Okanagan Autocross

What's up Brain?
Santa not good to you?

What rules?
What insurance?

Can anyone not bring an uninsured car on a trailer to race and let anyone who has entered the event and signed the waiver drive that car?

If the car meets the standards of the rules and the driver and driving are within the rules, what's the problem?

I'd be careful about saying that the guy who set up the course has an advantage BTW.

I'll be off the forum for a week so have at kids.

Clearly you're bored, but since I have nothing better to do.....

See23 wrote:What's up Brain?
Santa not good to you?

No - Xmas sucked and so has pretty much everything else about his year. But thanks for asking......

See23 wrote:What rules?

The ones you've apparently never read.

See23 wrote:What insurance?

The insurance the club holds that allows us to race. What? You thought I was talking about my dental insurance?

See23 wrote:Can anyone not bring an uninsured car on a trailer to race and let anyone who has entered the event and signed the waiver drive that car?

I'm not talking about the insurance on the car. It's clearly stated that ICBC insurance is not valid during autocross. So yes - an uninsured car can be raced. But no - it's not so simple as anyone can drive it......there's those rules things that come into play

See23 wrote:If the car meets the standards of the rules and the driver and driving are within the rules, what's the problem?

The rules say that a car can only be entered in a maximum of two classes with a maximum of 2 drivers per class. Rules also say a minimum of 5 minutes between runs for a car. So random driver in your $500 piece of junk is the tenth driver in a row in that car. He hits a lamp post and hurts himself. Now he can't go to work and wants to sue somebody. Argument will stand that the accident was caused by the tires being overheated because too many drivers in the car and not enough time between runs.
That's just one scenario of many that come to mind. In all the scenarios we - as in the club, the registered car owner, the organizers, anyone who worked on the car and in general the future of racing - all lose.

See23 wrote:I'd be careful about saying that the guy who set up the course has an advantage BTW.

Why? Most people think it gives me an advantage anyway. Hard to argue that it wouldn't be an advantage when counting only first runs.

See23 wrote:I'll be off the forum for a week so have at kids.

I look forward to your return

There it is again.
Another post brutally dissected.
Nothing helpful.
All negative.

We are in a sport where any unknown jackass in a car, with God only knows what parts on the brink of failure and the ability to sign a waiver...

...forget it. I can't be bothered...

The pathetic number of responses to this thread says to me your right about one thing; there's no way we could get 10 people in on this.

THE END

See23 wrote:Another post brutally dissected.

I thought he was rather gentle.

angryturtle wrote:

See23 wrote:Another post brutally dissected.

I thought he was rather gentle.

Really? Maybe he's off his game?
Brain does it often and usually does it well.
I'm sure "brutally dissected" would be taken as a compliment.

How do you do it anyways? That's some talented boardome relief!

[quote="Brain"]The rules say that a car can only be entered in a maximum of two classes with a maximum of 2 drivers per class. Rules also say a minimum of 5 minutes between runs for a car. So random driver in your $500 piece of junk is the tenth driver in a row in that car. He hits a lamp post and hurts himself. Now he can't go to work and wants to sue somebody. Argument will stand that the accident was caused by the tires being overheated because too many drivers in the car and not enough time between runs.
That's just one scenario of many that come to mind. In all the scenarios we - as in the club, the registered car owner, the organizers, anyone who worked on the car and in general the future of racing - all lose.

I think the idea would be fun and interesting. Getting to see how everyone drives the car in their way.

A simple fix to the problem of the car getting run to the ground, is to limit the times its used per afternoon. So instead of it being constantly driven over and over again, it could be used 2-3 times each by a different person separated by the required time you stated. And isn't there a part of the waiver that signs off that only the driver can be blamed for their injuries if such a crash was to happen?

See23 wrote:There it is again.
Another post brutally dissected.

So you'd rather I didn't answer your questions?

See23 wrote:Nothing helpful.
All negative.

The answer is "no". Not according to me, but according to the rules. How exactly do I not be negative? I'm positive the answer is no? See I used the word positive.....

See23 wrote:We are in a sport where any unknown jackass in a car, with God only knows what parts on the brink of failure and the ability to sign a waiver...

Yes, but you do see the difference in liability right? Said jackass is providing the vehicle and they are signing the tech sheet saying the vehicle is safe. That's very different than a vehicle being provided to them where the owner and the club could be held responsible for the safety of the vehicle.

baiiva71 wrote:I think the idea would be fun and interesting. Getting to see how everyone drives the car in their way.

I'm not disputing it wouldn't be fun. That was my point about putting a jump in the middle of the course. Just because it might be fun doesn't mean we're allowed to do it.

baiiva71 wrote:A simple fix to the problem of the car getting run to the ground, is to limit the times its used per afternoon. So instead of it being constantly driven over and over again, it could be used 2-3 times each by a different person separated by the required time you stated. And isn't there a part of the waiver that signs off that only the driver can be blamed for their injuries if such a crash was to happen?

See above. The liability is very different when the car is being provided to the driver.

Brain wrote: That was my point about putting a jump in the middle of the course. Just because it might be fun doesn't mean we're allowed to do it.

I believe even the jump in the X Games was taken out because one guy cased it.

I think a figure 8 track where the cars cross in the middle would be fun too. Wasn't that called "Smash-Up Derby". Haven't seen it on TV since I was a kid.

I heard of some guys from VCMC renting a car for the weekend, put some decent tires on it and took turns racing it. Did you even here of that Brian?

angryturtle wrote:I heard of some guys from VCMC renting a car for the weekend, put some decent tires on it and took turns racing it. Did you even here of that Brian?

I've heard/seen similar scenarios. Cars on D-Plates, borrowed, company vehicles, rentals, etc. That's not an issue from the club perspective as long as the car and number of drivers etc is within the rules. It's not required that the club verify ownership - obviously some cars (open wheel, home built, etc) don't have any form of registration to verify. I don't imagine the rental company would be very sympathetic though if the car was damaged during an autocross....

I was kinda hoping this would just end.,,

When you refer to the 'one car, two driver' rule I would THINK that has more to do with competition rules rather then safety or club insurance. ?

in any case there seems to be only one opinion that matters so It's a pointless discussion.