Formula 1000 Rule "Loopholes"
In recent weeks several persons have stated on various threads that in their opinion there exist in the FB rules several glaring loopholes, or at least gray areas, that need addressing. To get the ball rolling, I present the shifter rule as it exists and the revision the F/SRAC recommended to the CRB.
As the rule appears in the 2011 GCR...
Quote:
H.8. Transmission/Final Drive
D. All gear changes must be initiated by the driver. Mechanical gear
shifters, direct-acting electric solenoid shifters, air-shifters and
similar devices are permitted. Devices that allow pre-selected gear
changes are prohibited.
And as recommended...
Quote:
H.8. Transmission/Final Drive
D. Gear shifting is unrestricted.
One area that I recall Richard Pare raising is the bodywork rules. Please take a stab at it, Richard. Do you think we should change the rule to some narrower maximum width, write F5-like sidepod rules (that define minimum height, for instance), or something else?
Wren has made similar comments, though I cannot recall any specifics. How about it, Wren, here is your chance to shed light on areas in the rules that you think need work, so please step up with some examples.
Lordy, just lock all of it up.
-- body-width, shifters, materials and the way they're used... With these things in flux, car-building or even joining the catagory has become a scary thing.
I say -- for now -- leave it all as it is.
I believe FB is just now finding itself... And doing so both effectively and efficently with the rules exactly as currently written. I think the constant specter of rules changes has stunted the catagory's growth far more than any current rule or current rule vaguery ever has.
At this critical, formative time in Formula B's history: Rules Stability Uber Alles!
Chris
Richard, the rules DO suck as written ---
And I agree that the rules should be understandable only by anyone able to read and have a grasp of simple math. Certainly no particpant should be required to have studied historical precedent, etc. -- it should all be in the book. And it's not...
But I believe the rules-boat has sailed. There IS a rule book. Not perfect, but it's been interpreted pretty much in the same way by all. No one has found an Unfair Advantage that would put the catagory on its ear.
So I'm opposed to ANY changes to the current FB rules at this time -- be it concerning the 4% weight penalty to those running legal-last-year shifting systems... or anything else. The class ain't broke. And I worry that even a gentle "clarifying" rewrite could only raise more hell.
If FB is to grow, it must become a welcoming environment for those considering participation. And it hasn't been. The madness caused by even the proposal of rules changes -- has been awful. And ultimately not good for business. So given it all, I say let it be, let it grow.
Regards, by the way!
some clarification is needed
Brandon is absolutely correct about the bodywork rules as it applies to width in front of the front tires and behind the rear tires. Eventually someone will exploit that and we will be looking at quasi sports racers. I don't want to build one....and updating older cars would be a pain.
Like others, as the rules were written, I saw the narrow side pod/wide undertray as inevitable. However, I see no need to change it now.
Jon.....a variety of sidepod configurations would (I think) make your series more interesting than having all the sidepod/floors look alike.
If the intent is to limit the material that can be used for bodywork (for cost containment or any other reason), then specify what can be used. No grey areas.
Richard covered everything else I can think of.....
As someone who has tooled up to manufacture cars for this class (and FC), It would be nice to have rules stability....but some things do need to be addressed.
Thanks,
Jerry Hodges
JDR Enterprises