Cal Club Autocross Forums

Max Hayter wrote:In SD two weeks ago, Brian Peter, Doug Rowse and I were clumping.

It figures........typical clumpers.

I know that Bill takes being safety steward seriously (not that others don't). I appreciate his dedication and that of all our safety stewards. As far as the "clumping" issue, I think it should be pointed out during the drivers meeting and the radio / section chief should be reminded if clumping is occurring.
Having said that, it is the responsibility of the radio / section chief to determine how to best support his / her section and workers.
There have been several times in my memory where I requested a worker to stay near me. Sometimes you need to give them instruction, other times it is difficult to monitor the section with one set of eyes.
Having said that, whatever the safety steward says should be taken as law.

Personally I think a drivers meeting should be held prior to every event. Most of us can't hear the announcements out in the pits.
We could hold a quick mtg. with emphasis on anything new and or different, then excuse the experienced drivers and give a quick refresher for the nubes.

O.K., O.K. Let me be more specific, then.

Clumping. Radio op needs a set of "eyes"? Fine. Only safe place for workers to stand is nearly shoulder to shoulder (what I've seen!) GIVE ME A BREAK! Need to stand like 10-20ft. apart from each other to be safe? Fine.

And mind you, the more experienced driver's are usually the ones "clumping". I have "clumped" with the best!!! Because I've "clumped" and have an eye towards safety that perhaps many don't, I realized that I really wasn't putting my full attention on the cars. And I DEFY anyone that says they can.

ENOUGH WITH THIS CLUMPING CRAP. USE COMMON SENSE! CLUMPING FOR SAFETY'S SAKE? GREAT. FIND YOURSELF CHATTIN' W/YOUR BUD 'CAUSE YOU'RE BORED WITH THAT MIATA MAKING HIS 9TH RUN IN THE HEAT? NOT COOL. Since I have seen so much of this, I err and will continue to err, on the side of TOTAL, THERMONUCLEAR DECLUMPING.

-----------------

And Safety mtgs. are not at the discretion of the SSS, Event Master or even Sara Palin herself; they are mandatory. From the '09 Solo Rules: E.VIII.D.5 "Conduct a meeting with Crowd Control Marshals and/or course workers prior to start of the event." Since we allow people that run in the afternoon to show up after the morning meeting, we have a 2nd mtg. before the afternoon heats.

Bill Schenker wrote:And Safety mtgs. are not at the discretion of the SSS, Event Master or even Sara Palin herself; they are mandatory. From the '09 Solo Rules: E.VIII.D.5 "Conduct a meeting with Crowd Control Marshals and/or course workers prior to start of the event." Since we allow people that run in the afternoon to show up after the morning meeting, we have a 2nd mtg. before the afternoon heats.

Do you know the meaning of and/or? The way I read it, it's optional. I agree that station chiefs should have brief meeting with their corner workers to make sure everyone is on the same page. This makes perfect common sense. But it says nothing about a drivers' meeting.

And you failed to address my point. The experience driver's don't listen anyway. What would you tell them that they don't already know? Take note that at the CASOC event last year we did have a general drivers' meeting as we were introducing a new practice format and along with that, several things that were different from what we were used too. But just how long do we hold up an event waiting for everyone to show up for a meeting where everything is routine? Mandatory meeting for Nuby's yes. For others, a waste of your breath IMHO.

BTW, it takes a honest guy to admit he's a clumper......and to admit you're on of the best clumpers around. For that I give you kudos.

Honestly, if I did work course, I'd probably be a clumper, too. Or more specifically a clumper/pointer. I'd point at this cone and that cone, and ask a non-pointer/clumper go after it. In my case, you'd want me to be a clumper/pointer since I can't get out of the way of my own shadow.

Ok, let me start with I agree with the need for Safety meetings for nubee's

But on the Mandatory requirement... I beg to differ it states that anywhere in the rule book.

Lets start with
1.1 Mandatory Provisions, no part of Appendix E is listed. (That said a SSS is required, and Appendix E is the training / direction section for said SSS etc.)
Appendix E (part) VIII (section) D (number) 5 the use of the and/or prior to the words course workers (as properly quoted in your post as I'm responding). I'm confused as to the usage of the English language that interprets and/or as anything resembling mandatory.

Now if your really want to get specific, we need to start assigning "Crowd Control" positions, as it's the only portion of that section that could be implied as to mandatory, but then we fall back on 1.1.

edit: Oh well... George posted while I was typing.... sorry for the double post.

BTW... the last death at a Winter Olympics was in 1992 when a speed skier (demonstration sport at that event) hit a piece of snow grooming equipment. Again, very high speed impact. Current speed skiing world record is 156+ mph.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vBxvGdMjZmE" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Wow?! Really?! o.k.

I'll spell it out for you:

1.) SSS 's are supposed to hold the meeting.

2.) There is noting optional about it, it's what we're supposed to do.

3.) The "and/or" refers to: Crowd Control Marshals and Course workers.

4) Or, Crowd Control Marshals or Course workers.

5.) We don't have Crowd Control Marshalls, so there they go.

6) That leaves us with Course Workers. Where do course workers come from? Competitors.

7.) Sounds like a Driver's Meeting to me. If you don't like that term, then we can call it a Course Workers mtg.

8,) And you Conservatives B*tched about Prez. Bill and his trying to define "Is"?! Geez.

Anti-clumpist :unimpressed:

Max Hayter wrote:Anti-clumpist :unimpressed:

Um......I'm not sure clumpist is a word. :mrt:

Craig has it right. If safety meetings were mandatory, that requirement would be in Paragraph 6, EVENT OPERATION. There is no logical reason to bury an important requirement like that back in the appendixes. Now I don't have the most current book. Has that requirement shown up in 6? Otherwise, at best Bill, all you've demonstrated is the rulebook has loose ends AND/OR inconsistencies. Duh.

But if you insist it's mandatory, let's get a written statement to that effect from Topeka. Bet they won't give it to you. (Because it's not.)

Something the SSC would like to see but can't get the BOD to approve is nice, but not mandatory until you can show it in the rulebook. I got complaints against my license for trying to hold a workers meeting as asked to do by the DSSS. So, I could care less anymore if we have them til somebody can show me a rule.

BTW, if I were King (not likely anytime soon) I would hold drivers meetings:

Part 1 -- News You Can Use. Anything different or unique to today. Four runs? New grid system? Anything of a new or different nature of interest to all. Then all the regulars leave. And ask them to spread the word, since half the paddock didn't come.

Part 2 -- Now you can show the nubis what constitutes a pylon penalty. How do you hold a flag. And don't dawdle on the track with cars coming. And don't turn your back etc.

Yeah I know...even regulars probably need to be reminded of safety basics sometimes. But I'm not a Nanny-State kind of guy.

Impressive range in spelling on "Newbies"

Bill M.: Nubis (Elegant, I like it)
Craig N.: Nubee's (I hate possessive apostrophes )
George S.: Nuby's (There's that darn apostrophe again.)
Bill S.: Newbie (Classical spelling)

Mako Koiwai wrote:Padding might have helped ... the right type of padding ... but "No padding" certainly didn't help. ;)

Having seen the video of the hit, i honestly do not thing any amount of padding would have helped. It was a square hit on a solid obstacle. A padded wedge to divert the energy to the side would be a lot more beneficial. I saw the "fix" they put in place, which is pretty laughable (for a non-laughing matter). imagine driving 90 MPH into a solid concrete wall, and now imagine driving into it at 90mph, but with a 6" padding in front of that wall.

The problem was that the center was designed by a typical architect, with the typical "looks great in rendering, and on television". We used to joke about stuff like this in architecture school "if it looks like you can hurt yourself on it, then it's a good design". unfortunately, in this case, that became a reality.

I'm pretty dissatisfied with how the whole situation was handled.

Sebastian Rios wrote:Impressive range in spelling on "Newbies"

Bill M.: Nubis (Elegant, I like it)
Craig N.: Nubee's (I hate possessive apostrophes )
George S.: Nuby's (There's that darn apostrophe again.)
Bill S.: Newbie (Classical spelling)

Interesting comparison.

What will you do for an encore? :ibrightdea:

Jeff Shyu wrote:I saw the "fix" they put in place, which is pretty laughable (for a non-laughing matter). imagine driving 90 MPH into a solid concrete wall, and now imagine driving into it at 90mph, but with a 6" padding in front of that wall.

They also put a vertical wall that extends up to the roof in between the track and the supports, so... the padding is basically pointless anyways.

Sebastian Rios wrote:Impressive range in spelling on "Newbies"

Bill M.: Nubis (Elegant, I like it)
Craig N.: Nubee's (I hate possessive apostrophes )
George S.: Nuby's (There's that darn apostrophe again.)
Bill S.: Newbie (Classical spelling)

Don't forget my fave, noobies. I'm with you on that apostrophe. Drives me nut's

u n00bz != 1337

It is interesting that the Olympic tragedy happened under very similar circumstances to most Solo incidents, at or near the finish. It is so easy to ignore the end of a course - what could go wrong in a strait line at/near the finish. Very sad.

Sebastian Rios wrote:Impressive range in spelling on "Newbies"

Bill M.: Nubis (Elegant, I like it)
Craig N.: Nubee's (I hate possessive apostrophes )
George S.: Nuby's (There's that darn apostrophe again.)
Bill S.: Newbie (Classical spelling)

I prefer Noob or Noobie & have nothing to add to the worker meeting issue.

Bill Martin wrote:Craig has it right. If safety meetings were mandatory, that requirement would be in Paragraph 6, EVENT OPERATION. There is no logical reason to bury an important requirement like that back in the appendixes. Now I don't have the most current book. Has that requirement shown up in 6? Otherwise, at best Bill, all you've demonstrated is the rulebook has loose ends AND/OR inconsistencies. Duh.

But if you insist it's mandatory, let's get a written statement to that effect from Topeka. Bet they won't give it to you. (Because it's not.)

Try to imagine being in a deposition or on the witness stand and being asked if any formal meeting was held to instruct those new to the sport what to do or what not do and answering "No, it's not required, so we don't bother."

That's a likely answer that you'll get from Topeka because I got it when asking about something that is at the regions' discretion. Risk Management is much happier when regional event officials use logic and common sense IN ADDITION to the rule book.

Jeff Shyu wrote:

Mako Koiwai wrote:Padding might have helped ... the right type of padding ... but "No padding" certainly didn't help. ;)

Having seen the video of the hit, i honestly do not thing any amount of padding would have helped. It was a square hit on a solid obstacle. A padded wedge to divert the energy to the side would be a lot more beneficial. I saw the "fix" they put in place, which is pretty laughable (for a non-laughing matter). imagine driving 90 MPH into a solid concrete wall, and now imagine driving into it at 90mph, but with a 6" padding in front of that wall.

The problem was that the center was designed by a typical architect, with the typical "looks great in rendering, and on television". We used to joke about stuff like this in architecture school "if it looks like you can hurt yourself on it, then it's a good design". unfortunately, in this case, that became a reality.

I'm pretty dissatisfied with how the whole situation was handled.

Good example. The force with which he struck the poll would be in the thousands of pounds. The human body doesn't take to well to that.

Bob Beamesderfer wrote:Try to imagine being in a deposition or on the witness stand and being asked if any formal meeting was held to instruct those new to the sport what to do or what not do and answering "No, it's not required, so we don't bother."

That's a likely answer that you'll get from Topeka because I got it when asking about something that is at the regions' discretion. Risk Management is much happier when regional event officials use logic and common sense IN ADDITION to the rule book.

From what I've gathered, it seems like it's unanimous that the noobs should have a meeting. What's being debated is whether the veterans need to listen if there's nothing new to present.

Max Hayter on 15 Feb 2010 18:19

Anti-clumpist

The Obama administration has pointed out that a section of the Health Care Reform bill deals specifically with clumping. To wit, "No one shall engage in clumping or conspire to clump until such time as the government issues a ruling as to how it will be controlled and taxed".

The administrations newly appointed Czar of clumping, Monica Lewinsky, has authorized a group to study the issue.

The inventor of clumping, Al Gore, stated emphatically "I did not clump with that woman"! He went on to say that rampant clumping is a leading cause of global warming.

During his acceptance speech for the position of Minister of Transparency, former Vice President Cheney asked that the Department of Homeland Security investigate this group because, in his words, "The intelligence communitiy has found evidence that they may possess weapons of mass destruction and military intervention might be required". He noted that 3rd Marine Division at Camp Pendleton has been placed on alert.

The ACLU is expected to respond shortly.