The following is offered for consideration, development, criticism, and, should anyone care to do so, adoption as a protest.
Under GCR 13.1, any entrant or driver may protest any decision, action, or omission of the Organizers or any official, including the Race Chairman and the Chief Steward. There can be no doubt that the schedule revision is such a decision and action, and the failure to correct it is such an omission as discussed further below. GCR 6.12.1 makes the Race Chairman responsible for the organization of the event. I believe that includes the organizing of the event so that it is as organized as is practicable, that is rationally, equitably and not arbitrarily. Under GCR 6.11.1 and A, "[t]he Chief Steward shall ...[e]xecute the program of competitions and other activities safely...". I believe that includes executing the program as safely as is practicable, given the choices available to him or her under the GCR and the Supps. I respectfully submit that FF and F500 are not the best available combination, given their relatively close, but conflicting, performance characteristics. These give many if not most FF's a performance advantage on longer straights, and, I believe, a majority of F500's a performance advantage in cornering. With a grouping of cars at the track limit (currently 35 and 28, or 61 in total, according to the SCCA website), this poses an undue safety risk which need not be taken, and certainly need not be twice taken, under very competitive qualifying conditions, as demonstrated below. First, FC, with 26 cars (2 less than F500) similarly shown to be entered, presently is, inequitably, not combined over any of the 4 practice and qualifying sessions. I believe that the performance characteristics of FC and FF are at least as well matched as those of FF and F500. With comparable and in many case the same chassis, their cornering characteristics are generally closer, particularly on a tighter track such as Heartland Park, such that their speed differential is more consistent and, therefor, safer. Thus, most FFs should be better matched with the FCs, while some may be better matched with F500s, so that combining FC and FF one time should not be unfair to FF. In considering this reasoning, it should be noted that neither combination (FC/FF or FF/F500) is a favored or disfavored combination under GCR 7.1.3.C. Even more clearly, however, I believe the FF/F500 combination, at the track limit, not once but twice, is not only inequitable, but insupportably arbitrary when either of the combinations of T1 (22 cars) and AS (30 cars), or T1 and T2 (35 cars) is available. Both put fewer cars, with, I believe, more comparable performance characteristics on track together, so that the combinations should be safer combinations. Both also are favored combinations under GCR 7.1.3.F. I would respectfully conclude by requesting that FF/F500 not be combined for qualifying, but, if combined, then combined for no more than one qualifying session (which I would agree should be split into two 10 minute session under Supplementary Regulation 5). Comments? Jack Walbran F500 #67 ________________________________ FormulaCar Magazine - A Proud Supporter of Formula 500 The Official Publication of Junior Formula Car Racing Subscribe Today! www.formulacarmag.com or 519-624-2003 _________________________________ _______________________________________________ F500 mailing list - [email protected] To unsubscribe or change options please visit: http://f500.org/mailman/listinfo/f500 *** Please, DO NOT send unsubscribe requests to the mailing list! ***
