Warm off the presses. SCCA re-defines a DNF and finisher

Ken Killam

Ken Killam

Fats
"Effective Immediately: In section 5.10.4.B.3, change the language as follows:

A DNF is defined as a car that did not complete the required number of laps to be a finisher (half the number of laps completed by the overall class leader, rounded down to the nearest whole integer.” Additionally, for classes with only one starter, a DNF is defined as a car that did not finish half of the number of laps completed by the overall leader. A DNS is defined as any car that turned a wheel on the track during practice or qualifying, bud did not start the race. See 6.10.3.A

Effective Immediately: In section 6.10.3.A, change the language as follows:

A race finisher is a car that completes half the distance of the class winner of the race, or half the official time for timed events. Additionally, for classes with only one starter, that car must finish half the number of laps completed by the overall leader to be a race finisher. Enduro events should define a finisher in the enduro supplemental regulations. If the race is an uneven number of laps, divide the winner’s laps in half and round down to the nearest whole integer. A car has 5 minutes after the checkered flag to complete its current lap."

FYI-wise speaking.
 
What the heck is different? I've always thought half the distance was required to be considered a finisher AND running at the end then just 'down' X laps.
 
It used to say that, in order to finish, a car had to make half the laps of the overall leader, regardless of the class. Now it measures that specific to each class.

Unless there is only one car entered in that class and then the rule reverts back to half of the overall leader's laps..
 
Scoring trumps reality.

One of the aspects of the Conference, that I've always enjoyed is that common thread, or mentality among the drivers is that the ultimate goal is to accomplish the feat. Get over the line for the checkered flag. Running.

Same game all around. I'd like to think that it is one of the earliest ideological fundamentals that motivated those that migrated, founding the Conference considered. Something that set these clubs apart from the SCCA POV.

Used ta was... that's what the enduros were. You broke, you fixed it where they (we) put you safe. And the guy that broke it (current driver) was responsible for fixing it, or you didn't finish. I watched some amazing feats of endurance and ingenuity to get cars back in the game. I've heard of even more. <sigh>

Safety thru 11.jpg

But a lot of people pay a lot of money to simply get their race car to the track, so the odds of some modicum of success manipulates that ideology to accomodate. Everybody wants something to show for the trying, ya know?

Marketing the bang for your buck. We'll be putting out the pace car, and safety vehicles to bring each car back to the paddock, so they don't feel 'left out' or abandoned in an unsafe locations (because that's happened... NEVER). And of course, so the driver isn't required to possess many mechanical/electrical skills. Yep. Just one big long HPDE session.

A season finale. Use it up to replace it in the off season. No guts. No glory.

The Two-hour Mini-Enduro that Chris Heinrich cooked up was a nice 'fini' to that bunch of special races.

I hope it's on the menu for 2014.
 
Last edited:
Are we just a hop and a skip from "participation trophies?" Maybe Mommy was right and I really am "a special flower." :gag:

This isn't vintage racing. Pretty much any racecar today, even a purpose-built one, is vastly more reliable than its equivalent back when a rule change like the one described wouldn't even have been considered. If your car fails to finish as a rarity, then that's racing. If it regularly fails to finish, either you're not maintaining your equipment very well or you might be pushing the envelope a bit too far. In either of these latter cases, you've made a choice and should have to live with its risks.
 
Last edited:
Sure - lets put some lipstick on this pig and trot it out one more time and giggle like schoolgirls about "participation trophies".

Just to have the opportunity to drive a race car in a Conference event requires so much more than "participation". The amount of time, effort, and money (a token used in free market capitalism that represents the current value of the aforementioned "time" and "effort") to put on the helmet for that first novice race is pretty significant.

Lets just "call a spade a spade" and say that WINNING a race is often as much about application of cash as it is application of talent and even when achieved earns something that looks suspiciously like a "participation trophy" only smaller. Being classed a finisher or even winning a Conference race is fun and satisfying to our recreational need for competition, but lets make sure we don't start viewing it like it guarantees entrance to the Motorsports Hall of Fame and needs to be defended against those eager to cheapen the accomplishment by just participating!

There is one sensible argument here. If someone is willing to pay to fuel up what is likely to be a fairly inefficient tow vehicle, hook it to a trailer, spend time prepping a race car and loading it on a trailer, drag their car 5 or 500 miles to a race track, pay race entry fees, hang out with their racing friends, and then break their car one lap shy of half the completed distance of the race winner they should get more points than somebody like me who just didn't show up to race at all.

And what is at stake in this misguided and sanctimonious desire to preserve the purity and moral rectitude of having to finish just more than half the laps instead of just less? The difference between 3 dnf points and whatever the points for "last" are. On top of it all, the decision to award points FOR ANY CRITERIA was made by some group of people in a pretty arbitrary fashion. If we are really so ridiculously dedicated to defending the sanctity of being included in the finishing order, why not say 5/8ths or 3/4s of a race to be considered a finisher? How about anybody lapped gets no points or anybody more than 60 seconds back from the leader of their class? Heck, as long as we are willing to go crazy lets just go straight to stupid - only the class winner EVER gets a single point and everyone else is just a pathetic participant. There - happy? Easy to decide who gets trophies at the end of the year and leaves no doubt about whether the recipients are "worthy".

More participation helps support the financial well being of the member clubs and creates the possibility for races to be held in the future. Not taking all reasonable opportunities to incentivize drivers to attend races in the second half of the year because they didn't get eliminated from season contention by early DNFs simply cuts your own throats if you want a place to race your cars in the future. Drivers have gotten a little spoiled with all of the potential racing organizations and venues available to them, but if drivers spread out among those opportunities and attendance goes down at individual events if is very easy for those opportunities to disappear.
 
I wore the t-shirt. "The race is it's own reward." Found it at Goodwill, or Salvation Army or such a very long time ago.

It was a Nike ad slogan, stolen of course, from of the "Virtue is it's own reward" quote. But it carried the same sentiment of motivation for myself, and many other simple volunteers who's participation focused on the execution of motorsporting events,. The T-shirt wore out before I did.

Maybe not by much.

There are challenges in both the accomplishment and the endeavor. It's up to the participant to decide how their motivation to succeed is stimulated. Is it pride? Is it ego? Or is it simply the satisfaction of following through with a plan aimed at success? The answer can be yes to all of the above. So then we, "Just Do It!"
 
Rick, I imagine you're in a pretty pissy mood due to the theft of your racecar and trailer, but let's try to avoid casting aspersions toward people with a different perspective than you.

The point of racing at our level, where there's no money to be won and not really any accolades, is far more about the doing of it than the winning. But we're talking about FINISHING here. If your car is unable to FINISH the race, then you DID NOT FINISH. Remember, "DNF," the point of this discussion? Awarding points for failing to do the basic function of driving from the green flag to the checkered is like awarding partial points for at least attempting the field goal: Either you make it or you don't.

(I don't like the idea of awarding single points for a DNS, either.)

I've had DNFs and gotten the 3 points. I've had DNSs and gotten the single point. I've towed all the way to Portland and Spokane and gotten DNS/DNF results, and towed to Mission and had to bail before even turning a wheel. It sucked, but mechanical preparation and building a car within its tolerances is as much part of racing as the actual driving.

You want to AWARD points to encourage participation. I would rather REWARD performance with points.
 
P.S.
There's no reason why ICSCC must change it's definition of finishing a race. This is not a class defining issue.

If Ken wants to keep his own score card that's fine :)
 
Score card? What score card, Richard? I just read the books so that I can stay current with the winds of change. Change that is (even in the SCCA) manipulated by the driving participants. That way, I can play the same game on the field regardless of sanction. That's racing.

If I was keeping score, I'd be putting 'strap', 'hook' and 'flame' decals on the door of Safety Light.

Which isn't a bad idea, BTW. I'll consider it for my next iteration.

1993 f150 lft side.jpg

Being updated and configured as we speak

Soon it should be a cool as DW's Dodge.
 
My only issue with "crossing S/F after the checker" is not all tracks are set up to do that without polluting the track.
Mission, Pacific, PIR, and Spokane to some extent, have a place to sit in hot pits and do a short "over the line" and get into the paddock.
ORP, and The Ridge not so much.
The driver of a sick car does need to ask "Is it worth 2 points to drive a car without coolant, or brakes, or .... "
And if the car stops on track during that exercise it causes a delay while they get towed off track and a possible clean up.

But heck I'm not likely to need 2 points that much these days ;)
 
Taking the checkers is one definition of a finish, a simple preference by some. For others, including the single biggest racing sanctioning body in the world, it is not. Points awards structures are all over the board. There is no one inviolate definition, like it or not.
 
We discussed this a few years back, and as usual the consensus was that 'participation trophies and points' is not what racing is about. Finish the damn race and get maximum points, or break, spin, crash or ? and get the points you deserve by the rules voted on by the majority many years ago.
We all pay the necessary bounty to prep, tow, enter, drive and hopefully finish. If one driver burns up 30 minutes of fuel, tires and wear and tear on suspension and engine, while the other guy breaks or drops out at half distance or less, then why would that driver receive anywhere near the points given to actual finishers? I have read the lip service given to race costs, per mile, per lap, etc. for years now, so it is either one or the other.
This isn't a liberal school yard, and we aren't anywhere near handing out trophies for just showing up - are we?
 
Ken Killam said:
......Change that is (even in the SCCA) manipulated by the driving participants......
Click to expand...

That is WAY FAR from true, Ken. Changes in SCCA are generally driven by Advisory Panels, 'special interest groups', theoretical experts or even vendors in a particular class. NOT necessarily made up of drivers at all. The SCCA rule change process is far more complicated then ICSCC and generally, the first time 'front line' drivers hear about changes is when they are published in Fast Track. At that point (in general) it's way too late to do anything about it (with a few exceptions).
 
Last edited:
The world has changed, Richard. For the better in many cases.

The Fast Tracks that I'm reading contain information in the minutes that include very much input from individuals that care to put it in writing and send it. They request input for certain concerns also.

Other driver input as it's put through the Regional Boards and Stewards probably gets filtered a bit, but that's nothing different than Conference. The minutes show constant changes all year and not just a one time a year thing. Do you really believe that there's just some committees sitting around a table making this stuff up? I can't, and you shouldn't believe that the SCCA hires these people from some race-consulting firm? They are made up of volunteers, and selected by their applicable backgrounds. Those backgrounds usually being drivers, Richard. Think about it. Where else would these people come from? Wall Street?

Go to www.scca.com and look up the .pdfs for the GCR. You'll find current and archived Fast Tracks there too. Look how many times that the GCR is edited through the season. A little here and a little there can be frustrating for drivers, but that's why there's a Fast Tracks newsletter. SCCA has a whole lot more voices to hear than ICSCC. Covering more than just 5 clubs with <5% of the membership even caring about rules or doing anything about them.

Once a year.

So if someone feels that it's too late to 'do' anything about a rule, then it's probably because you weren't paying attention in the first place. Fast Track comes out each and every month and is available on-line. Or you can even have it delivered to your email inbox. You don't have to be anyone special, just a member.

If I sound snippy, it's because of the continued propogation of second hand and un-substantiated 'facts' slamming every aspect of SCCA's operations. When most of it has more to do with the local disdain than any national viewpoint. Once hated, always hated. It becomes annoying.

The SCCA is made up of the same kind of people that make up the Conference. Racers. Most of them can read. Some of them do.

It can be very enlightening.
 
Last edited:
Still don't agree - never did, never will. I am grumpy about the loss of a racecar and attendant destruction of my trailer, but I have made this point with no less emphasis in the past when that wasn't the case.

And applying yet ANOTHER coating of lipstick over the load you have already applied to that pig is just making it look whorish. I get that people have strong "feelings" about the subject, it just doesn't address the logical points offered. I respect both your opinion and your right to have it - but my points are logical ones that aren't addressed by your feelings.

1) We are creating a dangerous situation and harm to the competitive environment when we urge people to take wounded cars back onto the circuit in a quest to complete half the laps of the leader. Why is it that everybody jumps on board with mandating new safety measures with no proven statistical need but ignore obvious areas of danger because of emotion?
2) Not all failures are a result of poor preparation, decision making, or planning. Sometimes things just break.
3) Whatever standard is currently used, was used in the past, or might be used in the future is ARBITRARY. There is no right or wrong, just something that was decided at some point by a group of people.
4) The point system we currently have has been changed more than once. It was not engraved on stone tablets and delivered by the patron saint of motorsports so it has no unquestionable historical validity.
5) The most important job of any motorsports sanctioning body is to survive to put on more races. Decisions need to be made with this as a primary consideration - it is the unwritten mandate of the members.

In the end - it is all reasonably pointless because I'm betting it would have affected very few end of year positions over the last decade anyway. Your whole point is "lets punish people who can't meet our definition of a finish". It's fine that you have that opinion, it just will never make a lick of sense to me. Grumpy or not.
 
Clearly, Rick, you are approaching this issue from that of a race organizer and NOT that of a racer. Yes, the awarding of different numbers of points for different positions is completely arbitrary and is, as Randy pointed out, different for different sanctioning bodies. Yes, things break that have nothing to do with prep. But we were talking about how many points should be awarded to someone in a fast car who doesn't actually finish the race as being essentially no different from someone who actually DOES finish the race but much more slowly. They've both run the same number of laps, so they both get the same points. Except one of them actually finished the race and the other didn't.

How is that fair, exactly? You and Randy seem to come from the perspective of not wanting to discourage the racer who tried but failed, but what about the person who had just as much commitment to racing but actually completed the "task" of racing the whole race? Racing is, at its core, a competition, but your system seems to kick that right in the teeth.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top