Special Stage Forums banner

1 - 20 of 30 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
151 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
I heard a rumor at LSPR that the 20 year rule is under discussion and may be removed as a Prorally requirement. Is there any additional information on this?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
630 Posts
No additional info here, but it would be a smart move on the SCCA's part and would go a long way in regaining the trust of the non-manufacturer competitors.
 

·
www.christianedstrom.com
Joined
·
2,144 Posts
>I heard a rumor at LSPR that the 20 year rule is under
>discussion and may be removed as a Prorally requirement. Is
>there any additional information on this?

There is a discussion of the 20/12 year rule on the agenda for the PRB's November 7, 2003 call.

No one has proposed a motion to repeal, endorse, or modify the rule, but we are discussing it. A motion could be proposed and voted on during that meeting, or during a later meeting, or no action could be taken.

If you have an opinion, you should email the PRB.

Thanks,
- Christian

(Oh, and the PRB isn't committed to communication, I shouldn't be communicating on Specialstage, I sold out to the manufacturers, and I ain't keepin' it real, just to allay some of the likely responses! :+ )

Bjorn Christian Edstrom
www.christianedstrom.com
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
234 Posts
Seems I recall Greg Pachman from the AFR saying he was lobbying for removal of the age limit rules in one of his posts. I like the idea.

Gary #893
Loose Nut Racing
1989 Mazda 323 GTX (for sale)
1990 Eagle Talon Tsi
 

·
SURF!!! I'll cover you myself!
Joined
·
663 Posts
I think a load of e-mails to the PRB would be a good idea for those who have bitched about this is the past couple years.

With the current state of rally in the USA(dwindling prorally entries), it would be a good move to get guys like Andrew Havas back into the woods. WE NEED GIANT KILLERS!!!!


pete:7
 

·
www.christianedstrom.com
Joined
·
2,144 Posts
>I think a load of e-mails to the PRB would be a good idea
>for those who have bitched about this is the past couple
>years.

Me, too. It might be interesting to the community that on most issues about which there is great discussion on SpecialStage, the PRB generally receives anywhere from zero to two emails of member comment.

>pete:7

- Christian

Bjorn Christian Edstrom
www.christianedstrom.com
 

·
Big Jump 800
Joined
·
716 Posts
A "load" of e-mails?

I'd love to hear some thoughtful arguements why the 20 year rule should be revoked.

So far I've heard;
1. Because Kurt created it without member comment, we should revoke it without member comment.
2. Because people will "trust" the PRB again.
3. Because it is a bad rule.

Listen; you are all much more intellegent that THAT... send the PRB some well thought out arguements PLEASE! If your arguement falls into one of those above, then you haven't thought about WHY it is a bad rule, or WHY you it would cause you to regain trust in the PRB or WHY rule are created and revoked.

J.B. Niday
www.nidayrallysport.com

oh, and I'm not posting this on SpecialStage either... for many of the same reasons as Christian.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
583 Posts
Why a load of e-mails?

Christian and J.B,

A credible argument favoring AGE LIMITS has never been put forward by SCCA. Why should a ground-swell member initiative be necessary? Why doesn't the current PRD and PRB take the initiative to simply cull that unpopular restriction from the rules?

I think the onus is on SCCA to defend it, or remove it.

Rich Smith

Vive le "Pro-le-Ralliat"
 

·
don't cut
Joined
·
4,075 Posts
RE: Why a load of e-mails?

Just to defend "THE" SCCA, in a professional series like NASCAR Nextel Cup, there is a limit on the age of cars. In order to make rallying into a professional series supported by more manufacuturers like Pontiac and Toyota, there needs to be a similar limit on the age of cars in rallying.

Good enough argument? And please note I am not saying I support or disagree with this argument. It is just that, an argument for age limits on cars.

Richard Miller
 

·
www.christianedstrom.com
Joined
·
2,144 Posts
RE: Why a load of e-mails?

>Why doesn't the current PRD and PRB take the
>initiative to simply cull that unpopular restriction from
>the rules?

1. Neither JB nor I suggested you send a "Load of emails." That suggestion came from Peter Van Bogart.

2. You claim the rule is broadly unpopular.

Since January 29, 2003, the PRB has received two letters about the 20/12 year restrictions, both of which were received today, and directly in response to my request for opinions in this thread!

I have no a personal agenda with respect to the 20/12 year rule, and could be convinced to vote to retain or abolish it, but I would prefer that the competitors weigh in with their thoughts.

And, on the basis of the current response, it's hard for me to judge whether the rule is broadly popular, unpopular, or no one cares.

Cheers,
- Christian

[edited to reflect that two emails have now been received.]

Bjorn Christian Edstrom
www.christianedstrom.com
 

·
don't cut
Joined
·
4,075 Posts
RE: Why a load of e-mails?

Don,
You get my stock answer when ever any one says "The membership should be allowed to vote on that." The national by-laws list a way that the common member can bring an a change in the by-laws, such as requiring a direct vote on a rules change. I will be glad to help you prepare the petition if you wish.

As you know, I am running for the national BoD. 2 racers upset because of the way the Southwest division BoD voted to group cars together in races announced they were supporting one of my opponents. I explained to them the procedure for getting a rule changed. It took several days and several emails but now they are in the process of getting the rule changed. Should succeed before the start of next racing season too. Now the same 2 racers are thanking me for help. By the way, that particular rule change had been in the Texas region newsletter twice and been throughly discussed at the divisional meeting. The moral of the story is you have to pay attention and play by the rules. Which means you have to know the rules.

When do you want to start the petition?
Richard Miller
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
253 Posts
RE: Why a load of e-mails?

>Some of this would be resolved by allowing the membership to
>vote on rule changes in the first place!

ALL of the problems would be resolved by allowing the membership to
vote on rule changes AND THE MEMBERS ON THE PRB in the first place!

Bill
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,368 Posts
Apple and Oranges...

>Just to defend "THE" SCCA, in a professional series like
>NASCAR Nextel Cup, there is a limit on the age of cars. In


There is no age limit in Winston cup. It doesn't matter when the car was built as long as the sheet metal conforms to current approved models. You can hang new sheet metal on a cup car,and spend a lot less than the cost of a new Evo, even with wind tunnel time.

I wish everyone would stop making analogies to nascar, like the incredibly stupid "Pro rally is like Winston Cup and Club rally is like Busch series" statements. One Winston Cup team's payroll is more money than the budget of every rally team in North America combined. Pro-Rally is like the entry level racing that the sons and grandsons of Winston Cup drivers do, and Club rally is like Pro Rally used to be.

In Pro Rally it takes a $150,000 car to win $0
In Club Rally it takes a $10,000 car to win $0

In Nascar it takes an $80,000 car to win $500,000.

Thus, Club Rally is closer to being a "professional sport" like Nascar, than Pro Rally is.
 

·
don't cut
Joined
·
4,075 Posts
RE: Apple and Oranges...

>>Just to defend "THE" SCCA, in a professional series like
>>NASCAR Nextel Cup, there is a limit on the age of cars. In
>
>
>There is no age limit in Winston cup. It doesn't matter
>when the car was built as long as the sheet metal conforms
>to current approved models. You can hang new sheet metal on
>a cup car,and spend a lot less than the cost of a new Evo,
>even with wind tunnel time.
Pretty much what we have been told about rally cars. I can up date by 1985 Saab 900 to look like the last one built which was a 1993 model and be legal.

Also, NASCAR is moving toward what is called a 'common template.' That is, the sheet metal on all the cars is identical. The only thing that makes it a Ford or a Chevy on the outside is the decals.

I would also hazard a guess that updating an old chassis with new sheet metal does cost about the same as a new Evo or about $40,000.
Richard
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
234 Posts
RE: Why a load of e-mails?

I believe the age limit restrictions should be removed because:

1. Allowing older cars allows lower funded teams the ability to enter prorally. Expereince in prorally may allow them to move up to more modern equipment once they have the ability to demonstrate ability and secure sponsorship.

2. Older cars add a sense of nostalga to prorally that is otherwise missing. The historic class theorectically addresses this issue but limits the ability of older cars to use more modern equipment. Its downright fun to watch a rotary car take on modern awd turbo beasts. Fun equals spectators, who equal potential dollars to sponsors.

3. There is no basis to believe a mass entrance of 20/12 cars would enter prorally should he ban be lifted.

4. The production classes are almost non-existent in prorally and this would allow those classes to be revived.

5. Some cars, like the 323 GTX, should never be forced into open class due to age restrictions.

Ok, this is from a newbie, so you guys with numerous years of experience can come up with better arguments. Bring on the ideas and let us know how to relay our thoughts to the PRB.

Gary #893
Loose Nut Racing
 

·
400 flat to crest
Joined
·
5,777 Posts
RE: Why a load of e-mails?

>Just to defend "THE" SCCA, in a professional series like
>NASCAR Nextel Cup, there is a limit on the age of cars. In
>order to make rallying into a professional series supported
>by more manufacuturers like Pontiac and Toyota, there needs
>to be a similar limit on the age of cars in rallying.


There is no need to ban older cars, if they are junk, or poorly driven or uncompetitive, the place they finish will take care of keeping them out of sight.
If on the other hand the older cars are built better, driven faster, and on overall times they happen to beat the more modern cars well then we see a good reason to get them out of sight.

Richard I think you are a bit older than me,
Shirley you realise that your scenario is not happening, and if a MFG decides to take part in the SSCA rallies it from their own Corporate wide reasons, not piddly ass crap like we have going on here unseen except by die hard fans, and a few kids watchin'TV.
>
>Good enough argument? And please note I am not saying I
>support or disagree with this argument. It is just that, an
>argument for age limits on cars.

It is absolutely irrelevant to the situation here in the US.
In a transaction there should be a benifit both ways, agreed before the transaction occurs, Why should the collective membership slit their throats and not enter TO MAKE THE SERIES Attractive to a mfg.?

Remember, if you BAN MY CAR, YOU BAN _ME_.
>
>Richard Miller





John Vanlandingham
Seattle, WA. 98168

Vive le Prole-le-ralliat

Black Rocket Rally Tires
http://www.blackrockettires.com/
 

·
400 flat to crest
Joined
·
5,777 Posts
COMRADE SMITH HITS THE NAIL ON THE HEAD!!!!

>Christian and J.B,
>
>A credible argument favoring AGE LIMITS has never been put
>forward by SCCA.

LIKEWISE THE 32MM RULE FOR PGT.
LIKEWISE THE 34MM FOR OPEN.





Why should a ground-swell member initiative
>be necessary? Why doesn't the current PRD and PRB take the
>initiative to simply cull that unpopular restriction from
>the rules?
>

AGAIN:
>I think the onus is on SCCA to defend it, or remove it.
>
>Rich "THE HAMMER" Smith
>
>Vive le "Pro-le-Ralliat"
RIGHT ON! (AND LEFT OFF)





John Vanlandingham
Seattle, WA. 98168

Vive le Prole-le-ralliat

Black Rocket Rally Tires
http://www.blackrockettires.com/
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
415 Posts
RE: COMRADE SMITH Misses THE NAIL ON THE HEAD!!!!

The PRB's responsibility is to act as our representatives. You have to tell them in an "Official Format of Communication" as to how you think and feel about certain topics.

I would assume that if you can't compose an email relevant to an issue, but you can write paragraph after paragraph on a forum about it, then something is wrong with what you are trying to say...

Put the forum aside for a bit and write why you, the member of the SCCA, feel a certain way.
 
1 - 20 of 30 Posts
Top