[gplsek]

Here is the link to the document on the scca site

http://www.scca.org/news/tech/prorally/RulesConcepts4Comment.pdf

send your comments to [email protected]

-George Plsek
PRB Competitor Liason

(EDIT: Fixed URL)

 

[saywhat]

Thanks George

For the link, I hope it increases member input to the PRB.

 

[Trevor Donison]

RE: Thanks George

Now if I could only remove the radio from my P car, I'd be perfect.

 

[Jon Bogert]

Allow me to pull the pin and lob the first comment...

1. Concept: Seeding and Start Order.
We need to know the exact system to be used to determine start order before we can comment meaningfully. If it starts jackrabbits who never finish up front that's no good, even if their stage times (until they crash) are amazingly fast.

2. Concept: Sound Testing Procedure.
I defer to those who know what this means.

3. Concept: Production and Production GT Driver Safety and Vehicle Durability Upgrades.
They're not killing PGT yet. Cool!

4. Concept: Initiate a ProRally Co-Driver Licensing Program.
Daphne's a Seed 6 driver? I guess sitting next to me for an extra year has made her a better rally driver.

5. Concept: Group N Rules.
Eliminates once and for all those ridiculous "local homologations". That's good, I guess.

New Safety Rules...

1. Seats. "FIA or equivalent specification one-piece seats must be installed"
Amend to include metal tube frame suspension seats, which many people use.

2. First Aid Kits.
With increased spec should come some sort of training.

3. Environmental Spill Kits.
I'll treat my bleeding co-driver as soon as I ensure no coolant has spilled on pre-emergent ferns.

4. Roll Cage Requirements.
Implementation nightmare. So old cages aren't safe enough, but they're grandfathered? How about we bring ALL cages up to snuff!

 

[Guest]

Thank you, George, for announcing the new rule changes. I know you guys are working hard, sometimes for a difficult audience (including me).

I'll write separately to the PRB, but I want to share my thoughts with others on this forum just in case they spark some more ideas.

>>1. Concept: Seeding and Start Order. ... Current rankings as well
>> as the calculation method will be posted on the SCCA web site.

Glad to hear it will be public knowledge. This will defuse a lot of the current complaints.

>>2. Concept: Sound Testing Procedure....
>> Probe Placement: 18 inches and 45 degrees from exhaust outlet.

45 degrees, parallel to the plane of the ground, or perpendicular, or somewhere in between? Parallel to the ground makes the most sense since reflections will have the least impact on measurement.

>>3. Concept: Production and Production GT Driver Safety and Vehicle
>> Durability Upgrades.

People have been clamoring for vents and seam welding for a long time. The latter helps cars last longer, the former helps the crews last longer. I'm all for it.

>>4. Concept: Initiate a ProRally Co-Driver Licensing Program. A new
>> Co-Driver licensing program that grandfathers all existing
>> ProRally Co-Drivers.... Drivers converting from Co-Drivers
>> will be started in seed 6 based on their general rallying
>> experience.

What's one more license to add to the list? Though co-drivers don't necessarily have great driving skills (speaking from experience), they know enough about handling and car control that I don't think they should start out at seed 8. Not that you'll ever get ME in that seat, I don't think!

----------

Apparently being dropped from consideration since no mention was made in the proposed changes....

1) the three tier system. Adopting this system would eliminate 80% of the current gripes and be a tremendously positive move on the part of our club. *sigh*

2) Four first-place finishes will once again lose a championship to five DNFs. In other words, the five-event minimum appears to remain.

 

[DaveHintz]

RE: ...

This stuff looks reasonable to me. Thanks to those who volunteered their time to work on this.
Dave
Car # 207

 

[daphne]

Couple of comments:

1. Seed and start order. Are that many people in seeds 0 - 5 being passed on stages? I was under the impression that the largest amount of passing was in seeds 6 - 8, where gathering empirical data regarding a driver's abilities is most difficult.

Implementing a comparative stage time system is a lot more complex than it sounds. How do you rate two drivers that have not driven the same events? Do you let someone who drives like a bat out of hell but then crashes get in front of someone who balances speed and finishing position? How do you account for mechanical problems? With all these works teams, how to you account for team strategy?

Is there a real problem out there right now? I ask only because the costs of implementing a speed based start order system may far exceed the benefits to the community. That's obviously the PRB's call, but I would certainly be interested in seeing the analysis behind this one.

4. Co-driver licensing program. The current rules state that a Pro licensed co-driver who becomes a driver starts in seed 7. Now we're changing that to seed 6? Why?

Safety rule 1. One-piece seats. I have to assume they mean non-reclining. There are numerous FIA approved tube frame seats that are not technically one piece. Or do we all have to go out and buy one piece fiberglass or carbon fiber seats?

I'm not even going to touch the roll cage stuff on a public forum...

 

[Bruce]

>
>Apparently being dropped from consideration since no
>mention was made in the proposed changes....
>
>1) the three tier system. Adopting this system would
>eliminate 80% of the current gripes and be a tremendously
>positive move on the part of our club. *sigh*
>

John, as you know, this has not been "dropped from consideration" but is being discussed by the ClubRally Stewards at the direction of the PRB. Right now, we're looking at the old SuperDivisional rules to see if that's a place to start. It doesn't look likely for 2003, but anything's possible. The ClubRally Stewards could decide to start their own SuperD Series to see how it works without rulebook changes.

Bruce

 

[Trevor Donison]

>>
>>Apparently being dropped from consideration since no
>>mention was made in the proposed changes....
>>
>>1) the three tier system. Adopting this system would
>>eliminate 80% of the current gripes and be a tremendously
>>positive move on the part of our club. *sigh*
>>
>
>John, as you know, this has not been "dropped from
>consideration" but is being discussed by the ClubRally
>Stewards at the direction of the PRB. Right now, we're
>looking at the old SuperDivisional rules to see if that's a
>place to start. It doesn't look likely for 2003, but
>anything's possible. The ClubRally Stewards could decide to
>start their own SuperD Series to see how it works without
>rulebook changes.
>
Or Pacific Rally Series for those of us out west? (way west, near the beaches)

 

[Bruce]

>>
>Or Pacific Rally Series for those of us out west? (way west,
>near the beaches)

For those of you too young to remember, the SuperD series had three "areas" - east, middle and west. There was a championship in each one. I don't remember the details of how points were counted, but I have a copy of the previous rules around here someplace.

Bruce

 

[Ben]

>For those of you too young to remember, the SuperD series
>had three "areas" - east, middle and west. There was a
>championship in each one. I don't remember the details of
>how points were counted, but I have a copy of the previous
>rules around here someplace.

It was calculated in a manner that was similar to the ClubRally pointskeeping of the time. West was Norpac and Sopac, East was NEDiv and SEDiv (I think), and Middle was everything else.

I probably have a rulebook of the era lying around somewhere, so if you want the gory details I could probably post them.

I was the pointskeeper for both years of SuperD. You'd think I would remember these things, as I had to score every person who ran every ClubRally...

Ben

 

[Bruce]

So while we're on the subject...is this what most competitors would like to see? Or something that would require even more travel? Personally, I like the old SuperD, with liberal out-of-area points available...but I'm not a competitor.

SuperD didn't work before...it might now.

Bruce

 

[DaveHintz]

What would most competitors like? Very good question, and not easily answered. There will always be a group of competitors that wants to enter 1 or 2 ProRallies per year (just like happens in the National Rally Championship Series of almost all other countries). I don't think Super D would change that. Does anyone think it would?
Dave

 

[Guest]

>>
>>Apparently being dropped from consideration since no
>>mention was made in the proposed changes....
>>
>>1) the three tier system.
>
>John, as you know, this has not been "dropped from
>consideration" but is being discussed by the ClubRally
>Stewards at the direction of the PRB. Right now, we're
>looking at the old SuperDivisional rules to see if that's a
>place to start.

While you have me at a disadvantage because I missed the last conference call, I did read the minutes. I don't see that we're discussing this at the direction of the PRB, nor is there any indication from the web site that the PRB has asked us to evaluate it.

Instead, it appears to an outsider that a review of SuperD is a reaction to rumblings about "let's form our own western states championship."

It's important to note that the Super D is *not* the same thing as the three tier system. My understanding of Super D (it was before my time) is that it was comprised of left coast, no coast, and right coast championships built on "club" events rather than "pro."

The three tier system is decidedly different -- it defines "pro" as truly a pro series, leaves the club (divisional) series alone, and inserts a "national" series to fill the void left when our national playground suddenly became a pro playground.

We can debate whether Super D is of value in today's environment. However, that debate is independent of the need for a true three-tier system.

Why is there such reluctance to adopt this system? It requires practically no effort to put into place, it makes it easier for the manufacturers to define their rules without impacting the people racing on their own nickels, and it gives club racers a place to move up without having to compete against a manufacturer's budget. It also provides a farm system for the pro ranks.

Is there information we're not privy to that is a valid objection to the 3-tier approach? I know I'm not alone in seeing the great value we can provide to our members, including our manufacturer members, so why do we continue to balk? It certainly seems curious...

 

[Trevor Donison]

>What would most competitors like? Very good question, and
>not easily answered. There will always be a group of
>competitors that wants to enter 1 or 2 ProRallies per year
>(just like happens in the National Rally Championship Series
>of almost all other countries). I don't think Super D would
>change that. Does anyone think it would?
>Dave

Problem with Super D was it was too easy to not have head to head competition. It would be easy to cherry pick events.

I would be in favor of a system that would state you had 8 events, score best 6 and everyone has to run head to head to win.

 

[mgpsmith]

RE: Allow me to pull the pin and lob the first comment...

For what it's worth regarding the First Aid kits, I spoke at length with two of our PRB members at STPR regarding the kit and proposed training.
There are two aspects I am lobbying for,
1. A uniform kit in content, appearance and mounting location in the car. I think we have a reasonable concensus on the content; the packaging and mounting is, to my knowledge, still up in the air. Comments to me (email) regarding this would be appreciated - such things as bag vs. box. Attached to cage vs. carbody. Inside cockpit vs. in the back with the spare tire. etc....(ACP, I will pass these comments on to you as well).
2. A brief (15 min?) mandatory first aid review for all drivers and co-drivers at every event. Rallyists with at least a basic knowledge of how to use a reasonable first aid kit can save precious time in a mid-stage injury.

 

[Rick Hintz]

ClubRally Points System

Note that the ClubRally points system problems are not addressed at all.

 

[rallytaff]

RE: Allow me to pull the pin and lob the first comment...

Pete Morris (building "Son of CoROLLa"). My only concern is using tube framed seats. Having survived the worst crash of my 20 something career, using Sparco "Driver" seats, which I will continue using until I retire, I feel that ANY metal which surrounds my aged body inches from my skin, I am definetly AGAINST! I do not want to be speared by a breaking seat frame. My reasoning, how many WRC crews use tube framed seats? My guess, none!

 

[Mad Kiwi]

sound control with Anti Lag

How is the sound check going to work on the stage once the open/GR N cars have the anti lag turned on as this makes the car REALLY loud
Leon

 

[Bruce]

>While you have me at a disadvantage because I missed the
>last conference call, I did read the minutes. I don't see
>that we're discussing this at the direction of the PRB, nor
>is there any indication from the web site that the PRB has
>asked us to evaluate it.
>

The ClubRally Manager has the action item, and she tasked us to furnish feedback.


>It's important to note that the Super D is *not* the same
>thing as the three tier system. My understanding of
>Super D (it was before my time) is that it was comprised of
>left coast, no coast, and right coast championships built on
>"club" events rather than "pro."
>
>The three tier system is decidedly different -- it defines
>"pro" as truly a pro series, leaves the club (divisional)
>series alone, and inserts a "national" series to fill the
>void left when our national playground suddenly became a pro
>playground.
>
>We can debate whether Super D is of value in today's
>environment. However, that debate is independent of the
>need for a true three-tier system.

There are several valid proposals for a "third tier" system...all of them different enough to annoy supporters of the others. Super-D is a place to start, because it has fully developed rules that worked...sort of. Implementing Super-D as it was...perhaps with more liberal out-of-region rules...would tell us quickly how many people would take advantage of such a championship and how it ought to develop. A perfect system will take awhile to get in place, especially because of the large variety of proposals.

>
>Why is there such reluctance to adopt this system? It
>requires practically no effort to put into place, it makes
>it easier for the manufacturers to define their rules
>without impacting the people racing on their own nickels,
>and it gives club racers a place to move up without having
>to compete against a manufacturer's budget. It also
>provides a farm system for the pro ranks.

I don't notice any reluctance...in fact, I've heard most of the PRB speak favorably about it. Unfortunately, it hasn't been high on their priority list because of a lot of other things...like a bazillion requests for rule changes that had to be addressed.

Some of us who worked on Super-D and spent time implementing it - then watched it fall on its face - want to proceed with some caution.
But that's just me...

Bruce