Special Stage Forums banner

1 - 5 of 5 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
366 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
I understand running 2005 under the rules that were going to be forced on us by SCCA as it is late to rewrite the rules for next year. However now would be a good time to start on the rule book for 2006. Trim down the rule book, toss out the rules that have made the sport a quagmire of protests. Relieve ourselves of rules that fit SCCA GCR (general competition rules) that apply more to the track then our sport.

We have an opportunity to rebuild rally in the USA free of the constrictions from a governing body which did not comprehend our sport. To become a model of what rally should be, a sport for rallist run by rallist.

We need to know when a rule is placed in the rule book what the intent of the rule is (placed next to rule in book), this makes it easier for all to understand and to make a decision should a protest arise-something to fall back on.

We need to know order of power. If we still have the same system of higherarchy we need to know (example) when the national steward has power to take control of a situation and when the steward is out of bounds. This goes for every postition.

If we have something a kin to the PRB these folks need to know that their job is not to make up rules but to relieve us of bad rules, help give direction and vision to our sport. Help make our sport inclusive to more people.

I would also like to see "unsportsman like conduct" used in situations that are out of hand or lack a specific rule. This could also serve to keep the number of rules down to a reasonable number.

We need to make this sport easy to get involved in. We need to have rules that are stable and do not change event to event and year to year. We need to get the cage requirements down to something that makes sense.

We should quit hiding behind the term "safety" in order to make changes and have real information to base "safety" on versus speculation. We need to constantly ask why when rules are proposed and what these rules are stopping us from doing that we were able to do.

We should always keep an eye on the costs for those starting out in the sport as well as those here for long term. Ask ourselves why when a team leaves the sport. Never allow a team to mandate rules or sway things to their benefit.

Promote each class as a rally of itself-for each class has a winner and is its own rally-not just overall postitions.

As always IMHO:+
 

·
I am not here anymore
Joined
·
2,798 Posts
What rules do you have a problem with? Send me e-mail at [email protected]. Don't send me e-mail about turbo restrictors!

The bigger problem that I have seen is lack of consistent application of the rules.

I think having the rationale behind the rule appear next to the rule in the rulebook is cumbersome at best. However, for example, in sailboat racing, in addition to the Racing Rules of Sailing rulebook, there is also a Racing Rules of Sailing Explained book that explains the rules and I think such a book for the rally rules could be useful.

alan
 

·
CR>R5 into L3- 100 Finish
Joined
·
626 Posts
RULES..?
Who needs them? Let's just get together, have a party and get drunk, then race.
SAFETY..? What's that? Whoever makes it through ALIVE is the winner. :+

JUST KIDDING...

All WE need is common sence.
Safe(as possible), Competitive, Affordable.

Whiplash RallyeSport
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
366 Posts
Discussion Starter · #4 ·
>
>What rules do you have a problem with? Send me e-mail at
>[email protected] Don't send me e-mail about turbo
>restrictors!
>
>The bigger problem that I have seen is lack of consistent
>application of the rules.
>
>I think having the rationale behind the rule appear next to
>the rule in the rulebook is cumbersome at best.

Why? Knowing the intent of a rule makes it easier to uphold even if the wording leave the subject in the gray. It's not that hard, example: Safety belts of the racing type 5 or 6 point required must be labeled FIA or XXX with a date of no more than x year old from date of manufacture. Intent of rule: Safety-to keep passangers secure in their seats. Safety belt dating intent: to assure that passangers have belts of newer materials and technologies to increase passanger safety.

On issues of protest the intent of the rule can be applied if the rule is found to be unclear. Was the situation safe? Is the car under weight? Was the team servicing in a control zone? Etc.. Yes/No.


However,
>for example, in sailboat racing, in addition to the Racing
>Rules of Sailing rulebook, there is also a Racing Rules of
>Sailing Explained book that explains the rules and I think
>such a book for the rally rules could be useful.
>
>alan
 

·
I am not here anymore
Joined
·
2,798 Posts
>>I think having the rationale behind the rule appear next to
>>the rule in the rulebook is cumbersome at best.
>
> Why? Knowing the intent of a rule makes it easier to
>uphold even if the wording leave the subject in the gray.
>It's not that hard, example: Safety belts of the racing type
>5 or 6 point required must be labeled FIA or XXX with a date
>of no more than x year old from date of manufacture. Intent
>of rule: Safety-to keep passangers secure in their seats.
>Safety belt dating intent: to assure that passangers have
>belts of newer materials and technologies to increase
>passanger safety.
>
> On issues of protest the intent of the rule can be applied
>if the rule is found to be unclear. Was the situation safe?
>Is the car under weight? Was the team servicing in a control
>zone? Etc.. Yes/No.

Why do I think it would be cumbersome? Because sometimes the reason for a rule is not as straightforward as in your example, for starters. Even your example rationale/intent is cumbersome if applied to the current harnesses section.

I have worked with a bunch of rule sets and industry specifications. They always have holes. The POSIX standards for the UNIX operating system used to have something called the WEIRDNIX contest for the worst unintended interpretation of the standards. As much as you try to make something like airtight, it just doesn't happen.

In my opinion, adding an rationale or intent to each rule would just create more oppotunity for something to be missed in describing the rule and could result in more unintended interpretations of the rules, with the added cost of requiring a bunch more work to create the book.

alan
 
1 - 5 of 5 Posts
Top