Oct 10/11 Championship Raceweekend

"You're in Good Hands..."

I'm there with ya, J.C.

We find, this year, that any "New" race tracks must be accepted as sanction-able by a sanctioning body that is 'recognized', before ICSCC may allow a member club to apply, through the ICSCC's insurance plan for a spot on the schedule as a sanctioned championship points event. Somehow, even after 50 years ICSCC is not considered 'recognized' as a qualified sanctioning body.

I thank the Lords of the Cosmic Jest that we are such good, friends with SCCA for Team Continental to be able to take advantage (pay for) a brand spankin' new review process for the assessment and acceptance of race facilities for sanctionability with the SCCA, otherwise ICSCC may never be able to race on a "New" track again. An excellent precident being set with that, what?

Time was a factor in all of this last Fall-la-la. And now the potential of drivers being forced to decide between the Labor Day tow up north to Mission, compared with the possibility of a double points race later in the year down south has been eliminated.

So J.C. if you do not feel that you know "Jack" about the workings of the Conference because of your lack of tenure with the organization, that's okay. Because there will be plenty of time to study up in the off-season, lest you feel "Jacked" in future, and not understand why.

When considering the power of the driver votes to make change in ICSCC, consider the average number of drivers that show up to attend the rule change meetings provided at least once a season by your respective club's Comp. Bd. Reps. There's a formula there, I'd say.

Be one more of them voices, will ya? ;)
 
Last edited:
I don't think it should be overlooked that we really did try, at the
sanctioning level, to give TC a break. I think they earned it by
earnestly trying REALLY hard to make this event happen.
It's just that we've run out of time.

Just like me, trying to get ready at
the beginning of this season... I wasn't ready. It stunk.
But that's not a good reason to postpone the first few races,
just for me, is it?

The rules, as they have stood for numerous years, have said that
the schedule must be finalized at the 'spring' (usually late Jan) meeting.
Finalized means done, no 'tenative', no 'maybe'- done.
The e-board waived that cutoff, and has moved it several times since.

Why is this a big deal? Because we, as drivers, define Conference by its rules.
That we make, alter, refine and approve.
The elected and appointed officials then use these rules to do what 'we' want.
It's a bit cumbersome, but very transparent, and it's easy to prevent
someone like Bernie Ecclestone from taking over the club- unless we decide we want a
tyrant, we won't have one. Unless we want a fluid schedule, we won't have one.

What this means is that any exception to the rules has to be done carefully.
The rules are there for safety, guidance, direction and mandate.
To circumvent one runs the risk of others falling by the wayside, and
the club changing AGAINST the will of the drivers. Because, again, we're
a club of race car drivers, race workers, and very generous volunteers.
And really hard- working people who put on really good races. For fun.
The 'executive' board is there to execute the rules, not do whatever they want.
Very much in contrast to the structure of the SCCA.
We're a democratically- run club.

So as a racer, I really wanted to go to ORP. This year.
But as a club member, I don't want to see the structure of this club
pulled apart to make all the exceptions needed at this point to make
this happen. Almost all of our rules are there
for a very good reason, and we've been adjusting and tuning for over 50 years.

I think we need to tread carefully.

That's what I think.

t
 
Read the rules, don't spin them. They're searchable. Search certification.

You have all been spouting that the rules this, the rules that. Read them. Where in the rules exactly? Read 206, 207 and 15.2.1. That's what President Skinner's edict referenced. Wes, it looks like you did read 207. Sanction request at least 45 days in advance. Complied. Was the insurance applied for? TC paid for it.
 
Ken:

>>So J.C. if you do not feel that you know "Jack" about the workings of the Conference because of your lack of tenure with the organization, that's okay. Because there will be plenty of time to study up in the off-season, lest you feel "Jacked" in future, and not understand why.<<

Thank you for your point of view and stating the obvious. Sometimes we all need that.

Your point comes through loud and clear; .............. our involvement and becoming informed is absolutely necessary for this organization to provide the privileges we all enjoy as racers. WE ARE ALL CONFERENCE!

Sometimes the devil's advocacy provides for impetus to define the "real" problem and achieve reasonable solutions. I will endeavor to be part of the solution.

Common sense will always prevail over political intoxication.

J.C.

P.S. Basibol jas ben verry good to me.
 
Holly I understand you are upset, but as I read it the sanction '45 days before the event' means a final sanction, with insurance in hand, which headquarters still does not have. At this point we are under that time frame, correct? If the insurance carrier won't issue their certificate, then what is the E-board to do? Why is our insurance advisor not chiming in here to help expalin the issue more clearly?
I don't want to see hard feelings or enemies made here after all of this work and effort, but it would appear that procedure is being followed, and has been for two years. If you know for a fact the procedure is not being followed, please spell it out so that grievance can be understood by all of us, as it does affect all of us.
 
As i see from the post from the prez, TC will Not be holding a race. After all the work tc has done it is understandable that some deadlines where not met. I know its really nobodys falt, but alot can be said for ORP not getting everything together in time as theres is only so much people can do if no info and supplies are passed on so that the track can be completed. I feel that TC should get at least a couple of weekends next year and should get them early so that Conference can be the first to hold a race, I just came from the open house and the guys at ORP are kickin themselves for not getting everything ready. But TC has put some much effort into this and they should be rewarded for their efforts next year. Confrence should be the first group to hold a championship points race and should not let the other clubs get to it first when the final things are done for the signed certification. Lets be the first before anyone else gets to it, What do ya say guys and gals?
 
Last edited:
I agree Jeff, and I will speak to my E-board rep again this week-end, as I hope others will, about the 2010 scheduling.
 
thanks wes, i hope many others will do the same. The open house was great. I wish there were more confrence guys there. The town and the people that came from all over were extremly excited about there racetrack. Many asked about how they can get involved and how they can help out. We definitly have the support of the community.
 
:confused: Thank You Kevin for your leadership. Now I know what to plan for.

To date I have not heard a response to the very pertinent question put forth by Richard Broadhead which if I am paraphrasing correctly, "why isn't ICSCC as a sanctioning body cerifying it's own tracks?"

Has there been a rule change in the certification process since Port Orford? If not who certified that track? FAA?
 
Gary and others who have asked, I believe that is an excellant question and deserves an answer. I will try to give you an answer to the best of my recollection. There was a committee put together not long ago and the conclusion they came to was that ICSCC does not have the expertise to be able to certifiy a track for purposes of securing insurance and even if we did have the expertise we would not want to exercise it. If you think about it there are huge liability issues with regard to track certification. As everyone knows we are graduating more Attorney's then Doctors or Engineers and they are taught to come up with novel theories for their cases to pursue the deep pocket. ICSCC started the investigation to find someone to certify the track for insurance purposes. Guess what, SCCA does not have certification people in house. They use an outside contractor who is the person conducting the ORP certification process. What does that tell you about the liability issues involved in certifying a track for purposes of securing insurance. If an organization the size of SCCA wants to keep the certification process at arms length then an organization the size of ICSCC has no business certifiying tracks.

To address the Port Orford question:

The analogy that was given to me was that if you built a house in 1989 it was built under a set of zoning regulations and building codes in effect at that time. If you built a house in 2009 it would be built under a different set of updated and more stringent zoning regulations and building codes. That is probably not the best analogy because I believe that the liability issues for track building/use are on a greater scale then building a house, but I think you get the idea. There is no doubt that our idea of exposure to liability issues have increased as time has marched on. Remember the hot coffee spill at McDonald's.

There are probably people out there that have a better and clearer recollection of how this came about and I would ask them to respond, but that is the best I can offer in answer to your questions..
 
After my last post I went out to BBQ some chicken and was just thinken. Or was that BBQen some thinken and .......anyway thanks Dick. My post BBQ thoughts are a perfect follow to your response.

So if I hear you correctly and old certification grandfathers a track forever? Obviously not because SCCA decertified SIR/Pacific. If not....

So who certified the latest Mission changes? Or for that matter what certification is Spokane flying under?

If the liability is driving the whole process that implies (if not states) that the insurance company is ultimately the sanctioning body. If the insurance company has no one in house than they hire or certify the certifier that the race sanctioning body hires. Since liability is the driver then the hired cerifier has to have an insurance underwriter. So then the hired certifier's insurance company does lunch with the racing sanctioning body's insurance company somewhere in the carribean and both figure they don't want the responsibility so they call AIG. AIG underestimates the total payout due to the thousands of deaths due to six year old seat belts and calls.....you guessed it....us.

Sorry for the sarcasm. Good Bye USA it was nice while it lasted.
 
If the liability is driving the whole process that implies (if not states) that the insurance company is ultimately the sanctioning body.
Click to expand...

No. The insurance company looks at the sanctioning body, hires a few people they think
are trustworthy to double- check on things, and then decides whether we are worth the risk.

A lot of what they are looking at is our procedures for things like certifying a new track. Passing rules and guidelines on safety. Enforcing the rules on safety. Etc.

I will bet you a couple of beers that they aren't looking at whether a corner is safe.
Nor whether the accepted harness or cage rules are safe. They're industry- standard,
that's what they're looking for.

The sanctioning body sets the guidelines, the CLUBS do the work,
the insurance just says that the method and the work is worthy
of "x" amount of liability for "y" amount of payment. It's just risk vs. profit, at the end.

And it's pretty arbitrary (otherwise why would planes flying into
buildings make our insurance for driving around in circles on the ground
skyrocket) but... we gotta have it.
It's standard in this society...

And it's one step in many. An important step, but just one.
That's the thing, there are so many hard steps that have been taken here, by so many people,
it's tough to accept that since we're just a few short, we're done for the year.
But in a chain, the links, they all gotta be there...

t
 
Last edited:
Gary
Mission, since it is outside the US is not covered under the ICSCC insurance policy. SCCBC secures equivalent coverage through I believe their association with ASN. The SCCBC club officials can give a more detailed and proper response to this question than I can.

I think you are correct in your assumption that once a track is on the schedule and insured they are grandfathered.

The issue of certification for purposes of securing insurance was not at the forefront of the liability considerations back in the 90's when we started racing at Spokane. As time has passed it has become a huge consideration and one that cannot be ignored. I believe in ICSCC we now have people with more business and liability experience than in the past and they all share a long term concern for ICSCC's long term viability. In today's litigious society the liability issues can no longer be ignored.
 
Folks, the last thing you want to stir is other tracks being grandfathered, unless you want them in jepordy.

Nuts and bolts that havnt been mentioned, not sure why the silence but Oregon and California both have laws on the books about how many tires you can have on a piece of land, getting a haz permit for tires is VERY hard and takes time. The ORP folks are far from stupid and im sure they are working as hard as humanly possible to get those barriers in place. Be patient, be supportive, go the the unsantioned event if you can and help the support their investment.

TC, get someone in the know to speak up so these folks know whats really going on.

PS Buttonwillow and T-Hill ended up using earthen embankments and Armco for barriers, ouch. I want tires.

also, it was my understanding the barn was being shored up as a landmark for the track. cool idea.
 
Last edited:
I just had a brain fart. What if all the clubs built sections of barrier out of tires on open trailers, banded and bolted them together and sprayed them red and white and hauled them down as "manufactured barriers"? Would this get around the "loose tire laws"? ORP could give us ORP bucks to reimburse us for fuel and problem solved. We could attach our club banners to them so track day folk would see our secret society.
 
Last edited:
At the open house, the ORP folks told everyone that they have over 200 tires already at the Les Schwab facility were the uniform size tires are being collected. They even tried to bring the first load out to the track, but the truck being used broke down on the way. ORP has a permit for the tires. It seems that it is taking longer for Les Schwab to collect all of the tires they need than was originally expected. They are using hay bales the size of a minivan as temporary barriers with the blessing of the track inspectors. I understand that they need over 1000 tires for the barriers, so it will be some time before they have enough. They are using a uniform size of tire so that the bundles go together easily. Each tire has to have four drain holes drilled into them so they don't collect water. The individual tires are bolted together into tootsie rolls, then five tootsie rolls are bolted together to make a bundle. These bundles can then be moved via forklift or rolled into place. The bundles are then tied or strapped to the bundles on either side of them to make a wall. It is dirty and time consuming work to build them. I don't know if the ORP folks want a bunch of volunteers out there to do the work or if they have a crew planned. As of the open house, the tires had not arrived at the track. One thing the ORP folks said was that it seems like nothing happens as fast out there as they would like, but it will get done.
 
Thanks Rob

Im not sure if thats good news or bad, if we all knew that six months ago we could have helped to make the race happen.
 
Jason Fiorito still owes a bunch of Seattle track folks a day at the track for spending a solid day building tire bundles for him (in the rain, no less).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top