[Kartwheel]

Hows that for a catchy title?

>On the notice board we saw that Kurt Spitzner, who
>originally issued the competitor bulletin announcing the
>tie-breaking rule, has appealed the decision (without citing
>reasons), which now puts it in the hands of the PRB.

Once again rules pulled out of someone's rear and/or made up on the spot. I'll repeat what I said last year, THIS is what makes "Pro" Rally look bad, not 20 year old cars.

>The protest decision is being appealed by KS.

Why? I thought only the competitor can appeal? Since when does an ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICAL have any rights in a competitors appeal process? Is there anything in the rules that says he can do that or did he just make that one up on the spot too?

>It seems like
>a rather personal issue to me at this point, why would he
>push this past the protest committe? To see if the rule
>change making him have final say in all matters could
>survive an appeal? How is appealing the decision in the best
>interest of the sport?

The question is how is KS in the interest of the sport? Can anyone defend this?

I wonder just how many times things like this will happen before everyone, not just the "loud minority" his sycophants claim, opens their eyes and sees that he needs to go, post haste.

 

[daphne]

OK, give the guy a break...

Kurt does have a right to appeal. Per the rule book, 8.4, Any organizer, official, entrant or competitor shall have the right to appeal any decision or penalty rendered by the Protest Committee...

I was not at the event, so I have no idea what happened. I will say that the lack of event-level tie breaking procedures is a big hole in the current rule book and I certainly hope that the PRB comes up with something (anything, really) for the 2004 season. I personally like the sum of squares method, but I always did like math. ;-)

 

[Kartwheel]

RE: OK, give the guy a break...

Thank you on the appeal correction. The fact remains this was all precipitated by another rule made up on the spot.

 

[JB Niday]

RE: OK, give the guy a break...

Another? Please help me of the other... seriously.

J.B. Niday
www.nidayrallysport.com

 

[Widget Codriver]

RE: OK, give the guy a break...

A dead issue now even though the rule book still hasn't been changed, but since you asked:

Does the number "5" bring back any fond memories?

How about "2.3"?

P.S. We missed you at OFPR.... isn't that your home event? Or was it simply that our paths didn't cross?

 

[AlanPerry]

appropriate actions for the Perf Rally Director

>A dead issue now even though the rule book still hasn't been
>changed, but since you asked:

Are you referring to the previous issue or this new one? Are the OFPR Grp N results still in appeal limbo?

Did Kurt submit the appeal as an individual or as Perf Rally Director (the appeal was on SCCA letterhead, right?)? There is a $200 appeal fee. Did this money come out of his own pocket or out of the Perf Rally Department's pocket? The rulebook says that the appeal fee goes to the Perf Rally Department, so if it didn't come out of his own pocket, I think there is a serious problem with the process.

Anyway, I just want to get my facts straight before I respond to SCCA,

alan

 

[joeg]

Brian--Perhaps he is doing the appeal to get a "fair & balanced" rule issued by a higher authority...(oh, never mind)

Cheers.

 

[Widget Codriver]

referring to previous issue

>Are you referring to the previous issue or this new one?
>Are the OFPR Grp N results still in appeal limbo?

Previous issues: 5-event rule and 2.3 rotary factor.

 

[JB Niday]

RE: referring to previous issue

Hey John,
I missed Ojibwe because I was on vacation with my sons... our first vacation that wasn't a rally since 1996! I missed you all as well, although I had fun in my Front Wheel Drive Subaru at RallyFest (the center diff failed).

As for "5"... you and I disagree. You say the rule was interpreted wrong, I (as well as Kurt and the PRB) say you interpreted it wrong.

As for "2.3" that was a the McArthur, not Spitzner... and I do not believe that such arbitrary changes could happen with the current PRB (do you?).

Neither case was a sudden new interpretations of the rules AT an event... which is the whole "Dictator II" thing.

J.B. Niday
www.nidayrallysport.com

 

[Widget Codriver]

RE: referring to previous issue

>Hey John,
>(the center diff failed).

We can certainly relate to that... one of them thangs killed our season except for Laughlin.

>As for "5"... you and I disagree. You say the rule was
>interpreted wrong, I (as well as Kurt and the PRB) say you
>interpreted it wrong.

Like I said, it's in the past. I'm not gonna pick at that scab any more.

>As for "2.3" that was a misprint, wasn't it?

No, it was a deliberate change made by the Series Steward (before you were on the PRB) because--and I quote--"Mazdas don't belong in the Production class." This change was made completely unannounced, with zero member input, and was not fixed until the following year. I've sent you the letters I wrote as steward on behalf of the members in my Division who felt shafted by the whole deal.

>J.B. Niday
>www.nidayrallysport.com


[hr]

[p align=right]John Dillon
John @ WidgetRacing.com
www.WidgetRacing.com

 

[JB Niday]

RE: referring to previous issue

Yes, I've edited my remarks... back to my original question to Brian; To WHAT and WHEN are you referring? I'm truely sick and tired of reading BS accusations on SpecialStage.

There are enough problems in Performance Rally within reality without adding BS to the mix!

J.B. Niday
www.nidayrallysport.com

 

[Kartwheel]

RE: referring to previous issue

Uh, how about Local homologation? Was that posted to Fastrack? Seems like it was made up on the spot as I recall.

 

[JB Niday]

RE: referring to previous issue

There is no Local Homologation. It was killed by the current PRB just as quickly as it was created.

Next, please.

J.B. Niday
www.nidayrallysport.com

 

[Kartwheel]

RE: referring to previous issue

>There is no Local Homologation. It was killed by the
>current PRB just as quickly as it was created.

And you did a good job by killing it, but it WAS there, and it WAS just made up on the spot correct? The point is, KS could have just as easily made a rule that in a tie you loose the tie if you use initials instead of your full name. It is just as logical as the rule we actually got.


>Next, please.

OK, how about the rule that if you pass the PR Dictator on a transit you are excluded even though nobody else saw it that was actually part of the event staff? What is to stop someone that is disliked by the PR Dictator from being falsely targeted? Not an acusation, just a hypothetical of where "I am the final authority on rules" will lead you.

 

[Mad Mike]

RE: referring to previous issue

>Not an acusation, just a hypothetical of
>where "I am the final authority on rules" will lead you.

So now we're delving into hypotheticals? What's next? We surmise that Kurt took the red pill and start pissin & moanin about how he's sure to bugger up his immediate surroundings with that warp thingy that happens just before he blasts into the sky like Superman?

Halley ...
Owner/Driver ProRally #86 - world's first New Beetle Rally Car
RealAutoSport, LLC
http://www.realautosport.com

 

[John Vanlandingham]

RE: referring to previous issue

>>There is no Local Homologation. It was killed by the
>>current PRB just as quickly as it was created.

Actually, Brian it was announced just before Sno-Drift in a memo dated THURSDAY before the event, a _full day_ or so before the event.
So you you nasty evil boy this PROVES you are wrong and should be whipped!! make a note to remind me!
It was killed but only after the shameful parody of protest by GpN competitiors with non-compliant vehicles in a absurd violation of published rules of protest procedures (specifically the refusal to post a bond sufficient for a tear-down at whgich point the protest becomes MOOT and ends) leading to the exclusion of the then popular in USA Patrick Richard.
You may have noticed has not participated in SCCA events since then, and I do not believe from my conversations with him it is a mere co-incedence.
>
>And you did a good job by killing it, but it WAS there, and
>it WAS just made up on the spot correct? The point is, KS
>could have just as easily made a rule that in a tie you
>loose the tie if you use initials instead of your full name.
>It is just as logical as the rule we actually got.


>
>
>>Next, please.
>
>OK, how about the rule that if you pass the PR Dictator on a
>transit you are excluded even though nobody else saw it that
>was actually part of the event staff? What is to stop
>someone that is disliked by the PR Dictator from being
>falsely targeted? Not an acusation, just a hypothetical of
>where "I am the final authority on rules"

will lead you.
Perhaps you should go edit and put in:'just an example'of... 'can , and seems to have led'.
But maybe you should post a photo of yourself on bended knee apologizing to the angry man for making a suggestion even tho the evidence is clear that being in favor is more important rather than the dislike.
Suggesting that the Pro Rally Director doesn't love us all in a deeply Paternal but Platonic of course way is outrageous!!
Just go look up how some people such as Aristophenes viewed the behaviour of Platos idea of love.




John Vanlandingham
Seattle, WA. 98168

Vive le Prole-le-ralliat

Black Rocket Rally Tires
http://www.blackrockettires.com/

 

[Kartwheel]

RE: referring to previous issue

So what happens if he decides to ban blue New Beatle rally cars? He could do it you know, the fact that he is unlikely is not the point Mike. The fact that he has that kind of power to do it if he so chose is the point. The solution is to let the PRB handle rules, and get rid of him all together, or at least restrict him to looking for SERIES SPONSORS instead of meddling with the rules.

 

[Gravel Spray]

"It was killed but only after the shameful parody of protest by GpN competitiors with non-compliant vehicles in a absurd violation of published rules of protest procedures (specifically the refusal to post a bond sufficient for a tear-down at whgich point the protest becomes MOOT and ends) leading to the exclusion of the then popular in USA Patrick Richard.
You may have noticed has not participated in SCCA events since then, and I do not believe from my conversations with him it is a mere co-incedence."

This is a fact. SCCA required FULL FIA HOMOLOGATION to this competitor, and to no other. Infact, a special "local homologation" was secretly drawn up 4-days before rally start for other compeditors cars with illegal gearboxes that at the time were not even available in NorthAmerica(local eh?). Protesters wanted to know what the rules really were and wanted to set a precedent, so they desided to protest Pat to make a point(which I fully understand at this time). What I don't understand is that during event one of the protesters admitted his car was not legal(and still appears to be the same). Now it is important to know what the damn rules really are as some people are spending HUGE sums of money to ensure thier cars are 100% FIA legal(I mean 100%) while otehrs are clearly not.

Lets set the rules and keep them for a few years, atleast.

The FIA tie breaking proceedure is clearly the one that should be used thoughout the SCCA rally series.

Pete:+

Spelling corrected.........

 

[Widget Codriver]

Marketing

>... or at least restrict him to looking for SERIES
>SPONSORS instead of meddling with the rules.

Give the guy a break.... that was his OLD job as "The Marketing Guy." Now it's Garrett that's working on sponsorship packages for us.

[hr]

[p align=right]John Dillon
John @ WidgetRacing.com
www.WidgetRacing.com

 

[Rallychick from Oregon]

Okay, looking at history is a good thing, but the current question for JB is thus:

Why oh why did Kurt make up a tie-breaking rule the morning after the event was done with, and then appeal when the GN competitors protested him?

Seems to me that this is a case where Kurt capriciously made up a rule to fix a problem, and the competitors rightly protested the manner in which the rule was made up, i.e. after the fact, affecting an event that was already over.

The tie-breaking method as used by FIA is actually a good one, but it would have been better to put this into the 2004 rules (BTW, I don't see this tie-breaking thing in the proposed changes for 2004) instead of pissing everyone off by making up rules for an event that was already done.

It makes him look very, very bad. Heck, it makes the rest of the National staff (ie the PRB) look bad just because they're all associated with him. I'll be sorely disappointed in the PRB if they uphold Kurt's whimsy that he can make up rules as he wants, when he wants, and who cares that the event it's about is already done and over?

Where's the meaning in a national championship when y'all keep changing the rules, sometimes in mid-stream?? What's the point? I'm not surprised Pro is sorely lacking what it takes to make it alone. No wonder the Pro series has to stand on top of the ClubRally series just to survive. No wonder organizers count on lots of ClubRally entries to swell the ranks (and the coffers so they can pay off the landowners and fix the roads... where's the help from the national office on that? Nowhere to be found, even when we ask or they offer). No wonder rallies are leaving SCCA...