible. There are a lot of forms of contact, ranging from an incidental touch, the evidence of which may be able to be removed with a few minutes of rubbing compound and elbow grease, all the way to the other end of the spectrum which ends with a smoking hulk of a car and a total write-off. The idea that all incidents from both ends of the spectrum should receive the same penalty is as ludicrous as the idea a jaywalker should be penalized the same as a mass murderer. One size does not fit all in either of these examples and the punishment should be tailored to fit the crime.

 

Second, the 13/13 actually encourages dangerous driving. Increasingly, I am hearing reports of drivers in other organizations using the 13/13 as a weapon against their fellow drivers, enabling them to make aggressive and dangerous moves often to cut off faster drivers mid-pass, safe in the knowledge that if contact happens, their slightly-ahead position on the track will almost guarantee that the penalty goes to the car they've intentionally cut off. This is exactly the behavior the 13/13 is intended to discourage but, like so many well-meaning rules, it has been reinterpreted, bastardized, and turned around and used as a weapon instead.

 

Finally, the 13/13 discourages participation. At the end of the day, what we all want--both as organizers and as drivers--is to have a larger number of more skilled racers at our events. If we wanted to race by ourselves, we'd still be doing DEs. Racing is about competition and competition requires competitors, the more the merrier.

 

While I don't like contact any more than the next guy, I'm also a realist. We are out there driving very fast cars both to and beyond their limits, within inches of others doing the same thing, while navigating slower (and faster) traffic, with track conditions ranging from dry to wet to oily to debris-covered. With all that happening at such speeds and in such proximity, it is inevitable, however unfortunate, that some cars will sometimes touch.

 

That is the nature of the game.

 

There are, of course, all kinds of rules intended to minimize contact; to discourage it as much as possible. The problem with the 13/13 is it has no granularity, no room for temperance with reasonable judgement based on actual events. With the standard 13/13, if you cause "damage," whether that's a scratch or a write-off, you go on probation for 13 months.

 

The good news is, it's really easy to understand and it's really easy to administer. The bad news is it's unfair. I say it discourages participation because I know for a fact it drives people away...I'm one of the people who no longer race with PCA because of, among several other concerns, the 13/13 rule.

 

In NASA, and as the regional GTS Series Director I have the latitude to apply exactly that penalty--13 months probation--if I think it is appropriate, with the GTS Modified 13/13. But, and this is important, I am not required to.

 

The modified 13/13 we have in GTS means that if I, as the Series Director, feel the Race Director did not go far enough in assessing penalties for an incident in a race, I have the latitude to administer addtional penalties up to 13 months probation and/or 13 months suspension. It also gives GTS Series Directors the ability to assign probation of a varying length of time to drivers who, while not necessarily found at fault in an incident, are finding themselves the part of more and more incidents and, by implication, seem to be contributing to the problem.

 

My point here is that in spite of all the press to the contrary, I believe we at NASA and, in particular with GTS, have what is actually a better, fairer, more flexible and more appropriate system of penalization and punishment than most of our fellow organizations.

 

I welcome your thoughts.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

With regard to Scott's posting on GTS 13/13 and NASA I agree. I race NASA, 944 Cup, PCA and SCCA Pro IT series in the Northeast. Unfortunately the 944 Cup series races quite a few times under the sanctioning of PCA. I believe as Scott stated that the PCA views of 13/13 fault actually creates opportunities for less skilled drivers in higher hp cars to create incidents with lower hp cars during passing. Since they know they are protected by the 13/13 application by PCA they feel free to close down all your racing room during passing, most time our lower hp cars can only take opportunities at corner entries and exits during mixed class racing. There are many PCA members who frequent the NASA forums and race in different sanctioning groups, maybe it is time we all sent suggestions to PCA regarding their rule. The rules comment period for PCA closes on June 1st. In the mean time we should all continue to race safely where we can and for me that choice is NASA, I just wish the 944 cup series and NASA could work together for more race opportunities. Thanks to NASA and all the race and group directors.

 

JR

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Scott without viewing the video we're all just speculating but....

 

If the Porsche moved right and the BMW left as they approached the RH T1, and the Porsche overcooked the turn I would think there has to be some consideration for the BMW driver. After all, he expected the P-car to make that turn as he all had the previous laps in that 45 min. race. I understand it was the white flag lap and both were fighting for the race, but it "sounds" klike the Beemer had a reasonable expectation of the outside line being available to him. Again, without the video it's just speculation....

 

PS: Thanks for posting the story....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I was in the race, though I didn't see the incident. I think Scott's detailed description made it a bit confusing towards the end. By stating about sliding cars and missed turn in points. These things are hard to describe without video and I understand if they don't want to post it. I have plenty of confidence in our race directors to make the correct decision given all the evidence they had to look at, as well as personally witnessing it from the control tower in this case.

 

 

-Scott B.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I may have gone into too much detail about this specific incident. In fact, what JR suggests is pretty close to what the driver of the BMW feels happened and I have encouraged him to appeal my ruling. That's why we have an appeals process and sometimes it helps to get a few more heads on the thing.

 

Regardless of that, and regardless of what may happen during an appeal, what I really wanted to share here was not so much this specific incident but the fact we had a lot of options at our disposal for adequately dealing with it without needing the 13/13.

 

The plain ol' standard NASA CCR gives race officials a broad range of both guidelines and flexibility in dealing with on-track incidents. Penalties ranging from, well, nothing to full suspension from racing are available to us without resorting to class-specific add-ons. And, as I was trying to illustrate here, it gives us the flexibility to apply such penalties creatively and in measures appropriate to the situation, rather than a one-size-fits-all solution like seen in some other places.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A correction to my original story: In it I characterized a pass made at the end of the race the day before as being low-percentage. I have since seen video from the car being passed in that move and it was a lot less risky than it looked from my vantage point...which, I should point out, is exactly what the driver of that car has been saying to me about it.

 

It was a pass I would almost certainly have attempted in the same situation. In light of this, I will review my original findings and I have removed the description of that from my original post.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I can appreciate what JR is saying, but the actual written rules say otherwise. This seems like a modified instance of Figure 12 in the appendix of CCR?

 

http://www.nasaproracing.com/rules/ccr.pdf (type in 131 to get to the right page)

 

I say "modified" because in this case Car B (Cup) was leading and Car A (M3) was trailing. B had the right to be there since he was leading (A was not to the door of B) and B has the right to take the line of his choice to navigate the turn. Car B may have slightly overcooked the turn-in. But if B has it under control (overcooking a turn is not out of control, is it? I would say no if the car maintains a stable attitude and stays on track) and has opened up a gap on A, then fault solely lies with A.

 

Now, i'm saying this w/out seeing the video. So I can only rely on descriptions given here. And i'm not trying to imply the written rules are the only means of making a determination. Some discretion based on actual circumstance is certainly reasonable. That said, i'd be lying if I didn't admit i'm none too happy my buddy's "new" Cup got banged-up pretty good only two events into this season......

 

Edit.. I realized I had my A's and B's transposed.

Edited by Guest
Link to comment
Share on other sites

A correction to my original story: In it I characterized a pass made at the end of the race the day before as being low-percentage. I have since seen video from the car being passed in that move and it was a lot less risky than it looked from my vantage point...which, I should point out, is exactly what the driver of that car has been saying to me about it.

 

It was a pass I would almost certainly have attempted in the same situation. In light of this, I will review my original findings and I have removed the description of that from my original post.

 

Scott, while I'm not thrilled about the intense discussion of this, I understand it's purpose. I've reviewed the video from "another" perspective and from it, I can see that while I also initially characterized the pass as "low percentage" in review, I would also have to say it was not. Risky, perhaps, if the E30 did not see the passing car, but not "low percentage" upon my review.

 

FWIW I think the revised decision is fair and appreciate your time spent on it.

Edited by Guest
Link to comment
Share on other sites

...the 911 was not sliding (not in an ABS car) but was running wide to the outside of the corner exit which is to be expected when the 911 took the inside defensive line going into turn 1....

Good point...thanks!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree with many if not all of the points that Scott has made about the 13/13 rule. Firm enforcement of the CCR is as important as anything.

 

One other point to Scott's original post (now fully modified, I think)

 

The 13/13 rule would only be GTS. How many car contacts (excluding nationals), were actually contact between drivers out of GTS with drivers in GTS. Last year I ran in GTS1 which was run in lightning. All of the other GTS classes run in thunder, so 80% of the cars on the track with us were non-GTS cars (mostly Miatas)

 

A 13/13 rule will only truly work if all of the cars on the track at the same time have the same rule set. Oh, wait, can I bump him. I think he is running in PT, not GTS.

 

 

 

Here are a couple of tips for everyone on how not to have contact. Run as fast as you can when you have clear track. If you are up behind someone, leave a couple of extra feet between you and them. Do not force a pass. Sit behind them, make them nervous and wait for a crack in the armor. It will come, then take the clean pass.

 

If you are the guy in front with the car behind you, run very fast. Do not (aggressively) block. If you made a mistake and left the door open and the other guy is taking it. Live through it. You made a mistake. Now it is your chance to dog him for a while until you get your chance to get back by. If he gets by you and then you can not catch him again, then you probably did not deserve to be ahead of him.

 

Drive faster, repeat.

 

If you are going to slide across the track and end up in the gravel, do it by yourself. If you get the red mist, then it is time to cool your tires for a lap or two.

 

Btw, easy to say, hard to do.

 

Thanks

 

Ed

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Scott,

Thanks for your thoughtful discussion. Your points are good, yet the counterpoints deserve a hearing too. While the PCA's strict 13/13 may deter participation, so does the other extreme -- arbitrary penalty enhancements and no clear bad-driving-deterrence. So while this current ruleset based on Directors' "discretion" is convenient, you're also accepting a lot of risk here; i.e. that you'll be seen as arbitrary. A clear ruleset is in everyone's interest.

 

To that end, I'd suggest disposing of any reference to "13/13" in the GTS rules since nobody wants the PCA's 13/13 and there's no clear version of that being enforced anyway. This "13/13" causes mental anchoring and continues to derail discussions -- e.g. why are we talking about the PCA's rules here?

 

Second, it would be nice to see some general framework for (a) factors calling for additional penalties, and (b) the severity of additional penalties. If that's too complicated, then sure we can continue this "discretion"-based system, but we're all then accepting the risks of arbitrary penalties and reduced deterrence effect.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...
To that end, I'd suggest disposing of any reference to "13/13" in the GTS rules since nobody wants the PCA's 13/13 and there's no clear version of that being enforced anyway. This "13/13" causes mental anchoring and continues to derail discussions -- e.g. why are we talking about the PCA's rules here?

That's my fault as the 13/13 is a regular discussion topic.

 

Second, it would be nice to see some general framework for (a) factors calling for additional penalties, and (b) the severity of additional penalties. If that's too complicated, then sure we can continue this "discretion"-based system, but we're all then accepting the risks of arbitrary penalties and reduced deterrence effect.

 

From my perspective, the general framework for penalties is that outlined in the NASA CCR. To wit:

 

The following is a list of suggested penalties for the listed infraction:

 

1. Contact bumper to bumper with no deviation and no damage: No penalty

 

2. Any sheet metal contact with no damage and no deviation: No penalty

 

3. Any contact causing deviation, with no damage, but loss of a position: Reposition

 

4. Any contact resulting in “damage” as defined by these guidelines: One (1) race suspension

 

5. Any contact resulting in a “punt” as defined by these guidelines: Disqualification

 

6. Any contact resulting in damage and punt: Disqualification and one (1) race suspension

 

7. Passing under a standing yellow or double yellow: Reposition to last place (minimum)

 

8. Passing under waving yellow and / or over-driving any yellow: Disqualification (minimum)

 

These are general guidelines for standard penalties. They may be additive or multiplicative depending on the situation and the person’s past record. The IRB may invoke more severe penalties for repeated violations. Any deviation from these

guidelines should be justified in the report to the Race Director.

 

Note that there are a few "hidden" statements in here. Specifically the parts that refer to other parts of the rules, such as "...'damage' as defined by these guidelines." There is a very specific description in another part of the CCR of what is considered to constitute damage and it is probably not exactly what most people think it is.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

...

From my perspective, the general framework for penalties is that outlined in the NASA CCR. To wit:...

Yes, the CCR describes the basic penalties, but the question is what behaviors will cause the additional penalties that the GTS "13/13" rules refer to (probation/suspension). For example:

(a) What constitutes "repeat violations"? E.g. is 2 incidents in 2 years a cause for probation/suspension?

(b) Is the extent of damage a factor?

© Is extremely poor judgement a factor?

(d) Is on-track aggression a factor?

(e) Is regional versus national championship race a factor?

(f) Are extenuating factors such as rain a factor?

etc.

 

Then, what extent of probation or suspension should we really expect? For example:

(a) After the 2nd incident in some time period, should we expect 13 months probation? Or 2 months? Or...?

(b) After an incident while already on probation, do you extend probation or move to suspension?

© How many incidents over what time period would result in suspension? How long would that likely be? 13 months? Or 2 months? Or...?

 

I'm not asking for answers to the above, just pointing out areas where "discretion" might be codified to help give the GTS-specific rules more bite and to avoid inconsistent treatment. OTOH, if nobody is worried about inconsistent application of the "Modified 13/13" then I'd happily retract my suggestions.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, the CCR describes the basic penalties, but the question is what behaviors will cause the additional penalties that the GTS "13/13" rules refer to (probation/suspension). For example:

(a) What constitutes "repeat violations"? e.g. is 2 incidents in 2 years a cause for probation/suspension?

(b) Is the extent of damage a factor?

© Is extremely poor judgement a factor?

(d) Is on-track aggression a factor?

(e) Is regional versus national championship race a factor?

(f) Are extenuating factors such as rain a factor?

etc.

 

Then, what extent of probation or suspension should we really expect? For example:

(a) After the 2nd incident in some time period, should we expect 13 months probation? Or 2 months? Or...?

(b) After an incident while already on probation, do you extend probation or move to suspension?

© How many incidents over what time period would result in suspension? How long would that likely be? 13 months? Or 2 months? Or...?

 

I'm not asking for answers to the above, just pointing out areas where "discretion" might be codified to help give the GTS-specific rules more bite and to avoid inconsistent treatment. OTOH, if nobody is worried about inconsistent application of the "Modified 13/13" then I'd happily retract my suggestions.

I think what you've posted here is a great example of why a one-size-fits-all rule really doesn't work very well in the real world. It is incredibly hard to make a single black-and-white rule to effectively govern something that is always some shade of gray.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My sense is there is a different attitude about penalties now in GTS then ever before. Watch and judge for yourself.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

I dunno, past few BMWCCA and PCA races have seen a great amount of contact. Both of which have the 13/13s that are as strict as people want ...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My sense is there is a different attitude about penalties now in GTS then ever before. Watch and judge for yourself.

Mike,

 

Do you mean in GL/MW region or in general. Also are you referring they want to penalize more now than before ?

 

-Scott B.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...