Runoffs 2024 Feedback

[JimR]

Just curious to know how many people like me got points on their license without recourse of action at the runoffs. In my case I was a first time at Road America, first test day session and I missed the checker flag partly because the flagtronics unit was too dim to see in a formula car (FE2) and the flagger as I learned later was holding the flag stationary in the shadows. I got a 1 race probation for that. The 2nd session was worse as my flagtronics was still dim but showed green all the way to the normal start finish. There were two cars behind me who did the exact same thing. I was later sought out by a SOC telling me I had run the checker flag and I would get a 10 minute penalty hold of the test day track time I had paid for in the next session taken away from me. I refused to sign the white slip ticket and threatened to go home if that is now what the SCCA had become. This resulted in a 30 minute conversation with the chief steward where I explained that drivers react to motion and at 132 mph a stationary flag in the shadows doesn't cut it. I was told about 30 minutes later the penalty was final and would stand. Yet in the next session there was a waving checker and the subsequent stations had black flags. Gee, go figure and yet I was wrong! On day two I woke up to learn I was getting 2 points on my license, which absolutely set me off as I have been driving for 45 years and short of one miscue where I missed a yellow flag my record was spotless. I wrote a letter to the CRB and Eric Prill asking if this is the new mantra of the SCCA, which is to find fault and penalize. I also was disgusted with the draconian approach on how penalties were being assessed without any recourse at the runoffs.
In speaking with other drivers they were as angry as I was as they too got penalties which I think stemmed from one individual. My point is perhaps some of those in charge have forgotten this is club racing. I have yet to hear from anyone including Eric Prill regarding what we as drivers can expect going forward. More to the point it very much concerns me that we were subject to the discretion of one individual who decided what penalties would apply, which by the way non of which were published. The Virtual Safety Car(VSC) test was also in my opinion a complete failure and not very well thought out. In the daily recap it was noted 15 cars lost their qualifying times because they didn't adhere to the "VSC TEST" standards which weren't being used in the race.
In closing I certainly hope everyone who was held to an unpublished standard voices there opinion on what happened at the runoffs. There are too many hard working and good Stewards working for all of us to be spoiled by a select few who spoiled for me at least what should have been a great event.

Jim Regan
SCCA driver and member since 1979

[924RACR]

I was thankful to not have any such issues during the Runoffs.

Thankful, because I had such levels of issues going INTO the Runoffs due to my previous event, the CAT Majors, which was massively mishandled by SCCA Milwaukee Region - who I will NEVER race with again - and subsequent follow-up by the COA and SOM of Regional Execs. I got railroaded for similar issues; even more substantial incompetence in flagging by everyone from the ACS on downward (compounded by the Race Director of that event), and then fundamentally screwed over by the COA and SOM composed of non-racers who have no understanding of what it means to try to pick out very poorly displayed flags at triple-digit speeds (noting that Flagtronics wasn't even in use at that event). Like you, I've been racing a very long time; in my case, 25 years without even so much as a single protest, let alone penalty etc.

Disappointing to hear that you too had issues in discussion with the officiating staff at the Runoffs; I did talk to both Steve Pence and Mike West at the start of the event, as a consequence of my incoming and unjustiifed 3-race probation at the hands of the aforementioned SOM. In those discussions, I actually left fairly well satisfied with the results from those discussions.

As for you feeling persecuted... apparently yes this indeed Welcome to the New SCCA. I am feeling much in the same boat. I can also state that, while you feel like you had no recourse - don't feel like you're missing anything. My experience has shown me that you can expect no help or support from the National Office; rather the opposite, expect to get piled on further, and realize that any appeal you might have been looking to file is more likely to result in added penalties etc than to reverse the findings of the original court etc.

After reading the GCR backwards and forwards, again, in my situation, I have come to realize that in the world of the SCCA, we as the accused have absolutely FA for protections as compared to the US legal system.

There is no presumption of innocent until proven guilty (as demonstrated by the Race Director, in my case, even before I filed a protest).

There is no right to see the evidence against you - as demonstrated by every level of my incident all the way through to the COA.

There is no guarantee of representation or support; if you can hunt down and find a Driver's Rep, which is very much entirely on you, it's very much your luck or not if they'll help you - the race official that led my persecution was one of the Driver's Reps for the Runoffs.

As noted, if you do appeal, not only may SCCA decide they want to keep your money, but if you are still found guilty there is not only every chance but the likelihood that your penalties will be increased.

In order to appeal, you must either be able to present new evidence or be able to argue that procedural errors were made on the original protest hearing.

But good luck with trying to document the latter; even after appealing, the documentation of any deliberations or detailed findings of court of appeals etc are not available.

In summary - they get to do whatever they want to you, and you're entirely at their mercy. And right now, they're trying desperately (and inadequately) to "clean up" Club Racing. But they're coming down hard on those with the experience to know what we're doing, despite their vague and conflicting (and, as pointed out at the Runoffs, ever-changing) rules and inconsistent enforcement, instead of addressing the root problems... which will in the not-so-long term only drive away us experienced and competent drivers to other organizations.

Yet another factor contributing the the rapid demise of Club Racing in SCCA.

[DaveW]

The above 2 posts are discouraging, but, as the saying goes, there are (may be) 2 sides to every story.

What I'd like to hear is the stewards' explanation of these incidents and rulings.

Can anyone provide this?

[mmi16]

Remember - the structure of SCCA as a volunteer driven organization results in many cases of people that have no 'power' in the everyday lives being installed in powerful positions within the club. Not every can use power properly.

[924RACR]

The above 2 posts are discouraging, but, as the saying goes, there are (may be) 2 sides to every story.

What I'd like to hear is the stewards' explanation of these incidents and rulings.

Can anyone provide this?

Funny that... obviously I can only speak to my issues, but I was explicitly denied access to any detail or explanations from the stewards or any concrete, measurable, quantifiable, actionable directive on how I should have conducted myself differently during the FCY at question in my case.

Steve Pence and Mike West, in contrast, did give me that.

I definitely do not feel safe on track with Milwaukee Region running the show. Incompetent, with unqualified officials making what would have been life-or-death decisions for a number of us on track - then playing armchair quarterbacks second-guessing my successful and correct decisions while behind the wheel, a position the majority of them have never even come close to experiencing.

They have no business operating a race at that facility, in my experience, and I don't think I'd trust them to coordinate the parking at a football game from the level of competence and professionalism they displayed at the event and after.

[John Nesbitt]

The above 2 posts are discouraging, but, as the saying goes, there are (may be) 2 sides to every story.

What I'd like to hear is the stewards' explanation of these incidents and rulings.

Can anyone provide this?

I doubt very much that the responsible stewards will engage in a discussion here.

I was not at the event, and obviously have zero knowledge of the incident(s), so am in no position to comment. I can say, however, that Steve Pence, the race director, and responsible for the running of the event, is quite possibly the best active steward in SCCA.

The event is over, and whatever happened cannot be changed. However, Steve is actively involved in planning and assignments for next year's Runoffs. If anything was done incorrectly, he would want to know and to factor that into the 2025 event.

If the OP would like to pursue this, I can put him in touch with Steve for a proper discussion. Contact me via PM.

[fv9]

Jim,

I too had a less than impressive run in with the SOM and court of appeals. I believe everything started on Tuesday qualifying. I had another car spin in front of me coming out of canada corner, overcorrect, and end up right in my path as I was going around him on the outside. We both had to come in on the hook. After getting out of the car, I followed the direction of the RA safety crew who told me to go get in a passenger vehicle to take me in. I note the attitude of the driver of the red truck, was one where he most certainly carried himself with an air of thinking he was a big shot and everyone WILL respect him. Anyhow, I complied only to be dropped off at SOC due to the driver of the red truck reporting me for getting into the passenger side of the passenger vehicle which was on the track side of the vehicle. I explained it was basically habit and that the occupant of the front passenger seat was getting out to offer me the seat and I said I would just jump in the back. Anyhow, a slap on the wrist was all, but kind of left a bad taste in my mouth.

Fast forward to Wednesday qualifying and my motor blew coming out of canada corner. I made it around 13 and pulled off to driver's left against the wall. Completely safe as the cars are drifting right there. The SAME safety crew showed up and walked up to me with a hard hook. If anyone remembers the FV, Dennis Andrade, who was hard hooked at Indy in 2021, it did not work out for him and he ended up in the hospital after being flipped and dragged by the tow vehicle. When I saw the hard hook, I asked for a soft releasable tow strap that I hold and can let go of if needed. Being someone who wears hearing aids when not in the car, ear plugs in, and a helmet on, I need someone almost in my visor to hear them. This guy was standing near the left front of my FV. I didnt hear his response but he looked into the back of the truck and came back with the hard hook. Again I asked for releasable strap given what happened in 2021. I heard him say something about waiting for the session to end. I had assumed they were going to grant my request after the session. A few minutes later they instructed me to get out of the car and into their truck. I complied, but didnt know why I was being told to do so as I only needed a flat tow. Next thing I know Im being dropped at SOC a second time and was informed I had disobeyed an official and I needed to go to the SOM tribunal. Needless to say I was dumbfounded by this. So, I waited for my FV to brought in on the hook, go into the truck with the driver to head to the paddock space and the driver told me how sorry he was as that RA driver is the biggest "a$$hole" at the track and does this to drivers when he feels disrespected. After dropping the car, off I went to SOM without even changing out of my suit.

Once at the SOM, I chatted with a driver's rep and then went in to the tribunal. I gave them my story and, after explaining everything in much more detail than above, they asked me to write the highlights on a form. I did so. A few hours later I received a phone call clearing me of any wrongdoing. I was also told they discovered in my case that RA will ONLY hard hook a car, SCCA was not aware, that they believe small formula cars should not be hard hooked, that my request for a releasable tow was appropriate, and that they did not find I disobeyed an official. An hour or so later I receive a call from the court of appeals stating the Clerk of the Course, Dennis Dean, whom I never spoke to, was appealing. They asked if I had anything to add. I asked if they had all of the oral testimony as the written form was merely highlights at the direction of the SOM tribunal. I was told yes, they did have all information. I then said that I didn't have anything extra to add. 20 minutes later I received a call back stating they were reversing the tribunal, finding that I had disobeyed an official, that they had complete empathy for why I did it, but were nonetheless handing me a reprimand and one point. I asked for clarification on exactly what evidence they used to arrive at this decision and was told "you were twice told you were in a dangerous area and they needed to get you out immediately with a hard hook and twice you said no." I was incensed as this NEVER occurred. I was also told we were in turn 14, which was completely false. I asked if he was aware of my hearing issues and he said he was not aware I wore hearing aids. I told him "then you do not have the entire record on which to base your ruling." He stated he had what he needed, or something to that effect. I asked what the point of having a lower court making findings and conclusions if the COA doesnt consider those at all. He stated "Quinn, this isnt a court of law." He then explained the ruling is final and there is nothing more I can do.

To me, its not the penalty, its very minor, its how all of this was handled. I did NOT interact with the RA crew as they found and the entire appeal process is a complete joke. As for Dennis Dean, I could not care less if he has FIA credentials, etc. He decided to appeal for whatever reason I do not know, but it leaves a bad taste in my mouth and I have zero idea why he did so. Further, the appeal process is absurd. They literally do not have to consider ANYTHING the lower court finds and can really arrive at any preexisting desired conclusion. They dont even have to have the established record. I was disgusted by the process and ended up emailing Mike Cobb who was kind enough to meet with me later in the week. He seemed concerned by how the process was handled and was especially concerned that RA would not use a releasable strap, believing SCCA needed to know that and it needed to be in the supps. He promised to look into it and he seemed genuine. I appreciated the interaction and hope it leads to some change.

In the end, there are too many little Napoleons running around, but that has always been the case. The thing that needs to change is how the appeals process works. This was an absolute joke and will continue to be so until we force change.

Quinn Posner
Formula Vee #9

EDIT: I also asked to read the report from the safety crew and that was never provided, so I still dont know what the accuser stated outside of what the COA told me.

[JimR]

I doubt very much that the responsible stewards will engage in a discussion here.

I was not at the event, and obviously have zero knowledge of the incident(s), so am in no position to comment. I can say, however, that Steve Pence, the race director, and responsible for the running of the event, is quite possibly the best active steward in SCCA.

The event is over, and whatever happened cannot be changed. However, Steve is actively involved in planning and assignments for next year's Runoffs. If anything was done incorrectly, he would want to know and to factor that into the 2025 event.

If the OP would like to pursue this, I can put him in touch with Steve for a proper discussion. Contact me via PM.

John,
I opened a discussion on this subject as I have seen a marked change in the SCCA in the last couple of years where it seems we now operate under a set of rules which is find fault, assign blame and penalize. In some cases it is absolutely warranted but It hasn't changed the attitude of some drivers. Four years ago, I decided to buy an FE2 as the SRF3 class which I also still race in was becoming a crash fest at the majors level. That played out yet again at the runoffs, and we had 3 restarts in the FE2 race which also doesn't tell a compelling story. I didn't expect anyone in positions of authority to respond on an open forum, but hope they would become aware of what the sentiment is from a long term drivers perspective. If the SCCA, wants to lose its customers which are the drivers who enter these events, keep doing what they are doing. Otherwise review what the issues are or were, engage the participates, including the negative feedback which there is likely to be, assess the information and make adjustments.

Jim

[Dave Harmison]

Could it be, and just a guess here, that RA told SCCA to get their drivers in line and that’s what SCCA did instead of pushing back that hard connections on little formula cars are Dangerous?

I’d have hoped after the incident and horrible outcome at Indy the insurance carriers would have outlawed hard tows on little cars.

[BeerBudgetRacing]

Could it be, and just a guess here, that RA told SCCA to get their drivers in line and that’s what SCCA did instead of pushing back that hard connections on little formula cars are Dangerous?

I’d have hoped after the incident and horrible outcome at Indy the insurance carriers would have outlawed hard tows on little cars.

Is this the way it is at the June Sprints ?
Sprints have been there every year forever and I've never heard of these experiences.
So I'm concluding it's not RA.

[GregAmy]

Hi, Jim. At the risk of coming across as a jerk - absolutely not intended - it was made clear to drivers before the event that this was going to transpire.

Runoffs penalty guidelines, available from Runoffs page, Driver/Prep Shop Info, "Runoffs Penalty Guidelines":

"...failure to obey...Checker..."
...
"Test Days - probation for the duration of the Runoffs. Second offense furing test days - loss of test daytime and sessions for the remainder of the day."

https://cdn.connectsites.net/user_fi...%20v091224.pdf

And we all should have been looking for the checker flag each time we passed 11B, per Supps 5.15.2:

"Checkered Flag for Test Day Sessions: The checkered flag will be displayed at Station 11B"

As to Flagtronics, Supps 8.2, "...the more restrictive flag condition shall take precedence (e.g., Flagtronics shows green, but corner displays yellow flag – the condition for that part of the track should be considered yellow)."

You did have recourse, you could have protested the CSA. But if you actually did miss the checker - twice - then the results should not have been a surprise. Did you check video to see if that was the case?

Note that all CSA for driving behavior now carries a mandatory 1-point on your license, since early 2022 I recall. It was discussed broadly at the time and is detailed in GCR 7.4.B. You buggered the checker twice, so that's two CSA dings and why you get two points. It takes 11 points to get a 6-mo probation, and they roll over after three years, so given your driving record I'd not worry too much about it.

So this was not "subject to the discretion of one individual" or an "an unpublished standard "; in fact, it was decided by the CRB and published well in advance of the event.

You can legit argue the visibilty of the flag and the flaggers' holding it stationary, but let's be fair: a whole lot of others got it right. Like, almost everyone else (there were a few others dinged besides you). At least your feedback there made a difference for others (and you as well).

If you're at Thompson this weekend I'd be glad to chat about it.

Greg Amy, long time lurker only recently joined...and not a happy first post...

P.S., feel for the poor slob that didn't read the supps and never had his fuel tested all week, never got randomly selected for fuel testing during qually, and then won STU (going away)...and immediately got DQ'd for not running the required fuel...and then didn't read the Penalty Guidelines that stated failing fuel in the race was not only a DQ but also a 6-mo driving probation and no invite to the '25 Runoffs...I bet he'd have taken the 2-points instead...

[FVRacer21]

I (FV) was also flat towed with a hard line at Palmer this year. I have been flat towed before with a rope line and while no flat tow is fun, this was really scary. Having seen two incidents here in the NE (where the Emergency workers are usually very good) flip one car and almost flip another (the latter at the same Palmer weekend), the best answer might be a flat bed or a tilt trailer. I recognize that there are logistical and economic issues that need to be resolved, but worth getting the discussion started.

I have already commented on the change at the Runoffs that allowed the Flagtronics to override the actual flags. This was a mistake. That being said, I have seen multiple cases of yellow flags (and FCY) held improperly so that the flag is blown virtually horizontal. I attribute this to the lack of experienced flaggers and the training of the temps. Hence the push to Flagtronics. Since the Formula Car Flagtronics was virtually new for this year, I hope a survey was sent out to all the formula drivers for comment. This system (or something similar) is not going away and needs to be improved as soon as possible.

Lastly, there is a difference between being a customer and being treated like a customer. We need to realize we are all members who are supposed to be working to the same goal. The Stewards should be treating all parties as equal when it comes to disputes, not favoring workers over drivers. I hope the first instruction to anyone in authority is to develop the wisdom of Solomon. There are bad workers and bad drivers. And good drivers and good workers sometimes make mistakes. We have to learn to know the difference.

ChrisZ

[DaveW]

Stewards are often in a situation where no matter what they do, it is not at all ideal.

If they prescribe a penalty for a "minor" and/or unintentional offense, some of which were described above, then the offender is sometimes understandably PO'd. However, another point made above is that repeat offenders are too often not recognized and prevented from racing. This can occur because stewards multiple times didn't penalize them because they successfully argued against receiving a "minor" penalty. So there is no record.

Given that repeat offenders are often VERY talented in presenting their point of view, none/few of their repeated offenses may be on the record.

If there is no record of their previous bad behavior, then in the eyes of the stewards, unless the current offense was particularly bad, they are not punished to the degree warranted.

So it's kind of a "catch-22," where no matter what the stewards do they are criticized.

[FVRacer21]

"5.15.2. Checkered Flag for Test Day Sessions: The checkered flag will be displayed at Station 11B. Cars are required to pit immediately. Cars that fail to obey the checkered flag and commence with an extra lap shall be subject to possible exclusion from the remaining test day sessions. The timing line at Station 11B will be used for test sessions."

Pretty clear, but was the purpose to punish the drivers or to keep the day on schedule?

I assume, (someone correct me) that there were black flags (or another Checker) at Canada corner, 13, 13A and 14 just in case?

What did Flagtonics show? is a Black or Checkered visible on that screen?

Option to pull off at 5?

If multiple people had had the same issue?

Yes - video would be helpful.

ChrisZ

PS Edit - I will not longer wear anything other than a clear visor since tinted ones distort yellow vs black flags. I wear flip up sunglasses while street driving as I cannot see/read the new digital dashes with regular sun glasses. I assume the same holds for Flagtronics?

[GregAmy]

Pretty clear, but was the purpose to punish the drivers or to keep the day on schedule?

Certain action was required (and requested) to keep the days on schedule, and drivers that did not comply with that were punished.

The penalties were harsher than normal to get across to drivers (who read the supps and penalty guidelines) that these behaviors are very important, so please pay attention.

Are you implying the purpose of these regs were designed as a "gotcha" to punish drivers? Hmmm, you'd be quite the cynic... I can offer that did not see anyone cheering and high-fiving and screaming "got him!" in Race Control when someone busted the checker...in fact, quite the opposite...granted, I wasn't up there all the time so I may have missed some cases of that happening, so YMMV.

I assume, (someone correct me) that there were black flags (or another Checker) at Canada corner, 13, 13A and 14 just in case?

I wasn't paying attention to the radio on all sessions, but yes, F&C Control told 11B about 30s from the checker to stand by, then called 11B to checker and black flags on all subsequent stations.

The F&C net was re-broadcast over VHF for all teams to monitor.

What did Flagtonics show? is a Black or Checkered visible on that screen?

Because Flagtronics Checker and Black is an all-track indication, they cannot show those flags at specific corners (JonK, please correct?) So it reverts back to Supps 8.2, "...the more restrictive flag condition shall take precedence".

Option to pull off at 5?

No. By recovering cars at T5 we lose access to them for selective Tech impound, Black Flag notificaitons, and SOC driver discussions. It would require double teams of each to accomodate that (T5 and pit lane). Thus, the checking at 11B.*

If multiple people had had the same issue?

More than one? Yes.

A significant number among the ~550? No.

GA, not being argumentative, but as a long-time driver and Runoffs competitor and as a steward I see it both ways...so take that with a grain of your fav salt. BTW, I was neither a driver nor a steward at the '24 Runoffs, but I did have significant access to the whole show

*There are other reasons I personally did not like the checker at 11B, specifically how it affected driver behavior at The Kink. I'd prefer to see it maybe between T7 and T8, presuming there's a timing line there. Watch your email for an event survey, it's possible that will be one of the questions.

EDIT:

I wear flip up sunglasses while street driving as I cannot see/read the new digital dashes with regular sun glasses.

That's the polarization, it effects visibility of LCDs. Get sunglasses without polarization and the problem goes away. My fav driving lenses are Serengeti's non-polarized "Driver's".

[DaveW]

...PS Edit - I will not longer wear anything other than a clear visor since tinted ones distort yellow vs black flags. I wear flip up sunglasses while street driving as I cannot see/read the new digital dashes with regular sun glasses. I assume the same holds for Flagtronics?

While racing I have not used tinted visors (never have worn any glasses) for at least the last 15 years. It's not for color distinction - it's for visual acuity. With my 82 YO eyes, depth perception, etc., is better with my pupil diameter minimized.

[clint]

Jim,

I too had a less than impressive run in with the SOM and court of appeals. I believe everything started on Tuesday qualifying. I had another car spin in front of me coming out of canada corner, overcorrect, and end up right in my path as I was going around him on the outside. We both had to come in on the hook. After getting out of the car, I followed the direction of the RA safety crew who told me to go get in a passenger vehicle to take me in. I note the attitude of the driver of the red truck, was one where he most certainly carried himself with an air of thinking he was a big shot and everyone WILL respect him. Anyhow, I complied only to be dropped off at SOC due to the driver of the red truck reporting me for getting into the passenger side of the passenger vehicle which was on the track side of the vehicle. I explained it was basically habit and that the occupant of the front passenger seat was getting out to offer me the seat and I said I would just jump in the back. Anyhow, a slap on the wrist was all, but kind of left a bad taste in my mouth.

Fast forward to Wednesday qualifying and my motor blew coming out of canada corner. I made it around 13 and pulled off to driver's left against the wall. Completely safe as the cars are drifting right there. The SAME safety crew showed up and walked up to me with a hard hook. If anyone remembers the FV, Dennis Andrade, who was hard hooked at Indy in 2021, it did not work out for him and he ended up in the hospital after being flipped and dragged by the tow vehicle. When I saw the hard hook, I asked for a soft releasable tow strap that I hold and can let go of if needed. Being someone who wears hearing aids when not in the car, ear plugs in, and a helmet on, I need someone almost in my visor to hear them. This guy was standing near the left front of my FV. I didnt hear his response but he looked into the back of the truck and came back with the hard hook. Again I asked for releasable strap given what happened in 2021. I heard him say something about waiting for the session to end. I had assumed they were going to grant my request after the session. A few minutes later they instructed me to get out of the car and into their truck. I complied, but didnt know why I was being told to do so as I only needed a flat tow. Next thing I know Im being dropped at SOC a second time and was informed I had disobeyed an official and I needed to go to the SOM tribunal. Needless to say I was dumbfounded by this. So, I waited for my FV to brought in on the hook, go into the truck with the driver to head to the paddock space and the driver told me how sorry he was as that RA driver is the biggest "a$$hole" at the track and does this to drivers when he feels disrespected. After dropping the car, off I went to SOM without even changing out of my suit.

Once at the SOM, I chatted with a driver's rep and then went in to the tribunal. I gave them my story and, after explaining everything in much more detail than above, they asked me to write the highlights on a form. I did so. A few hours later I received a phone call clearing me of any wrongdoing. I was also told they discovered in my case that RA will ONLY hard hook a car, SCCA was not aware, that they believe small formula cars should not be hard hooked, that my request for a releasable tow was appropriate, and that they did not find I disobeyed an official. An hour or so later I receive a call from the court of appeals stating the Clerk of the Course, Dennis Dean, whom I never spoke to, was appealing. They asked if I had anything to add. I asked if they had all of the oral testimony as the written form was merely highlights at the direction of the SOM tribunal. I was told yes, they did have all information. I then said that I didn't have anything extra to add. 20 minutes later I received a call back stating they were reversing the tribunal, finding that I had disobeyed an official, that they had complete empathy for why I did it, but were nonetheless handing me a reprimand and one point. I asked for clarification on exactly what evidence they used to arrive at this decision and was told "you were twice told you were in a dangerous area and they needed to get you out immediately with a hard hook and twice you said no." I was incensed as this NEVER occurred. I was also told we were in turn 14, which was completely false. I asked if he was aware of my hearing issues and he said he was not aware I wore hearing aids. I told him "then you do not have the entire record on which to base your ruling." He stated he had what he needed, or something to that effect. I asked what the point of having a lower court making findings and conclusions if the COA doesnt consider those at all. He stated "Quinn, this isnt a court of law." He then explained the ruling is final and there is nothing more I can do.

To me, its not the penalty, its very minor, its how all of this was handled. I did NOT interact with the RA crew as they found and the entire appeal process is a complete joke. As for Dennis Dean, I could not care less if he has FIA credentials, etc. He decided to appeal for whatever reason I do not know, but it leaves a bad taste in my mouth and I have zero idea why he did so. Further, the appeal process is absurd. They literally do not have to consider ANYTHING the lower court finds and can really arrive at any preexisting desired conclusion. They dont even have to have the established record. I was disgusted by the process and ended up emailing Mike Cobb who was kind enough to meet with me later in the week. He seemed concerned by how the process was handled and was especially concerned that RA would not use a releasable strap, believing SCCA needed to know that and it needed to be in the supps. He promised to look into it and he seemed genuine. I appreciated the interaction and hope it leads to some change.

In the end, there are too many little Napoleons running around, but that has always been the case. The thing that needs to change is how the appeals process works. This was an absolute joke and will continue to be so until we force change.

Quinn Posner
Formula Vee #9

EDIT: I also asked to read the report from the safety crew and that was never provided, so I still dont know what the accuser stated outside of what the COA told me.

I would like to see a hard line in the sand on this myself. I've been told the car would either sit on the track or I would be hard hooked for a tow. After I said to let it sit there, the tow truck driver called to track control and asked for next steps. Eventually, I was towed by a releasable strap. I would rather take the beating by the stewards than take another chance at being rolled over and dragged 75-100 ft before the tow truck driver realizes they're now dragging a car they rolled over in tow. Yes, we as drivers have a responsibility to act professionally in a "club" setting, but it seems like the "professionals" don't know how to do a professional job. As far as I know, there are no safety concerns with towing while using a releasing strap. If there are, please, someone correct me. We as an organization should have a standard rule set that applies to every track and it should be based off of lessons learned. Not every rule set is perfect, but the rules can be built upon when clear safety concerns come about.

[Hardingfv32]

Why do stewards participate, put themselves in the middle of such stressful situations? The drivers have glory and racing excitement, but what is ti for the stewards?

Brian

[rockbeau25]

Love of the sport.

[DaveW]

Love of the sport.

And a desire to help others develop that love.

[Zonker]

Why do stewards participate, put themselves in the middle of such stressful situations? The drivers have glory and racing excitement, but what is ti for the stewards?

Brian

When my racing days were over I could stay involved with something that I truly loved, and might even be able to contribute a little bit.

[R. Pare]

Why do stewards participate, put themselves in the middle of such stressful situations? The drivers have glory and racing excitement, but what is ti for the stewards?

Brian

Ego feeding.

[John Nesbitt]

Why do stewards participate, put themselves in the middle of such stressful situations? The drivers have glory and racing excitement, but what is ti for the stewards?

Brian

Ego feeding.

In any group of a couple hundred people doing anything, there will be a variety of motives. Certainly, the main ones for stewards are love of the sport, a desire to give something back, a desire to stay involved.

And, yes, ego is a motive for some stewards, just like it is for some drivers. Racing attracts some strong personalities. I can remember, shortly after I took up racing, my late wife looking around the paddock at Summit, and remarking to me, "You are the most relaxed person here. This is a very unusual group."

And, FWIW, I see much less ego (or power-tripping) among stewards today than I did 20 years ago. The old-school types are leaving the scene, and being replaced by younger, more participant-friendly stewards.

[JimR]

Hi, Jim. At the risk of coming across as a jerk - absolutely not intended - it was made clear to drivers before the event that this was going to transpire.

Runoffs penalty guidelines, available from Runoffs page, Driver/Prep Shop Info, "Runoffs Penalty Guidelines":

"...failure to obey...Checker..."
...
"Test Days - probation for the duration of the Runoffs. Second offense furing test days - loss of test daytime and sessions for the remainder of the day."

https://cdn.connectsites.net/user_fi...%20v091224.pdf

And we all should have been looking for the checker flag each time we passed 11B, per Supps 5.15.2:

"Checkered Flag for Test Day Sessions: The checkered flag will be displayed at Station 11B"

As to Flagtronics, Supps 8.2, "...the more restrictive flag condition shall take precedence (e.g., Flagtronics shows green, but corner displays yellow flag – the condition for that part of the track should be considered yellow)."

You did have recourse, you could have protested the CSA. But if you actually did miss the checker - twice - then the results should not have been a surprise. Did you check video to see if that was the case?

Note that all CSA for driving behavior now carries a mandatory 1-point on your license, since early 2022 I recall. It was discussed broadly at the time and is detailed in GCR 7.4.B. You buggered the checker twice, so that's two CSA dings and why you get two points. It takes 11 points to get a 6-mo probation, and they roll over after three years, so given your driving record I'd not worry too much about it.

So this was not "subject to the discretion of one individual" or an "an unpublished standard "; in fact, it was decided by the CRB and published well in advance of the event.

You can legit argue the visibilty of the flag and the flaggers' holding it stationary, but let's be fair: a whole lot of others got it right. Like, almost everyone else (there were a few others dinged besides you). At least your feedback there made a difference for others (and you as well).

If you're at Thompson this weekend I'd be glad to chat about it.

Greg Amy, long time lurker only recently joined...and not a happy first post...

P.S., feel for the poor slob that didn't read the supps and never had his fuel tested all week, never got randomly selected for fuel testing during qually, and then won STU (going away)...and immediately got DQ'd for not running the required fuel...and then didn't read the Penalty Guidelines that stated failing fuel in the race was not only a DQ but also a 6-mo driving probation and no invite to the '25 Runoffs...I bet he'd have taken the 2-points instead...

Greg,
Thanks for your post and clarification in an objective way. It was said elsewhere in this thread there a two sides to every story. If you had been at the runoffs you might have a different perspective on the number of tickets being handed out which is why I started this thread.
The Penalty Guildelines start with following sentence:

"The following are the suggested penalty standards for the SCCA National Championship Runoffs. The guidelines are established for consistency in similar situations outlined below. Unique circumstances may justify modification of the suggested penalties."

Despite being heard which I appreciated my penalties didn't change, which just didn't feel right. My actions weren't deliberate and I had nothing to gain on my first day ever on this track. So end of story and we all move on.
Jim

[CF56]

Why do stewards participate, put themselves in the middle of such stressful situations? The drivers have glory and racing excitement, but what is ti for the stewards?

Brian

I'm still an active driver and joined the Stewards program about a year ago. I'm certainly not doing this for power, ego or expecting anyone to ever say thank you. I love the sport. SCCA has been a big part of my life. Now that I am retired, I have more time (and less money). To make the sport better we need to take action. This is mine as I think having a current driver's perspective will be beneficial for Stewarding. I think it would be good for more active drivers to get involved. I've gone through a lot of training and mentoring. I usually re-read a few pages of the GCR every day. I take this seriously and will do whatever I can to help the sport. My five-year-old grandson has started karting and I want open wheel SCCA racing to be waiting for him when he gets of age.

[924RACR]

Greg,
Thanks for your post and clarification in an objective way. It was said elsewhere in this thread there a two sides to every story. If you had been at the runoffs you might have a different perspective on the number of tickets being handed out which is why I started this thread.

Greg was indeed at the Runoffs, FWIW.

[JimR]

Greg was indeed at the Runoffs, FWIW.

My apologies to Greg...Yes I do recall seeing him there.
Jim

[Dave Gomberg]

...

And, FWIW, I see much less ego (or power-tripping) among stewards today than I did 20 years ago. The old-school types are leaving the scene, and being replaced by younger, more participant-friendly stewards.

And, at least some of us older heads try to be participant-friendly. I went to drivers school in 1987 and next year will be my last in the car because I simply can no longer do all of the before, during and after prep, loading, unloading, fixing, loading, unloading and fixing (with a bit of driving in there somewhere). I entered the steward program in 2004 and still do it because I am paying back. I find that I'm doing my best as a steward when I can help a participant understand why something went wrong (whether on track or in tech) and how to avoid it happening in the future. In the case of the Runoffs, both the tech inspectors and the tech stewards (which I have led for several years) are trying their best to help drivers avoid issues before the races because, trust me, taking away a podium finish or a National Championship is a really lousy job.

Dave

[GregAmy]

The Penalty Guildelines start with following sentence:

"The following are the suggested penalty standards for the SCCA National Championship Runoffs.

Concur. We also have penalty "guidelines" in the GCR, too.

I see both sides of this coin. For example, the poor schlob that totally didn't read the supps and lost a national championship due to the wrong fuel clearly had no intent to break the regs. Were it me (as a steward-driver) I'd have protested the CSA not for the infraction - they would have had me dead-to-rights - but for the severity of the penalty. Toss my hat down and plead ignorance and leniency and hope for the best.

And I think that's what you're saying here in regards to your infractions.

But on the other side of the coin, SCCA has these "guidelines" due to what I perceive (IMO, of course) as failures of consistency in our stewarding program (he says, as a driver-steward). These inconsistencies have gone both ways, where a steward would toss down a death penalty for something silly, or let a buddy walk for something quite bad. To address this, we (the club) came up with these guidelines as a marker for stewards to use to we can be consistent, removing a certain level of discretion from a widely-varying steward population. It also takes away from stewards the need to think hard about what penalty they may think is appropriate.

Note these guidelines do not take into consideration "intent". It tells drivers "if you do thats, you should expect this."

As such, stewards are expected to use these guidelines as their assumed baseline, unless they can find some pretty significant reasons not to. Deviating from these published guidelines should be the exception, not the norm.

To address this, I think your ire should be directed at the CRB, and request that they reconsider these penalties. If you believe that blowing the checker flag at the SCCA National Championship Runoffs should not involve a driving probation (and loss of subsequent session time if you do it twice), then let them know that. This is how we make change.

Greg

[Peter Olivola]

Concur. We also have penalty "guidelines" in the GCR, too.

I see both sides of this coin. For example, the poor schlob that totally didn't read the supps and lost a national championship due to the wrong fuel clearly had no intent to break the regs. Were it me (as a steward-driver) I'd have protested the CSA not for the infraction - they would have had me dead-to-rights - but for the severity of the penalty. Toss my hat down and plead ignorance and leniency and hope for the best.

And I think that's what you're saying here in regards to your infractions.

But on the other side of the coin, SCCA has these "guidelines" due to what I perceive (IMO, of course) as failures of consistency in our stewarding program (he says, as a driver-steward). These inconsistencies have gone both ways, where a steward would toss down a death penalty for something silly, or let a buddy walk for something quite bad. To address this, we (the club) came up with these guidelines as a marker for stewards to use to we can be consistent, removing a certain level of discretion from a widely-varying steward population. It also takes away from stewards the need to think hard about what penalty they may think is appropriate.

Note these guidelines do not take into consideration "intent". It tells drivers "if you do thats, you should expect this."

As such, stewards are expected to use these guidelines as their assumed baseline, unless they can find some pretty significant reasons not to. Deviating from these published guidelines should be the exception, not the norm.

To address this, I think your ire should be directed at the CRB, and request that they reconsider these penalties. If you believe that blowing the checker flag at the SCCA National Championship Runoffs should not involve a driving probation (and loss of subsequent session time if you do it twice), then let them know that. This is how we make change.

Greg

The penalty guidelines are one in a series of steps taken over decades to address the inconsistency issues. There is much history here and for the most part it isn't pretty.

The earliest example of this is the GCR rule requiring that the CSOM not be a member of the organizing region (with exceptions.) This came about due to the behavior of two regions who regularly practiced penalizing drivers from the other region disproportionately.

Appendix "P" is another example.

The battle between lawyers and engineers will never be decided in favor of either side. It will always be a struggle to eliminate prejudice and favor from the process. It is, after all, a human process and we are an imperfect lot.

[John Nesbitt]

..
I see both sides of this coin. For example, the poor schlob that totally didn't read the supps and lost a national championship due to the wrong fuel clearly had no intent to break the regs. Were it me (as a steward-driver) I'd have protested the CSA not for the infraction - they would have had me dead-to-rights - but for the severity of the penalty. Toss my hat down and plead ignorance and leniency and hope for the best.


..
Greg

Keep in mind that this was at the Runoffs, where there is a very clear, very long-established practice that podium impound tech violations lead to a DQ. (The only exception of which I am aware is the infamous 'PlungeGate' at the 2014 Runoffs.)

During training classes for novice stewards, I emphasize that stewarding is very often a zero-sum game. When you give something to one driver, you usually take something away from one or more other drivers. In this case, for example, letting the offending driver keep his position would effectively deny a podium step to three other drivers who ran legal fuel.

The same is true for pretty much every on-track situation. Fairness typically demands that we apply the rules.

[GregAmy]

Keep in mind that this was at the Runoffs, where there is a very clear, very long-established practice that podium impound tech violations lead to a DQ. (The only exception of which I am aware is the infamous 'PlungeGate' at the 2014 Runoffs.)

Completely agree, John. I would not be protesting the DQ itself - again, it was a clear technical violation - but the 6 mos license suspension plus "no invitation to the '25 Runoffs" seems a bit much for farking up my fuel.

DQ, absolutely, no disagreement.

License suspension...hmmmm...well, was it really something I did as a driver that should affect my license (agreed responsibility for crew notwithstanding)?

Automatic spike for the next Runoffs for something that was demonstrably unintentional? Kinda harsh.

But then again, it was all there, in black and white, so it's hard to argue that I disagreed with it (I did select the checkbox that said I read the GCR, supps, and agreed to them) or to suggest was no way I knew about it.

"Read the rulez, newb". - Greg

[John Nesbitt]

Greg,

The notation on the race results reads, "Disqualified from 2024 Runoffs; 6 month license suspension; may not enter 2025 Runoffs per SOM - GCR 9.3.25.A, Supp. 9.11-16."

Obviously, this went to the SOM, since the penalties exceed the powers of the Chief Steward. Either the driver protested a simple DQ by the Chief Steward, or the Chief Steward filed a Request for Action with the SOM, with a view to stronger penalties.

The fact that the SOM imposed such a harsh penalty suggests that there may have been more in play than a simple fuel sample failure. SOM deliberations are not published. If the driver appealed the SOM decision (I certainly would have), we shall read about the case in a forthcoming Fastrack. Otherwise, we are left to speculate.

[GregAmy]

Obviously, this went to the SOM, since the penalties exceed the powers of the Chief Steward.

Hi, John. Maybe we're chatting past each other? The Penalty guidelines for the Runoffs clearly stated this was the case:

https://www.scca.com/runoffs

Driver/Prep Shop Info, Runoffs Penalty Guidelines:

https://cdn.connectsites.net/user_fi...%20v091224.pdf

"5. Fuel Testing...b. Race- Disqualificiation plus 6-month suspension, disallowed from entering 2025 Runoffs"

[John Nesbitt]

Greg

You are absolutely correct; I missed that. I confess that my reaction to that guideline is surprise. In my time on Runoffs SOM, the only infractions for which we handed out penalties on that scale were for truly egregious behavior (e.g. deliberating taking out a competitor, or committing physical violence).

[Dave Gomberg]

Hi, John. Maybe we're chatting past each other? The Penalty guidelines for the Runoffs clearly stated this was the case:

https://www.scca.com/runoffs

Driver/Prep Shop Info, Runoffs Penalty Guidelines:

https://cdn.connectsites.net/user_fi...%20v091224.pdf

"5. Fuel Testing...b. Race- Disqualificiation plus 6-month suspension, disallowed from entering 2025 Runoffs"

I know this will be getting in the weeds for some, however...

First, it is true that the Runoffs Penalty Guidelines did say DQ, suspension, barred from 2025, however, as John correctly pointed out, the RD/CS does not have the powers to impose the second and third part of that penalty. So, what happened is that at the RD's direction, I filed an RFA (request for action) with the SOM. The SOM did their investigation and issued a finding. (I have absolutely no inside information on their deliberations.) Beyond that, as John said, we will have to wait to find out if an appeal was filed.

And, on a related note, Greg suggested earlier that the CRB is responsible for the Penalty Guidelines. That is not correct. The Executive Stewards create/modify the Penalty Guidelines each year. The Runoffs Penalty Guidelines are amended to fit the event by the RD, National Staff and the Chairman of the Executive Stewards.

Dave

[GregAmy]

Thanks for the clarification, Dave.

And as a side note, while those guidelines were def published, I can tell you that once the news of the penalty swept through the Tech area (I was not working Tech, but working in the area) it was as much a surprise to there as anywhere. Woof.

[FVRacer21]

This is an interesting discussion. Years ago I was sitting with someone at a sales training dinner. Turns out he and I were both involved in auto racing. In fact he was a nation champion who had it taken away on a technicality.

One of his exhaust valves measured (for example) 1.203" which was the maximum. That was until a tech inspector got a micrometer that measured to 4 places and the valve measured 1.2032 so he was disqualified. I forget the debate and how it was now resolved in the rules. Probably cannot measure more than 1.203 rather that max size is 1.203, so the # of digits was not a factor, but this seemed like a pretty petty and vindictive original ruling.

We need transparency on all rulings - we seem to get it when it goes to the Appeals level, but how many never get to that level?

ChrisZ

PS - That driver walked away and never looked back - and that was before the alternatives we have today.

[FVRacer21]

Greg,

The notation on the race results reads, "Disqualified from 2024 Runoffs; 6 month license suspension; may not enter 2025 Runoffs per SOM - GCR 9.3.25.A, Supp. 9.11-16."

Obviously, this went to the SOM, since the penalties exceed the powers of the Chief Steward. Either the driver protested a simple DQ by the Chief Steward, or the Chief Steward filed a Request for Action with the SOM, with a view to stronger penalties.

The fact that the SOM imposed such a harsh penalty suggests that there may have been more in play than a simple fuel sample failure. SOM deliberations are not published. If the driver appealed the SOM decision (I certainly would have), we shall read about the case in a forthcoming Fastrack. Otherwise, we are left to speculate.

Agree - this seems like a pretty easy rule to follow - if there were mitigating circumstances, I would like to know it so others don't make the same mistake. If it was deliberate....

ChrisZ

Edit - I really don't like to speculate..