Special Stage Forums banner

1 - 20 of 31 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,757 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
For those of you didn't attend, my summary based entirely on memory and only a few notes scribbled down on the ride home:

1) A good start with an open request for agenda items from Kurt.

2) Everyone introducing themselves.

3) Start on topics. These are the ones 1 recall:
a) Stage notes; kinda turned out to be a "See how SAFE they are" marketing pitch by Kurt. This drew several responses of "wait a minute, it's only 3 events; STPR roads were the best in 5 years", etc. Doc Shrader appeared to be the most concerned of any of the PRB members over the safety aspects of Stage Notes, due to higher speeds.
b) 3rd tier: Bruce Perry made a very good presentation of what was discussed a lot on the forum. Lot's of general discussion ensued, with the Club Stewards bringing up a revival of Super D. The point was made to not exclude cars due to age from the middle tier.
c) The topic of annual inspections came up in the context of safety and a question of why not exclude cars based on age due to safety concerns. Doug Robinson told a horror story of a car with rust below one cage mount point, covered by RTV and painted over that was not caught at tech, so this was one reason to exclude cars based on age. The rejoinder from a large group was "FIX the annual inspection system, don't throw out perfectly good cars!" I reminded Phil Mellor later that if this was done, Historic class had to be the first to go, IF we are basing things just on age. That rasied an eyebrow...
d) Kurt ignored my topic agenda, which was "How much/many input has there been from members to the PRB?" He did this while most everyone was chatting on another subject, with the comment to me that "I'm not going to get into THAT here." My question was to gage how much input they are getting from us, not to put him or anyone on the spot, so he blew an opportunity to bring out what I would have turned into a positive.

4) There were a couple more topics, but I didn't put them down in notes, so sorry.

5) ADDED IN EDITING: Bruce reminded me of what may have been the most important annoucement: No plans to further limit car age in Pro Rally. My apologies for being so dumb as to forget this; regards to Bruce for catching me on this. See his post below, and my post with further related items on that topic. END OF EDIT ADDITION.

My overall imprsssion: a good cross section or competitors, organizers and PRB, except for the big boy teams. A good organizational flow start by Kurt. Kurt talking too much and expressing his views at too great a length to make me think he is open. I would rather see someone else lead these meetings. (BUT, I AM highly biased here.) Lots of intelligent, experienced folks with good ideas if we can work together with leadership that wants to implement a borad spectrum of ideas. Lots of caring folks (but that was no surprise).

The biggest negative: From Doug Robinsons's points about car age, and some side converstaions by Phil Mellor, I fear a new move to eliminate cars based on age alone, in the name of safety. This flies in the face of logic if you think about it for a while.

Mark Bowers
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,998 Posts
>d) Kurt ignored my topic agenda, which was "How much/many
>input has there been from members to the PRB?" He did this
>while most everyone was chatting on another subject, with
>the comment to me that "I'm not going to get into THAT
>here." My question was to gage how much input they are
>getting from us, not to put him or anyone on the spot, so he
>blew an opportunity to bring out what I would have turned
>into a positive.

You asked the wrong person. You should have asked a member of the PRB how much input they get. Judging from what I see at my house, it's literally POUNDS of input when committed to paper. Unfortunately, there's often an equal amount of input on all sides of one issue. It doesn't mean they're ignoring the issue...just that there's no concensus.

>The biggest negative: From Doug Robinsons's points about car
>age, and some side converstaions by Phil Mellor, I fear a
>new move to eliminate cars based on age alone, in the name
>of safety. This flies in the face of logic if you think
>about it for a while.

OTOH, Kurt stated - and was backed up by the PRB members in attendance - that there were no plans to further reduce the age limits for PRO cars, and no plans whatever to introduce age limits to ClubRally.

Bruce
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,757 Posts
Discussion Starter · #3 ·
>You asked the wrong person. You should have asked a member
>of the PRB how much input they get. Judging from what I see
>at my house, it's literally POUNDS of input when committed
>to paper. Unfortunately, there's often an equal amount of
>input on all sides of one issue. It doesn't mean they're
>ignoring the issue...just that there's no concensus.

Frankly, Bruce, did you catch the way this got passed over? It just reinforced an already negetive view of the fellow for me. (And the question was not intended to be trap.)

>
>OTOH, Kurt stated - and was backed up by the PRB members in
>attendance - that there were no plans to further reduce the
>age limits for PRO cars, and no plans whatever to introduce
>age limits to ClubRally.

You are right; I didn't ignore putting this in the post; I just forgot. (Yeah, I know; pretty stupid on my part to forget something THIS Big; forgive me if you can.) I felt good when the announcement was made, and then felt nervous afterwards because of the way I felt the inspection subject might be pushing things internally to again limit car age. When I mentioned the "eliminate Historic" with age limits to Phil afterwards, he reacted in an odd way, like "I hadn't thought of that", which made me think age limiting WAS under consideration under the banner of safety. And prior to the whole meeting, he mentioned to me about "how beat up" my Starion was, and how rally cars get beat up so much more than road race cars. (I never thought bondo was a safety issue, and my Starion spent most of it's days as an SSA car, so I still haven't figured out what he meant with that comment.) My trust level is down these days......

You added a lot to the discussion with a good inputs from the organizers' side, so thanks.

Mark
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
62 Posts
Mark,

I believe I was able to prove to Doug R. during the meeting that the age limit had no relevance to safety. I pointed out that if 12 years was too unsafe for Production then why is 20 years ok for Open (ie. faster). He acknowledged this point and appeared to rescind his argument.

The age limit is PURE marketing and it is ok with me in the manufacturers tier. The point I tried to make with the 3 tier system is that the middle tier would be a coefficient 5 series that essentially has the rules of a couple of years ago, pre Kurt! No age limits!

I am all for a tougher annual tech for safety reasons.

Another Topic I brought up: ClubRally Entry

I suggested that ClubRally entries should be accepted from seed 8 first, then seed 7, etc until the entry limit is achieved. Exactly the opposite of the ProRally rule. Seed 1 and 0 drivers can run a ClubRally as "exhibition" if there is room under the entry limit. Again this idea is connected to a 3 tier system where the top non-manufacturer teams are running predominantly as the middle tier at the coef 5 ProRallies.

Bruce Perry
#992 PGT/P4 Talon
 

·
Retired Rally Photographer
Joined
·
2,069 Posts
>Another Topic I brought up: ClubRally Entry
>
>I suggested that ClubRally entries should be accepted from
>seed 8 first, then seed 7, etc until the entry limit is
>achieved. Exactly the opposite of the ProRally rule. Seed
>1 and 0 drivers can run a ClubRally as "exhibition" if there
>is room under the entry limit. Again this idea is connected
>to a 3 tier system where the top non-manufacturer teams are
>running predominantly as the middle tier at the coef 5
>ProRallies.

I totally 100% agree with this. Or at least have coefficient 1 & 2 club rallies work this way so the new guys are guaranteed entry. Then let the coefficient 3's start from the top so those fastest club guys don't get stuck running Pro all the time vs. the manufacturer teams.

Pete
 

·
R3 Slippy
Joined
·
79 Posts
>>Another Topic I brought up: ClubRally Entry
>>
>>I suggested that ClubRally entries should be accepted from
>>seed 8 first, then seed 7, etc until the entry limit is
>>achieved. Exactly the opposite of the ProRally rule. Seed
>>1 and 0 drivers can run a ClubRally as "exhibition" if there
>>is room under the entry limit. Again this idea is connected
>>to a 3 tier system where the top non-manufacturer teams are
>>running predominantly as the middle tier at the coef 5
>>ProRallies.
>
>I totally 100% agree with this. Or at least have
>coefficient 1 & 2 club rallies work this way so the new guys
>are guaranteed entry. Then let the coefficient 3's start
>from the top so those fastest club guys don't get stuck
>running Pro all the time vs. the manufacturer teams.
>
>Pete

Please be careful how you promote this idea. I agree that we need to make sure that nobody gets excluded from a ClubRally - no matter how new or inexperienced they are. We all need a place to play and learn. However, I feel the need to voice the position of the higher-seeded ClubRally teams.

I've been running seed 3 for a while now, and have done mostly ClubRally events. By restricting the entries like you mentioned even in only C2 events, a lot of good Open Class, PGT, and G5 teams would be excluded from running for a Divisional championship. Just offhand, I believe that CenDiv schedule has way less than half it's events being C3's. Why should we be exluded from the ClubRally level of competition? We've worked our way here, but we have the same budget and travel restrictions that most other ClubRally teams do. Personally, running Pro is not an option for a team like mine. We can do 3 events pretty easily in CenDiv, but after that it gets to be a lot of travel and money.

Essestially, this idea would kill a lot of the established, higher seeded but not-pro-level Club teams. I sympathize with all the newer guys who are having problems making events, and I'd like to give back to the series and do what I can to help. But I don't see how excluding those of us who have climbed the ladder a bit will help.

Chris Gilligan
#527 Open Class Eclipse
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
222 Posts
I'm with Chris on this issue:

You should have specially designated "beginner" ClubRallies that favor rank novices. Ski Sawmill is a great example. But the regular ClubRally championship events must prioritize the entry of those drivers competing for the championship. And those drivers are going to be seed 3 and 4 for the most part.
 

·
3/14=my 42nd rally anniversary
Joined
·
3,979 Posts
>Another Topic I brought up: ClubRally Entry
>
>I suggested that ClubRally entries should be accepted from
>seed 8 first, then seed 7, etc until the entry limit is
>achieved. Exactly the opposite of the ProRally rule. Seed
>1 and 0 drivers can run a ClubRally as "exhibition" if there
>is room under the entry limit. Again this idea is connected
>to a 3 tier system where the top non-manufacturer teams are
>running predominantly as the middle tier at the coef 5
>ProRallies.
>
>Bruce Perry
>#992 PGT/P4 Talon

[ClubRally Steward Hat ON]
Committing this sort of thing to the rulebook simply complicates things for everyone while really only addressing a problem that exists in one geographical area of the country (granted, a significant body of license holders). What you are proposing is something ANY organizer can request in a sanction exception and have granted without concern. Rather than force ALL ClubRally organizers to request sanction exceptions to do things the "normal" way, wouldn't it make more sense to educate/petition the organizers of the minority of events across the country where such a requirement would prove beneficial and fit your criteria?

For whatever it's worth, the problems facing NE Division rally newcomers is a continuing topic of discussion amongst the corps of ClubRally Stewards and we are ALL keen to do what can be done to help - but the organizers are really the ones in control of such things. And that, so far as I'm concerned, is where the responsibility for such decisions should remain.

The CR Stewards will be holding one of our monthly conference calls this evening, if there's something (anything) you'd like addressed be sure to let your Steward (or me) know.

Halley ...
MiDiv ClubRally Steward
http://www.realautosport.com
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
62 Posts
Reply to some of the ClubRally Entry concerns:

In a clubrally where the entry limit is not met, there would be no difference to anyone.

I would agree that this rule might pertain only to C2 and C1 events and not C3.

This idea only works with a 3 tier system where everyone making comments on this thread would be in the middle tier anyway, probably not in the clubrally tier.

As a community, we MUST have events that the seed 8 and 7 competitors can get into. PERIOD. The rest of us have plenty of other opportunities...

I am a seed 3 driver and I am willing to forfiet my entry at these events in order to guarantee seed 7 and 8 competitors have room to get into this sport. I am also a rallycross event chairman and I have a soft spot for the "seed 9" guys.

edit... I entered Sawmill this year to practice for STPR. The entry filled up and I suspect a few seed 8 teams could not participate. I thought about that fact and came up with this idea. ...edit

I understand the point about divisional championships. I agree that this idea is not perfect. Assume for a minute that the reverse entry applies only to the C1 nad C2 events. The seed 3 and 4 guys going for the championships have the possibility of scoring a lot of points in the C3 events. The seed 7 and 8 guys will perhaps score in the C2 and C1 events but we all know that the C3 events are where the championships come from.

The middle tier would have a divisional, or coastal, or whatever, championship that most of us would aspire to anyway.

Hey, it was just a thought...

Bruce Perry
#992 PGT/P4 Talon
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
408 Posts
Deja Vu

Bruce -

I made the following proposal to the PRB when many of us were submitting comments regarding the rules:

Purpose: To provide new and inexperienced Club competitors with access to events.
Rule: Propose the introduction of a ClubRally classification system. Each event would be classified as either Advanced or Beginner. For advanced events, entry selection would be via seed, in accending order. For beginner events, entry selection would be via seed, starting at seed 5 though 8 and then seed 4, seed, 3, etc. It may be more appropriate to add this to the RFOs, but I believe this is a system that could help stratify competition and provide a true entry into the sport.
 

·
3/14=my 42nd rally anniversary
Joined
·
3,979 Posts
RE: Deja Vu

I'm 100% in favor of watching out for the beginners wherever they are (stewarding, eh? ;-) ) but the whole rules process is so slow and fraught with the possibility of self-serving interpretations that I hate to see such edicts committed to the rule books when local organizers and/or a divisional committee could more effectively mandate and manage such. From a MiDiv standpoint (and probably the rest of the country), there's simply no need for rules guaranteeing the lowest seeds entry slots. Maybe we will soon ...

Keep the ideas coming - I certainly have changed my mind enough times to know there are no absolutes!

Halley ...
http://www.realautosport.com
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
281 Posts
RE: Deja Vu

who says what is advanced and beginner? I say leave it up to the organizers to host beginner events. It is a simple sanction exception, and can easily be approved. I think the lack of events is a problem that will soon sort itself out (in the next year or so) as we experience these growing pains.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
366 Posts
Club enteries and age rules

First off club entries; Simple, first come first served, you want to run get your entry in early. When a person buys groceries they wait in line-they don't go to the front of line because they shop at a the same store every week and are owed something. It's equal as everyone has the same oppurtunity to enter.

Age limits: Again with this crap from the "marketing Department" or lack there of. Now Doug Robinson is joining in with this crap is there a disease running rapid within the governing body of this sport!? A tech inspector got duped know everyone is going to be made to pay for it? What a load of crap!!! Age of a car has nothing to do with the chassis integrity any fool knows that. What SCCA wants is new cars running so that they can try to make more money marketing by making the competitors pay for it with new cars.
Does anyone else notice how SCCA is not going to lower the year limit yet wants to put an age limit on cars for safety reasons-SAYWHAT-
We are not going to do what we are going to do-HUH?
Someone turn over the stone and let us see what other form of life crawls from under it!!!!
Did I miss something here?

Inquiring minds want to know:
Is SCCA serving the rally community or their own pockets?
 

·
3/14=my 42nd rally anniversary
Joined
·
3,979 Posts
RE: Deja Vu

>who says what is advanced and beginner? I say leave it up to
>the organizers to host beginner events. It is a simple
>sanction exception, and can easily be approved. I think the
>lack of events is a problem that will soon sort itself out
>(in the next year or so) as we experience these growing
>pains.

Is there an echo in here? A nice, concise, to-the-point, not-overly-wordy echo?? ;-)

BUY MY TRUCK BILL! :7

Halley ...
http://www.realautosport.com
 

·
3/14=my 42nd rally anniversary
Joined
·
3,979 Posts
Lobotomys R Us ;-)

Tirade excerpt:

"(Now) Doug Robinson is joining in with this crap is there a disease running rapid within the governing body of this sport!?"

It's not a disease at all!! Right there in an SCCA Ops Manual appendix is the requirement that brain surgery be carried out on anyone filling a volunteer slot above the Regional level. This procedure lobotomizes all grey matter that would allow one to retain their common sense, empathy, compassion, love of the sport, short-term memory, long-term memory, every rational thought and leaves the subject completely susceptible to any trance His Spawness - the guy with the stainless steel surgical instruments, the flashy smile and he who we all love to hate so much - cares to inflict on us at any time - telepathically (or maybe it's via those conference calls ... hmmmm).

Still-active from the hundreds of lobotomy recipients:

Seed 5 driver J.B. Niday
Seed 5 driver & Pro/ClubRally Organizer Kendall Russell
Seed 5 driver & Pro/ClubRally Organizer John Shirley
Seed 3 driver M. E. Halley
Seed 3 driver Greg Healey
Seed 2 driver George Plsek
Seed 1 driver Ralph Kosmides
Pro/ClubRally Codriver John Dillon
Pro/ClubRally Codriver & former driver Doug Robinson
Pro/ClubRally Codriver & former driver Doc Shrader
ClubRally Organizer & former driver Sasha Lanz
ClubRally Organizer Tom Nelson
Pro/ClubRally Organizer Beryl Ann Burton
Pro/ClubRally Organizer Bruce Weinman
Pro/ClubRally Organizer John Forespring
ProRally Organizer John McArthur
Former Production Class driver Dan Coughnour

Who have I left out ... hmmmmm.

My programming won't allow me to talk about BOD members (or even former ones) so you'll just have to guess what operations Bradshaw and Mellor have undergone.

Given the make up of this non-representative group I can see where it's in these folk's best interest to subvert everything the little guy is endeavoring to do.

By the way, you really should volunteer - the lobotomy tickles after a fashion and if you have kids like mine, they'll get a big kick attaching magnets to the plate in your head when you're napping.

Halley ... :+
http://www.realautosport.com
 

·
don't cut
Joined
·
4,075 Posts
RE: Lobotomys R Us ;-)

You left out the large amounts of money these people all get from the manufacturers. And the perks of dealing with bureaucracies to get land use permissions.:+
 

·
3/14=my 42nd rally anniversary
Joined
·
3,979 Posts
RE: Lobotomys R Us ;-)

>You left out the large amounts of money these people all get
>from the manufacturers. And the perks of dealing with
>bureaucracies to get land use permissions.:+

Shush Richard! I've already revealed too much ...

:eek:

Halley ...
http://www.realautosport.com
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
366 Posts
RE: Lobotomys R Us ;-)

>
>It's not a disease at all!! Right there in an SCCA Ops
>Manual appendix is the requirement that brain surgery be
>carried out on anyone filling a volunteer slot above the
>Regional level. This procedure lobotomizes all grey matter
>that would allow one to retain their common sense, empathy,
>compassion, love of the sport, short-term memory, long-term
>memory, every rational thought and leaves the subject
>completely susceptible to any trance His Spawness - the guy
>with the stainless steel surgical instruments, the flashy
>smile and he who we all love to hate so much - cares to
>inflict on us at any time - telepathically (or maybe it's
>via those conference calls ... hmmmm).
>
>Still-active from the hundreds of lobotomy recipients:
>
>Seed 5 driver J.B. Niday
>Seed 5 driver & Pro/ClubRally Organizer Kendall Russell
>Seed 5 driver & Pro/ClubRally Organizer John Shirley
>Seed 3 driver M. E. Halley
>Seed 3 driver Greg Healey
>Seed 2 driver George Plsek
>Seed 1 driver Ralph Kosmides
>Pro/ClubRally Codriver John Dillon
>Pro/ClubRally Codriver & former driver Doug Robinson
>Pro/ClubRally Codriver & former driver Doc Shrader
>ClubRally Organizer & former driver Sasha Lanz
>ClubRally Organizer Tom Nelson
>Pro/ClubRally Organizer Beryl Ann Burton
>Pro/ClubRally Organizer Bruce Weinman
>Pro/ClubRally Organizer John Forespring
>ProRally Organizer John McArthur
>Former Production Class driver Dan Coughnour
your head when you're napping.
>
>Halley ... :+
>http://www.realautosport.com

Do you get pudding or jello after the procedure?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,757 Posts
Discussion Starter · #20 ·
RE: Club enteries and age rules

Hey Sean,

I guess I am responsible for starting this. I did have a negative reaction to where I thought Doug might be going with nis line of discussion.

- Bruce and Bruce Perry brought out points (see above in this string) that they feel that they got Doug off of that line by good arguments at the meeting.
- I do NOT in any way think Doug is a bad guy here.
- I do have some lingering doubts that this issue gone forever. But keeping those doubts and experessing them is a lot due my life experiences, my personality, and view on the world.
- I do feel and hope that these types of chassis "horror" stories will be solved by making our annual inpsections better, not with any thing like age limits, which has nothing to do with how safe a car is. As you say: "Age of a car has nothing to do with the chassis integrity..."

Mark B.
 
1 - 20 of 31 Posts
Top