Loren

Well, at least you said more this time. If you really want to debate it, I guess we can. It's not racing unless there are two cars side-by-side on the same course at the same time.

I'd really rather NOT debate this. Anyone who has ever tried to get and retain an autocross site will agree that it is best that we all stick together on this. If we don't, we risk the future of our sport. An autocross is not a race. A properly set up and organized autocross does not present the dangers of racing. I'm certain that there are some actual road course racers among this group who will agree without question that Autocross is NOT Racing. An autocross doesn't even present the level of danger as an open track event, which also is NOT a Race.

I deleted your post in the other thread because it seemed like one of your usual pointless little quips thrown in just to be contrary to anything that *I* might have to say. I really get tired of that kind of crap, and I've decided that I'm just going to delete them. Nothing personal, just an effort to keep things somewhat on-topic. Here's a fresh topic dedicated to this issue that you seem to want to debate.

PseudoRealityX

Umm, just because someone doesn't agree with you doesn't mean you should just delete their posts Loren. That's not really cool... Moreover, Eric has been quite helpful for the last few years in putting on our events, and his say is as good as any of ours. I don't like half your opinions, maybe I should talk to Zate or whoever to have your posts deleted at my will?

For insurance purposes, sure...it's not racing. But as far as a dictionary is concerned, it is.

Can we drop this now?

Loren

This was the first time I have EVER deleted a post, I just wasn't in the mood last night and perhaps it was not the correct post to delete. It's not the fact that someone disagrees with me that bothers me, it's the way that they jump in with bullshit two-word posts that are often completely pointless and irrelevant. The post that I deleted, while marginally relevant, struck me as pointless. As I said, I just wasn't in the mood last night. Sorry, won't happen again... unless it's truly deserved.

Back on-topic, please. If you have an opinion, please express it.

Jesse, if you want to quote the dictionary, here's what Websters has to say:

Gymkhana (the entry for "autocross" refers you to gymkhana, this is the only definition for "gymkhana"):
Race (this is definition 4a, which appears to be the relevant one):
And, of course, we all know that the SCCA and most insurance companies who insure autocrosses refer to autocross as a contest of skill rather than speed.

w0rd

I think if it is timed, then it is racing.

Road racing = racing
Solo I and II = racing

HPDE = not racing

Loren

That makes sense, but the whole point here is that if we want to continue to HAVE autocrosses, we can't habitually call them "races". I know it's legalese BS, but there has to be a difference between "racing" and "autocrossing". Site owners see the difference (if we show it to them), and insurance companies and lawyers DEFINITELY see the difference.

If we blur that line, we could lose our sport.

w0rd

I see your point.
Calling autocrossing, "racing" is kind of a stretch.

The part that confuses me is Solo I and Pro Solo.

Solo I requires all road racing safety equipment.
Must be just as dangerous as road racing then.

Pro Solo has two cars on course at the same time.
Sounds like a race to me.

edit: Plus car to car contact at an autocross is not an unheard of event. Shoot we almost witnessed that the weekend before last.

Loren

Right, and even if we don't think it's much of a stretch (as some don't), we STILL have to maintain that there is a difference. Not for the sake of argument, but for the sake of the future of autocross.

Solo I is close to as dangerous as road racing. Speeds are much higher than Solo II "should" be.

Not really. Pro Solo uses two separate mirror-image courses. The two cars run at the same time, but they aren't on the same course.

Wellllllll, yeah. But that kind of contact is the exception rather than the rule... and that's why we have insurance. At an actual race, some contact is expected. At an autocross, a close call is enough to halt EVERYTHING while the safety stewards investigate because that contact is NOT acceptable.

oilleak

Sorry, it's racing. It's not Wheel to Wheel racing and THAT is the point that needs to be expressed to site owners. The guidelines state that hazards do not exceed those normally encountered in highway driving. I agree that no one should be approaching a site owner and asking if we can "race" there but that doesn't change what it is. Just note the difference between WtW and solo.
WRC = racing
F1 (which for most of the last decade WAS solo1) = racing.
Autocross = racing
Gymkahana (which denotes a gimick event) does not = racing.

Loren

Okay, here's the problem. There a lot of people and/or organizations who do NOT want to be involved with Racing. Even if you clarify that it's not "wheel to wheel" racing, if you call it "racing", the response is going to be "we can't let you do that here". Like I said, it has a lot to do with the lawyers involved.

It's hard enough to get some companies "risk management" departments to sign off on autocross. If you refer to it as "racing", they'll laugh you out the door.

It's sad, but it's true.

So, maybe I even agree with you guys (shhhhh!), autocross is a form of racing. But it is in our best interest to NOT CALL IT THAT.

Stealth

Exactly