Myles,
I have to disagree with your disagreement, to some extent. Body contact does
not imply that the "contacting" driver was out of control prior to the
incident. Thunderhill scene, sounds to me like driver #3 was following
closely, but in control, prior to the incident. Perhaps driver #1 should
suffer the penalty since he was the one who lost control.
Somewhat similar scenario: blind crest/very fast off camber turn/three cars
in a row ... driver #1 shifting from 3rd to 4th mistakenly gets 2nd ...
instant spin. Car #2 takes evasive action to outside of turn but can't
avoid contact -- damage to cars 1 & 2. Driver #3 tries evasive action to
inside but brushes wall in lieu of hitting #1 or #2. Who do you penalize?
Why? #1 because he lost control & initiated incident? #2 because he "ran
into" #1? #3 since he hit wall & damaged his own car?
Once the incident starts, it's silly to talk about who's in control of their
car. Evasive manuevers require split-second decisions, and sometimes the
choices are a) maintain control & drive right into the wreck or b) do
everything you can to avoid the wreck, even if it means spinning your own
car & taking your chances on the spin.
If you expect everyone to follow at a "safe" distance all the time, we'll
have to adhere to the old street rule of one car length for every 10 MPH.
Don't think I'll be passing many people when I'm following at 12 car lengths
at the end of the straight.
Point is, every incident is different. Absolute rules won't work (body
contact = suspension). I do NOT advocate leniency, but I do feel we have to
depend on driver's committes to exercise reasonable judgement in doling out
penalties. Points of limited sight istance, braking over crests, off-camber
turns must be taken into account in the hearing. In MOST cases, I would
expect body contact to result in a penalty for someone -- but not
necessarily for the driver of the "contacting" car.
Mark Palmer
MGA #185
>From: MHKitchen@aol.com
>Reply-To: MHKitchen@aol.com
>To: VEENET@aol.com, vintage-race@autox.team.net
>Subject: Re: Vintage body contact
>Date: Wed, 29 Sep 1999 12:35:17 EDT
>
>Jerry:
>
>I have to disagree to some extent. The objective here is to
>discourage driving so "agressively" (that could just mean following too
>closely) that body contact occurs.
>
>I can empathize with the Thunderhill T5 scenario...been there myself...but
>avoided contact.
>
>I think there is a VERY fine line between such a vintage attitude of
>knowing
>when to back off a bit, or postpone that pass, and staying on someone's
>bumper ready to pounce at any possible opportunity.
>
>I believe the sanctioning groups need to have a firm stand on ANYTHING that
>results in body contact....mandatory suspension for 1 or more events,
>depending on the severity of the incident and infractions.
>
>I really don't want someone playing bumper tag with my car and then be able
>to come back and do it again next race without some consequences.....
>
>In vintage racing, body contact is NOT acceptable. I know. Several years
>ago, I nailed my friend Dave Rauch's quarter panel in the "heat" of battle
>in
>a move where "I thought he saw me". NOT ACCEPTABLE. I was wrong and sat
>out
>2 races. BTW, Dave & I are still friends....I felt awful about hitting
>him.
>
>Myles H. Kitchen
>1965 Lotus Cortina Mk1 #128
|