Proposed 2004 Rules: My letter
Dear PRB:
I'm writing to offer input regarding the proposed 2004 rules. Because you guys are swamped with other stuff right now, I'll try to keep the responses brief.
Additionally, I suggest that you try again to synchronize the points system for all classes in all categories across the board. Right now we one system for ClubRally, a second for Group N, and a third for ProRally. I encourage you to adopt the ProRally points structure across the board, including starting and finishing points. If it simplifies matters, treat a ProRally as a Coefficient 5 event.
2004 RULES
The following proposals for 2004 rules
are presented for member comment.
Please direct your comments to the PRB
by May 26, 2003 at
[email protected]
SCCA.com or by fax at 785-732-7215.
The PRB greatly looks forward to your input.
1. In order to reduce costs and increase
competitive balance, limit all competitors
to one spare gearbox per event and one
spare turbo (where applicable) per leg.
Achieve this by requiring marking and
sealing of spares at tech to limit the number
of spare parts allowed. The PRB has
an open concern about marking & handling
of shared spares among competitors.
OPPOSED. It's too much work for our volunteer staff and a logistical nightmare to manage. What about cases where several club racers are supported by one service crew with only a single spare gearbox for whichever racer needs it? How do you handle the administration and assignment? Who do you get to monitor the crews? Additionally, sharing is part of what makes our rally family special--we like helping each other, just like Leon loaned George his turbo last December. I realize that you'd like to constrain costs, but the high-dollar teams will always have ways to leverage their wallets against the little guys. This will be more trouble than it's worth.
2. Currently, the rules do not explicitly
disallow exchange of the motor block during
the event. For 2004, limit exchange of
motor block only prior to event start. This
rule is intended to reduce costs.
OPPOSED, same reason as #1.
3. In order to reduce top speeds and
increase reliability, reduce Open Class
restrictor from 40mm to 34mm.
OPPOSED. I wrote to you earlier on this.
4. Allow manual mechanically selected
and actuated, sequential transmissions in
Open Class (excluding electronic, electrohydraulic,
hydraulic, pneumatic and similar
transmissions)
SUPPORTED.
5. Allow roof scoops in Production and
PGT classes.
SUPPORTED.
6. Currently, the rules do not have a
provision for what happens if a car cannot
start from the start line. Add the following
rule: "Special stages commence from a
standing start, with the car placed at the
starting line. Any car not able to start from
this point under its own power in the 20
seconds following a signal to do so is
excluded and the car is immediately
removed to a safe place."
OPPOSED. What if it takes 21 seconds to get the car fired up? 25 seconds? 2 minutes? They've already taken a time penalty from the delay. I'm sure you're concerned about a car blocking the start line. In my experience, it's rare that the line is blocked enough that the next car can't start safely, but if that's the motivation, write the rule so that "cars in a dangerous position at the start must be moved clear of the start line with 30 seconds."
7. Soliciting input (general): Does the
membership prefer that the PRB and PRD
work to slow down cars on events, stages,
long straights.
OPPOSED, though I know this is a hot button right now. You guys have enough to do right now, you don't need more work, especially in this area. Every situation is different. I feel a lot safer at 130 MPH on the Sprongl straight in Laughlin than at 90 MPH at STPR. This is an organizer issue, not a PRB issue.
8. Soliciting input (general): If any member
is aware of an error or typo in Award
History, please let the PRB know.
Talk to Daphne.
9. In an attempt to grow the Historic
class, the PRB is soliciting input on easing
the regulations for Historic class. The current
proposal would allow all 2wd normally
aspirated cars of model year 1974 and
earlier, with period performance modifications.
AMBIVALENT. I'm not a Historic competitor. Explain why we need to grow the class and I'd probably support it.
10. To comply with FIA regulations,
require all competitors, excluding residents
of Canada and Mexico, to possess SCCA
ProRally or ClubRally license in order to
compete. Residents of Canada and Mexico
will continue to be able to compete on
CARS and FMAD licenses, respectively.
OPPOSED. There are six sanctioning bodies in the USA authorized to issue FIA licenses, at least two of which have some rally involvement. Compliance with FIA regulations doesn't mean you have to have an SCCA license. (For what it's worth, I think the other sanctioning bodies should accept SCCA licenses for their events. Come to think of it, some of them do, at least on the road racing side of the house.)
11. Allow or require the removal of rear
seats and headliners in Production and
Production GT cars.
SUPPORTED. Allow, but not require the removal. Some folks may want to keep the seats in place, though I'd certainly remove them if I went back to PGT.
### END ###
[hr]
[p align=right]John Dillon
John @ WidgetRacing.com
www.WidgetRacing.com
