[J Cox]

Cross posted from the SCCA forum (as JB suggested in another post):

I'm considering suggesting that stating a reason/intent/spirit/vision accompany any Perforance Rally rule change proposal. I think this would be a really good thing because it would:
-provide readers much needed context that aids in understanding the rule or need for change
-deliver the PRB more useful and targeted feedback from members
-foster members acceptance of the various rules since they would now know why changes were being proposed

As a starting point, I'd like to see this information provided for some of the most controversial and significant changes in the 2005 proposal. Here's an example:

There's LOTS of talk about restrictor sizes for the various classes. I think it would help A LOT if there was language clarifing the intent of restrictors. Please state the reason(s) we have restrictors. Here some possibilities:

A) To slow cars to some certain HP/torque/speed limit for safety/insurance reasons. If so, please state the target HP/top speed/whatever.

B) To limit spending. Please state target $ cap.

C) To enhance competition within the classes by making performance of various cars similar. Such as allowing NA cars to compete against turbo cars. A statement like "we're trying to bring the STi performance down to the level of the 323GTX" would be really helpful.

D) To conform to other sanctioning bodies' rule sets. Please state which sanctioning bodies are targeted (FIA, Canada, etc.)

E) To control which classes have the fastest cars. Please state if the rules intend to control which classes win events. A complete class list in speed order would be nice, such as: GN, Open, G5, PGT, G2, P

F) Other?

G) Some combination of the above?

IMHO, this needs to be determined before anyone can have good discussion about what sizes are needed for various classes.



Another example that would be great to see clarified with a mission statement:

Are the P/PGT classes intended to be:

A) Stock vehicles with only safety gear added. This class is to find out which OEM makes the best car for rally (designed-in combination of toughness, speed and handling). If this is the case, we've had mission creep and allowed WAY to many peformance and durability additions to P/PGT IMHO.

B) Less expensive versions of the modified classes that allow lower budget teams a class to compete in. Only low cost and durability modifications intended to reduce long-term cost are allowed. If this is the case, why bother trying to look production with headliners, door panels, dashes, bodywork, etc. Also, allowing re-mapping/bigger injectors, etc. seems to stray from the low cost theme.


One more example:

Is it the intent of the rules for P/PGT to level car capability within each class in order to create a drivers class? Recent rules such as restrictor, open LSD, open gear gear ratio, etc. all seem to suggest intent to allow low-capability cars to modify to match higher-capability cars.


Last one:

Are RallyTruck rules supposed to:
1) Provid the lowest cost entry (that is competitive) into performance rally?

2) Provide a place for existing trucks built to the old RallyTruck class rules?

3) Generate variety in the field by providing enough advantages to RallyTrucks so they can compete fairly with Production cars (at most events)?


Jim Cox
#558

 

[Lurch]

It is more common to do this (offer a concise explanation behind rulings) down the hall at Pro Racing. Here is a communication from Eric Prill to the World Challenge GT competitors (via forum) explaining the rationale behind the competition adjustments for various cars in that series. This is a series where the ball is always moving. Ballast or "rewards" weight is added from race to race for individual cars. Tire sizes, restrictor sizes, etc. are always moving around based on data accumulated from race to race and are different for every car model. It helps the competitors understand and helps to keep peace, even when they don't care for the change.

Check it out here.

http://bbs.sccaproracing.com/ubb/Forum2/HTML/003348.html

 

[starion887]

Good idea Jim. What we are getting now is too terse. There is probably good thinking behind most or all the proposed changes, but it's 'being lost in the translation'.

I have been doing a lot of reviewing of NFS rulemaking, and have been familiar with rulemaking with the FAA and FCC. All of these agencies post backgounds to proposed rulemaking. ANd when they publish the final decision, they reply to all serious comments.

I am not sure that we can afford the time to do all of the steps in a thorough rulemaking process. Our PRB is volunteer, and it takes a LOT of time to do this in a realy thorough fashion. But I think your idea should be acceptable.

Have you written it on the SCCA forum as JB is seeming to want?

And can anyone direct me to that forum? I can't navigate my way to it yet!

Regards,
Mark B.

 

[SagSert]

Here is the clickety [http://www.scca.org/garage/forum/forum_topics.asp?FID=50]

The new PDF file for the bulletin # PRCB062104 allows users to cut and paste which makes it very easy to make refernce to. Whoever came up with that novel idea gets a free drink from me whenever we meet.

I posted my $0.02 about the rule changes on the SCCA Forum, maybe the PRB would take it in consideration.

Cheers

M.Samli

 

[John Vanlandingham]

Weeeeeeeeeeeeeellllll Muschic ol' droogie, while yuz wuz cuttin' and a pastin' why don't yuz cut and paste the same thing here?
HHHhhhhmmmmmmmmmmmMMMMM???

(bump)

This is critical to the smoother functioning of the rules making process for two reasons:
It first of all shapenens the point of a rule, and second narrows the ensuing discussions,.

One can pick at the stated POINT of any given rule, and one can pick on the MEANS to arrive at that point.

Or we can continue to have rules made up for unknown reasons and with questionable methods to acheive those unknown goals.

The second one does assure the continued employment of a full time staff member, but I still wonder how time is spent there.



John Vanlandingham
Seattle, WA. 98168

Vive le Prole-le-ralliat

 

[J Cox]

A few notes from the PRB Town Hall meeting

I attended the PRB townhall meeting this weekend. I'd like to thank the PRB, Doug, and Sue for listening to us. It seemed like a valuable event for all involved. The meeting covered many of the proposed rule changes, including almost all of the technical rules. I tried to get as much clarification of the various proposals as time allowed. Here's a few notes. Feel free to ask me any specific questions you might have about what was covered at the meeting.


I asked for some background as to why we have restrictors (see possible reasons in previous post below). The answer given was "safety". Additional discussion detail revealed that PRB is concerned about liability of US rally allowing larger restrictors than other organizations around the world. This is the only driver in moving Open down to 34mm. I specifically asked if cost was any part of the decision. The answer was "no" (so all the vigorous discussion of cost of 34 vs. 40 cars appears to be moot). Then I asked why, if restrictors were only for safety, did PGT need smaller restrictors than Open. Then, for the first time I heard it... they admitted that the 32 mm PGT restrictor was designed so PGT doesn't beat GN (to entice the factories to join the series). I then asked them if they would consider changing the PGT restrictor to match Open, (since it would be just as safe). That sort of met with mostly silence. It seems they want to keep the PGT cars slower for the foreseeable future. They kinda see PGT as the stepping stone to GN. Almost like PGT is the ClubRally Class and GN is the ProRally version of the same thing. Maybe PGT should be Club-only and something like N-Prototype should be Pro-only?

>
>There's LOTS of talk about restrictor sizes for the various
>classes. I think it would help A LOT if there was language
>clarifing the intent of restrictors. Please state the
>reason(s) we have restrictors. Here some possibilities:
>
>A) To slow cars to some certain HP/torque/speed limit for
>safety/insurance reasons. If so, please state the target
>HP/top speed/whatever.
>
>B) To limit spending. Please state target $ cap.
>
>C) To enhance competition within the classes by making
>performance of various cars similar. Such as allowing NA
>cars to compete against turbo cars. A statement like "we're
>trying to bring the STi performance down to the level of the
>323GTX" would be really helpful.
>
>D) To conform to other sanctioning bodies' rule sets.
>Please state which sanctioning bodies are targeted (FIA,
>Canada, etc.)
>
>E) To control which classes have the fastest cars. Please
>state if the rules intend to control which classes win
>events. A complete class list in speed order would be nice,
>such as: GN, Open, G5, PGT, G2, P
>
>F) Other?
>
>G) Some combination of the above?
>

Seems like P/PGT ECU reflash will be free next year. There was general consensus that un-inspectable stuff should not be regulated. Attendees pointed out the ability to add anti-lag and other features with a re-flash, and the costs associated with tuning/buying maps. There was also good discussion, but no conclusion, about if other more visible P/PGT mods should be allowed (such as aftermarket ECUs).

No intent to put restrictors on G5 right now, but they are clearly being watched. You G5 guys may want to lobby Dodge not to go any faster/win overall...

Doug clarified that neither RallyTruck, nor any other class, is going away anytime soon. He said it was just used as an example to start discussion of finding a method to eliminate undersubscribed classes.

The reasons not to require firesystems were covered.

The reasons not to require window nets were covered.

Seat mounting to cage was covered. Attendees pointed out concerns about headroom in small cars and transferring crash loads to occupants.

RallySprint vs. Coef 1 was covered briefly

100 mile range was covered. Organizers like this. Consensus seemed to be 100 was too far unless a big chunk of it was transit. 4 MPG on stage and 15 gallon fuel cell seemed like common numbers. Seems like something longer than what we have now, but less than 100, is likely to pass.

Feels like the Open class technology caps will likely pass.

Good discussion on the restrictor for bigger displacement Open class (should it be 32 or 30.7. Good discussion that restrictor effect my not be linear, and since 32 mm is somewhat common, that may be the most fair choice.

Organizers didn't like the 3 minute ATC window (schedule reasons).

Good comments on not making Club and Pro points systems the same, since Pro favors speed and Club favors finishing.

Consensus that we're not ready to drop Seed system yet.

Consensus that Speedfactor has promise but needs a few more tweaks.

Consensus to remove age limits.

Disagreement on how many events to count for Pro championship.



Jim Cox
#558
>

 

[John Vanlandingham]

Cuple of question to you and to the PRB.

>Here's a few notes. Feel free to ask me any specific
>questions you might have about what was covered at the
>meeting.
>
>
>I asked for some background as to why we have restrictors
>(see possible reasons in previous post below). The answer
>given was "safety". This is the only driver in moving Open down to >34mm......

Well it's reassuring to know that a 34mm car could never do this:
[http://www.jvab.f4.ca/fuckedfocus.jpg]




Wait, that is a 34mm restrictor car and that was just Saturday.

I wonder how it is that youngish inexperienced guys in the WRC are averaging approximately 3.6mph faster than say pre 1998-99 which is the difference as great as between old rwd cars in the 70s and GpB cars in the 80s? With their 34mm restrictors that is.


> . Then I asked why, if
>restrictors were only for safety, did PGT need smaller
>restrictors than Open.

Then, for the first time I heard
>it... they admitted that the 32 mm PGT restrictor was
>designed so PGT doesn't beat GN (to entice the factories to
>join the series).

Since there was no other concievable reason, it was obvious from the outset that that was the ONLY reason, and it was often repeated the cynical refrain "Well since they pay the bulk of the TV bills they naturally should get the bulk of the coverage...." or some such lame B******t
As there is now no _US Importer_ support isn't even this lame illogical reason now senseless?

And who said that they should be IN ADVANCE favoring theoretical future entrants results in one class vs other classes?

If Sub-a-rat wants to advertise that their cars beat everybody in GpN that should be no problem where in the overall results the car happened to finish, why wreck a large portion of the memberships fun so their overall results could be higher?

It seems somebody has forgotten that _in effect_ there are a whole bunch of rallies all going on simultaneously: PGT is an event in itself, likewise all the other classes.
Aren't they?





I then asked them if they would consider
>changing the PGT restrictor to match Open, (since it would
>be just as safe). That sort of met with mostly silence. It
>seems they want to keep the PGT cars slower for the
>foreseeable future. They kinda see PGT as the stepping
>stone to GN. Almost like PGT is the ClubRally Class and GN
>is the ProRally version of the same thing.

Except there is a fairly wide range of cars easy to use in PGT and with a chgance of having some fun, there are very limited GpN cars for the one class we have in the Group.
That would achieve the old Spitzner and Co. fantasy of having nothing but cars from a couple of mfgs. Those paying huges sums to SCCA.




Maybe PGT should
>be Club-only and something like N-Prototype should be
>Pro-only?
>
>>
>>There's LOTS of talk about restrictor sizes for the various
>>classes. I think it would help A LOT if there was language
>>clarifing the intent of restrictors. Please state the
>>reason(s) we have restrictors. Here some possibilities:
>>
>>A) To slow cars to some certain HP/torque/speed limit for
>>safety/insurance reasons. If so, please state the target
>>HP/top speed/whatever.
>>
>>B) To limit spending. Please state target $ cap.
>>
>>C) To enhance competition within the classes by making
>>performance of various cars similar. Such as allowing NA
>>cars to compete against turbo cars. A statement like "we're
>>trying to bring the STi performance down to the level of the
>>323GTX" would be really helpful.

>>
>>E) To control which classes have the fastest cars. Please
>>state if the rules intend to control which classes win
>>events. A complete class list in speed order would be nice,
>>such as: GN, Open, G5, PGT, G2, P
>>
>>F) Other?
>>
>>G) Some combination of the above?
>>
>PGT mods should be allowed (such as aftermarket ECUs).
>

>The reasons not to require firesystems were covered.

Well what are they??????
Covered, does that mean somebody placed a pizza over the stack of inquiries?
I have thought that the yapping about safety sounds a bit hollow when the firewall and fire system is consistantlyly for the last 15+ years brushed aside.
>

>
>Seat mounting to cage was covered. Attendees pointed out
>concerns about headroom in small cars and transferring crash
>loads to occupants.
>

Covered? What does that mean?

>Consensus to remove age limits.
>
>Disagreement on how many events to count for Pro
>championship.
>
>
>
>Jim Cox
>#558
>>





John Vanlandingham
Seattle, WA. 98168

Vive le Prole-le-ralliat

 

[Adrian Wintle]

RE: 3 minute ATC window.

>Organizers didn't like the 3 minute ATC window (schedule
>reasons).

??? It adds 1 minute to the schedule for each stage, so a maximum of what, 15 minutes? If worded correctly (i.e. shall be ideally be three minutes, but may be two) it also means that checking in a minute late doesn't buy you a dust minute (for a 12 second cost).

Adrian

 

[jandreini]

RE: 3 minute ATC window.

I don't know for sure which organizers they are talking about. The Sno*Drift Committee doesn't mind. In fact, a three minute window at stage starts has the advantage of making control crews feel less pressured, thus reducing the possibility of errors. We used it this year at the request of Lyn Nelson. It added 4 minutes to the length of the rally(figure it out, it's true). Any rally will be lengthened by the number of stages in its longest leg, in minutes.

 

[J Cox]

RE: Cuple of question to you and to the PRB.

>
>Except there is a fairly wide range of cars easy to use in
>PGT and with a chgance of having some fun, there are very
>limited GpN cars for the one class we have in the Group.

That point was brought up by the PGT drivers in attendance. The response was something like: if you are really rallying just for fun, and you ned more power to have fun, run your car in Open, if you want a better shot at a trophy, stay in PGT (with the other 32mm cars).




>>
>
>>The reasons not to require firesystems were covered.
>
>Well what are they??????
> Covered, does that mean somebody placed a pizza over the
>stack of inquiries?

It means I didn't take extensive notes and can't remember specifics of the discussion. There were also times I just couldn't hear what was said. I'm already at risk of mis-quoting and misunderstanding the discussion by posting this stuff, since I'm just doing it from memory. Remember, I'm just an attendee who is trying to do you folks a favor by giving you a quick report. Hopefully someone from the PRB will hop in here and comment on the meeting from their point of view.

Jim Cox
#558