Seems I've been doing it wrong all these years

[Richard ibrahim]

On my way to the bin with the latest “Motorsports Now!”, I glanced at the only bit ever worth reading – the MSA Judicial hearings.
I had heard that John Surtees had been less than happy about the outcome of a hearing regarding his son Henry – and he commented on the MSA definition of ‘motor racing’ as being beyond his comprehension. When you read the transcript of the hearing, you start to understand what he meant.
Did you know that according to rules you must let someone past if they catch up with you? As quoted at the hearing, the Blue Book states:-
“During a race or practice a car alone on the track may use the full width of the track However, as soon as it is caught by a car which is either temporarily or constantly faster, the driver shall give the other vehicle the right of way”.
Also get this quote –
“driving in a manner which even if unintentionally appears consistently to hinder or discourage another driver seeking to pass may be halted by display of the Black flag or otherwise penalised”
I must confess to being completely ignorant of the wording of these rules as contained in the masterpiece we call the Blue Book, so I have no idea how long they have been like that. If these rules are intended to prevent contact sport (otherwise known as the BTC banger race), then I would wholeheartedly support it – but it is well known that the MSA have turned a blind eye to the BTC Crashfest, in the interests of “public entertainment”. There’s nothing like a bit of consistency, and this is nothing like consistency.
Clearly the outcome of Surtees tribunal was inevitable when interpreted against the loony wording in the Blue Book – but I ask myself, how many of us are even aware of this situation?
I would suggest that “motor racing” would cease to exist if we all complied precisely with the rules “as written”!

[AU N EGL]

No offence Richard, why would you have a problem in allowing a faster car that is lapping you to not pass?? or even a faster car in general?
If there is a car right up in your mirrors, GOD did not put it there. That cars driver did. Let him pass at the next avaible opportunity.

Look at if from the faster cars drivers point of view too? ( he would be thinking " Frick'n SLOW BUGGER, Get out of my way"

Drivers that hold up faster drivers, normally are blue flagged and if necessary black flagged.

[Richard ibrahim]

Au(?) - I have no problem with a car that is lapping me - obviously, let him through at the first opportunity. But if a car is simply behind me, he's there for a reason - I've been quicker! -so why should I not defend my position . I believe it's called Motor Racing. If you read the wording of the Blue Book carefully, it effectively outlaws defending your position and I think that's daft !

[AU N EGL]

Originally Posted by Richard ibrahim

The wording of the Blue Book effectively outlaws defending your position and I think that's daft !

Got you now.

Heck no. If your in the same class, to heck with the guy behind you. Make him work for it

[kelvin88]

I dont think its suggesting you let them past, just that you give them enough room to race you. When i started i remember the rule that, when deffending your line on a straight you may only block once. For example, if your going in to Druids at Brands and a car looks up the inside of you, you can block them. However, if they then choose to go back to the racing line, you can't go with them and, if they wish to try to pass you around the outside of the hairpin, you must give them the room to try. I don't know the specifics of the Surtees incident, this is just my interpretation of the rules.

[Dave Brand]

Originally Posted by Richard ibrahim

Clearly the outcome of Surtees tribunal was inevitable when interpreted against the loony wording in the Blue Book – but I ask myself, how many of us are even aware of this situation?

Have you actually seen the incident in question?

[JimW]

For an earlier discussion on just this see: http://tentenths.com/forum/showthread.php?t=97152

Jim

[GORDON STREETER]

That's interesting, I lost a class win at Brands a few years back because I saw the blue's being waved at the top of paddock as one of the muscle cars was overtaking. It was the last lap and it was nip and tuck and my rival stuck it down the inside. Never again !!!!

[Richard ibrahim]

Originally Posted by kelvin88

I dont think its suggesting you let them past, just that you give them enough room to race you. .

My point is simply regarding the wording of the MSA regulations.
The regulations clearly state that a driver should not "hinder or discourage another driver seeking to pass" and also "the driver shall give the other vehicle the right of way". I think those words unequivocally say that you must let them pass if they want to!
I agree that the rules should say "allow them room" - but it doesn't say that, so it's daft!

[kelvin88]

I dissagree. Not to hinder or discourage is not the same as moving off line and waving them by. I read giving them right of way as not forcing someone to have an accident; i.e running them off the road just because they are not two thirds of the way up the side of your car. I can see how it can be missunderstood though now you have bought it up. Maybe the MSA should look at that. Yeah, right of way is for roundabouts, not race tracks.

[275 GTB-4]

Originally Posted by Richard ibrahim

On my way to the bin with the latest “Motorsports Now!”, I glanced at the only bit ever worth reading – the MSA Judicial hearings.
I had heard that John Surtees had been less than happy about the outcome of a hearing regarding his son Henry – and he commented on the MSA definition of ‘motor racing’ as being beyond his comprehension. When you read the transcript of the hearing, you start to understand what he meant.
Did you know that according to rules you must let someone past if they catch up with you? As quoted at the hearing, the Blue Book states:-
“During a race or practice a car alone on the track may use the full width of the track However, as soon as it is caught by a car which is either temporarily or constantly faster, the driver shall give the other vehicle the right of way”.
Also get this quote –
“driving in a manner which even if unintentionally appears consistently to hinder or discourage another driver seeking to pass may be halted by display of the Black flag or otherwise penalised”
I must confess to being completely ignorant of the wording of these rules as contained in the masterpiece we call the Blue Book, so I have no idea how long they have been like that. If these rules are intended to prevent contact sport (otherwise known as the BTC banger race), then I would wholeheartedly support it – but it is well known that the MSA have turned a blind eye to the BTC Crashfest, in the interests of “public entertainment”. There’s nothing like a bit of consistency, and this is nothing like consistency.
Clearly the outcome of Surtees tribunal was inevitable when interpreted against the loony wording in the Blue Book – but I ask myself, how many of us are even aware of this situation?
I would suggest that “motor racing” would cease to exist if we all complied precisely with the rules “as written”!

Richard....we use the same words over here in the colonies....I think eveybody inderstands the intent...and speaking as a Marshal...if I see someone consistentently making their car wider than it actually is...I will Blue flag or if bad enough call it in to Race Control...Cheers, Mick

[Richard ibrahim]

Hi Mick,
You're right - I think we all understand the intent, but that doesn't answer the problem with the wording. Unfortunately, incorrect wording means that the regulation can be inappropriately used to penalise someone who shouldn't be.
Personally, I have the greatest respect for John Surtees, a more grounded and sensible man would be hard to find, and I believe he was quite an accomplished and highly rated racing driver ! If he thinks the MSA have got it wrong - that's good enough for me!
Also, being from Oz, you will be familiar with another highly respected driver, namely Black Jack Brabham, who was famous for his "extendable wheels" policy - perhaps you could explain to him that he was out of order and should have his World Championship status withdrawn!

[Chris Y]

"Right of way" doesn't mean you have to let them past - it just means you can't use all of the track if they're next to you..

.. i.e. you can't run them off the track..

.. which is something a few drivers I've encountered could well do with remembering!

[graeme]

I've read this reg many times before and agree to seems to prevent actual racing. I guess it's rarely used - the Surtees incident being a noteable exception, although a brief read of the report does sound like he was weaving... My defence (if I was defnding - not weaving) would be along the lines of "I did let him past on the outside but he chose not to complete the manourve"... But perhaps it sould be changed to something that reflects what happens on the race track - "one defensive move, no weaving"? - it's a bit like the slippery surafce flag thread elsewhere - we all (most?) know it means slightly different things to the BB but the BB should reflect what actually happens on track.

[JimW]

Originally Posted by graeme

But perhaps it sould be changed to something that reflects what happens on the race track - "one defensive move, no weaving"? - it's a bit like the slippery surafce flag thread elsewhere - we all (most?) know it means slightly different things to the BB but the BB should reflect what actually happens on track.

Are you arguing that the regs should be changed to reflect what happens (sometimes) on track?

In that case we would make legitimate the driving standards(!) of the BTCC. Surely you don't mean that?

Jim

[graeme]

No, no! But when a quicker car that I'm racing against catches me (it sometimes happens ) I don't move over and let him by - I make it as difficult as possible for him to get past and stay in front, without weaving, being unfair or encouraging contact. The BB should reflect this as the norm. BTCC should do the same - and penalise intentional contact - or get their own set of rules that say contact is allowed/encouraged, so that people aren't confused between the two.

[Al Weyman]

I think the reg is sound enough and probably put there because of the looney BTCC to differentiate between them and us 'proper' racers. I have no problem holding my line or if the guy is obviously much quicker and was behind me because of some qualifing dilemma or spun off yes I would give him some room, coward maybe but I would prefer to take it home in one piece than risk taking us both out. I did say in another thread that the black can be waived even if you are in front and not being lapped and as I recollect someone pulled me on that but it appears I was correct as thats how I have always read it.

[Richard ibrahim]

Originally Posted by Chris Y

"Right of way" doesn't mean you have to let them past - it just means you can't use all of the track if they're next to you..
.. i.e. you can't run them off the track..
.. which is something a few drivers I've encountered could well do with remembering!

Chris, I agree with your sentiments 100%, but unfortunately "Right of Way", in anyones language, does actually mean that you have to yield. e.g at a roundabout on the public road, or on a footpath etc.
I quote the Collins Dictionary definition :-
"right of way - the right of one vehicle or vessel to take precedence over another, as laid down by law or custom."

I think we would be better served by the MSA if they reworded this regulation.

By the way, yes - the verdict on the Surtees incident was probably right, but that does not make the regulation wording right!