One car, No PAX, pay to play championship.

[See23]

...you would also need motivation to deal with issues of safety, insurance, fairness etc. but the response on this thread, as appreciative of the input as I am, seems to be limited to a few who we don't see at events as much as we used to.

I do believe this needs to "END" and I can live with that.

Please don't quote me.

[angryturtle]

Please don't quote me.

OK.

[Brain]

Please don't quote me.

OK.

But what if I quote Ron?

Please don't quote me.

Changed my mind. Turns out I don't listen.

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

Yup. Only my opinion matters. It's all about me being right. Oh wait....I've actually given factual reasons why it can't happen. So far your argument is......it would be fun?

I'm not easily offended by a good internet debate, but seems like we're getting close to making this personal. Anything you need to get off your chest? Maybe you just need a hug?

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. ?

Intent of the rule is irrelevant once lawyers are involved. In the example I gave the liability would stand. The club would be condoning/allowing something against the rules which could easily be a contributing factor to an accident. It's not a new concept that insurance companies prefer to place blame elsewhere instead of writing a cheque.

[See23]

Issues.....because I'm that guy

Liability for the car owner considering a $500 car isn't likely to be particularly safe and multiple people driving it.

Liability for the club for the same reason.

$500 car actually costs $560 after taxes. Then whoever wins it will also have to pay 12% GST and PST to assume ownership.

Who's responsible for the tow bill and disposal when the motor blows up or whatever?

Who's going to pay to insure the car at say $90/mo for 5 months?

I doubt even 10 people will sign up - only about 5 people really have a hope. For most people it would just be throwing away $100

Counting first run pretty much eliminates anyone involved in course setup since that would be considered an unfair advantage.

Cheap junk tires are too noisy. Decent tires cost money (even used)

I'm sure I can come up with more if I thought about it for more than 5 minutes...... sorry

This is the reply that started this mess.
Seems like a pretty one sided slam on an idea to make things more fun and interesting. An idea that's been kicked around for years. An idea I hoped to have a friendly discussion over.
Excuse me if I don't feel like your approach was was neither positive or helpful.
You make it a habit of "brutality dissecting" people's post to the point where replying becomes a unappealing career option. No wonder people are reluctant or even afraid to post.
No, I don't pick through the rules like a lawyer OR an accountant, but no matter how bad my Christmas may have been I don't belittle people or their ideas on a public forum.

[5centSi]

It's all a mess and even-sided because there's positive and negative ideas and comments, so it balances out?

And I'm not afraid to post...

I like angryturtle's

haven't you ever heard of the underground,

.
Well, it makes sense.

It seems the real issue in competing with one car, is to compare the driving abilities among the Top Guns. SO, that narrows down the number of drivers considerably. The underground is the good ol'days dragging on the back-40 highway, or racing cat and mouse, or...
Somehow, a venue, time and car all need to align for the underground. A few drivers autox one car and have fun. Where do you find a venue for this? How do you reduce the liablity and risk among the drivers? Those 2 items are always in the background and a problem.

But here's an 'idea', and it happened at VCMC. A donor dealership for a specific vehicle company, premier a new sports car and allows some drivers to take it for a spin on the course. Sound familiar? The FR-S. So, maybe more of that can happen? Good advertisement for everyone involved, and great racing fun! This probably wouldn't occur in our area, but to have all the top drivers, either by their standings, or abilites through the years, allowed to have an event like this appears to be as close to underground and meeting 'Rules' and 'liability' as can possibly be. To make it more 'even' and help meet the 'rules', have 2 or 3 of the exact same vehicle, mileage and tires, to meet whatever rules between drivers, time between drivers, etc., all race for Top Gun! Now that seems to reduces the liability issue at the autox event already sanctioned, and it seems to meet the original ideas and criteria of this post.

Like I said, it's just an 'idea', I'm not knowledegable about all the 'rules' and 'liabilities'...just keep the posts on this topic going in a positive direction.

[angryturtle]

With regards to the "one car two drivers rule" is the rule different at VCMC? I seem to recall a certain red CSP Miata that had 4 drivers for a few years.

[See23]

With regards to the "one car two drivers rule" is the rule different at VCMC? I seem to recall a certain red CSP Miata that had 4 drivers for a few years.

That's a great point!
Which suggests that the rule has to do with competition rather then insurance... or at least that's the way VCMC and that certain Miata owner interpreted it.

[Brain]

Here I go dissecting posts again. What an egotistical asshole.

Or maybe I'm just trying to keep the forum accurate and share what I know. Not a lot of point in spreading misinformation.

There might not be a lot of people that post, but I think most of the local members read it at some point. Case in point the thread Bailey made a few days ago - "New Year" - only has 2 posts and it's been viewed 29 times already. Why should I let an idea grow when there's no legal way the club can allow it to happen?

This is the reply that started this mess.
Seems like a pretty one sided slam on an idea to make things more fun and interesting. An idea that's been kicked around for years. An idea I hoped to have a friendly discussion over.

I gave you reasons. I even used smiley face, sad face, and in true Canadian fashion said I was sorry. You act like I said "Your idea is stupid it's never going to happen because I said so" .....after which I promptly kicked your hat into a puddle.

Excuse me if I don't feel like your approach was was neither positive or helpful.

Now I'm just repeating myself, but the rules say no. How am I supposed to make that positive?

No, I don't pick through the rules like a lawyer OR an accountant, but no matter how bad my Christmas may have been I don't belittle people or their ideas on a public forum.

But I do recall you belittling people about course design, how the club runs events, too many runs, not enough runs, etc. Oh and lets not forget belittling the course workers for moving too slowly. Seems slightly hypocritical no? Welcome to the internet......if you're going to give it you have to be able to take it.......

And I'm not afraid to post...

Good for you Vince

The VCMC Scion event was a very different strategy though. A few quick facts. The cars were provided by the manufacturer, not a dealership. The Scion part of the event was run under their (Scion's) insurance as a "test drive" event. You might recall we had to sign a separate waiver. They also required that all stability control and traction control nannies remained on and a Scion representative was always in the passenger seat.

Related to Ron' recently mentioning rental cars - I remember Glenn won an FRS for a week for winning that event. He actually came to a Kelowna race with it and he and I co-drove Char's car because he was given the FRS under a rental contract......which ironically said he couldn't race the car.

With regards to the "one car two drivers rule" is the rule different at VCMC? I seem to recall a certain red CSP Miata that had 4 drivers for a few years.

VCMC is the same rules. Off the top of my head most everybody in BC is under the same umbrella except some of the Corvette clubs. Unfortunately you've been led astray by an incorrect post in this thread. As I stated early in the thread the rule is maximum 4 drivers per car - maximum of two drivers per class.

Which suggests that the rule has to do with competition rather then insurance... or at least that's the way VCMC and that certain Miata owner interpreted it.

The "certain" Miata owner? Wait who owns that car? Oh that's right I do. You don't think someone might have protested all the Mazda money and Hoosiers we've won over the years if we were breaking the rules? Hell Jim even won Canadian Nationals in that car. No protests? Must not have been any lawyers or accountants present to read the rules. Seems like you're just trying to make this personal.........good luck - I don't take internet trolls seriously

[riceracer]

Well I guess if it is important then we need to look for a way through the rules to make everything legal; to do this we would need 5-6 of the exact same car, so that would require 5-6 people to buy the same car then have co drivers in order to satisfy the rules. Then we would get the required 5 mins between runs and we can have 4 drivers per car but in 2 different classes and then not worry about pax time but rather raw time See problem solved you can all thank me later

Awaiting Brian to tell me how it was a bad idea

[Brain]

See problem solved you can all thank me later

Awaiting Brian to tell me how it was a bad idea

Thanks Matt

That scenario would indeed be 100% legal. See positive reinforcement

Just for fun though ......we could argue about the fact that it's still not a fully equal comparison since the "same" car doesn't necessarily mean they are the "same". I'm kidding ............. maybe