steve kramer wrote:I assume that the cars that passed u had radios and crew was yelling "green". That does not excuse failure to properly follow split start procedure. Maybe there should not be split starts without second pace cars?

Assuming this is true, maybe SCCA should consider the role played by folks on the other end of the radio. They have the power to really muck up a race (and impact safety), yet they don't need to pass any tests nor are they subject to penalties of any kind. What if radio spotters were prohibited from calling a green flag?

There was a mandatory drivers meeting in which it was agreed that there would be a split grid, 1 green, and a very small gap between SRF and SRF3. The person running the mandatory drivers meeting asked the SRF pole sitter if he wanted a split start and it became clear he was not at the mandatory drivers meeting, so the pole sitter left a huge gap.
A split start needs two green flags and two pace cars. Not 2 greens and 1 pace car or 1 green and a "gap."

From the GCR, Page 19:
2.2.2. Driver and Entrant Responsible for Crew
The driver and entrant are responsible for the conduct of their crew at all
times during an event, including a crew member’s violation of the GCR or
the Supplemental Regulations. For the purpose of this section, an event
begins when registration opens and ends when the driver, entrant, and all
crew members from that team have left the track property at the conclu-
sion of the event.

Greg-Cirillo wrote:

steve kramer wrote:I assume that the cars that passed u had radios and crew was yelling "green". That does not excuse failure to properly follow split start procedure. Maybe there should not be split starts without second pace cars?

Assuming this is true, maybe SCCA should consider the role played by folks on the other end of the radio. They have the power to really muck up a race (and impact safety), yet they don't need to pass any tests nor are they subject to penalties of any kind. What if radio spotters were prohibited from calling a green flag?

Was there supposed to be a split start or a gaped start? The former doesn't require a second pace car. The latter is a single green flag start. The failure appears to be the SRF pole sitter not adhering to instructions.

Specracer17 wrote:There was a mandatory drivers meeting in which it was agreed that there would be a split grid, 1 green, and a very small gap between SRF and SRF3. The person running the mandatory drivers meeting asked the SRF pole sitter if he wanted a split start and it became clear he was not at the mandatory drivers meeting, so the pole sitter left a huge gap.
A split start needs two green flags and two pace cars. Not 2 greens and 1 pace car or 1 green and a "gap."

Peter Olivola wrote:Was there supposed to be a split start or a gaped start? The former doesn't require a second pace car. The latter is a single green flag start. The failure appears to be the SRF pole sitter not adhering to instructions.

Specracer17 wrote:There was a mandatory drivers meeting in which it was agreed that there would be a split grid, 1 green, and a very small gap between SRF and SRF3. The person running the mandatory drivers meeting asked the SRF pole sitter if he wanted a split start and it became clear he was not at the mandatory drivers meeting, so the pole sitter left a huge gap.
A split start needs two green flags and two pace cars. Not 2 greens and 1 pace car or 1 green and a "gap."

But, if it was truly a gapped start, with one green flag, then when the green flag flew, all the yellows should have come down.

And not to beat it to death, but if drivers can agree to a gapped start, why not just agree to grid Gen 2 behind all Gen 3s and start as one group?

I was in the the Road Atl race on Sat.
My suggestion is No split start without a pace car.
My team shares radio frequencies. When they call green for 3's I go as others in front also go.
If we use combined grid 2 things need to be enforced. Back of the 3 grid drivers need to understand fast 2's are at the front of their group. Sorry to say all combined starts will be rough on everybody.
To me the major issue is after the start a slower 3 needs to live with the fact that a group of 2's will catch the slower 3's. My message is if your a 3 and and you see a group of 2's and you don't see other 3's, move over and the 2's will pass etc.
Now, the slower 2's face the same situation. If you see a lot of 3's, let them by and even if you have to slow, it's the proper thing to do.
The Stewards suggest my solution to the mixed class problem. I wish everybody would follow the rules.It's OK to point by a faster car.
Now, the next problem. During a full course yellow catch the leader in a safe manner and STAY TIGHT. A great race can be spoiled by one car hanging back.
I know I have to mention what the overall leader need to do during a FCY. Maintain a slow pace and allow the field to catch up.
I know a lot of what I suggest is common sense. We all know that at the green and during the race, a lot of us seem to forget common sense.

Greg-Cirillo wrote:

Peter Olivola wrote:Was there supposed to be a split start or a gaped start? The former doesn't require a second pace car. The latter is a single green flag start. The failure appears to be the SRF pole sitter not adhering to instructions.

Specracer17 wrote:There was a mandatory drivers meeting in which it was agreed that there would be a split grid, 1 green, and a very small gap between SRF and SRF3. The person running the mandatory drivers meeting asked the SRF pole sitter if he wanted a split start and it became clear he was not at the mandatory drivers meeting, so the pole sitter left a huge gap.
A split start needs two green flags and two pace cars. Not 2 greens and 1 pace car or 1 green and a "gap."

But, if it was truly a gapped start, with one green flag, then when the green flag flew, all the yellows should have come down.

And not to beat it to death, but if drivers can agree to a gapped start, why not just agree to grid Gen 2 behind all Gen 3s and start as one group?

You are correct that the yellows would have come down in a "properly" gapped start. I think we confused the corner workers by not behaving as we were supposed to! For Sundays race, we were right behind the Gen 3s.

Yeah...I was behind you on that start...in the driver's meeting, it had been agreed that we (the 2s) would gap about 30 feet behind the 3s. As we crawled down the backstretch 20 or 30 seconds behind the 3s, I was just shrugging in the car and thinking "what happened to 30 feet?". That said, it was plain at the meeting that the pole-sitter was not there, and perhaps someone should have made sure he heard of the agreed plan....of course, asking the grid marshalls to convy messages to individual drivers is probably not a reasonable expectation.

Greg-Cirillo wrote:And not to beat it to death, but if drivers can agree to a gapped start, why not just agree to grid Gen 2 behind all Gen 3s and start as one group?

Maybe the thinking was to try and avoid the situation where the mid-pack and slower Gen3's without radios get passed on the green they can't see by the fast Gen2's using radios?
I applaud the thinking of a gapped start but the only way to fix this snafu (and the snafu I have seen at many large race starts) is to refuse to throw a green when the field hasn't bunched up properly.

pmiranda wrote:

Greg-Cirillo wrote: applaud the thinking of a gapped start but the only way to fix this snafu (and the snafu I have seen at many large race starts) is to refuse to throw a green when the field hasn't bunched up properly.

That is really the key. If the second group comes to the green not bunched the track needs to go back full yellow and try again. Nobody wants to do that, but unless they are willing to do that then starts should be in one group.