I don't recall any formal weight survey by the SCCA or the FVAC, but maybe I missed it. The only survey of sorts that I remember is the poll we started here. Other than that, it seems like this was handled according to the normal procedures for a rule change request. It was submitted, feedback was requested in the form of letters to the CRB, and it was denied. In other words, about the same as 95 percent of other rules change requests!
__________________
Matt King
FV19 Citation XTC-41
CenDiv-Milwaukee
KEEP THE KINK!
I didn't mean to say that I couldn't understand the process - I do.. It just made me smile a little bit, that's all
Like I said plenty of times before, as vocal as I am about any of these issues, I can put myself in the shoes of the guys that oppose them and I understand their concerns. Being so radically different from the majority on so many issues (I wish it was just racing!), I've grown accustomed to listening and learning about the motivations and thought processes behind each side of every argument. More of a weakness than a strength, let me tell ya..
...In other words, about the same as 95 percent of other rules change requests!
That would be because there is a minority generally ( usually ONE) that requests a rules change (or modification) and "some larger number" submit responses that are opposed to the request and fewer responses are in favor of it.
The CRB wants to see an overwhelming majority of the responses in favor (at least 2 to 1 - hopefully more) .. one way or the other. Or there is (generally) NO CHANGE.
That would be because there is a minority generally ( usually ONE) that requests a rules change (or modification) and "some larger number" submit responses that are opposed to the request and fewer responses are in favor of it.
Agreed. But if the letters were 2-to-1 in opposition to the proposal, it would appear that those in favor of a weight increase were unsuccessful in "getting out the vote" regardless of the sentiments expressed online, so I wouldn't have expected the CRB to react any differently than they have in the past with similar requests.
__________________
Matt King
FV19 Citation XTC-41
CenDiv-Milwaukee
KEEP THE KINK!
I can think of only a few instances where the CRB initiated a rule change and those dealt with safety issues not car prep. Virtually all changes come from competitors.The CRB is quite reluctant to change rules. Not being able to vent the outside survey resulted in no way of knowing who the participants were and confirm the validity of the results. As any Californian can tell you, just becuase tens of thousands of people have signed a petition doesn't mean one can make any conclusions from the data. Could the CRB have handled the response to the spec tire proposal better? You bet, there's always room for improvement. I can not say if the outcome would have been different if there had been a request for member input via letters, but I didn't smell any fish and there were no special agendas. The CRB knows there will be dissent on every issue and works diligently to hear all sides.
Brian is correct. The whole system is designed to protect the aging membership from any meaningful change, growth, or progress. The only people who can be bothered to respond through the SCCA BS process are those that will be disadvantaged or inconvienced by the potential change, growth, or progress. Of course, nothing ever gets done.
That 1/3 of the received member input thinks there is a minimum weight problem ..... means there is. That 2/3rds of the membership thinks that spec tires should be adpoted ..... means there is a big problem! That this nonsense continues on, well into the 21st century, just hastens the impending collapse of SCCA as we know it. It is unfortunate that the SCCA leadership (that's funny in itself) is content to let the FV oldtimers kill FV as it prepares to celebrate its 50th birthday.
__________________ Greg Rice Rice Race Prep
Last edited by problemchild; June 12th, 2012 at 9:38 PM.
