Special Stage Forums banner

1 - 19 of 19 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,550 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
I put together some polls on SCCA Official Site concerning the rule changes. Since the site allows 5 new topics per user per day I couldn't finish them all however you can start casting your votes for the ones that are up now.

The pdf file for the Proposed rule changes is at

[http://www.scca.com/_Filelibrary/File/PRCB062104.pdf]

It would be great if another user could put up the next 5 polls and another user the next 5. PLease let me know who would like to put up which 5 so that we don't have multiple polls about the same subject.

They polls can be found here:

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


Cheers

M.Samli
 

·
Big Jump 800
Joined
·
716 Posts
The polls are a really nice idea, but let me say this... I'm not going to take them very seriously for three reasons.

1. I have limited confidence in the security of the SCCA site.
2. I have no way of knowing how representitive the polls are, in other words they only represent the opinions of those who vote, and really endorse the opinions of those who vote multiple times (see #1).
3. The rules posted for member comment are not proposed rules. They are topics for member comment. The PRB has received dozens of thoughtful letters on a all of the topics. We have received some irrational comments as well (FYI, "Restrictors suck" while entertaining, is not a convincing agruement). I've read all of them and I fully expect that every member of the PRB will read all of them. Here's my point; these letters are infinately more valuable than any unscientific poll.

so... write an e-mail to Sue Robinson... please tell us what you think.

J.B. Niday
www.nidayrallysport.com
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,550 Posts
Discussion Starter · #3 ·
>I'm not going to take them very seriously for three reasons.
>
>1. I have limited confidence in the security of the SCCA
>site.

Why ? SCCA had the site built and it's there for a reason, isn't it ?

>2. I have no way of knowing how representitive the polls
>are, in other words they only represent the opinions of
>those who vote, and really endorse the opinions of those who
>vote multiple times (see #1).

Multiple voting is not allowed, try and see for yourself.

>3. The rules posted for member comment are not proposed
>rules. They are topics for member comment. The PRB has
>received dozens of thoughtful letters on a all of the
>topics. We have received some irrational comments as well
>(FYI, "Restrictors suck" while entertaining, is not a
>convincing agruement). I've read all of them and I fully
>expect that every member of the PRB will read all of them.
>Here's my point; these letters are infinately more valuable
>than any unscientific poll.

Some people would find it a lot more convenient to click Yes or No rather than sitting in front of their computer and writing a letter, IMHO their input should have some sort of importance as well.

>so... write an e-mail to Sue Robinson... please tell us what
>you think.

I think most (if not all) of the people who wrote letters will participate in the polls aswell.

Cheers

M.Samli
 
G

·
JB-

Could you explain further how these are not rules proposals?

The text of the bulliten reads:
"Overview: The following are the proposed rule changes collected by the PRB for review and comment by the SCCA members for the next 30 days beginning June 21, 2004 and concluding July 21, 2004."


How is a proposed rule change different than a rules proposal?


While I would agree somewhat with your points about the polls, I do think that any comments in the forums should carry some weight.

If they do not, there really is no point in using the SCCA forums, and we'll all just continue to work on our conspiracy theories here :)
 

·
Big Jump 800
Joined
·
716 Posts
Matt & Mustafa,
I'll sure look at the polls along with everything else. You'll all notice that, despite the fact that I'd like to have copies of all letters sent to Sue Robinson, I still read just about everything posted on SpecialStage.

An unscientific poll is an unscientific poll... I don't know why the SCCA put the polls on their forum... maybe because the software is shareware and they didn't disable the feature... maybe they don't understand the misleading nature of unscientific polls.

As for explaining the difference between proposed rule this or that... I'm sorry for the confusing language... but understand that NONE of the rules have been written yet, they're just concepts and this is the time for you all to voice your opinions about these concepts (and MAYBE concepts is another bad word and I've opened another pandora's box.

For example... one of the rules is about extending the Max distance between fuel stops to 100 miles... I haven't gotten one letter yet (that I recall... and if I did I'm sorry to the writer... really, I've read 'em all) that says, "My fuel cell will only allow me 80 miles at my average milage of X"... or some other suggestion like, "I can only do 100 miles of 80 of them are transit".

J.B. Niday
www.nidayrallysport.com
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
408 Posts
Do you mean to say that you do not put much weight in an argument that says a new rule wouldn't work for their car?

Maybe you could help out some people here by sharing with us your crieteria for credible arguments. For example, are you looking for impact on the sport in general? Impact on individual competitors? A cost/benefit analysis? A mathematical proof? ;-)
 

·
NASA Rally Sport grassroots!!!
Joined
·
2,835 Posts
J.B., I think what Daphne is talking about is this:

Proposed rule: No yellow cars in 2005.

J.B. is a fan of the "No yellow cars rule".

Daphne is asking: "If a competitor sent a letter saying 'Hey, my car is yellow, this rule is affecting me and I don't like it!' would that be enough to sway you on the rule? Or would you require some kind of cost/benefit analysis of yellow cars, repainting, environmental impacts, or whatever?"

She's asking what kind of arguments or data are required to sway your opinion. (IF a majority of folks just saying "hey I don't like this" isn't enough to sway your opinion)

Anders
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
408 Posts
Yeah, what Anders said....

Basically you mentioned something about a letter referencing that their fuel cell could not go 100 miles. That's a "the rule change screws me because of my car" kind of an argument. Is this something that even impacts your decision making? You also mentioned letter saying, "Restrictors suck!" which is probably not the most well formed argument on the planet.

I figure it would help everyone involved if you gave some friendly advice on what you believe makes a compelling argument. And if people at least try to make compelling arguments, you'll have a lot more fun reading their letters.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,246 Posts
"For example... one of the rules is about extending the Max distance between fuel stops to 100 miles... I haven't gotten one letter yet (that I recall... and if I did I'm sorry to the writer... really, I've read 'em all) that says, "My fuel cell will only allow me 80 miles at my average milage of X"... or some other suggestion like, "I can only do 100 miles of 80 of them are transit"."

jb said he had not seen a letter regarding fuel stops.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
926 Posts
>The polls are a really nice idea, but let me say this... I'm
>not going to take them very seriously for three reasons.
>
>2. I have no way of knowing how representitive the polls
>are, in other words they only represent the opinions of
>those who vote, and really endorse the opinions of those who
>vote multiple times (see #1).

Try voting twice. Cant be done unless you sign un under a different account name. If someone takes the time to vote on an issue, it has value. And frankly if someone takes the time to create multiple accounts on the SCCA forum to vote, they must really care.

Dont dismiss the polls or comments under them out of hand.

You may see my comments there...where is the beef? Almost none of the proposed changes has any content so none of us really knows what it all means.
 
G

·
I would be remiss for not saying that a year ago, I don't think we would have been having a discussion about which one of the ways we could provide input would "count".


One possible method for dealing with things like this would be to create moderated sticky threads that discuss each talking point.

Moderation would be in place mostly to reduce thread creep.

I think a moderated sticky thread devoted to each point would actually reduce the amount of work for the PRB and others to follow each particular issue.


maybe.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
408 Posts
Well, he used it as an example of a possible argument. I just want to understand whether or not that's a strong or weak argument.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
239 Posts
That quite a bit of info/rule changes in the PDF file...

Do the rules really require this much of a re-write between seasons? Is the current rulebook so ineffective that we require such a drastic change in prep/safety gear/cost increase? Is the 2004 rulebook even available. Are the potential rules being re written just for the sake of doing it, to see what will stick when thrown out there?

I am in favor of explicit reasoning for potential rule changes; especially the new belt rules, and seat mount rules. as well as any rule that will cause a significant cost increase- such as fire systems... I just purchased new belts and don't even recall seeing 7 point belts available...

I am also starting to think that Club/Pro will need separate rule books. Should my 100 hp 18 year old VW Golf, with current safety equipment, require the same set of rules as an AWD 400hp EVO? I honestly do not think so. Is my car suddenly unsafe for competition?
We should just switch to tube frame cars with full-on CART style safety rules and be done with it.

I am not familiar with other club racing series, Are they subject to the same rule changes year after year?
 

·
Mä meen vittu sinne!
Joined
·
6,058 Posts
As a statistician and as a rallyist I would like to make 2 comments:
1. Online polls cannot be analyzed from a statistical standpoint to draw any valid conclusions. There is too much error involved and the sampling is definitely not random (ie. people who agree with the rule is much less likely to go and vote on it then someone who is not)
2. If you really care about this sport take the time to respond to Sue or another member of the SCCA with your opinion via email or physical mail. I'm sending both to make sure my opinion is heard.

Remember this a club and we are the members. It is your duty to stay involved, and if you can't take the time to make your opinions heard then you must not care enough. Here is a link to a MS Word document with all the proposed rule changes. What I did was went in and after each rule I added my opinion about it and any negative OR positive response that I had regarding the rule. If I thought it would have a positive effect I said so. If I thought negative, I also said so. Do it also. It is your obligation to yourself, your team, and your fellow SCCA members.
PS> Anybody notice the lack of a link to Fastracks on the new sites main page? It's in the Garage link on the left.


(Right click on link and select 'Save Target As' to save to your hard drive for editing) Two versions available incase you don't have Word.

MS Word version
http://www.hugheshometheater.com/Rally/2005Rules.doc

Plain Text Version
http://www.hugheshometheater.com/Rally/2005Rules.txt

:)
 

·
www.christianedstrom.com
Joined
·
2,144 Posts
>Well, he used it as an example of a possible argument. I
>just want to understand whether or not that's a strong or
>weak argument.

I don't want to speak for JB, but in my mind, if the proposed rule is:

Cars must go 100 miles between fuel stops

and we get 5 letters saying "my car can't do that" and 5 letters saying "fine by me" that would be a strong argument against instituting this rule for 2005.

That said, organizers have expressed a strong preference for this rule, so perhaps a result could be a 100 mile minimum, effective 2008, allowing people time to budget for it in car builds and rebuilds, or something like that. Just talking out of my hat, here...

- Christian

Bjorn Christian Edstrom
www.christianedstrom.com
 

·
Administrator Emeritus
Joined
·
1,207 Posts
>One possible method for dealing with things like this would
>be to create moderated sticky threads that discuss each
>talking point.
>
>Moderation would be in place mostly to reduce thread creep.
>
>I think a moderated sticky thread devoted to each point
>would actually reduce the amount of work for the PRB and
>others to follow each particular issue.

I believe this is the plan for next year, in the rally disucssion forums at scca.com. There will be a rule change forum, and each proposal will be posted (with a rationale) for comment there.

Ben
PRB
 
1 - 19 of 19 Posts
Top