OK, To stay in a open discussion about the proposal...
Why the need to extend the bottom reference plane forward to the front bulkhead? When in the current rules it ends at the rear of the front tires?
Why that change?
A quanitative question
OK, To stay in a open discussion about the proposal...
Why the need to extend the bottom reference plane forward to the front bulkhead? When in the current rules it ends at the rear of the front tires?
Why that change?
No bodywork wider than 16" below rear axle.Originally Posted by R. Pare
The rule is no bodywork wider than 16" below the rear axle and aft of the rear tires. Who is running bodywork like that? Every undertray I see stops at the rear edge of the rear tires.
Board
Wren:
I think these are the people who approved the submission. The board with their class affiliation and car affiliation if one exists. See anything that may be a little lopsided.
there are no other representatives from ANY other brands other than citation.
Bill Johnson - FV
Brandon Dixon - Citation constructor
Bruce Lindstrand - Formula/SR prep shop
Carl Wassersleben - F500
Chris Huskamp - F500/F600
John LaRue - Citation Involvement
Keith Grant - Formula Atlantic
Sean Maisey - Citation owner
Steve Oseth - Citation owner
David Arken - DSR
It's summer and I'd rather be at the beach than typing this email.
Good day,
Jimmy
Jimmy Hanrahan
jimh3063@yahoo.com
It came from the 2011 FSRAC. Pay attention.
Why didn't you list what cars the others owned? You seem a little obsessed.
Just to be clear. Your theory is that the people who own citations are secretly trying to take over the SCCA? Start here. There is help available.
10 hours later, and no answer offered for post #41.
I can't imagine why. That doesn't bring it in line with the FB rules, so I don't know where they got it.
Mike, this was what I meant before about being completely in the dark. Why does this new rule package not come with any type of explanation of what the original problem was and why these changes are recommended as necessary.
When any legislative body proposes to change a law or rule, a "legislative history" is attached to the bill, describing why the law should be passed. That way interested people can decide for themselves whether the proposal makes sense or not.
As far as the specific question you asked, I would ask another question: are there any cars currently being built that would not conform to this new rule?
If you read through the proposal, that part was passed in 2010, is for FF only, and no car that I know of would have a problem with that width - at least as it came from the manufacturer.
As to the question of making any currently legal cars illegal, in reading through the proposal (which was first published for input a few months ago, in case everyone has forgotten) there are none that I know of, and I believe that the committee was very careful to make sure that that was the case.
If extending the bottom reference plane forward from the tire edge to the bulkhead makes no current car illegal, then I think it would be a good rule change. Let's keep stability in our rule package by defining some of the gray areas before someone pushes them to the point that another battle breaks out.
It is beyond my expertise, to comprehend whether this rewrite reduces or creates more gray areas, but I would be interested to know the opinions of the more informed people. I thought it was good business to solve problems while they were "potential issues" and not yet problems. The SCCA system is generally so slow and dysfunctional, once potential issues become problems, there is generally no solution that does not disenfranchise a significant portion of the affected class.
Last edited by problemchild; 08.22.12 at 12:06 PM.
Greg Rice, RICERACEPREP.com
F1600 Arrive-N-Drive for FRP and SCCA, FC SCCA also. Including Runoffs
2020 & 2022 F1600 Champion, 2020 SCCA FF Champion, 2021 SCCA FC Champion,
2016 F2000 Champion, Follow RiceRacePrep on Instagram.
Richard,
We don't like facts around here. Please keep them to yourself. Let's stay focused on creating mass hysteria.
After thinking about it some more, I think this is a result of the old rule for the stress bearing floor being required to go all the way to the front bulkhead. I would guess it is to keep people from hacking up their frames or being able to make substantial changes to their cars with the new rules. I'm not sure if it accomplishes that or not.
Changing the rules and compromising them to allow in illegal cars is going to take some work. If you don't like this part of it, write your letter. My letter is likely to be against the proposed change because people should build cars to the rule, not the other way around.
The allusions that Citation people are somehow trying to take over things to their benefit is hilarious. You might want instead to ask why no one with affiliations to the other manufacturers have volunteered their time to the committee.
If the Citation folks were actually trying to work things to their benefit, it would bring up the following questions;
1 - Why the new allowance for aluminum front bulkheads, other than to help Radon?
2 - Why the specified allowance for raised front floorpans, other than to help both Radon and RFR as well as any other manufacturer who would like to raise their front bulkhead?
3 - Why the rearward extension allowance (passed in the 2010 rewrite) in FF for the reference surface to the rear edge of the rear tires other than to help Piper?
4 - Why is there NOT ONE change in the rules that is aimed at helping the Citation in any way?
5 - Why the consolidation of both sets of class rules if it makes it much easier for the manufacturers, the Stewards, and the competitors to find and understand the rules that their cars are built to?
The conspiracy theories some have put forth get to be a bit much at times.
Rules have now been proposed that are written is such a way that you do not need to be an engineer or linguist to understand what they mean.
For those whom want to complain that they now cannot do certain things that they would like to do, you will now have a basic set of rules that are very much easier to understand that the old, separated rule sets (assuming that it passes).
If further changes are desired by some, they are free to propose such changes for consideration by all.
No different than the last 50-60 years in the club.
Well it is possible that everyone got together at the secret club house and decided that the best way to take over the SCCA and screw Radon was to get a bunch of people on the committee that has absolutely no authority.
The FSRAC does not get to pass rules, they don't even get to decide what rules go to the BOD. It is entirely possible for anyone to get a rule passed without a single person on the FSRAC agreeing with it. Think back to the shifter debacle. The CRB went ahead with proposing banning shifters and adding weight penalties against the advice of the FSRAC.
The conspiracy theories don't hold water.
I am opposed to this rule change because it does make specific allowances for Radon and RFR. Build legal cars (btw-I do believe the RFR to be legal).
Finally, some explanation.1 - Why the new allowance for aluminum front bulkheads, other than to help Radon?
2 - Why the specified allowance for raised front floorpans, other than to help both Radon and RFR as well as any other manufacturer who would like to raise their front bulkhead?
3 - Why the rearward extension allowance (passed in the 2010 rewrite) in FF for the reference surface to the rear edge of the rear tires other than to help Piper?
4 - Why is there NOT ONE change in the rules that is aimed at helping the Citation in any way?
5 - Why the consolidation of both sets of class rules if it makes it much easier for the manufacturers, the Stewards, and the competitors to find and understand the rules that their cars are built to?
The conspiracy theories some have put forth get to be a bit much at times.
Rules have now been proposed that are written is such a way that you do not need to be an engineer or linguist to understand what they mean.
For those whom want to complain that they now cannot do certain things that they would like to do, you will now have a basic set of rules that are very much easier to understand that the old, separated rule sets (assuming that it passes).
If further changes are desired by some, they are free to propose such changes for consideration by all.
No different than the last 50-60 years in the club.
This situation just illustrates the biggest problem in SCCA and why it will ultimately fail. A major rules rewrite is released with no explanation. Members are expected to vote without any explanation. There must be a dozen people who fully understand and could provide that explanation, but they lurk silently, without providing that explanation. When one gets accused of wrongdoing, he breaks that silence with just enough info to dismiss this wrongdoing, but leaving more questions than answers.
Forum debate is dismissed as worthless by the SCCA players, but they provide no effective open communication process as an alternative.
Greg Rice, RICERACEPREP.com
F1600 Arrive-N-Drive for FRP and SCCA, FC SCCA also. Including Runoffs
2020 & 2022 F1600 Champion, 2020 SCCA FF Champion, 2021 SCCA FC Champion,
2016 F2000 Champion, Follow RiceRacePrep on Instagram.
For all you techies does anything here effect a DB-6 either class?
For all those here who haven such short memories, the "why" of the rewrite was first explained 2 years ago, both by myself and others involved in it at that time. After the bodywork revamp in 2010, it was published in Fastrack that the CRB considered this an ongoing process and for everyone to expect more in the following years. The side intrusion panel upgrade was passed as a single item by the BoD last October (published in the December Fastrack).
This current proposal was first published many months ( last summer?) ago asking for input. Apparently no one, or almost no one, complaining here bothered to write anything to the CRB one way or the other, so the process continued on exactly as promised, and exactly as is done for any other proposals in all other classes.
If people are not going to pay attention and submit their opinions during the process when asked, well.............
The short memories displayed here make me sometime wonder just how they ever got along in general life.
Jim - As far as I can tell, no, the DB6 is not affected by anything in the proposal (nor are any other currently legal cars). If there is something that was overlooked, I'm sure that it can be addressed and corrected, since the intention of the FSRAC and CRB was to not make any currently legal cars illegal.
Tom;
You raise several points that indicate to me that you have not done a real careful reading of the rules.
I was part of the committee that wrote the 1986 rules. Also part of the committee were David Bruns, Paul White, John Grubb, John Chrossle, Dave Baldwin, Ralph Firman, and several others. There were a lot of assumptions in those rules or more properly design variations that we did not anticipate at that time. There were several issues that were paramount at that time in the rules; stop the creep to monocoque chassis, shrinking cockpit sizes(especially around the feet), drivers with their feet forward of the front tires, and ground effects. For the most part those rules have served us well.
Your item 4, aluminum panels fastened on 6" centers is unchanged in the revision.
The revision actually makes the Radon legal if they extend the splitter to the front bulkhead. The RFRs can keep the belly pans riveted to the frame as they should be. This part of the rules balances the interest of those who have cars with belly pans that are actually the bottom of the car and those who want the new fashion of stepped noses. I guess this is a rules change. But it does not make any existing car illegal.
As I remember it, the Radon was ruled illegal on 2 of 3 items presented in the private ruling. The car has never been protested at an SCCA event, that I know of. So to imply that the car is legal and someone is trying to make the car illegal is pushing the reality of the situation.
I think that you will find that the rules are not changed. There was a significant change in the rules for 2012 that dealt with intrusion panels. There is also a an issue with the current rules as regards a difference in the FC rules and the FF rules. A car could be legal for FF and not be legal for FC. That is corrected in this rewrite.
It is my understanding that the rewrite was very careful not to make any car that is legal under existing rules, legal under the new rules. If you can point to a situation that that is not true, then contact the CRB and tell them.
Well, there you go. It is my fault for not understanding the nuances and developments, of every rule evolution, update, or change in two classes over a 2 year period. God forbid that I do not understand what red changes apply to making or keeping each brand or future brand of car legal. I expect that I am more informed than 95% of the racers in these classes, BTW.For all those here who haven such short memories, the "why" of the rewrite was first explained 2 years ago, both by myself and others involved in it at that time. After the bodywork revamp in 2010, it was published in Fastrack that the CRB considered this an ongoing process and for everyone to expect more in the following years. The side intrusion panel upgrade was passed as a single item by the BoD last October (published in the December Fastrack).
This current proposal was first published many months ( last summer?) ago asking for input. Apparently no one, or almost no one, complaining here bothered to write anything to the CRB one way or the other, so the process continued on exactly as promised, and exactly as is done for any other proposals in all other classes.
If people are not going to pay attention and submit their opinions during the process when asked, well.............
The short memories displayed here make me sometime wonder just how they ever got along in general life.
Speaking of general life, what company or organization would release such a proposal without offering a "launch" to inform members or consumers of what that proposal means to them. I think I would support the proposal, but the system, and those playing the system, would rather keep me uninformed. Oh, sorry, its my fault. Nevermind.
Greg Rice, RICERACEPREP.com
F1600 Arrive-N-Drive for FRP and SCCA, FC SCCA also. Including Runoffs
2020 & 2022 F1600 Champion, 2020 SCCA FF Champion, 2021 SCCA FC Champion,
2016 F2000 Champion, Follow RiceRacePrep on Instagram.
Mine does extend past the rear edge of the rear tires. And it is nothing special.
From the discussion it sounds like an attempt to make rules less unclear has succeeded in making them more unclear.
And the ensuing panic I think justifies that statement.
Red has been the standard method of denoting wording changes for maybe the last 10-15 years for every change proposal published in Fastrack.
The proposal was first published last year :
http://cms.scca.com/documents/2011%2...track%20v3.pdf
and discussed on Apex here:
http://www.apexspeed.com/forums/showthread.php?t=47435
and again this last July when published in the July Preliminary Minutes and discussed on Apex here :
http://www.apexspeed.com/forums/showthread.php?t=52529
God forbid that you should actually pay attention to the class you participate in.
See the above links - it was proposed, published as a "what do you think" a year ago, revamped, and published and discussed again this year.
Unfortunately, what it shows is that many people see the words "Rule Change Proposal" and panic, not bothering to actually spend the time necessary to properly read and digest it .
If one actually spends the time to read the proposal, it gets rid of a ton of grey areas, spells up some specific allowances and restrictions in fairly plain language (and yes, some stuff could still stand some improvement, but overall it ain't bad), and is a TON easier to figure out what is and isn't legal when it comes to sorting the FC construction rules - you no longer have to jump back and forth from one rule set to another to accomplish that.
As for your Citation undertray behind the rear wheels - if it is an FF, I believe that it never was offered with an undertray that was anywhere near 16 inches wide behind the rear axle, so if yours is wider, it most likely ain't a Citation piece.
Richard,
Your arrogance is unbelievable.
But in your own way, you (and Steve) have provided some of the information that the uninformed 98% may be seeking.
I guess linking previous Apexspeed threads commenting on previously unexplained proposals is the best we can expect.
Thankyou
I guess I'll have to start focussing more than 100 hrs a week on racing
Last edited by problemchild; 08.22.12 at 7:18 PM.
Greg Rice, RICERACEPREP.com
F1600 Arrive-N-Drive for FRP and SCCA, FC SCCA also. Including Runoffs
2020 & 2022 F1600 Champion, 2020 SCCA FF Champion, 2021 SCCA FC Champion,
2016 F2000 Champion, Follow RiceRacePrep on Instagram.
Richard may be arrogant, but probably not as arrogant as claiming to be more informed than 95% of racers and not having seen this information before.
Josh, you are actually twisting my words, although I would certainly agree that more than 95% of FF and FC racers would not understand this proposal and could use more explanation, whether "seen before" or not. Tom and Mike seem well-informed, and were seeking explanation.
The chosen few continue to lurk and share private emails between themselves and their chosen buddies. SCCA politics. Nothing will change.
Greg Rice, RICERACEPREP.com
F1600 Arrive-N-Drive for FRP and SCCA, FC SCCA also. Including Runoffs
2020 & 2022 F1600 Champion, 2020 SCCA FF Champion, 2021 SCCA FC Champion,
2016 F2000 Champion, Follow RiceRacePrep on Instagram.
Well, I read your statement as pretty smug. I don't think that took much twisting on my part.
I really don't think there is any conspiracy here. I remember seeing this proposal more than once in public form. I think more than 5% of people will understand the rules if they spend the time to carefully read and consider them.
Amusing.
We have one one hand a monthly Club publication where this proposal has been published multiple times, and where input from the members has been solicited.
We also have a forum where each and every one of the published proposals has been extensively discussed.
On the other hand, we have members who claim to have never seen these published proposals, or claim that they cannot be expected to bother themselves enough to actually remember the publications or discussions.
And then they attack the person who actually provides them the links to the subject that they claim has not been published, and they have not bothered to follow.
Oh well!
The informed members here are more than happy to take the time to explain things when legit questions are asked. However, when some start in with their conspiracy theories, or start claiming that the proposal was never prior published for consideration, well.... don't expect to always get politically polite responses.
Steve, I appreciate your comments and your taking the time, along with Richard, to educate us about the history of the rules and the development of these revisions.
I will agree with you that I am not well informed about what these changes mean, but that is exactly the point I was making: the rules proposal comes out to the general membership with no explanation whatsoever. You, Richard, Wren and a few others understand what they mean, but the rest of the membership, which is asked to comment, has no idea what is behind this because no explanation is provided.
Without the explanation, rumors and innuendo start flying. Behind the scenes e-mails are sent, including many to me, that say one thing while others say the opposite. How am I to know which way the truth lies?
Without any explanation we are left to either a) sit back and accept the changes without explanation, blindly hoping that those who wrote them are acting in our best interests; or b) comment on the changes without understanding them; or c) ask for information.
I have a vested interest in the FF class, lots of time and money invested, and I also happen to love the class, so I choose to ask for information. If at times my questions seem ignorant, I apologize, but as has been mentioned by others, most of the membership affected has no understanding of what is going on here.
Again, I thank you for taking the time to fill in many of the gaps here in our knowledge.
take care.
Tom
I think that the new rules make FF/FC rules clearer. So far that is the only part of the rewrite that I like.
Everytime that any new rule change is proposed we seem to go through this whole "OMG, where did this come from?" The rules writing proces has not changed. Anyone can write a letter and have it considered by the CRB for passing up to the BOD to have them vote on it. This rules rewrite could have come from anyone with an SCCA membership number.
It is not outrageous for the FSRAC to look at the direction of the class and try to stay out in front of the trends.
The new rules give the raised nose cars a much clearer path to legality. It eliminates the requirement for the RFR to run the false floor. Purple Frog, that should alleviate the concern that you have been talking about recently regarding their undertray. I believe you even wrote a letter in requesting a specific allowance for the RFR in this area.
From what I see, this rules proposal just compiles the work that has been going on with things like the letter from Mike and recognizes trends in the class.
A WDYT was absolutely the right way to propose this big of a change to the rules for the class. I don't see any reason to change for cars that could have been built to the rules initially.
If someone doesn't like this, they can write the BOD. Over the last few years they have an excellent track record of listening to the member input and considering what people have to say. It is not a done deal.
Greg:Richard,
Your arrogance is unbelievable.
But in your own way, you (and Steve) have provided some of the information that the uninformed 98% may be seeking.
I guess linking previous Apexspeed threads commenting on previously unexplained proposals is the best we can expect.
Thankyou
I guess I'll have to start focussing more than 100 hrs a week on racing
Years ago FV went through this same rules fight. I was slam in the center of that fight. You are the beneficiary of the outcome of that battle and the rules package for FV has worked well over the several decades since.
As Richard has pointed out, this rewrite has been several years in the works and had been instigated by the SCCA officialdom. I and many of the stake holders in the FF and FC class have been consulted in the process. This represents a lot of really hard work on the part of a lot of people. Taking shots at the current product of this collective effort is an insult to all the contributors to the process. Why not try try be a part of the solution and not the problem.
The car affiliations of some of the members of this board says more about my customer base than any dreamed of conspiracy.
Tom:
None of us have problems with good, well thought out questions - we all had to learn from others at the start of and throughout our careers, and we are still learning from others on occasion.
The proposal has been hashed over many times here on Apex, as well as published at least three times now in Fastrack, each time asking for member input.
Not any one person here will have all of the answers for every possible question, but as a group, we seem to do pretty well.
HOWEVER - none of our opinions carries the slightest bit of weigh on any legality question - only the Appeals Board has the authority to give opinions that carry legal weight (even if some of us deem them wrong!), so as advice to anyone who thinks that they have found a loophole that they can use to big advantage, they only way to be sure is to get an Appeals Board ruling. That ruling may actually go against long-standing understandings by the manufacturers as to what a rule means, and if so, you may be in luck if their opinion jives with yours.
From my reading of the proposal, I think that it gives us construction possibilities very much in line with what the old rules gave us, except some concessions to "modern" construction have been made. and that a lot of the previous confusion has been bred out.
I believe that for those whom will actually spend the couple of hours necessary (depending on just how in-depth their knowledge already is) will find the same as I.
Rules changes
I think a lot of members of this forum do not read Fastrack or the GCR religiously. If you are a serious racer you must try to totally understand the rules, all of them. This mean reading every single sentence of the rules that apply to your class plus a lot more in addition to that basic minimum.
You must also read every page of Fastrack. I do every single month. Get on the mailing list for Fastrack and read every page of the club racing section. You will not regret it.
I do agree that the rules can be, at times, difficult to understand. This is usually because those that have written the rule are trying to accurately define the rules such that there can be no misunderstanding. A very tough job imo.
I am not a member of the FSRAC or the CRB, however I have been very directly involved with creating or clarifying rules for a couple of different classes. I have found the FSRAC and the CRB to be very co-operative and helpful all the time. I have great respect for what they try to do for all of us. Do I think they always get it right? No I do not but from a very big picture perspective they do a great job.
Thanks ... Jay Novak
SCCA member for 45 years
If people read my posts, you will see that all I am asking is to be informed. I have not mentioned conspiracy or implied it. I am a fan of Citations and generally agree on most issues with Josh, Wren, and the other Citation crowd. Much like Tom, I think the classes and general Formula community are owed a simplified summary or explanation of what this proposal means to us. I find it unbelievable that SCCA people think that releasing an extensive rule rewrite and asking for input, without any summary or launch process, to the common membership, is acceptable. I think they owe it to themselves that the proposal is properly presented. It is particularily frustrating to see the people who know the answers are lurking without commenting. I would like to know how this proposal will affect Radons, RFRs, Pipers, or the Van Diemens, Mygales, and Swifts which I own or earn my livlihood from. As much as I love Apexspeed, I do not think the "discussion" amongst the uninformed members is appropriate support for an important proposal. Having seen most of the previous commentary on Apexspeed, and understanding it's application and effect, are two vary different things.
I see no need to continue any discussion about my ignorance, and would prefer that all involved focus on explaining how this proposal will affect FF and FC.
Thanks!
Last edited by problemchild; 08.22.12 at 9:27 PM.
Greg Rice, RICERACEPREP.com
F1600 Arrive-N-Drive for FRP and SCCA, FC SCCA also. Including Runoffs
2020 & 2022 F1600 Champion, 2020 SCCA FF Champion, 2021 SCCA FC Champion,
2016 F2000 Champion, Follow RiceRacePrep on Instagram.
Greg,
I believe every concern you just mentioned has been addressed already in this thread.
Furthermore, I can assure you that no emails are flying around to those "deemed worthy" as my inbox is empty.
Josh,
Thats because you know too much already.
Greg Rice, RICERACEPREP.com
F1600 Arrive-N-Drive for FRP and SCCA, FC SCCA also. Including Runoffs
2020 & 2022 F1600 Champion, 2020 SCCA FF Champion, 2021 SCCA FC Champion,
2016 F2000 Champion, Follow RiceRacePrep on Instagram.
Jay:
Good post. Unfortunately, too many don't do what you do.
I'll add a bit to what you said: Reading Fastrack, as well as the various Stewards and Tech publications is the ONLY way you can lessen the chance of being caught out by a rule change. Skipping even one month can be embarrassing - I missed a particular moth where the requirement for the Appeals Board to consult with the CRB was instituted, and got duly chastised by Stan in a debate we were having at the time on this forum.
I would also add that reading Protests and Appeals is just as important, if not even more, than a lot of the other parts of Fastrack. It is in Protests and Appeals that you will find new precedents for things that you may never have thought about before, but will apply to your class as well as the class/car/rule subjected to the Appeal.
For instance, some here have questioned the rear overhang rule change from 100 to 80 cm. If you go back into this years GCR (as well as every year before back quite a few years) you will find that 100cm is stated in one place, yet 80 is stated in another.
A couple of years ago there was a protest (or query, I don't remember which at the moment) about something that had conflicting limit statements (cam lift limits for a particular sedan class, if I remember correctly). The ruling in the end was that one of the presentation types would always take precedent over the other.
The conflicting overhang limits had the same problem - which one was the valid one? I expect that the FSRAC used that prior ruling to decide which was the correct dimension.
Richard,We also have a forum where each and every one of the published proposals has been extensively discussed.
You can't point to discussions on Apexspeed as evidence that explanations of the reasoning behind these rules proposals have been provided to the membership, when representatives of SCCA leadership constantly proclaim that because discussion forums like this are outside the purview of the SCCA, they're not considered official sources of membership views. We constantly hear the mantra "write a letter" because opinions expressed on the internet do not count. Well, the club can't have it both ways. Either the official explanations have to also come from the club's official communications or they will have to admit that forums like this are a legitimate communication tool and start paying attention to them.
It may be an excellent and long overdue rewrite, but the club hasn't done a very good job of explaining this proposal to its members. Just printing the proposal in Fastrack is not enough. Why can't they provide an executive summary at least?
Matt King
FV19 Citation XTC-41
CenDiv-Milwaukee
KEEP THE KINK!
Matt:
The complainer stated that there was no notice or information on the proposal prior to this latest publication. It was to that that I was responding. Once it was pointed out that it had been published at least twice prior and discussed on Apex extensively, his story changed to complain about the lack of explanation by the Club.
On that he is correct, and on rewrites of this magnitude, it would certainly help matters if that sort of "official" explanation came out at the same time.
Last edited by R. Pare; 08.22.12 at 10:41 PM. Reason: spelling - getting senile!
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
