Joined
·
1,275 Posts
Here's the quick update via Christian (who might jump in with corrections).
The PRB is going to have Christian and I get the active (and I assume prospective?) H competitors for 2004 to "sign a gentleman's agreement" (hey I'm no gentleman!) for the proposal, which the PRD (the Dept, i.e. Sue) will publish. They won't be formal rules, but it isn't like we spent all of 2003 protesting each other. Perhaps we can call them "Appendix H Competitor Guidelines"?
On the specific issue of ProRally eligibility, again, we think we might propose a more practical solution which would be that you could run Gp2 in Pro, H in club (just like today) but not have to display the (2) sticker. I think it would help the class identification and image to just show the (H).
This stuff is really administrivia; Christian thinks he and Sue can deal with a lot of this stuff directly without it getting stuck in PRB land - most of whom readily admit they are not historic rally experts.
I think this is a very practical and realistic outcome to the proposal.
Glenn
The PRB is going to have Christian and I get the active (and I assume prospective?) H competitors for 2004 to "sign a gentleman's agreement" (hey I'm no gentleman!) for the proposal, which the PRD (the Dept, i.e. Sue) will publish. They won't be formal rules, but it isn't like we spent all of 2003 protesting each other. Perhaps we can call them "Appendix H Competitor Guidelines"?
On the specific issue of ProRally eligibility, again, we think we might propose a more practical solution which would be that you could run Gp2 in Pro, H in club (just like today) but not have to display the (2) sticker. I think it would help the class identification and image to just show the (H).
This stuff is really administrivia; Christian thinks he and Sue can deal with a lot of this stuff directly without it getting stuck in PRB land - most of whom readily admit they are not historic rally experts.
I think this is a very practical and realistic outcome to the proposal.
Glenn