Special Stage Forums banner

1 - 20 of 22 Posts

·
www.christianedstrom.com
Joined
·
2,144 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
The PRB has received significant comments about the 20/12 year rule in ProRally.

The PRB was going to discuss the 20/12 year year rule at tonight's PRB meeting.

Due to the 3+ hours duration of the call, we've postponed this discussion until our 11/19 meeting.

Thanks,
- Christian

Bjorn Christian Edstrom
www.christianedstrom.com
 
G

·
>The PRB has received significant comments about the 20/12
>year rule in ProRally.

>Due to the 3+ hours duration of the call, we've postponed
>this discussion until our 11/19 meeting.


When is the next meeting with the manufacturers and/or
the manufacturer's council?

What was discussed during the 3+ hours meeting?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
706 Posts
Thanks for the update Christian!!

Let's keep this thread for PRB updates on this issue.

I look forward to the update on or near 11/19

Regards,
Skye
 

·
www.christianedstrom.com
Joined
·
2,144 Posts
Discussion Starter · #4 ·
>When is the next meeting with the manufacturers and/or
>the manufacturer's council?

Don't know. That's handled directly between the national staff and the Manufacturer's council. PRB members generally don't attend.

>What was discussed during the 3+ hours meeting?

We received year-end reports from the ProRally Series Manager, ClubRally Series Manager, RallyCross Series Manager, and discussed the forthcoming Operational Manual. Details in Fastrack, to come.

Cheers,
- Christian

Bjorn Christian Edstrom
www.christianedstrom.com
 

·
Big Jump 800
Joined
·
716 Posts
Be Honest Christian...

You dropped off at about the 3 hour mark for "15 minutes"... we discussed the new secret handshake after that... had to replace the old handshake as there is some concern that Spitzner will teach it to the Lithuanians (I understand AMC Eagles are very popular in Eastern Europe).

Seriously, Christian's summary is correct. His minutes of the meeting will go through the usual SCCA channels, so you'll see 'em whenever the next FasTrack is posted... It would seem that Adrian will see them a bit later.

J.B. Niday
www.nidayrallysport.com
 
G

·
RE: Be Honest Christian...

thanks for the update guys.

We need a grassroots movement to get your salaries doubled....




;)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
366 Posts
Christian-thank you for updating us as to the PRB meeting discussion, it is much appreciated.:)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
706 Posts
Perhaps one of our other PRB representatives would care to comment on last night's meeting? I'm not sure how all communication to the unwashed masses fell on Christian's shoulders....

Sky
 

·
www.christianedstrom.com
Joined
·
2,144 Posts
Discussion Starter · #11 ·
>Perhaps one of our other PRB representatives would care to
>comment on last night's meeting?

Watch for details in the minutes, but the short story is:

The 20/12-year age restriction is suspended for 2004 while the PRB studies the impact of the rule. Thanks to the interested SCCA members who submitted correspondence on the issue.

The rule may be re-instated or permanently repealed for 2005. Please send comments during the regular 2005 rules process.

>I'm not sure how all
>communication to the unwashed masses fell on Christian's
>shoulders....

I think I'm just a Specialstage junkie is all.

- Christian


Bjorn Christian Edstrom
www.christianedstrom.com
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
706 Posts
VERY good news. Thank you everyone!!
I will definately submit something to support the "permanent" suspension once I am a SCCA member :D

Skye Poier
Grp5 car rapidly approaching 20 yrs old
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
583 Posts
Christian,

Thanks for the update. However, I do look forward to understanding why the 12/20 ruling was only suspended for 2004.

A suspension is better than a-peck-in-the-head with a sharp stone. But, throwing it out all together would better demonstrate SCCA committment to a "member" oriented vision for rally.

Rich Smith

Vive le "Pro-le-Ralliat"
 

·
www.christianedstrom.com
Joined
·
2,144 Posts
Discussion Starter · #14 ·
>Thanks for the update. However, I do look forward to
>understanding why the 12/20 ruling was only suspended for
>2004.

A permanent change requires the full rules process to be followed: To wit, a request for comment needs to be published in Fastrack, member feedback needs to be received, the PRB needs to vote, and forward the new rule to the BoD for approval.

Given that the next issue of Fastrack won't be out until January 1, if we'd gone to member comment and provided adequate time, we would not have received all comment until after Sno*Drift, and could not have published a new rule until after the 2004 BoD convention meeting, the first week of February.

This way, rallyists with affected cars will have adequate notice (12/1 on the website, 1/1 in Fastrack) to prep cars for Sno*Drift, and have an opportunity to run all ProRally events in 2004.

Hope that helps. As to 2005, the fact that we instituted this suspension might indicate that we're keen to permanently eliminate the rule for 2005, but you should still send member comment during the rules process!

>Rich Smith

- Christian

Bjorn Christian Edstrom
www.christianedstrom.com
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
583 Posts
Christian,

Thanks for the prompt explaination; AND thanks to the PRB for taking action that will have the most immediate impact. Well done!

This action should be seen by ALL as a significant turning point. It may not affect a great number of competitor's in the short run, but it goes a long way toward breaking down transitional barriers between Club and Pro and re-establishing a "state of mind" based on open competition.

Rich Smith

Vive le "Pro-le-Ralliat"
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
56 Posts
Christian - The (at least temporary) demise of the 20/12 year rule is a very good turn of events and is something which I and others have advocated privately to the PRB and publicly since its inception. Two questions:

1. Why is the PRB only looking at the rule's impact now? Wasn't that ever done in 2001?

2. Perhaps I am missing something, but if they were planning to lift the 20-year rule, why did they feel a need to lift the age cut-off in H-class? If every properly-prepared car can now compete in National and Divisional events, there was no need to qualify older cars under the H-class rules to escape the reach of the 20 year rule. Seems like they got their rule making backwards on this issue. Or am I missing a logical explanation?

Bill Rhodes
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
107 Posts
Thanx Bill;

I thought I had missed something, too. If the 12/20 is lifted then historical could be restored to being historical. I was a little bummed when I bought a '68 car and found out an '84 would be in the same class.
actually I like seeded classes better still. I wouldn't care if a racer had a metro or a wrx. If they run the same stage time they could be in the same class.

The problem with most class systems is that there is always a dominant car, unless seriously regulated.
Maybe a qualifying/timing-in session could be instituted. Do it at a closed course venue and charge admission. Waalaa, instant cash for organisers, and a place for sponsors to do their thing.

Pipe-Dreams

Dick"capitalist pig"Fuhrman
Rallys should be profitable
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
91 Posts
It is nice to know all my money spent on my galant is not going to waste, if I get it done for the 2004 season.

Excited to see the clubs input being reflected in SCCA decisions.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,275 Posts
I think this has created a poopy situation wrt historic overlap for 2004, but then I was also not a huge fan of the 2004 historic rules either.

Am I the only one who likes the FIA rules? ;)

On the other hand, this means I could have a 1967 Cortina GT as a Grp 2 ProRally car... now there's something to think about.

<insert grumble about no Pro H class here>

Glenn
 
1 - 20 of 22 Posts
Top