Special Stage Forums banner
1 - 20 of 22 Posts

· Sweat and anger and shame.
Joined
·
1,816 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
so, this has been hashed out again and again, but there is currently a rule change in the chca ballot for a 20 competitor limit.

now, i read the rules, and the rally cars are classified as a class with no direct rule distinction between awd and 2wd. the first indication of the difference between the two is in 902.F but it doesn't distinguish the two specifically as a class. later in the rules at 903.A and 903.C it talks about payout being split between the two but no mention of either being a separate class.

now, the wording in the rule book is very vague (tell me what "competition" means per the new rule change by defining it out of the rule book) so it could be interpreted by someone as to mean that 20 cars is 20 cars. in the past 20 cars was clarified through our stewards to mean 20 cars in awd and 20 in 2wd. given that we don't have any stewards or something currently, i don't know how to enterpret this rule, but i personally would vote no on it unless we had something like a confirmation saying that the two were different like what we had last year.

anyways, next year i would love to clarify some of the things in the book (like how recce penalties for speeding are only specified in rally) but for now, just thought i would bring it to peoples attention.

don't forget, 2 weeks from tonight is the chca meeting.
 

· Rapidly filling your mirrors
Joined
·
315 Posts
You can read my take on it on the Hill Climb forum. I don't support this regardless of how you count your cars.

But anyhow...the meeting in two weeks is not about these topics. It's car owners only discussing construction rules not procedural rules.
 

· Left 4 into beachball
Joined
·
1,921 Posts
yeah, i knew that, but i figured that since i was on a rant, might as well try to get some of the rally guys to a meeting.
That's probably as hard as getting people who own rally cars to actually attend a race. :rolleyes:

Dave
 

· Left 4 into beachball
Joined
·
1,921 Posts
you just wait till in introduce the 40mm restrictor rule to the rally car construction rules and no one shows up. awd and 2wd. that means no restrictor for me.
If somebody does that, I'm running in Open Comp. Restrictors are for lawyers...

Dave
 

· Mä meen vittu sinne!
Joined
·
6,242 Posts
This rule is the least of concern. I'm more interested in the volunteer rule, neither the old or new one being good.

Old way. All the volunteer lists were generated early. I was assigned to bring a volunteer for Temple and Grand Junction. I did Temple, ran around with $20, couldn't find anyone to volunteer, went and worked scales myself. Then Ty and Troy came and relieved me once it was time to go. I wasn't at Grand Junction. Technically, by the way the rule is currently written, I should have owed $100 since I didn't supply a volunteer when I was supposed to, even though I was 1000 miles away in Oregon.

New way, if you can't supply a volunteer, you can pay $25 to hire one. However, it still states that if your volunteer doesn't show you still owe $100. Mark and Mike's concern was: you show up, don't have a volunteer, give the club $25 to hire a volunteer, then that volunteer doesn't show up, do you still owe $100? I would think by paying the club $25 to hire one, I've relieved my obligation, but it's not stated. They also said, What if there aren't volunteers to be hired. In my opinion then your right back to the current rule and you're trying to beg and bribe someone to work for you, or are working yourself.

My take, personally, I'd rather pay $25 extra and not have to worry about it and let my friends and crew that come go spectate, so I'm going to vote yes on the rule change. I think the what if's above aren't the intent and I like the option personally.

What about the gloves and helmet rule. Change from 'in motion' to 'in competition'. Is the intent to allow us to not have to wear all the gear coming down the hill as well, or to make us have to wear our gear anytime we are in the car the entire weekend?

Hey Todd, what's the hill climb forum link? I got a new computer and need to rebookmark it.
 

· eating dust taking photos
Joined
·
3,868 Posts
This rule is the least of concern. I'm more interested in the volunteer rule, neither the old or new one being good.

Old way. All the volunteer lists were generated early. I was assigned to bring a volunteer for Temple and Grand Junction. I did Temple, ran around with $20, couldn't find anyone to volunteer, went and worked scales myself. Then Ty and Troy came and relieved me once it was time to go. I wasn't at Grand Junction. Technically, by the way the rule is currently written, I should have owed $100 since I didn't supply a volunteer when I was supposed to, even though I was 1000 miles away in Oregon.

New way, if you can't supply a volunteer, you can pay $25 to hire one. However, it still states that if your volunteer doesn't show you still owe $100. Mark and Mike's concern was: you show up, don't have a volunteer, give the club $25 to hire a volunteer, then that volunteer doesn't show up, do you still owe $100? I would think by paying the club $25 to hire one, I've relieved my obligation, but it's not stated. They also said, What if there aren't volunteers to be hired. In my opinion then your right back to the current rule and you're trying to beg and bribe someone to work for you, or are working yourself.

My take, personally, I'd rather pay $25 extra and not have to worry about it and let my friends and crew that come go spectate, so I'm going to vote yes on the rule change. I think the what if's above aren't the intent and I like the option personally.

What about the gloves and helmet rule. Change from 'in motion' to 'in competition'. Is the intent to allow us to not have to wear all the gear coming down the hill as well, or to make us have to wear our gear anytime we are in the car the entire weekend?

Hey Todd, what's the hill climb forum link? I got a new computer and need to rebookmark it.


not Todd but...

http://p207.ezboard.com/bhillclimbracing
 

· Rapidly filling your mirrors
Joined
·
315 Posts
If you use the old ezboard link you can avoid the register.com ads at the bottom. The price we pay for a minimal charge on the site.

I agree for the most part on the volunteer rule. I do like the idea and I know the intentions are good. However...the simplistic way it is written and with no supporting doc it begs as many new questions as it answers. With plans to do a few events next year and Chris not being able to go I'd like to be able to pay $25 to cover my commitment. I have ZERO problem with that. But I'd be more than a bit upset if I had to pay a fine because the Club "didn't have enough volunteers" to handle it. On the other hand; if that $25 goes to the volunteer someone could bag $150 for the weekend if they wished so maybe that's the plan?
 

· Rapidly filling your mirrors
Joined
·
315 Posts
FYI, CHCA general rules meeting is tonight. If anyone would like to attend, I'll be leaving my house at 5:30, and you're welcome to hitch a ride.

Dave
It's general CAR CONSTRUCTION rules. Meaning related to car building and such. Technically the car count rule/vote is not a part of this meeting nor any of the other topics of the most recent ballot.
 

· Left 4 into beachball
Joined
·
1,921 Posts
It's general CAR CONSTRUCTION rules. Meaning related to car building and such. Technically the car count rule/vote is not a part of this meeting nor any of the other topics of the most recent ballot.
Yes, but general car construction has an effect on rally car rules as technically they supersede rally class rules. For example, rules that passed tonight that IMO directly effect the rally class:

Top 10 payout is now top 5 payout
padded steering wheels required
quick release steering wheels required
flywheel scatter shield required
driveshaft loop required
all seats must be metal
all harnesses must be 3"

There were other things as well, but that's what I remeber of the ones that could effect the rally group. Fewer than 20 people attended, so it only took 8-10 people voting yes for some of these measures to pass.

Dave
 

· Mä meen vittu sinne!
Joined
·
6,242 Posts
You guys should read 901.A from the CHCA rulebook.
We aren't required to build to the General Construction rules. That is for all the other classes.
There's plenty of existing rules in there that we don't meet and never have.
 

· Left 4 into beachball
Joined
·
1,921 Posts
You guys should read 901.A from the CHCA rulebook.
We aren't required to build to the General Construction rules. That is for all the other classes.
There's plenty of existing rules in there that we don't meet and never have.
That's what I thought too, but I was assured at the meeting that these rules overrule every class rule...except for the Quads which have an exception in the last rule in Section 13. If more if you guys had showed up, we could've added the rally class to the quads in the exception.

In the end, I'm not sure what relavance these changes will have on the class...I'm just posting what went down.

Dave
 

· Mä meen vittu sinne!
Joined
·
6,242 Posts
Well alot of that stuff already existed in the rule book, such as metal seats, marked ignition switches, driveshaft retainers, flywheel scatter shields, padded steering wheel, etc.
I'm sure since you've now inquired and made it public they'll decide to start enforcing them. It's going to be weird for almost every one of us to try to abide by the suspension rules. Time to replace all that hardware with approved hardware.

The one about requiring positive return springs directly to the carburetor throttle arm will be especially difficult in rally cars, since maybe one or two have carburetors.

Honestly, if they enforced alot of this stuff, I wouldn't compete in hill climbs. I won't be at Temple probably so I guess I'll find out how that event goes for everyone.
 
1 - 20 of 22 Posts
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top