Special Stage Forums banner

1 - 3 of 3 Posts

·
Start Flat 30k Finish
Joined
·
366 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
Hi Ya'll,

Just thought I'd remind everybody that tomorrow is the deadline for suggestions for the 2003 rulebook...

Following is a copy of the email I just sent off, let me know what you think!

Andrew Havas
http://www.andrewhavas.com

***********************************


[email protected]
[email protected]

To the members of the Performance Rally Board,

Please accept the following list of items I believe worthy of consideration when discussing possible rule changes for the 2003 rulebook:

(1) When considering possible changes in Open Class technical regulations, I strongly suggest any and all changes take the Canadian regulations as well as FIA regulations into account. Any rule changes, I.E., a change in restrictor size, should mimic these regulations in order to foster more participation from international competitors. Our national series gains nothing from a unique set of regulations.

(2) Eliminate minimum weight rule. Too difficult to enforce, and it does not control cost as intended. A manufacturer can still spend an infinite amout of money develop an ultra lightweight car, then add ballast in ideal locations. The banning of semi-automatic geaboxes and other high cost items is the only effective cost-cutting methods. Limiting the number of tires used per car, per event would go much further to levelling the playing field than a minimum weight rule.

(3) Eliminate minimum event participation requirement. This is completely unneccesary, and only punishes the privateer teams for lack of budget.

(4) Require professionally prepared route notes at all national events, and encourage optional recce programs. Necessary to raise the level of U.S. driving talent, and also encourages international participation/interest in our championship.

(5) Require FIA timing, with traditional backup timing by stage workers. The system may be owned by the SCCA or each event, whichever is logistically more feasible. The ProRally series has reached a level of competition where manually timing stage finishes at distances often greater than 50 meters, (line of sight sometimes parallel to the the direction of stage travel!) is an embarrassment!!

(6) Clarify rule 5.6.F:

Main hoop design criteria seems to conflict with FIA design criteria. I.E.- ProDrive's current roll cage design, while clearly superior to most structures, does not seem to meet 5.6.F.1.

5.6.F.2, addresses weld quality. This rule is not enforced properly, and the Performance Rally community needs to take steps to correct this situation before a tragedy occurs.

(7) Clarify seed point awards with regard to international participation, and publish rankings on the SCCA website. Seed rankings are too subjective and often times mysterious.

(8) Consider a change in seed point accreditation, with respect to four-wheel drive vs. two-wheel drive. Current points allocation unfairly favours four-wheel drive competitors.

(9) Consider restricting ClubRally to two-wheel drive only. Alternately, encourage developement of a spec two-wheel drive class, to run alongside ProRally. Benefits of a two-wheel drive only regional championship would be most certainly cost control, as well as creating an arena that places it's emphasis on driver skill more than the car and is a true "stepping stone" to ProRally.

(10) Make rule changes by member vote only. Current system is flawed, I believe a more democratic system for rule changes is needed. The ProRally board asks for and considers member input, but has provided itself the authority to initiate and implement rule changes at any time, and the ProRally community has no recourse.

In order for the series to thrive, we need rules stability. A self-appointed PRB, with the ability to make immediate and final rule changes, does not foster confidence in current competitors, manufacturers, not to mention those considering an involvement in ProRally. It is important that a clearly defined process for the implementation of new rules and rule changes be initiated to ensure the longevity of ProRally.

ProRally Board positions are supposedly named by the BOD and not voted on. I propose this changes also, and we hold annual elections for PRB positions. Members seeking a post will campaign and be nominated by the ProRally community.

Respectfully,
Andrew Havas
http://www.andrewhavas.com
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,757 Posts
HI Andrew,
Thanks very much for poting this for our viewing. I'll comment on the ones I have an opinion on ; the others I am neutral.

>
>(3) Eliminate minimum event participation requirement. This
>is completely unneccesary, and only punishes the privateer
>teams for lack of budget.
I agree; this rule was intended, IMHO, to reduce privateer participation. It think that intent is bad for the sport WITHIN A CLUB ORGANIZATION LIKE SCCA.

>
>(5) Require FIA timing, with traditional backup timing by
>stage workers. The system may be owned by the SCCA or each
>event, whichever is logistically more feasible. The
>ProRally series has reached a level of competition where
>manually timing stage finishes at distances often greater
>than 50 meters, (line of sight sometimes parallel to the the
>direction of stage travel!) is an embarrassment!!

I can support this; what does this cost?
>
>(6) Clarify rule 5.6.F:
>
>Main hoop design criteria seems to conflict with FIA design
>criteria. I.E.- ProDrive's current roll cage design, while
>clearly superior to most structures, does not seem to meet
>5.6.F.1.
>
>5.6.F.2, addresses weld quality. This rule is not enforced
>properly, and the Performance Rally community needs to take
>steps to correct this situation before a tragedy occurs.

I submitted a complete re-write of the cage rules' I did not address this hoop design criteria. I'll email you a copy to comment on. The weld quality issue has bit us in the past, in a fatal accident almost 20 years ago.

>
>(8) Consider a change in seed point accreditation, with
>respect to four-wheel drive vs. two-wheel drive. Current
>points allocation unfairly favours four-wheel drive
>competitors.
I agree; this gulf haS been growing rapidly in the last 2-3 years.
>
>(9) Consider restricting ClubRally to two-wheel drive only.
>Alternately, encourage developement of a spec two-wheel
>drive class, to run alongside ProRally. Benefits of a
>two-wheel drive only regional championship would be most
>certainly cost control, as well as creating an arena that
>places it's emphasis on driver skill more than the car and
>is a true "stepping stone" to ProRally.
I don't agree but it's a worthy idea deserving discussion.
>
>(10) Make rule changes by member vote only. Current system
>is flawed, I believe a more democratic system for rule
>changes is needed. The ProRally board asks for and
>considers member input, but has provided itself the
>authority to initiate and implement rule changes at any
>time, and the ProRally community has no recourse.

We can appeal politically to the BoD. But having at least some members elected may be good thing. Definitely worthy of discussion as a way to remedy the current lack of trust/confidence.

>In order for the series to thrive, we need rules stability.
>A self-appointed PRB, with the ability to make immediate and
>final rule changes, does not foster confidence in current
>competitors, manufacturers, not to mention those considering
>an involvement in ProRally.

So true!!

Regards,
Mark Bowers
 

·
Slid'n around 'n havin a ball
Joined
·
2,953 Posts
just being a smart ass...

"I strongly suggest any and all changes take the Canadian regulations as well as FIA regulations into account."...
------------
I saw where the above rule suggestion came from when I read the following...
-------------
"Current points allocation unfairly FAVOURS four-wheel drive competitors."
----
aha! so you are an undercover Canadian!
No wonder you are not well accepted by our patriotic, mid-american handlers.
rz
 
1 - 3 of 3 Posts
Top