[video] bad CCR 458 crash Road America | Page 4 | FerrariChat

[video] bad CCR 458 crash Road America

Discussion in 'Other Racing' started by rob lay, Jun 30, 2015.

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, Skimlinks, and others.

  1. Lcawley

    Lcawley Karting

    Nov 16, 2011
    140
    Jupiter, FL
    Full Name:
    Lance C. Cawley
    Minor contact that is not any bodies fault will be overlooked by a good Stewart even in a no contact racing club, I can attest to that.
     
  2. fatbillybob

    fatbillybob Two Time F1 World Champ
    Consultant Owner

    Aug 10, 2002
    26,294
    socal
    It had been a long time. What is the chief steward's report on the incident?
     
  3. johnhoughtaling

    johnhoughtaling Formula 3

    Nov 6, 2002
    2,101
    New Orleans
    Full Name:
    John William H.
    We will be publishing a document soon. Waiting from writings from our pro driver panel.
     
  4. johnhoughtaling

    johnhoughtaling Formula 3

    Nov 6, 2002
    2,101
    New Orleans
    Full Name:
    John William H.
    #79 johnhoughtaling, Jul 26, 2015
    Last edited: Jul 27, 2015
    We are reiterating the "no tolerance policy" to our stewards and new management. There is a no tolerance policy for touching or overly aggressive driving in CCR. Anyone who got away with things being overlooked has gotten lucky. We are investing in a lot more management assets to ensure strict compliance on all aspects of the rule book.
     
  5. vlamgat

    vlamgat Formula Junior

    Jan 9, 2004
    776
    I hope you publish it with the data; and a frame by frame analysis. Anything else is worthless just an impression based on a load of spurious inputs. Otherwise its going to look like a cop-out.
     
  6. johnhoughtaling

    johnhoughtaling Formula 3

    Nov 6, 2002
    2,101
    New Orleans
    Full Name:
    John William H.
    #81 johnhoughtaling, Aug 9, 2015
    Last edited: Aug 10, 2015
    Colin

    We are going to great lengths to be fair, thoughtful , and transparent . We took the extraordinary step of providing a professional panel of top professional drivers to give an advisory opinion to the board. We made sure the panel was cleared with each driver for no objection. (One was recommened specifically by you). The finding of the pro panel was unanimous as was every single member of the board. After the decision an appeal has been received by Hill. The appeal came with a summary graph of data (with notations) along with a request we refrain from publishing the data. In the effort to be transparent we decided we should publish everything we have, including: the decision, the appeal, the data received (both the summary with notes and raw data), and any response that may be filed by Booth to revisit the suspension of part of the penalty. We will also publish the revisit of the decision on fault and the penalty.

    Any suggestion we may "cop out" or intentionally deny anyone due process, is baseless and contrary to fact. We are really trying here. Not everyone is expected to agree, but we are making a real effort to go above and beyond anything I have seen in any series.
     
  7. johnhoughtaling

    johnhoughtaling Formula 3

    Nov 6, 2002
    2,101
    New Orleans
    Full Name:
    John William H.
    #82 johnhoughtaling, Aug 10, 2015
    Last edited by a moderator: Sep 7, 2017
  8. johnhoughtaling

    johnhoughtaling Formula 3

    Nov 6, 2002
    2,101
    New Orleans
    Full Name:
    John William H.
    #83 johnhoughtaling, Aug 10, 2015
    Last edited by a moderator: Sep 7, 2017
  9. johnhoughtaling

    johnhoughtaling Formula 3

    Nov 6, 2002
    2,101
    New Orleans
    Full Name:
    John William H.
    #84 johnhoughtaling, Aug 10, 2015
    Last edited by a moderator: Sep 7, 2017
  10. johnhoughtaling

    johnhoughtaling Formula 3

    Nov 6, 2002
    2,101
    New Orleans
    Full Name:
    John William H.
    #85 johnhoughtaling, Aug 10, 2015
    Last edited by a moderator: Sep 7, 2017
  11. johnhoughtaling

    johnhoughtaling Formula 3

    Nov 6, 2002
    2,101
    New Orleans
    Full Name:
    John William H.
    #86 johnhoughtaling, Aug 10, 2015
    Last edited by a moderator: Sep 7, 2017
  12. johnhoughtaling

    johnhoughtaling Formula 3

    Nov 6, 2002
    2,101
    New Orleans
    Full Name:
    John William H.
    #87 johnhoughtaling, Aug 10, 2015
    Last edited by a moderator: Sep 7, 2017
  13. johnhoughtaling

    johnhoughtaling Formula 3

    Nov 6, 2002
    2,101
    New Orleans
    Full Name:
    John William H.
    #88 johnhoughtaling, Aug 10, 2015
    Last edited by a moderator: Sep 7, 2017
  14. johnhoughtaling

    johnhoughtaling Formula 3

    Nov 6, 2002
    2,101
    New Orleans
    Full Name:
    John William H.
    #89 johnhoughtaling, Aug 10, 2015
    Last edited by a moderator: Sep 7, 2017
  15. johnhoughtaling

    johnhoughtaling Formula 3

    Nov 6, 2002
    2,101
    New Orleans
    Full Name:
    John William H.
    #90 johnhoughtaling, Aug 10, 2015
    Last edited by a moderator: Sep 7, 2017
  16. johnhoughtaling

    johnhoughtaling Formula 3

    Nov 6, 2002
    2,101
    New Orleans
    Full Name:
    John William H.
    #91 johnhoughtaling, Aug 10, 2015
    Last edited by a moderator: Sep 7, 2017
  17. johnhoughtaling

    johnhoughtaling Formula 3

    Nov 6, 2002
    2,101
    New Orleans
    Full Name:
    John William H.
  18. WCCoffey

    WCCoffey Karting

    Apr 14, 2010
    54
    Dallas, Tx
    Full Name:
    Chris Coffey
    #93 WCCoffey, Aug 10, 2015
    Last edited: Aug 10, 2015
    Yes, tire to tire contact is what caused the front of Jims car to lift. The rear tire of Steve's car is rotating in an upward motion and the front tire of Jim's car is going in a downward motion.

    This is proven to cause lift time and time again. Source of refrence: Open Wheel Cars. Watch what happens with tire to tire contact.


    I struggle very hard with this opinion. The driver of the lead car assumed that the chasing car would be trying to go around the outside of him as he was taking a defensive line through the straight away. 7 tenths of a second elapsed between the driver looking in his mirror and contact. Its hard to under stand how long 7 tenths actually is at 160mph when you go through the play, pause, play, pause, play, pause frame by frame analysis of the event. We've all watched slow motion film from sporting events. Its easy to say how something could have been done differently when the entire perception of time is thrown off. However, even when you do that if you watch the steering wheel, no move to the left was ever made and furthermore the Data Aquisition in the car supports that he did not make a move left.

    Things to note:
    If you watch Steve's Video you see him look in the mirror 7 tenths before impart. What you DO NOT see is him turn the steering wheel to the left, and thats supported by hard data.

    When you watch Mario's in car (the car directly behind the two cars) you can see a puff of dirt and Jim's car apparantly swerves left and then right immeadiately before impact.

    When you watch the video from Jim's roof, it appears that Steve turns left but that can be easily explained by the fact the track goes right, Steve is going straight, and a slight rotation of Jim's car (which can be seen in Mario's in car video) makes it appear that Steve turns left.

    I'd further add that Jim's in car video was inoperable, and Jim's data was requested but we have received it yet.

    In the drivers meeting, the drivers were instructed to "not attempt to pass in the approach to turn 5". I attended this drivers meeting. While I believe this is open to interpretation on what the approach to turn 5 includes, I would assume what he meant was to tell all the drivers not to attempt a pass in this exact spot that Jim attempted to pass.
     
  19. WCCoffey

    WCCoffey Karting

    Apr 14, 2010
    54
    Dallas, Tx
    Full Name:
    Chris Coffey
    #94 WCCoffey, Aug 10, 2015
    Last edited: Aug 10, 2015
    This pro panel was not given all the facts and many other things. It is hard for a panel of even the of best professionals to make a credible determination without all the facts that are available to them. Steve specifically requested that the ruling not be released to the public yet because the matter is not fully resolved. Releasing a statement of blame to the public only complicates matters and could taken completely out of context as there are many factual errors in your document including the omission of critical data. I am also unsettled that you decided to leave out publicly releasing Steve's appeal which discredit's the entire notion that your document is based upon, which is that Steve turned left.

    In the spirit of true transparency I am releasing Steve's appeal since you released your own statement.

    [​IMG]
    [​IMG]
    [​IMG]
    [​IMG]
    [​IMG]
    [​IMG]
    [​IMG]
    [​IMG]
    [​IMG]
    [​IMG]
    [​IMG]
    [​IMG]
     
  20. vlamgat

    vlamgat Formula Junior

    Jan 9, 2004
    776
    Now it gets interesting:

    The Official report says that Hill turned left causing the impact but the data trace shows the wheel did not move. So where did that accusation come from? An inexpert review of the video that's where. Where it is impossible to tell whether any of the wheel movements happened before during or after the Booth car hooked Hill or turned into him resulting from 2 wheels off track.

    The Official report says "The footage confirms both cars were side by side on the straightway leading to turn 4. With an inside track position, Hill passed Booth into turn 4. Booth took a widened arch slotting behind Hill through turn 4 onto the long straightaway before turn 5."

    But this is not correct. Hill was ahead of Booth after T1 and led Booth well after T3. This was the point of the "race" as Hill had better cornering speeds that compensated for less power and speed on the straights.

    At no time were they side-by-side going into T4. Where does that accusation come from? What am I missing here? Booth tried to pass Hill on the inside of T4. Hill held his line (read the data) and was taking a slightly displaced apex position at T4. It is a "turn" and has a turn number perhaps not for a Miata or a TR3 but at 160 in a F430C one is quite close the edge of the friction circle. Is Hill not entitled to apex the turn when the overtaking car is behind him? If this Finding is correct, no CCR driver of a car deemed to be slower, is now required to give up the corner to the overtaking car at all times, irrespective of its safety - at the turn-in; the apex; or on track out. I know this is the Pobst philosophy except I never see him do it unless he can make it work for him. He like Lazzaro is quite willing to hold up a faster car through a corner if early braking or his own track position and speed make him think the pass is unsafe. Hill did nothing different here. Remember he did not move that wheel - look at the data again.

    I have a high respect of the reviewers of the tape but none of them are video experts. They were furnished with the same stuff we have all seen and none of that was indexed. Without specialist editing software and rock-n-roll capability the conclusions they have reached without the WPS and TPS data sheds huge doubt on the value of this process. None of them interviewed Hill (or Booth I presume) so all we have is the recall of the writer as to who said what to whom leading up to the race. I believe this sheds an undeserved light on the events that took place after. There is a lot of joshing that goes on from time to time in CCR. Usually in class but occasionally between the 360s and the 355s. No credence is given or attempted as to why Hill approached Booth to discuss his hopes for the event. Those of us who know Hill, recognize that he does not have a mean spirit, is a good sportsman and very safety conscious. I have been overtaken by virtually every CCR competitor sometimes more than once in every event. Hill's passes and patience with my slower car despite some needle races are without reproach. And yet in this Finding 100% of the responsibility is allocated to him despite incorrect factual evidence as to his position relative to Booth or the pass that Booth was attempting.

    The video shows that Booth put his car's nose between the track edge and the rear fender of Hill's car. I must be watching a different video from that seen by the review board because I cannot see Booth's nose past Hill's rear tire at any time. In NASCAR terms it looks like Booth is going for one of those nudges they use on ovals to push the leading car into the wall. Just takes a light tap on the fender and the leading car is spinning. I know how light and how easy it is to accomplish because Peter Cunningham did it to me and GrandAm called it a "Racing Incident" (2007 Daytona Koni Challenge) to which Pobst agreed.

    Last point that references this rebuttal - how come if this is going to be an Open and Transparent process, the rebuttal was not posted as well as the Official Finding? To me that looks like a deliberate attempt to score points with the usual armchair experts that frequent this and other internet shout sites. But let's also get something else in the open here: the report looks like it was signed on behalf of a board with some type of governance or oversight of CCR. But we all know the board of CCR is never consulted on anything. This is John Houghtaling's series alone, the board and the drivers are there at his sole discretion on all things. So much so that I believe the board were not consulted on this Finding because had they been, they would not have taken a passive view to the limited access given the experts review panel. The SCCA and NASA as just 2 examples have 10 pages in their respective GCR equivalents on how Stewards MUST conduct incidents/protest reviews and I know that some members of the board are quite familiar with how it works. There is no evidence here that this has been done except through the avenue of unsubstantiated claims based on inexpert reviews of flawed (though admittedly great public horror quality) video.
     
  21. johnhoughtaling

    johnhoughtaling Formula 3

    Nov 6, 2002
    2,101
    New Orleans
    Full Name:
    John William H.
    #98 johnhoughtaling, Aug 10, 2015
    Last edited: Aug 11, 2015
    Colin and Chris

    I send you both a line of caution: As someone who's built a national reputation as a litigator, you both might want to think before claiming in a public forum that I am intentionally denying your teamate and customer due process and or lied about the unanimous vote of the board.

    I told everyone I was publishing everything. Everything I have and am given.

    We are carefully going through the appeal and the data.

    You are welcome to try to prove that it was an optical illusion that your customer and teamate knowing turned in and all the pros were fooled by the video evidence. The evidence you submitted is being analyzed.

    However, as a driver and team that runs under license in our series I would caution you not to lob baseless allegations against our efforts and good intention in the process.

    If I were you I'd be more concerned about the data from Jim's MRI.
     
  22. vlamgat

    vlamgat Formula Junior

    Jan 9, 2004
    776
    Hmm, John, as a student and practioner of the English language, and admittedly a neophyte in American legalese, since when did questions with appropriate punctuation become allegations?

    Methinks you doth protest too much! So bring on Jim's data. I did not know it existed and would question why it was not used in the report. After all the report's conclusion was that Hill is 100% responsible without even admitting he had data. That implies a level of certainty that leaves no room for doubt or additional facts. And it's supported by a unanimous opinion of the board who would seem from their lack of knowledge of either car to have assumed that there were no other facts in evidence that could shed the slightest doubt on the outcome? Note it's a question too but is this board really so ignorant of the capabilities of these cars?

    Or perhaps we are part of the New Orleans French Heritage and this is a trial under the Napoleonic Code and Hill is guilty until proven less guilty? Question again.

    And what was that about licensing? Are you threatening to revoke my license too for questioning your management of this process? Another question? Or are you just plain upset that since you took this public without completing the process or perhaps due process, someone is questioning your motives? Which by the way I am curious as to what they really might be given the first sentence of your last message?

    See I am just curious? This whole business is very unfortunate and impugns the character of an upstanding citizen and yes, a customer of Norwood and of CCR. I would like a resolution I understand even if I do not agree. And as things stand we are a long way from that. I did aircraft accident investigation for 6 years and I could not have allowed a report like the one you put out there appear in print. But then perhaps I was held to a higher standard ... Even in Africa.
     
  23. johnhoughtaling

    johnhoughtaling Formula 3

    Nov 6, 2002
    2,101
    New Orleans
    Full Name:
    John William H.
    #100 johnhoughtaling, Aug 10, 2015
    Last edited: Aug 11, 2015
    Colin

    On the back of me staying clearly that this was a unanimous vote of the panel and the board, you state "I believe the board was not consulted on this Finding." You have insulted me personally. You have accused CCR of coping out. Despite 9 unanimous people you've singled me out as denying due process to your teamate.

    I went to extrodinary measures to have professionals to make the decision. I took time to speak to you to describe the process. You told me you had THE guy to help make the decision and asked I put him on the panel. I did. Randy Probst. I also looked for other unbiased very respected drivers. AND I asked your teamate if he had an objection. Probst called me after he said you spoke to him at length lobbying your position. (For your information niether did I nor did any of the board give or lobby a position before getting an opinion. ) Probst told me you spoke to him in a manner that was uncomfortable because he flatly rejected your position. Now after asking me to put him on the panel and after receiving his decision you criticize his passing philosophy and question his integrity by suggesting he does not practice what he preaches. FYI: Every member of the panel was questioning me as to why I even needed a panel. Every panel member stated that what happened was obvious. I took measures to even get their signatures.

    You and your team knew the panel, you could have provided anything to them. And no one was denied anything. I was told by your team that the telemetry would not necessarily be reliable from Steves car shows slight corrections back and forth back and forth as one would do on a straightaway at 150 to go STRAIGHT. (The initial expressed concern was the left corrections it may show). Anyone that's driven 150 plus knows that slight, very slight impute are necessary at times to even go straight because a car weaves even holding the wheel straight. This data was not sent or presented in defense of the case despite many phone calls from you and Hill. The good faith reading was that it takes an very slight if not imperceptible pressure on a wheel to move 4 feet at 150 plus. No one thought that such evidence would controduct what was obvious on HD film. Nor was there any indication that the data would contradict that Steve looked and saw Booth coming before the event.

    Only after an adverse decision was the appeal made that included a graph. With the appeal a graph in a macro scale was sent with graphical additions placed on it. When we asked for the raw data, I was asked before the raw data was sent to commit to NOT making the data public. I disagreed to withholding the raw data from the public in light of the appeal, and then come to Fchat to see you alleging CCR may be coping out by not making data public. I responded that I would make everything public. The idea that I was attempting to leak information before a decision is wrong. If you read the beginning of this threat I asked people not to speculate. And I called a lot of people asking that they not do this, including you. Despite this you went on the Internet and started slinging with people on comments to the video. You then go on this site and suggest we are coping out by not publishing. I published our report to defend the allegations that we were not coping out and I committed to publicizing everything.

    No one sent and not one pro thought it was necessary. All of them thought it was a no brainer. I polled the board. Every one. Everyone agreed. Discussions of fault were on the penalty and how severe and whether the mitigating circumstabces warranted going against a bunch of calls and threats that if we didn't ban Hill some members would quit.

    You are welcome to disagree with the findings. You are welcome support and appeal. But Yes Colin, you need to be careful what you accuse me of. Insulting me, our process, our organization, my city, is wrong. Insulting my integrity and effort is wrong. It is quite clear you are not insterested in contributing constructively to CCR because I cannot imagine you are this stupid to think you are being persuasive.

    Maybe you didn't read what I signed and agreed to about Hill and his reputation as a driver. You should. Here's what I believe. no matter how good our intentions we can all make bad moves. A mistake. A mistake in a 190 mph supercar can kill someone. In this case a driver and 100 spectators. And we need to admit we make mistakes or we cannot hope to learn. We need to reflect that we can die or kill someone while seeking a trophy. We need a reminder, all of us that we are not infallible and we don't have the talent that Michael Schumacher had and we don't want to end up like him now.

    Colin, you think being responsible for this series during this incident has been my joyful puppet show? No Colin it's been aweful. I like Steven very much and I respect him as a driver and I too voted for the mitigating circumstances pragaraph and found the words after consulting with eight others. I have taken this very seriously and anyone who any objectivity can see that. I've spent 7 years of my life working on it, I've lost an amount approaching $200,000 over the years subsidizing it even though I've been too busy to run in it lately. My wife has dedicate two years to it without like me getting paid a single dollar. As I've been traveling internationally, my wife, instead of taking many weekend to fly to me, takes them to fly to CCR races to volunteer instead of spending the limited time with me. And for all of this, with this accident, I get the supreme pleasure of all of this. And had people been killed I would be the person sued. Had that fence not held, I would likely be facing a judgement that could bankrupt me.

    And Colin have you ever thought about the fact that I respected Hill so much, that I had the courage to sign and agree to the mitigating circumstances paragraph? Do you have any idea what would happen to me and my wife if, after noting Steve was a fault in a accident that nearly killed people, I vote to suspend a ban and continue to license him and he is involved in another accident that hurts someone? You think that some plaintiff lawyer isn't going to blame me? You think I sign this without thinking? You think I want to be in this position of any authority and cavalierly lie and take it upon my self. And do so lightly? No, I went out on a great limb Bc I respected Steve and his character. I voted this way despite three peole calling me suggesting they would quit if Hill was not banned from the series.

    So Colin, with the hurling of insults at me, you hurl insults at all nine people on that report. You hurl insults at the integrity of the organization, and my family that sacrificed for it. You can disagree with the pros and the panel, but attacking me and our integrity is wrong. You are not acting like a gentleman. And Colin, I mention license because this is a series for gentleman. Act like one and treat people with respect or you will not retain license to participate.

    Instead of hurling insults in the form of rhetorical questions, A gentleman would be asking real and genuine questions about Jim's health (which isn't good right now).

    How about this Colin:

    Dear John:

    I don't agree with the reasons bc 1,2,3. But the most important question is how is Jim. And thanks John, despite disagreeing with you strongly I know you tried by putting Randy on the panel. And John I know how much you and your family sacrifice to do and man having something like this happen really makes me reflect on the risk you take on your shoulders. And while I disagree with taking Stevens points away it's great to see all the good things you and the board say about Hill, those I agree with. Thanks for standing up for Steven in the face of the drivers that threated to quit over it. Wow sure is a thankless job. Sure must suck. The fact that all you've done is give a waring and take points away shows at least even though we disagree about fault in this case you believe strongly in Hill as we do. I think you got it wrong and please look at the raw data. Oh, and John, either way it's obviously a thankless risk you've been taking.

    Oh and to top it all off I heard the track is making you and Yulia pay $10,000.00 for the fence. Thanks for paying for that, especially when no one offered.

    In gratitude,
    Colin
     

Share This Page