I don't see any discussion of this, but the Nov Fastrack withdraws the 40 lb penalty recommendation. Thank you, CRB!
40 lbs penalty gone
I don't see any discussion of this, but the Nov Fastrack withdraws the 40 lb penalty recommendation. Thank you, CRB!
Stan Clayton
Stohr Cars
Didn't they just drop it to a 25 lb. penalty? That is still completely unacceptable.
Well, kind of:
FB
1. (multiple) Inputs on proposed FB Shifter Rule Change (adding 40 lbs)
Thank you for your inputs. The CRB has changed the penalty in the recommended rule as submitted to the BoD to 25 lbs.
That's weird...
21 minutes ago I got an email from SCCA linking to the Nov Fastrack, so I downloaded and read it without reading the title of actual file...which now that I look at it says it is the Oct Fastrack. I just downloaded it again, and it still insists it's the Nov issue even though the pages say Oct.
Frankly, gentlemen, I don't quite know what I'm looking at. Gotta run to the bank, though, and hopefully you'll have it sorted out when I return!
Stan Clayton
Stohr Cars
I just copy/pasted from the Nov. Club Racing FasTrack PDF on scca.com.
They are still trying to get away with a stupid penalty! It should be obvious that they were recommending high so that when there was a huge backlash they would come back and recommend something lower to look like they are trying to compromise. I can tell you for a fact after my telephone discussions with a couple of the members of the BOD (who told me that they would be for at least a 20lb penalty) that the initial recommendation of 40lb then the decrease to 25 was already thought out.
This is BS and there should be ABSOLUTELY NO penalty and the CRB needs to keep their nose out of FB and let it progress.
I think I found the error...
If you look at this screen grab off my email client, you'll see that the hyperlink pointer shows the target as the Nov Fastrack, but the actual url as the Oct Fastrack. Sorry about the confusion.
Last edited by Stan Clayton; 09.18.13 at 7:55 AM.
Stan Clayton
Stohr Cars
I would have believed your explanation had you included the pear.
*sigh* begin letter writing campaign.
Professional and Other Motor Racing Classes Using Paddle Shifters-
Indy Lights (In Progress Testing)
IndyCar
Formula 1
GP2
GP3
F2
... Sure there is more.
NOOOOO. SCCA CAN'T HAVE TECHNOLOGY.
The pear...I totally forgot the pear!Originally Posted by starkejt
Stan Clayton
Stohr Cars
The SCCA can have technology, it's just FB that can't have technology. There is a shifter in FA that was previously mounted on Bourdais' car. FA has the exact same shifter rules as FB, but there isn't a member of the CRB with an irrational hatred of an FA competitor so they are left alone.
VTB Wren unless he either stops mentioning the vendetta or names names.
The name has been given here several times. I even know of one other person in this thread who was there for it at the runoffs last year.
All the more reason for you to spill the beans. Sadly, I must still VTB.
So... do i have to write my 4th letter to the CRB on this issue?
I heard a great definition of a lawyer at WGI: "argues until they win."
Maybe we need lawyers. OMG, did i say that?
[FONT=Univers][SIZE=3][FONT=Univers][SIZE=3]2. #3101 – August
After discussion with the BoD, the CRB withdrew its previously submitted
recommended rule change (see the March Fastrack). In accordance with that
discussion, the CRB proposes the following rule change in its place. [Note that
after member input and discussion at the Runoffs the proposed penalty has
been reduced from 40 to 25 pounds.]
Replace 9.1.1.H.8.D with the following: "[/SIZE][/FONT][/SIZE][/FONT][FONT=Univers-Italic][SIZE=3][FONT=Univers-Italic][SIZE=3][FONT=Univers-Italic][SIZE=3]All gear changes must be initiated by
the driver. Only shift mechanisms that are completely mechanical are permitted
at no weight penalty. These may include (but are not limited to) any
combination of rods, joints, levers, springs, paddles, cables and pneumatic
components. No electrical or electronic components (including electrical wires)
are permitted. Devices that allow pre-selected gear changes are prohibited[/SIZE][/FONT][/SIZE][/FONT][/SIZE][/FONT][FONT=Univers][SIZE=3][FONT=Univers][SIZE=3][FONT=Univers][SIZE=3]. [/SIZE][/FONT][/SIZE][/FONT][/SIZE][/FONT][FONT=Univers-Italic][SIZE=3][FONT=Univers-Italic][SIZE=3][FONT=Univers-Italic][SIZE=3]All
other shifting mechanisms are permitted at a 25 pound penalty.[/SIZE][/FONT][/SIZE][/FONT][/SIZE][/FONT][FONT=Univers][SIZE=3][FONT=Univers][SIZE=3]"
[/SIZE][/FONT][/SIZE][/FONT]
Why don't they just leave it alone. I mean all that this going back and forth over the weight penalty does is keep the rules from being stable and sure doesn't help attract new teams to Club racing FB.
Jon, does this mean your series will do the same?
Absolutely not!!! We will have no such weight penalty for shifter systems. It's absurd.
Jus'
makin' sure!
Theoretically
Cause my mind works that way:
3 FB drivers walk into a bar...
There are 3 FB drivers w/ non mechanical linkage, total, in a race who are at 1001 lbs post race who all run an SCCA race in 2012.
The drivers all agree to not protest each other.
Can the SCCA take action, ie DQ driver's below the new minimum of 1025?
yes
Kevin Firlein Autosport,Inc.
Runoffs 1 Gold 3 Silver 3 bronze, 8 Divisional , 6 Regional Champs , 3x Drivers of the year awards
Yes, Glenn, the tech guys can do a Stewards Action and find them illegal. It has the same effect as a Competitor Action (protest)
Thanks ... Jay Novak
Figured
as much.
I might run a few SCCA Nationals nearby next year just to keep a license...
Run as many of the close ones as you ca. We still need to keep the numbers up.
Jay
You won't have to run any club races to keep up your license. Toni is great about letting people have waivers that deserve them. I don't remember if pro races count towards your license, but I wouldn't be surprised if they do.
Please remember that nothing is set in stone yet. This is just the CRB trying to get the rule passed. It still has to pass the BOD and they are the ones who originally smacked down the CRB when they wanted to ban shifting systems outright. My experience with the BOD has been very positive.
Cheese and Rice!
It's all friggin' TLA's:
CRB,
SOM,
RFA,
OMG,
WTF?
I'da sworn from the above posts that this shyte was done/set in stone/concreteified...
Can a brutha get a break?
Holy cow Coop. They gave you a WHOLE 15 lbs.
Jat
Actually
they gave me bupkis, or as the kids these days are so fond of saying - "Nu-iin"
All I gotta do is reinstall the drysump system!
You get credit for Pro races, since each pro race has a sanctioning number as well. So, you don't have to race nationals to keep your national license. But that being said, I'm sure not saying don't race nationals, as someone has to help keep the numbers up.
What Coop is proposing is what I would call nullification. The guys decide not to protest one another. if the SOM protests, then simply decide to spend your money elsewhere - like the pro series. Simple and effective.
Meanwhile at the SCCA CRB meeting...
Actually, the ones at the CRB meetings had taller ears.
Ken
Being under minimum weight does not necessarily result in a DQ. I was once under weight in post-race impound, and my finishing position was changed to last in class. I still received credit for a race finish.
So in Coop's example, the three FB drivers may just be moved to last in class finishing positions. No big deal if you are only concerned with logging a race completion.
Firlein said it best: "yes".
Weight is something almost always checked after a race. The tech scrutineers must report that violation to the SOM.
I remember Rick's situation, and luckily he got a "gift" of a decision.
Do you really what to take that risk?
Yeah, got DQ'd for being one pound under. I was standing on the seat at the old Moroso tri beam jumping up and down trying to get it to do something different.
Like being kinda pregnant. They handed me a piece of paper to sign, and gave me the stink eye because they thought I was intentionally cheating.
Honestly, I don't remember what it was, but it was sooooo close with this ancient piece of some kind of error in it.
All three are DQ'd in impound.
For the rules geeks, will an electric pump on a pneumatic tank disqualify a pneumatic system? Or will I have to design a pneumatic KRS system to maintain the charge on the accumulator tank when the car is on the track?
Good question. I would take it that as long as there is a "wire" involved, it would be under the weight penalty. Sure makes scrutineering more difficult for the tech people. Shouldn't the rules make it easier, since the club tech guys have enough on their hands with all the different classes? Just doesn't make any sense to me.
Ya Neva Know
Ok fellas, time to chillax, the folks who have the final say still have not spoken - I anxiously await the smoke to be seen from the chimney of the secret cottage announcing the vote!
C'mon BOD - Do the right thing!
Last edited by glenn cooper; 10.23.11 at 11:18 AM. Reason: .
According to a strict interpretation of the wording of the rule, yes, since the wire is an integral part of the shifting system.
Somehow, I doubt that they thought of that problem.
Further, it would mean a penalty for running a shift light (wires, again).
And yes, even an electronic tach (wires again, and don't try to claim that a tachometer is not an integral part of a shifting system - that doesn't wash).
And forget thinking that you can use a mechanically driven pump (engine driven) with any sort of simple automatic electrical control ( an electromagnetic clutch )- it would have to use pneumatics to activate a pneumatic or hydraulic clutch (or, heaven forbid, be cable operated!).
Pretty damned dumb rules-writing.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
