Some pics from the Blaine street solo

[Guest]

Here are a few pics we took at Blaine this last weekend. Mostly pics of our Miata but they show elements of the course. I will cleanup the backgrounds and add commentary later... honest

[Vancouver Special]

No roll bar??? You are a brave soul Don. Hitting one of those curbs could easier roll the car. Don't ask me how I know.

Joe
Lucky I didn't kill my girlfriend (now wife) in that roll over.

[autobacs]

OMG!! That course is absolutely so scary. What if ur rear came loose taking that slalom section down the two way street with curbs on both sides. YIKES! Or even worse, ramming into one of those warehouses.

[Don Bourne]

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>posted by Phantom:
You are a brave soul Don<hr></blockquote>

I don't think I would call it brave. Stupid or naive maybe but not brave. I think I will be getting a rollbar before doing any Solo1 events even if they don't require it like the Driver's Edge event at Mission. The radar gun had me at 56mph on the straights so it would probably be good to have a bar for next year's Blaine event as well.

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Posted by autobacs:
What if ur rear came loose taking that slalom section down the two way street with curbs on both sides. YIKES! Or even worse, ramming into one of those warehouses. <hr></blockquote>

I did spin out along the long back straight which isn't shown in these pictures. I started to try to save it and on the second fishtail I was looking out the leading side of the car at the curb that was within 6-10 feet or me and at that point I decided to give up and put both feet in. As for hitting warehouses, we had a good example of that at the last Chuckanut event. Here and here for a couple of pics. Thus I was already aware of some risks and tried not to push too hard etc. Only close call this year at Blaine was Dave Pontifex nearly hitting a boat which caused a course change as it was determined that the course design was at fault for his slide.

The best part of this event was watching Artemis get adrenaline shakes on Saturday night after her first run and then having her mention on the way back to the hotel that she wants to try Solo 1 events now.


As an addendum, I haven't had that much fun squealing tires on the street since I was 17 and jumped an embankment in my '72 Nova and landed in a tree. That car was solid. We winched it off the tree and drove it home...

[ef]

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr> As for hitting warehouses.. <hr></blockquote>

It just had to be a BMW didn't it now I'm going to have nightmares

ernest

[Don Bourne]

Not only a BMW but an M3

[The_Winch]

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Don Bourne:


I did spin out along the long back straight which isn't shown in these pictures. I started to try to save it and on the second fishtail I was looking out the leading side of the car at the curb that was within 6-10 feet or me and at that point I decided to give up and put both feet in. As for hitting warehouses, we had a good example of that at the last Chuckanut event. Here and here for a couple of pics.<hr></blockquote>

You guys are lucky. CSCC runs by far the riskiest autocrosses I've ever seen. I have no idea why K&K insures their events the same as any other WWSCC autocross other than ignorance. Nor why the CSCC people would post pictures about an incident they specifically told me and others not to talk about publicly because they wanted to mislead K&K Insurance the the Port Shipping Terminal about it.... then later they brought it up at a WWSCC council meeting, blasting the driver and lying about my comments about their course.

I'll never run another CSCC event.

If I want to endanger my car that much, it will be paid for, and I'll be doing something a lot more fun like taking it on a track or hillclimb.

BTW, the M3 driver is one of the NW's best drivers and that turbo M3 was a legitimate trophy contender at the SCCA Nationals. The car was totalled. Later that day, it was still raining, and I watched another car came within 5 ft of a building. Fortunately no one hit the propane tank on a direct path with the course for someone who didn't or couldn't make the 90 turn in front of it, or went into bay by not making another 90 trun which was a few dozen feet from the course edge. Rain and absurd camber changes also marred that course. I have no idea why they keep running there.

[Don Bourne]

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Posted by Jeff Winchell:
You guys are lucky. CSCC runs by far the riskiest autocrosses I've ever seen. I have no idea why K&K insures their events the same as any other WWSCC autocross other than ignorance. Nor why the CSCC people would post pictures about an incident they specifically told me and others not to talk about publicly because they wanted to mislead K&K Insurance the the Port Shipping Terminal about it.... then later they brought it up at a WWSCC council meeting, blasting the driver and lying about my comments about their course.

I'll never run another CSCC event.

If I want to endanger my car that much, it will be paid for, and I'll be doing something a lot more fun like taking it on a track or hillclimb.

BTW, the M3 driver is one of the NW's best drivers and that turbo M3 was a legitimate trophy contender at the SCCA Nationals. The car was totalled. Later that day, it was still raining, and I watched another car came within 5 ft of a building. Fortunately no one hit the propane tank on a direct path with the course for someone who didn't or couldn't make the 90 turn in front of it, or went into bay by not making another 90 trun which was a few dozen feet from the course edge. Rain and absurd camber changes also marred that course. I have no idea why they keep running there. <hr></blockquote>

Not to sound like an apologist but CSCC does have the worst lots for their events though I think they would choose not to use them if they had other choices. As for not mentioning the accident, we were never told to keep it quiet but then I guess we are nobodies as far as the NWR/WWSCC is concerned.

As for endangering the car, with ICBC as our insurance carrier we are not covered for any kind of timed/speed/"sounds like racing to us" event so I have to make that same decision to attend any autocross/TSD rally etc. Given that, it is then up to myself and my co-driver to decide if the car is worth risking to try for the win etc.

Lastly, for the M3 it doesn't matter whether they were Mario Andretti as that really looked like it was a case of driver error. There was rain and bad camber areas all over the course as you said. We could feel a further loss of grip on each morning run so I can only assume that a more experienced driver could too. Thus it was his decision to try to carry his speed into the finish knowing that it was wet, the ground sloped away from the course into a drainage area and that there were buildings close by. In other words as the RCMP would say, he was driving in excess of conditions. Similarly, if you loop it at Boundary Bay and then drive off into the weeds you have only yourself to blame.

I am glad for the owner though that the car was written off as we figured the insurance carrier would have fixed it before dropping them which would have left them with a munged up M3.

[The_Winch]

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Don Bourne:
As for not mentioning the accident, we were never told to keep it quiet but then I guess we are nobodies as far as the NWR/WWSCC is concerned. <hr></blockquote>

You're inferring too much. They asked us not to talk because they didn't want to lose the site, their insurance and the guy who worked for the Port to lose his job. None of this would occur because the person reporting this to K&K or the Port was from NWR/WWSCC, but merely if ANYONE reported it.

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr> Lastly, for the M3 it doesn't matter whether they were Mario Andretti as that really looked like it was a case of driver error.<hr></blockquote>

Someone who isn't as good has a hard time judging someone who is better. And even then, remote observation data isn't as good as also having info from the driver.

I think you should reconsider your evaluation of what that driver was doing. I don't think you're qualified to judge.

[Don Bourne]

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Jeff winchell:
quote [img]redface.gif[/img] riginally posted by Don Bourne:
As for not mentioning the accident, we were never told to keep it quiet but then I guess we are nobodies as far as the NWR/WWSCC is concerned.

You're inferring too much. They asked us not to talk because they didn't want to lose the site, their insurance and the guy who worked for the Port to lose his job. None of this would occur because the person reporting this to K&K or the Port was from NWR/WWSCC, but merely if ANYONE reported it.

quote: Originally posted by Don Bourne: Lastly, for the M3 it doesn't matter whether they were Mario Andretti as that really looked like it was a case of driver error.

Someone who isn't as good has a hard time judging someone who is better. And even then, remote observation data isn't as good as also having info from the driver.

I think you should reconsider your evaluation of what that driver was doing. I don't think you're qualified to judge. <hr></blockquote>

Sorry but no one mentioned to us that we should keep it hush-hush. I supposed above that this was due to our being nobodies within the NWR/WWSCC meaning that as mere foreigners (Canadians) we didn't matter. As for my evaluation of what the driver was doing, I came to the conclusion that it was driver error through the following:

Was there a mechanical failure on the part of the M3? - No. This was not given as a reason at the driver's meeting following the accident. Also borne out by watching the driver exit the vehicle and have a temper tantrum. From this display I inferred that he felt he was at fault.

Did the building or any other part of the site smite the car as an act of God/Nature? - No. No one claimed they saw the building/earth move in an abnormal manner.

Did another driver cause an unavoidable collision with this car? - No. No other cars were present on course.

Therefore the collision must have been caused by the driver of the M3. It doesn't matter who the driver was hence my reductio ad absurdum regarding the fact that he was a very experienced NWR driver. Regardless of what he was attempting, the collision was a result of an error on his part.

In other words, the site apparently met the minimum safety standards of the insurance, the building was pointed out at the morning meeting as being close to the stop box, the rain and areas of standing water were mentioned/complained about by everyone I talked to, and yet an experienced driver still had a collision. I guess I can only admit that my deciding he overdrove the conditions is speculation on my part and that all I can safely conclude is that it was an error on his part.

Does the above reconsideration help?

[The_Winch]

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Don Bourne:


Was there a mechanical failure on the part of the M3? - No. This was not given as a reason at the driver's meeting following the accident. Also borne out by watching the driver exit the vehicle and have a temper tantrum. From this display I inferred that he felt he was at fault.
<hr></blockquote>

How about another reason....like he was driving someone else's car... a car he expected to trophy with at his first SCCA Nationals, and a car he has no where near the means to replace. You bet he was angry.

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>In other words, the site apparently met the minimum safety standards of the insurance<hr></blockquote>

Absolutely not.

I have that exact same policy. They did no where near meet the minimum safety standards of the insurance policy. When I pointed this out the driver's meeting, they tried to hush me up. I was just flabbergasted to see they would continue the event with no course changes (moving the grid so another out of control car would only slide into the building rather than other cars is I suppose a small safety improvement...didn't stop another car that day from almost sliding into another building not near grid).

No SCCA Safety Steward anywhere would have OK'd that course. I imagine the same conclusion would be true of equivalent CACC officials.

I have no idea how you can conclude this was a safe event. It's really beyond my comprehension and I have a well established reputation in the NWR/SCCA and WWSCC as being very lax about autocross safety.