Is it a DNF?

[jrj512]

From the SCCA rule book:

A course deviation shall not be charged if any part of the car hits a marker defining the limits of the course.

So, if you can hit a cone on a gate but not move it outside of the box, you could possibly shave some time. Getting the cones to stay in the box it a little tough though.

[POS Racing]

Keep reaching for the starts Jimmy! I'm sure you'll have better luck here getting someone here to tell you you were right!

Your poorly done example yesterday was a pointer cone IIRC.

General Default is going to be in your driveway when you get home, when the crying stops let us know the results of your meeting.

[jrj512]

Not sure where the pointer cone entered the argument (other than to say it does not count), but that might have been a poor presentation on my part too.

I think the problems started when I suggested that hitting the left cone of a gate with the right of your car would not be a DNF or a cone penalty if the cone remains upright and touching the box. The SCCA rules seem to back that up, but as I said, good luck keeping the cone in the box.

I already had someone tell me I'm right. And it wasn't my cats.

[POS Racing]

I already had someone tell me I'm right. And it wasn't my cats.

That is mirror Jimmy it doesn't count....

[general default]

Something you said or did with the cone made me speak up.
I think you are correct about hitting the cone on the outside and keeping it in the box.

But good luck proving you touched the cone. 98% of the time they will call a DNF for that.
I am happy. No problems here.

Not sure where the pointer cone entered the argument (other than to say it does not count), but that might have been a poor presentation on my part too.

I think the problems started when I suggested that hitting the left cone of a gate with the right of your car would not be a DNF or a cone penalty if the cone remains upright and touching the box. The SCCA rules seem to back that up, but as I said, good luck keeping the cone in the box.

I already had someone tell me I'm right. And it wasn't my cats.

[onething]

I am happy. No problems here.

That means I woke up during the drivers meeting for nothing.

[jrj512]

But good luck proving you touched the cone. 98% of the time they will call a DNF for that.

I was thinking the same thing.

[POS Racing]

I am happy. No problems here.

It is a trap.......

[OZMDD]

By my reading of the quoted rule, you could hit the pointer cone on a slalom cone or gate and be Scot free, depending on the definition of boundary cone.

[ken o]

By my reading of the quoted rule, you could hit the pointer cone on a slalom cone or gate and be Scot free, depending on the definition of boundary cone.

Only if the box is drawn around the standing cone and pointer cone. If the the standing cone has a separate box technically the are two different cones.

[tailchaser]

A bazillion years ago when I used to help put on an event in NC at an airport, we had to implement a "special local rule" to keep people from deciding this might be a good idea and taking out runway lights. The "special local rule" stated that 4 wheels off the "something something marked course" was a DNF. Cut out a lot of the foolishness of people driving the long way around to "stay on course" with a run that can't possibly be in contention for a win.

[OZMDD]

So, is a pointer cone classified differently than a marker defining the limits of the course?

[CosmosMpower]

So, is a pointer cone classified differently than a marker defining the limits of the course?

Yep, but if you plow through a wall of laying down pointer cones I think it's a DNF

[Robert]

lay downs do not count, except maybe at BMW events I think I remember them having odd rules about lay down cones, or maybe it was PCA that had the odd rule. At ER, SCCA, and NTAS taking out a wall of pointers should not be a DNF.

OZMDD, my interpretation is that the stand up cones define the limits of the course, pointer cones are informational, so if you hit a pointer but missed the standup I would call a DNF.

edit
Of course this is assuming that someone took out the cone because they messed up. I think doing it intentionally to try and gain an advantage would be poor sportsmanship and a valid protest.

[OZMDD]

I think Robert's interpretation makes the most sense of what I've heard thus far.