The problem comes with interpretation of the rules.
The track is the area within the white lines.
Run off areas (curbs) are designed to both prevent accidents where a driver may inadvertently move outside the track.
In the past run-off areas were small and the surface beyond the run-off was slower than staying on the track. Run-off areas have been growing in size as a safety measure over the years, so that there is sometimes a considerable speed advantage to be found by driving deliberately over the run-off area.
Clearly choosing to drive 'outside the white lines' for a speed advantage is as much cheating as modifying one's engine.
Leaving the track altogether is a punishable offence.
There is a problem that the MSA rules, in clarifying exactly where 'completely off track' begins also imply that being 'only one wheel on the track' is legal.
The last part of the problem is enforcement. Previously the small size of a run off and the slow nature of the surface if you went far from the the white line meant that the advantages of going off track were small. Where it would be larger there were obstructions on the run off(big kerbs, dragons'teeth etc) to reduce it again. In other words, the use of kerbs was limited and self policing.
Many modern runoff have had the obstructions removed and clearly some drivers are using them for a speed advantage because the clerks are unable to enforce the law, often because teh offence is not noted, or not provable afterwards. Use of video may change this.
The matter is being addressed in other vehicles by the imposition of time or position penalties for what the clerk thinks is inappropriate use of the kerbs.
The thing is that some people read part of the rule (ie, one may use the kerb to correct inadvertant loss of control) and another part of the rule (you are 'on track providing one wheel is on /inside the white line) and draw the conclusion that it is legal to use the kerb at any time.
Perhaps the law needs to make it explicit, that being on the run-off area equates to 'loss of control'. Frequent 'loss of control' is clearly less than safe driving and is currently punishable up to being black flagged. If the driver argues that he was always in control, ie the positioning of the kart was deliberate, then he is clearly trying to gain an advantage by not driving within the track.
I am not trying to make the case for or against driving on the kerb, merely explaining why it is happening more and how I interpret what seems to already be in the Blue Book. (It's like contact. It's wrong but we know it happens. It's trying to work out where it is deliberate and where it is inadvertant that's teh problem)
Does that help?
|
|