[JB Niday]

There is a competitor bulletin on the SCCA web site which indicates that the period for member comment on 2005 rules will be from June 1 to July 1, 2004. This bulletin is found at:
http://www.scca.com/_Filelibrary/File/PRCB030404.pdf

There were some unavoidable delays in the 2005 process, not the least of which was dealing with the problems of the 2004 rulebook.

Well, that June 1 date has come and gone. The Performance Rally Board will be prepared to publish the list by June 20 and members will have until July 20 for comment. This is the normal 30 day review period.

I'm sorry for the delay.

J.B. Niday
www.nidayrallysport.com

 

[Team_Harco]

That's nice. Did I miss the original notice that this was available in March? I look forward to providing my comments - particularly as they pertain to restrictors in PGT.

I am also looking forward to everyone else to provide their comments on the PGT restrictor rule. ;-)

Scott
www.teamharco.com
Team Harco Motorsports
"Win on Sunday, Sleep on Monday"

 

[jandreini]

>That's nice. Did I miss the original notice that this was
>available in March?

You must have. It's in a Competition Bulletin dated 3/4.

 

[Rallychick from Oregon]

So.... is the PRB going to use SCCA's new forums to get this info to us faster than the month or two late that FasTrack occurs?

I mean, the SCCA went to all this trouble to get these forums in place, and at least for Rally, it seems like no one is using them except a few people looking for answers.

There's even separate forums for each class, region, division, whatever.

Sure would be nice if we could get info faster than we usually do....

KT

 

[MDBodnar]

I have enough trouble keeping up with this forum.

And now there is a RA forum and an SCCA forum and a Mid-West forum and countless specific car type forums...

Too Many to keep track of...

Did the SCCA forum ever get linked here?

Mike

 

[Rallychick from Oregon]

I actually stumbled across the SCCA forums on their website by accident. I didn't even know it was there.

Given that statement, I'm going to go out on a limb here and answer you question with "No".

Besides, hardly anyone in rally uses the SCCA forums, we're all on this one. It would make more sense for the PRB to utilize what's already out there as opposed to reinventing the wheel...

Okay, so the bulletin in question here says that the 2005 proposed rules for member comment will be available to us members in electronic format only, not utilizing the FasTrack.

Where and when will we get a peek at these, so we can comment?

Thanks!
KT

 

[jandreini]

>
>Where and when will we get a peek at these, so we can
>comment?
>
>Thanks!
>KT

According to the original post, these should be available around June 20. It looks like the PRB intends to give 30 days for comment, regardless of the actual date. Hopefully, PRB will let us know when the proposed changes appear.

 

[JB Niday]

The actual list will be posted on the SCCA's web site cuz they like to control offical communication that way.

George, Ben, Christian or I will post here and tell y'all once its been posted there.

I assure you you'll get 30 days.

J.B. Niday
www.nidayrallysport.com

 

[jimmy]

Looks like it was posted to SCCA site yesterday:

http://www.scca.org/_Filelibrary/File/PRCB062104.pdf

It is buried in a section called "SCCA Garage". Go figure.

press on,

 

[Adrian Wintle]

>Looks like it was posted to SCCA site yesterday:
>
>http://www.scca.org/_Filelibrary/File/PRCB062104.pdf
>
>It is buried in a section called "SCCA Garage". Go figure.
>
>press on,

It would be nice if it actually referenced the rules that are proposed to change, preferably with the suggested text. It is pretty hard to make sensible comments about, for instance (I'll start at the beginning):

1. Requiring fire systems/dry chemical

What does this mean? Is it a proposal to require a plumbed-in dry chemical fire system in every car? Is it requiring a fire system OR a dry chemical extinguishant? Is the idea to make the existing on-board system rules mandatory, or would this change their specifications?

Also, is there any justification for the change? I.e. would a fire system have prevented the recent fires from completely destroying the cars, or is it just to provide extra time to exit the car?

Time to start writing comments/questions.
Adrian

 

[Rallychick from Oregon]

Well, I went and downloaded the Competitor Bulletin, printed it out, and started scribbling on it.

Then I ran out of room to make notes.

So I opened a Word doc, then opened the most recent version of the Performance Rally Rules 2004 edition, revision B, and started referencing and typing.

Then I opened the FIA Technical Regs, Appendix J, articles 251 through 254, for the Group N stuff. Interesting reading.

I agree with Adrian, it would have been nice to know the rationale behind some of these proposed changes. Some of them seem to be cleaning up of wording; example, "Banning sternum latches" for harnesses. But the PRR already says that you shall not use sternum latches, use of the words "shall not" indicates that you can't use them. They're already banned. Same thing with the proposed rule about the air bag. They already have to be either removed completely or just disabled, is the proposed rule amending it to "remove air bags" and not just be able to disable them?

I also would like to see what the full text of the Procedure for dissolving a class.

Anyway, when all was said and done, I had a 6 page document of notes and comments on the rule changes. And yes, I did send the whole thing off to Sue, Doug, and the PRB.

Oh, and a question: can anyone define the phrase, "appropriately licensed SCCA scrutineer"?
Thanks!
KT

 

[JC_595]

Banning Sternum latches on belts?
What are they thinking?

JC
#595
www.gnimotorsports.com

 

[Don Kennedy]

Boy you're energetic and have time. It'll take me forever to write up all my thoughts (similiar to yours and Adrians I bet). Maybe you could post the whole thing here and I could cut and paste

 

[Rallychick from Oregon]

Sternum latches have not been allowed at least in the last 5 years or so, I think this is just cleaning up of the language in the book.

And I guess I could post my thoughts here, but shouldn't you all come up with some thoughts of your own? If there's interest, I guess I could post a new thread about it and then everyone could have a good time explaining things to me and telling me why I'm wrong/crazy/whatever.

If people are interested, please let me know and I'll do it. What I wrote is pretty long, and it'll take a bit to go through it, but it might be worthwhile.

Things are kind of slow, and I wanted to get my thoughts down while I was thinking of it (I am a driver, you know, and tend to forget things), so I spent a morning and just hacked away at it.

KT

 

[wahl]

I have to agree with Adrian. Some of these sections and comments make no sense out of context. We need a longer more sensible document here.

Examples:
tech/open banning fly by wire throttle. Well what about cars that come with pedal boxes from the factory? (VW/Audi/Porsche) I know for a fact that there are at least 2 cars (no open class however) like this now out there racing.

Why are rear doors suddenly available in a different material but the minimum weight went up slightly??


PGT to move to group N rules. This has taken MUCH longer than I expected. But does that leave out non homologated cars (eclipse/talon,etc) finally?

Not counting all events for points???? Pro or Club?? Why?
Won't this then begin to affect atendance?

etc,etc,etc.

These need better organization.

Ed

 

[Rallychick from Oregon]

Like the minutes from the meetings... these proposed rules need some background.

JB, is there anyway, that y'all could do another competitor bulletin to clarify the proposed rules?? Speficically, the why's behind all this.

I agree, what if an electronic throttle came standard from the factory? What if there is no cable or mechanical option for that vehicle? Doesn't that limit what kind of car a person could prepare? If this is the aim, why not just have a rule that says, "competitors shall prepare cars made by x, y, and z manufacturer" and have done with it.

Okay, I took that to extremes. Sorry!

Seriously, though, in order to comment in a knowledgable fashion, we need a little background into why these rules should be passed into the rule book.

Thanks!! Also, can we see minutes from the last few months of meetings?? I haven't seen any in the FasTrack for a while. Are you still having meetings??

KT

 

[Lurch]

Electronic throttles CAN be a part of a sophisticated traction control program. Or it may be incorporated into newer cars for other reasons (emissions). The throttle body can easily be converted to accept a mechanical linkage in most if not all instances. Easier than installing a dual m/c and balance bar brake system in most cases.

 

[jandreini]

Of course, then we no longer have "stock production" classes. The whole thing is ridiculous. Let people race their production class cars the way the factory made them. That includes removing those asinine restrictors from GT. This is, after all, why these classes were created - to be the Showroom Stock versions of the road racing classes.

 

[Lurch]

The proposal says nothing of the sort for Production classes. Just adding this criteria (no electronic throttles) to OPEN class technology caps only, where the ONLY incentive to use electronic over mechanical is to take advantage of a sophisticated traction control program. If I was running a car that came stock with an electronic throttle in Open class, I would want to change it to mechanical anyway...unless I had a (presumably expensive) ecu with trac. cont. that could make use of the technology.


(edit: speling)

 

[Flyboy]

>The proposal says nothing of the sort for Production
>classes. Just adding this criteria (no electronic
>throttles) to OPEN class technology caps only, where the
>ONLY incentive to use electronic over mechanical is to take
>advantage of a sophisticated traction control program. If I
>was running a car that came stock with an electronic
>throttle in Open class, I would want to change it to
>mechanical anyway...unless I had a (presumably expensive)
>ecu with trac. cont. that could make use of the technology.
>
>
>(edit: speling)

Traction control can be had in a number of ways, including a stutter box on the ignition or some crazy electric center diff maps. Trying to chase this down will end up with what happened in F1, where the teams got so adept at cheating that the FIA finally gave up and allowed it.

Electronic throttles can be used for aggressive anti-lag setups, as well as flat shift/sequential setups, and anti stall software. Most of this is out of reach, and quite frankly the needs of even the top level SCCA rally competitors. Here's a question though. Does the $14 GM solenoid I use as a throttle kicker on my car constitute an electronic throttle? It is controllable after all.

I recall Noel Lawler running a Hyundai Elantra a few years back with some experimental Hyundai engine and traction control setup. That or the car just ran like crap.

It seems to me the SCCA is once again trying to address a problem that does not exist. Anybody actually used their environmental spill kit yet?

Dennis Martin
[email protected]
920-432-4845