NaroEscape

My thoughts on this (not that they matter or anyone cares...)

- Yes, there was a meeting of team owners, racers, David Murry and the national staff at Road Atlanta race weekend regarding a whole host of topics (I understand @coryf was there as where others). The 13/13 rule was just one of many things discussed. TBH, I applaud PCA and Club Racing for even asking for driver input on how to move the program forward. I don't know any details of what exactly was discussed or any outcomes, but at least it happened.
- Reading between the lines in Bill Millers editorial in the most recent issue of Club Racing News (Club Racer now), it's obvious that PCA has substantial data tracking all kinds of incidents: rubouts, single car and car to car contact. Is our 13/13 rule a bit archaic in this day and age? Maybe. And maybe the data supports that - are people that get a 13 leaving PCA racing for good? I personally know of a few that have and gone off to NASA, WRL, AER or other organizations.
- We do need clarification: is 9 races, 9 RACES, or 9 RACE WEEKENDS. Big difference because it could be anywhere from 3 to 9 weekends, and for people like me that may do 2-3 race weekends a year, it could take 4 years to move off probation...
- I think it's been beat to death here already, but I don't think it's the rule that's the problem, it's the lack of consistency with the application and enforcement of the rules and how they affect one getting a 13 (or 9...which doesn't sound right). We need a procedure, spelled out and followed: a ruling is made on an incident. All parties involved are informed IMMEDIATELY of what the outcome is, preferably at the track unless some mitigating circumstance occurs. Heck, even if the steward want to "phone a friend" (i.e. discuss with other stewards or the CR Chair), that information should be relayed to all parties involved. Once the penalty (or no penalty) is issued, everyone is informed. If someone wants to appeal the decision, they have x time to do it and there is a proper procedure for it...and again, all parties involved are informed immediately of the appeal, and ultimately what the final decision is.

In a former life - when I actually got paid, worked less and had weekends free - I was a project manager and learned long ago that lack of communication at EVERY STEP OF THE PROCESS was the #1 cause of project failures. Communicate a plan, follow the plan, but keep everyone informed every step of the way as to where it is and what's going on. Everyone felt better and things progressed so much smoother.

Maybe having this meeting was the first steps toward that. I am hopeful because other than a handful of SCCA and one Vintage race, my entire 18 year racing career has been with PCA. I've seen things from many different angles in PCA, being on the National Staff, having Nadine on the CR Staff in multiple roles, being a region President, etc. I sometimes marvel at the events this club puts one when you remember that almost everyone involved is a volunteer. Its far from perfect, but I mostly believe decisions are made for the good of the membership.

ProCoach

+1 Folks are definitely trying to do something.

I'll only add that when SVRA exploded in the early and mid 2000's, they had the same debate about the probation period and the "grading" of incident responsibility (single-car, minor damage versus multi-car, major damage, for instance). They were trying to be fair about it and instituted a 3/6/9/13 month probation gradation and have stuck with that.

Obviously, when found at fault DURING that period, the driver on probation was suspended for 13 months. Case closed. The drivers committee was the Competition Chairman (consistency) and three competitors picked from a vetted pool for each event. Kept conflicts of interest with the shop owners down, too. More than one said to the committee afterwards, "thank you."

But, incident responsibility was ALWAYS assigned to the overtaking car in multiple car incidents or to a single car for an error in judgment or execution, except for cases like a verifiable flag condition or a tire going down or verifiable breakage. This allowed better tracking.

I still don't understand what I read as points are taken away for only the incident where the driver is found at fault and not while they are still under probation...

Lemming

Did you report the incident to the race officials while you were at the track? If so, did they ask for your video? Did they debrief you on the incident?

dgmark

Yes to all of the above

Also the hit on my car was behind the left rear wheel.

ProCoach

That is a serious problem... And the reason for the 13/13.

The overtaking car is the ONLY one who can see both cars. It's their responsibility.

Another concern with this rewrite of the rules is that the perspective of David Murry and some of the pro shops is from a pro driving level.

The instance of shared responsibility, basically no-fault, is predominantly a pro-racing steward and driver's mindset.

Club Racing is not that.

Randy Pobst wrote cogently about this: https://boxthislap.org/the-vortex-of-danger-is-real/

winders

Well, let's not draw conclusions without having access to the videos.

This idea that the passing car bares all the responsibility for a not contact pass is ludicrous. If significant overlap is established before turn in, the responsibility for a non-contact pass is now fully shared.

For all we know, the passing car had significant overlap before turn in and the lead car didn't see him and turned in. The passing car could have done all he could to avoid contact and just barely failed. I am not saying this is what happened...I am saying we don't know what happened.

will968

The bad racers need to be let go and otherwise good ones shouldn't be punished so harshly for the odd mishap. It's a bold move, I'm willing to wait and see how it works.
On a side note: there are some bad actors spending piles of cash to win in classes where no one respects them. Where's the victory in that?

ProCoach

Sounds like you're the one drawing conclusions when you say "for all we know", but I agree, it's not always so simple. It requires that BOTH DRIVERS TO LEAVE RACING ROOM WHEN IN CLOSE PROXIMITY.

If the passing car merely has overlap, they don't "own the corner" (what a silly concept).

OTOH, if the passing car presents themselves in such a way they're IN THE LINE OF SIGHT of the overtaken car WHEN they turn in, it's on the overtaken car.

But then, you could surmise that someone pulling back in line too soon and not leaving room could get damage on the rear behind the rear wheel, but most likely would spin. So there's that.

It's simple. Despite the existence of some modified, morphed over time 13/13 rule, people still hit each other remarkably often in PCA Club Racing, despite the statements of Rookie Drivers Meeting Stewards for the last fifteen years to the contrary. More so than just about any other club level racing series I've attended over time.

So, PCA Club Racing needs to figure out either another way to incent drivers to do a better job MAKING CRITICAL DECISIONS and calculating risk, or be more consistent in weeding out those that don't or can't.

I know you're a hell of a driver. I know you make dozens of decisions every lap sometimes, based on risk/benefit when passing. I also know that you are studying the others around you and getting intel that allows you to trust them, or not.

Many drivers, especially infrequent competitors and others that don't have as much experience or emotional intelligence, are not making the best decisions behind the wheel. Some of this is entitlement, some of this is "I thought he saw me," but almost all of it is avoidable.

I don't think the new incident attribution procedure will help fix this.

I've spent the last thirty years trying to explain the difference between a brilliant pass and a smoking pile of rubble to people trying to do more of the former than the latter. It's hard, but not as hard as PCA Club Racing has made it recently.

GlenL

That's a good read that gives written clarity on what is happening when passing in a corner and a basis for assessing responsibility when it goes wrong.

I think the new "9" rule serves a good purpose in keeping people racing in PCA. They can't go race with another organization or just sit out for the 13 months. To end probation, they need to do 9 races so get to it. The race shops will take them elsewhere and can adapt the cars as needed. I don't think they're losing money without keeping the drivers in PCA. It'd be good to see the objectives for the change.

The approach given for the SVRA adds another level with varying levels of probation. That can be very useful where, now, a lesser error may become no penalty which can be angering to the other driver. Or stewards can give probation proportional to each driver's contribution to the incident.

I'm interested in why people think the PCA has more contact. I'll posit that it has more drivers who can't handle the capabilities of the cars they buy.

bauerjab

why not make it a "whichever comes first" rule. either 9 races or 13 months. what is the harm in that.

ProCoach

Just because someone is on probation doesn’t mean they can’t race, it just means they have to be extra careful.

How many drivers on probation don’t race in PCA Club Racing while ON probation?

If the Club doesn’t even want to put people on probation for fear of running them off, that is a problem, too.

Jas0nn

All in, I think this a positive change ...

1. By allowing drivers to still be eligible for the National Championship, you keep them invested in racing with PCA. And you don't disproportionately penalize a good, solid driver who simply made one mistake. I would like to see those drivers relegated to last in races where they're at fault, however - this would allow other drivers to keep position points, and also not potentially affect contingency. Imagine being bumped off from the lead of a race, only to have your competitor take the win (and points) AND your tires!

2. By moving to a race-based probation, drivers are forced to actually race with a probationary-mindset. In the old 13 structure, you could simply race elsewhere during that time. But it didn't require the driver to actually change. And for some drivers, a change in how they make decisions is precisely what's needed!

ProCoach

The latter should be the priority here.

If the assignment of responsibility process is consistent and well founded, the former doesn’t happen.

I’ve witnessed dozens of “loosening” of the rules on racing engagement and incident responsibility. Rarely does this result in the desired effect.

But, the way it was wasn’t working. That is for sure.

dgmark

The new rule will defiantly force me to race it off. I had considered not running as many races this year.
I did some math as of the 2023 year end standings 50 racers are on a 13 thats 7%

ProCoach

Higher than other orgs as a percentage, by a lot.

But I would hope drivers race it off, not withdraw.