Special Stage Forums banner

1 - 20 of 27 Posts

·
400 flat to crest
Joined
·
5,777 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
OK, there has come to my ears a rumor that in the proposal to the PRB for a widening of the rules for H class that Mr Phil Smith has drafted and forwarded that the new cut-off date will be 1974.

I have been told that this date was chosen on the grounds that (approximation of reasoning, I have not seen the proposal) "it is around then that most cars started going to fuel injection and some other things which would nmake them well above the level of pre '74 cars".

I will presume that the information was correct, the source was unimpeachable, but it would be greatly appreciated and aid the process of arriving at concensus if Mr Smith could share his suggested revisions here on this rather appropiately named "Discussion forum".

While waiting for that, I think I should point out an error in understanding regarding what appearantly is the underlying reasoning behind this date.

First, it is untrue that most cars began going to fuel injection around 1974. Saab, VW and Volvo began selling Bosch D-Jet cars on West Coast USA in around '71, and K-jet cars in '75,nearly all other markets had carbs much later and most Japanese cars had carbs thru the late 80s,
BUT!!! this is a red herring and has no relevance to the discussion of _RALLY CAR PREPARATION_.

If we remember that we are discussing the rules or limitations on RALLY cars, in that context there are no significant difference in the sort of preparation which was done in 1969 or 1979. Especially with regards to the normal competitor, not factory rides.

Rally Cars in 1969 had close ratio transmissions, usually 4 speed, tight LSDs, decent brakes and often discs on the back, 45 Weber DCOE twin carbs, quick steering. Most had 8 valves, some had pushrods, some had SOHC, some had DOHC.

Rally Cars in 1979 had close ratio trannies, most still were 4 speed even if there were some 5 speeds in Gp4 cars, most had gone to vented discs on front, 2 liter motors were mostly still on 45s although some were trying 48s, Most still had 8 valves, the nasty 16v BD Cosworths being a bit dear for most, Thems that had pushrods mostly were still on pushrods (V4, Kent, Skoda) some had the same motor in slightly larger form (Fiat's DOHC 8v was bigger now but otherwise the same), Volvo had gone to SOHC on essentially the same bottom end bore 3mm bigger), BMW was never really a major force, but their motor was the same in 70 and 79, everybody still had fast 2.2 turns steering on their rally cars.

All in all, not a bit of difference in the level of prep on anything important in cars that were _actually_ rallying competitivly, not just curiosities or playing.

In fact the business about fuel injection as a reason for cutting off all cars after a date when some production cars were saddled with Injection (on emissions controls grounds, not performance) is particularly vexing as it is so wrong, in fact at the time nobody bought cars for rallying which were injected as it was a major performance inhibitor.
And as the class structure for the popular Gp1 and Gp2 mandated retaining the type of fuel system fitted as original, Injection cars such as the '75 on Opel Manta B were shunned in favor of the 75 on Ascona B equipped with 2x 45 Solex ADDHEs.
That is to say, Injection was a liability.

So other than that, until Mr. Smith posts his proposals here, we really can't discuss more than this one point which should now be somewhat discredited.

Now to Phil Smith:

So Phil, please post the proposals here. The discussions which you said went on ad nauseum and got nowhere can be rightly described as went nowhere where you wanted them to go so now there is round two.

Phil, there was no sublte flame in the post a while back where I simply stated that people should write you directly as you had somehow become the guy who was writing the rules. If you percieved a flame, you are wrong; if you percieved confusion from me, you were right. I am still confused how in SCCA, people can, merely by volunteering, be vested with authority to draft rules especially when it seems that they have difficulty in understanding the relationships that the PRB has to the membership and the active participants.

You stated in your e-mail that you had gotten an idea "of what the PRB wanted the class to be".

This is the big misunderstanding you have. It is not at all important what the PRB wishes the class or any other class to be. Their mandate is to administer the rules which the competitiors decide they want to play by.
It's sorta like if you sit down to poker in SanFrancisco, first thing you do is ask the others playing the game what the rules are: deuces, tres, one eye jacks, and aces wild? what's the ante? And you play why the majority are playing at that time and place. Any judge would ajudicate things according to those house rules operating there and then.

So Phil, don't get huffy, don't call me names, don't tell me to stop mouthing about anything (By the way, who are you to tell anybody to stop mouthing about anything here?) or feel slighted.
Discuss your proposals here and we can C.C. everything to the PRB.

And maybe, if you help us, we can bring some sense to the process of making rules for older cars.

PS
Is the thing on Winker's site any indication of the draft proposal or just something let laying around the inter-net that's passé now?


Sugesstion: all 1980 or earlier 2wd cars, carbs or OEM injection be legal and be scored in any class legal ie Gp2 AND H or Post H.

Add in the morning when I'm a bit awake-r after i have tea in me:

if sufficient cars enter for a meaningful split into Post and pre H or whatever, then print the results with the split.

Also the general principle that is a MkI Exsquirt is legal, all MkIs are legal, if a '75 240 Volvo is legal, then an INDENTICAL 240 Volvo is legal: that is to say a later non-rusty shell with the right 7" round headlights and the smaller blinkers fitted is fine.

And Dave "Haztoys", the way it would shake out in one class is just like it did back when there was still various car designs all out in the same events back then, the obscure and "different" little cars and such ended up hours behind and fought over class placings.



John Vanlandingham
Seattle, WA. 98168

Vive le Prole-le-ralliat
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
583 Posts
RE: H and Post H rules process.

Hey PRB,

If the PRB has proposed H-Class revisions in hand they should post them promptly and open up discussion, or they should be rejected.

What's the hold up? I don't mind internal process, but this 'aint rocket science ya know. The membership will either like the revisions or they won't.

Rich Smith

ps: A 1980 cut-off sounds good to me, let's see how it works.

Vive le "Pro-le-Ralliat"
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
768 Posts
RE: H and Post H rules process.

- I second that:

Post them HERE, let's discus it and then make a change.

PS. Good to see so many SAAB 99s out there. I'd never build/run one but I remember factory cars (Stig Blomquist and Per Eklund flying) and SAAB's long tradidion in rallying. I hope to see them all in action!
 

·
www.christianedstrom.com
Joined
·
2,144 Posts
RE: H and Post H rules process.

>Hey PRB,

>If the PRB has proposed H-Class revisions in hand they
>should post them promptly and open up discussion, or they
>should be rejected.

Hi Rich,

The PRB has received preliminary recommendations from Phil at the Convention. No final decisions have been made with respect to any changes.

MORE IMPORTANTLY; what do _YOU_ want? Please let Phil and the PRB know. You can email me at the address in my profile, or email Sue at SCCA with your comments. We'd love to hear from more current and prospective H class entrants.

>What's the hold up?

There's no hold up, but you must keep in mind the rules process that is dictated by the SCCA bylaws, which means we publish prospective rules for member comment in Fastrack, the only approved method for official SCCA communication.

Since we don't have a final slate, and since the bylaws wouldn't allow for it, we can't publish a slate of proposed rules here.

But don't take that as a message that we're not interested in your comment. Please take the time to email us about your preferences for the H class.

>Rich Smith

- Christian

Bjorn Christian Edstrom
Co-Driver
 

·
1973 WRC POR
Joined
·
2,421 Posts
>Suggestion: all 1980 or earlier 2wd cars, carbs or OEM
>injection be legal and be scored in any class legal ie Gp2
>AND H or Post H.

John:

I like the concept of pre-1980 cars being eligible. There are some potentially superior cars, but so what? It was always possible to buy a good result, so why not now? If someone can afford to restore and run an ex-works Ford Escort RS1800, good for them.

If all cars from the 1970s can run, why not let in 4WD also? If Gene Henderson decided to turn up in a Moby Dick replica, I think it would be great.

Really, I believe we should develop a class which represents what was run in the 1970s. Have another class for what was run in the 1960s. That would be it. Two classes. No need to have displacement subclasses. Remember, in the 1960s and 1970s, everyone, more or less, run what they brung. We did not worry about classes. The objectives were to have fun and finish as high as possible.

Doug Woods

P.S. As a suggestion, drop the term Historic. Create two new North American classes called 1960s Rally Cars and 1970s Rally Cars. In another ten years or so, bring in a 1980s Rally Car class, if (and when?) the 1960s Rally Cars die out, are destroyed, etc.
 

·
400 flat to crest
Joined
·
5,777 Posts
Discussion Starter · #8 ·
>>Suggestion: all 1980 or earlier 2wd cars, carbs or OEM
>>injection be legal and be scored in any class legal ie Gp2
>>AND H or Post H.
>
>John:
>
>I like the concept of pre-1980 cars being eligible. There
>are some potentially superior cars, but so what? It was
>always possible to buy a good result, so why not now? If
>someone can afford to restore and run an ex-works Ford
>Escort RS1800, good for them.

Sure, why not? to this day one still sees lower tech cars spanking higher tech, that's why gravel rally is fun, skill counts so much.
>
>If all cars from the 1970s can run, why not let in 4WD also?
> If Gene Henderson decided to turn up in a Moby Dick
>replica, I think it would be great.

Well, right, why not? Beast then or beast now, no biggie.
>
>Really, I believe we should develop a class which represents
>what was run in the 1970s. Have another class for what was
>run in the 1960s. That would be it. Two classes. No need
>to have displacement subclasses. Remember, in the 1960s and
>1970s, everyone, more or less, run what they brung. We did
>not worry about classes. The objectives were to have fun
>and finish as high as possible.

And that's the way it was into the 80s, but right now there isn't the level of entries to have any split, maybe someday.
>
>Doug Woods
>
>P.S. As a suggestion, drop the term Historic.
Yeah, too much associated with it when there are only a couple of shells out there which might have any claim to somebody to have a small place in the history books,

Create two
>new North American classes called 1960s Rally Cars and 1970s
>Rally Cars. In another ten years or so, bring in a 1980s
>Rally Car class, if (and when?) the 1960s Rally Cars die
>out, are destroyed, etc.

Why that's forward thinking!!! You musta been a co-driver sometime, eh?





John Vanlandingham
Seattle, WA. 98168

Vive le Prole-le-ralliat
 

·
400 flat to crest
Joined
·
5,777 Posts
Discussion Starter · #9 ·
RE: H and Post H rules process.

Andrew, see the revision as of 0915, and a couple of cups of tea from the ol' Nutrimatic machine.
>John -
>
>I see your reasoning about the fuel injection, but how about
>Saab Turbos and Porsche 3.0L engines?

See? OEM einspritzung für der Porsche schrot* eller original insprutning för 99an Turdboat helt Okej
>
>ACP

`*But would anybody really run a Porsché on injection if the had the option of carbs??





John Vanlandingham
Seattle, WA. 98168

Vive le Prole-le-ralliat
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
186 Posts
The PRB has the finalized proposal and I have been told the reaction is favorable. I don't know the specifics of how these things get incorporated into the rulebook, but as I understand it, the final wording for the rulebook will be published for member comment. By the way, the proposal on vintagerally.com is obsolete.

But to satisfy curiosity in the meantime, here are the ideas I proposed and reasonings behind them.

The underlying idea of Historic Class is one in which a car such as an Escort TwinCam or twostroke SAAB can be competitive. There is no way to give an uncontroversial one year for a cutoff because of the way different cars evolved. The alternative, a list of eligible cars, regardless of year, would be at this point way to cumbersome (maybe somebody else wants to pursue that).
The obvious answer seemed twofold, first eliminate non-atmospheric induction and AWD, since both represented quantum leaps in speed technology. Second, look to established and successful vintage rally classes....for example, the FIA (via Appy K) and MSA (formerly RAC) in the UK. Appy K is a long and complex document, and too complicated for a class being built. MSA's section K paragraphs 36-28 are simpler. And they divide their vintage rally cars into two groups, Historic (pre'68) and PostHistoric (68-74). Manifold comments regarding cars like 510s and 911s and Escorts here convinced me that too many appropriate cars are excluded by the '71 cutoff. A successful precedent exists for '74, so that's what I proposed....So underlying eligibility was proposed as 2wd carb'ed cars of 1974 and earlier model year. The question of mechanical fuel injection has been raised and I don't have a good answer for that.

Second, prep rules. There is no way an SCCA class cannot abide by Articles 5 and 6 of the rulebook (safety-related specs). Regarding mods, again looking to successful programs, it seems ludicrous to not make Appy K and MSA - compliant cars eligible. But while either or both of those might make nice long-term goals, both will probably be regarded as too restrictive to get the H Class going. So I proposed Article 10 (g2/5) but restricted to materials, methods and technology contemporary to the car.

Third, enforcement - really, only people actually rallying these things should have any say in what's considered legal for the class at any rally, since they put their money and time into supporting the class; it's a supplemental class anyway. So tech lines should enforce basic Art 5,6,10 compliance and let H Class competitors at each event figure it out among themselves whether or not some modification is OK for H Class. Arbitrary, sure. But unless there are some hard restriction points as made by FIA and MSA, there will always be judgement calls. And that shouldn't be just one person's job.

Finally, long term goals. Vintage rallying is hugely popular in some parts of the world. To not have our Historic Class at least potentially compliant with those venues is to self-fulfill the prophecy of the same kind of SCCA/WRC mismatch we now have for nonvintage cars. Our national vintage class should be one that encourages international use of the car, not something that gets in the way of it...really, another argument for FIA or MSA compliance.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
186 Posts
OK, you threw the glove JV, here's my response to your taunts (somehow this feels like arguing with a two-year old, but I'm wading in anyway?..).

From your post this morning:

>Now to Phil Smith:
>
>So Phil, please post the proposals here. The discussions
>which you said went on ad nauseum and got nowhere can be
>rightly described as went nowhere where you wanted them to
>go so now there is round two.
>
>Phil, there was no sublte flame in the post a while back
>where I simply stated that people should write you directly
>as you had somehow become the guy who was writing the rules.
>If you percieved a flame, you are wrong; if you percieved
>confusion from me, you were right. I am still confused how
>in SCCA, people can, merely by volunteering, be vested with
>authority to draft rules especially when it seems that they
>have difficulty in understanding the relationships that the
>PRB has to the membership and the active participants.
>

No flame, no insulting words? Let's look again. From your post on the Capri thread:

>?The real question is how to bring some sense to the process of >writing the rules since it appears that it is now Mr Smith who is >somehow the guy who will decide what happens to the rules, but you >will have to write him privately since appearantly this stuff is too >sensitive to discuss on a discussion forum. Don't know why.........
>
>Maybe it's the threat of WAR! Them swarthy terrorist dudes, who might >be hiding in the desert down there in Arizona, might be waiting to >disrupt H class if they knew what was being planned! LOOK OUT! there >a terrorist behind you now!


Perhaps I am too sensitive for internet forums, but I perceived at least smoke in those paragraphs. And since JV wants to make my private note to him public, here was my reply:

>JV,
>
>Nice subtle flame on SS.
>
>Regarding H Class rules and my email request, private emails were
>requested because we've carried out a SS (and rallyl) discussion >about
>potential H Class rules ad nauseum. And got nowhere. I picked up >the ball at the PRBs request and with enough probing managed to get >an informal statement about what they feel the class ought to be. >While you've been running your vituperative tongue (keyboard), I've put the
>hours into trying to meld what PRB told me, what I've read on SS and
>what my emails have said into some sort of reasonable H Class rules.
>Right now, the PRB has that proposal.
>
>You know, you'd be a lot more constructive towards building a
>supportable H Class if you'd quit mouthing about your fabulous car >and
>driving skills and cultural heritage and come out and support the
>class. But I'll keep that comment between us. In the meantime, >thanks for the smear on SS. You're a real pal.
>
>Phil

***

I stand by what I said. I have been very interested to hear what people rallying old cars have had to say. But I don't have much time for mouthpieces. And The Mouth Of Seattle certainly has had no end of complaints about H Class and its potential?.but no car on the rally stages Hmmm. Certainly there has been no lack of comment on this forum about what people want to see in an H Class. And rallyL before this.

Contrary to what may be believed about my motivations and goals are regarding H Class (JV seems somehow to know), I just would like to see some recognition of the vintage rally cars on the stages. To my knowledge, there was no public talk of anything like a vintage class when I built the MGB and started rallying. I'm running an MGB just because I like it. I can work on it. It's fun to drive. And our efforts have been met with reasonable success. Now that I'm learning to drive on gravel, I'm thinking a more competitive car would be fun. Maybe someday I'll get an Escort or a 510. But it will still be just for fun. And I am very comfortable with the idea that this is the fundamental idea behind H Class.

And it is true that my involvement with H Class from an official standpoint was initiated by PRB. Committees and internet forums don't sit down and write rules. One person ends up doing that work. I guess people on PRB knew me, have seen my work, liked my attitude about vintage iron and thought I might be the guy to try to make some sense of this. Regarding my conclusions, read the previous note.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
768 Posts
- Thank for your input!
- '71 or '74 - no difference. '80 would be better.
- I think everybody's taking Historic/Vintage racing way too seroiusly! It's NOT your last path to a racing fame & fortune... It's for FUN. When I go to VARA or other Vintage races and see these guys with 1 000 000 investment to win a $ 5 flag I just feel sorry for them.
- How much I have to "donate" to be part of the glorious Historic Rally Society of SCCA?

PS. To eliminate OEM EFI is bad. You allow 2xDCOE Webers which give more HP but adds $ 1000+ in expensies. It doesn't make sense... An early analog EFI is very primitive and can't be "chipped" nor tricked out. I know, have been trying to make Volvo EFI to work better for ITB cars and it just doens't work over 150HP. The same D-Jetronic's used by SAAB and VW, as John pountes out. It's nothing to be afraid of.
 

·
400 flat to crest
Joined
·
5,777 Posts
Discussion Starter · #13 ·
RE: H and Post H rules process.

Hej Christian Edström co-driver dude!
>>Hey PRB,


>
>>If the PRB has proposed H-Class revisions in hand they
>>should post them promptly and open up discussion, or they
>>should be rejected.
>
>Hi Rich,
>
>The PRB has not received any final recommendations as of
>yet.

AH HA!!!!! SO! READ ON!
>
>MORE IMPORTANTLY; what do _YOU_ want? Please let Phil and
>the PRB know. You can email me at the address in my
>profile, or email Sue at SCCA with your comments. We'd love
>to hear from more current and prospective H class entrants.
>
>>What's the hold up?
>
>There's no hold up, but you must keep in mind the rules
>process that is dictated by the SCCA bylaws, which means we
>publish prospective rules for member comment in Fastrack,
>the only approved method for official SCCA communication.
>
>Since we don't have a final slate, and since the bylaws
>wouldn't allow for it, we can't publish a slate of proposed
>rules here.

Well, since you you say you don't have the final slate, and since there has been so far little actual dialog, within the SCCA by-laws, we ought to be able to see the "draft proposals" and fine tune them.
Additionally I cannot imagine that them SCCA by-laws expressly prohibit publishing draft propsals.
>
>But don't take that as a message that we're not interested
>in your comment. Please take the time to email us about
>your preferences for the H class.
>
>>Rich Smith
>
>- Christian
>
>Bjorn Christian Edstrom
>Co-Driver

Christian, the standard operating procedure at SCCA is to announce rules proposals for comment after the rules proposals are drafted and to solicit membership comment BUT!
There is an embedded problem in this method and it is this: Once the rules are drafted and presented the subject and focus of the debate becomes fixated on the PROPOSALs and not the original subject be that car prep or age or whatever, the actual object is now in the background.
The proposal "channelizes" or limits the range of discussion, and so the outcome is nearly always pre-ordained, sinc eit is well known that them that frames the question can frame the question in ways which exclude or marginalize any other alternative.

For example the question "Are you still beating your wife?" puts the respondent in an impossible position, the question of if you are beating your wife, or indeed if you have a wife or not, is swept away in the question.
Additionally, the rather unfortunate tendancy to for people to become propriatary about the words written and fight because of obtsinance, or own agenda has been all too common in the time I have seen the SCCAs workings.

So let's try and be flexible on the interpertation of the by-laws and utilise this wonderful resource here at SS on Line and see if in this smaller way if we can begin to make the rules suggestion and adoption process responsive to the membership and "those active" in the sport.



John Vanlandingham
Seattle, WA. 98168

Vive le Prole-le-ralliat
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
583 Posts
RE: H and Post H rules process.

Christian,

Thanks for your response. Whatever you can do on the PRB to hurry the H-Class revisions process along will be greatly appreciated by many. It may take more than one cycle of "officially posted" requests for comment to get it done prior to the 2004 season. Only 10 months remain.

In concept, I am in favor of the LEAST restrictive approach. I think any notion of FIA rules alignment should be abandoned. (Any FIA spec cars could still fit into a less restrictive class.)

So far, Doug Wood's idea of H-60's and H-70's makes the most sense to me.

Rich Smith

Vive le "Pro-le-Ralliat"
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,013 Posts
RE: H and Post H rules process.

Actually I wasn't thinking about the injection per se. I was thinking about the year cutoff. Including the whole 70s makes for some technologically superior or at least larger displacement cars. A 1979 Porsche 911SC has more potential than a 1973 911 2.4 on carbs or injection; similarly a Saab 99 Turbo is a generation or more ahead of your V4 96es, although I am willing to allow that the 96 can really claw through the stage. Still not a Turbo.

I'm actually for more inclusiveness on year - I just want to know how we're going to decide on any year in particular if not from the MSA or FIA models.

ACP
Flirting with the laws of physics.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,146 Posts
Participation in key

I would like to see the Historic Rules written to be as inclusive as possible.

At this point in the class participation is baiscaly 0 so there is no foundation and it is hard to say how it will shake out. I recomend it is best to write the rules to include as many cars/ levels of preperation as possible to start the class growing and build a foundation. After this organic growth has started it makes since to split it up a bit, into sub-classes but what those sub-classes are remains to be seen, it may be by year or it may be by displasement or even type of fuel delivery.

Many a racing class has failed to get off the ground as the rules tried to for-see every posiblity and legislate everyone into a box. Much more likely to get a good result if you see what partisipants want and fit the classes to that then the other way around. Right now historic's only goal should be to get 5-8 cars starting events. After you have that then worry about Fuel Injection vs Carbs vs 1978/1974 ... because until there are 5-8 cars on the starting line historic is just an acadimic idea.

Derek Bottles
 

·
www.christianedstrom.com
Joined
·
2,144 Posts
RE: H and Post H rules process.

Hej Hopp Pillesnopp (Esteemed Sir), John!

>Well, since you you say you don't have the final slate, and
>since there has been so far little actual dialog, within the
>SCCA by-laws,... [snip]

[Speaking as a SCCA member]

John, I think you are aware that I am all for a more rapid form of communication than is currently allowed by the bylaws of the SCCA. I would (and have) urge(d) the SCCA both privately and publicly to make a more rapid communication method available with all due speed.

[Speaking as a PRB member]

That said, the rules process as dictated by the bylaws ask that the PRB solicit member input year round (and we do), and that any rules proposals be published for member comment in Fastrack, once the essence of the rule has been distilled. At that point, we solicit input directly on the rules at hand for the following season.

While I recognize the implicit dichotomy of your lemma, you've lost sight of one step.

The standard operating procedure is for _YOU,_THE_STAKEHOLDERS_, to submit rules proposals to the PRB, via mail, email, passenger pigeon, or fax. The rules proposals do not swell forth out of the breast of the PRB like a wellspring. They come from the letters from the membership.

We then collate, review, and synthesize these proposals into rules proposals we feel accurately reflect the wishes of the members and stakeholders who communicate with us, and post these for further comment.

We do this because the sole effective means of soliciting concrete opinions from 1000+ licenseholders and stakeholders in a time-sensitive process is to provide them with some points of reference. You are correct in that this frames the debate. But I trust that you can see that this might be required for expediency.

That said, the Performance Rally Board reads, discusses, drafts a response, and adds any suggestions to the list of rules to be considered, from every piece of mail we receive.

While I and other members of the Board recognize the value of SpecialStage, it cannot at the present time take the place of letters from our members. I can wail and lament that, but it isn't in the PRB's purview to fix it right now.

So, two points:

1. The membership does frame the discussion. But it does so by letting the PRB know what the desires are. And (for now) that has to take the form of an email. Please email us. If you think the class should be limited only to Hisingetraktorer (Volvos) and Wartburgs, fine. But don't just post it on SS, and say, "I didn't know I had to email the PRB."

2. That said, Phil has posted a thoughtful overview of his proposals to the PRB (which will soon be reviewed). If you have specific concerns, by all means, post them here, but I exhort you to also email them to the PRB.

Seriously, this is a personal plea; I love SpecialStage; I think it is a great resource for our community. But if you want to affect the rules process, and effect positive change for the sport, you need to contact the PRB. Solely posting here, and complaining that the PRB doesn't listen is distracting at best, disingenuous at worst. Especially now that you've read this message. Just like it would be disingenuous for the PRB to pretend that we aren't aware of SpecialStage.

Take it as a personal challenge to put forth your very best suggestions and arguments on SS, and also cc: them to the PRB.

Please contact me personally if you have any questions or comments.

Hopp och hej, leverpastej (My very warmest regards),
- Christian

Bjorn Christian Edstrom
Co-Driver
 

·
400 flat to crest
Joined
·
5,777 Posts
Discussion Starter · #18 ·
RE: H and Post H rules process.

Hej svejs din gamla huggorm (that's Swedish for "dearest") Crille,
HOKAY, within the bounds of the bajs-laws of the SCCA rule procedure, I accept that you can't post the rules proposals you have recieved here.
You could maybe ask the guy wrote the proposals to post his notes or salient points on a purely informal basis here for purely informal, theorectical, friendly discussion by those who have been for around 20 years cars of the ages in question, that is presuming that the draftsman really wants people to discuss his proposals. That wouldn't technically publishing the rules proposals by the PRB, just notes from a member.

Purely informally, of course.

The only difference would be that the discussions would take place now, rather than later, and it would be an indication of the willingness of SCCA PRB to begin the process of engaging in a dialog on the rules that govern the sport, rather than rubber stamping proposals from narrow special interests.

thoughts?

Tackar och kyss mig i häcken, (that's "your's truly" in Swedish):)



John "jag heter John och jag har inte gjort nåt!" Vanlandingham
Seattle, WA. 98168

Vive le Prole-le-ralliat
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
706 Posts
RE: Participation in key

Participation is the most important aspect in my opinion, so I agree
with Derek in that the rules should err on the side of inclusion
rather than exclusion, and changing the cutoff to 1980 includes a whole
bunch of existing, prepared cars in the USA that are currently stuck in
a classing limbo.

I very much like the idea of Historic being an "overlay" class, so
that cars would runin Group2 or Group5 or whatever and at the same time
qualify for Historic points if they fit into the rules. I think this
would give much greater incentive for those that want to compete and not
just be out for a fun drive to be involved with Historic - at the SAME
time.

A side benefit of this approach is that when people see that "old" cars
can still be competitive to some extent (which I believe they can, maybe
not class wins, but do well) in Grp2 or whatever against modern cars,
that will encourage them to go get a historic car and join the ranks.

If and when partcipation reaches a suitable point, split the class
along year, aspiration, preparation lines etc.

Skye Poier
Seattle, WA

Vive le Prole-le-Ralliat!
http://www.rallyrace.net/
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
706 Posts
RE: core issue: the process.

A few points I forgot to mention and that seem to be getting a bit
obscured by the history between some of the stakeholders in this issue

I understand why the PRB cannot post the proposals, and I applaud
Christian's efforts to have the process changed as quickly as possible
to provide a more transparent mechanism for discussion & debate.

The way I see it, there are three possible courses of action:

1. Everyone submits their proposoals to the SCCA without talking to each
other, and the SCCA "distills" all of them into a proposal which is then
posted for feedback in Fastrack. This is the current system apparently,
and has the disadvantages already discussed elsewhere in this thread.

2. Everyone submits their proposoals to the SCCA independantly and the
SCCA uses some discussion forum to debate & distill a final proposal.
This seems to be the direction desired in the future.

3. All of the stakeholders discuss with EACH OTHER the proposal until
some agreement is reached, and then submits an already almost completely
finalized proposal to the SCCA.

Option #3 has the advantage of working within the system already in
place. If there are disagreements they should be resolved BEFORE
submission to the SCCA - if they are not resolved, it is in nobody's
best interest, because it's best IMO if the membership decides for
itself rather than having an opaque decision made for them.

Phil, are you allowed to post the proposal you submitted?

I don't see how the SCCA bylaws could possibly restrict this sort of
collaboration.


Skye Poier
Seattle, WA

Vive le Prole-le-Ralliat!
http://www.rallyrace.net/
 
1 - 20 of 27 Posts
Top