Steve - that's what the club needs to move into the future. Get rid of the comp board. Make the classes self governing. Come up with an equitable voting system. Register the cars.
Who was the FC guy that proposed this change anyway?
Printable View
Steve - that's what the club needs to move into the future. Get rid of the comp board. Make the classes self governing. Come up with an equitable voting system. Register the cars.
Who was the FC guy that proposed this change anyway?
Car owners don't need to be registered. Just ask everyone who's run an event with the affected class(es) in the past (insert time window here, I'd suggest the past season). Yes, there are rental car guys that won't know what to answer, but they can ask the guy who they're renting the car from what to answer (or not vote at all, or indicate that they're giving their vote to the person they rent cars from as a proxy, or...).Quote:
Originally Posted by Steve Demeter
Simple. Yes, there will be some people who leave a class that "shouldn't" be voting and people who are just joining a class who "miss" a vote, but as long as turnover isn't some absolutely massive number year-over-year, that's not an issue.
The VOTE proposal is .. interesting.. BUT.. in all the years I've been a member (closing on 50.. but might not make it), the ONLY HQ THING that a member gets to VOTE ON is the BOD member for his region/division.
Presumably, the reason for that is that only a small percentage of the entire membership participate in 'ONLINE' stuff routinely (the BOD votes are handled by MAIL.. IIRC through some 'certifying agency' that, no doubt, COSTS MONEY). That would take a MASSIVE SHIFT of .. "the way we do things in SCCA". Of course, it IS a CLUB. All we should have to do is .. what most of the regions have already done.. .write it into the Bylaws so it CAN be handled 'on line in some way' at some future date.
Easy peasy.:D:D
Steve, FV80
Should a proposal require only a simple majority? A super majority?Quote:
Originally Posted by Steve Demeter
In over 55 years in the SCCA, I've seen few things that could garner a simple majority much less a super majority.
The joke about two stewards having three opinions about something works equally well for the overall membership.
I respect someone telling me my wheel safety pin is not secured.
Or that they found a nut/bolt loose while looking over my car
Or that a Dzus fastener is popped on grid
Or that it looked like I have a drip/leak of any fluid.
Or that I may have not noticed them in my mirrors in a given moment.
Maybe we can politely police each other?
There's (at least) one more thing that hasn't been mentioned in this CRITICAL ISSUE for SCCA... there is NO RULE IN THE GCR that *requires* anyone to turn the blasted rain light ON .. UNLESS the Operating
Steward 'designates' "this is a RAIN RACE - turn your lights on".. I'm am reminded of this because I just ran a MAJORS .. we were sitting on the grid, following a rain shower and looking at a WET TRACK.. but only sprinkles were falling at that moment. Grid personnel came to each car to let us know that the Steward had NOT declared that this was a rain race, so we didn't NEED to run our rain lights...
I ran my, obviously out of date and INFERIOR Afterburner anyway.... and on the pace lap it started RAINING AGAIN.
Steve, FV80
Important to note in your scenario that if the stewards decided to flag the race for rain and call everyone in the pits they'd have 15 minutes to change to wet tires, but if the race had been declared a rain race from the get-go, that option would not be available.Quote:
Originally Posted by Steve Davis
Peter, A simple majority. What else. I really dislike your rhetorical questions.
Another point comes to mind :
Why are not all classes required to meet the same rainlight standard? The requirements for most safety items (think helmets, gloves, restraints, shoes, HNR, suits, underwear, etc) ? If FIA rain lights are what it takes to make Formula cars and sports racers visible, what is any different about nay other class?
What you cannot see behind me in the FM is the line of about 4 CF's - I have a very bright rain light.
https://www.apexspeed.com/forums/att...d=107535&stc=1
They aren't any more rhetorical than some of the hyperbole being offered up as unfounded outrage.Quote:
Originally Posted by Steve Demeter
Given how the membership responds to any question, a simple majority could be 1/2N+1 where N is a small percentage of eligible voters. Is that any better than electing BoD members who appoint the CRB? I think it's just changing the flak catchers.
Peter,
I agree 100% that a small portion of the eligible people would bother to vote. Then bitch when it turned out different than they hoped for.:mad:
What happens if someone's FIA sticker falls off on the track and can not be found? Do they have to buy another ??? expensive rain light?
Peter, there is no reason that the classes cannot govern themselves in this day and age. There's also a much more equitable means of determining who should have a say and how much.
Each car owner gets a vote. Each driver gets a vote for each race entered. Rental drivers can proxy their votes to the car owner if they wish. This rewards the participants with having an equitable say in the rules. You have a class points keeper position that tracks car ownership and participation.
Rule changes get released for vote at designated times of the year.
You haven't gone far enough. Each class should get to handle its own sanctions, insurance and event organization.[/s]Quote:
Originally Posted by Rick Kirchner
We lose tech sticklers, particularly in the rain, all the time. Doesn't seem to be a problem.Quote:
Originally Posted by Steve Demeter
True, it won't be a problem until one's next annual or Tech at a super tour or major has it on their secret checklist.Quote:
Originally Posted by Peter Olivola
First, the FIA's rain light standard/specification is inadequate as written. I write standards and specs as part of my job. There are parts of the spec that are not objectively verifiable when the "spread across the source can be classified as "nominal". How would a lab measure "nominal" and put a number on it as part of the test report? There is no definition of "nominal" in the spec.
The rule is unevenly applied to sports racers and formula cars. If a rain light is required, it should be for all cars. As far as FIA certification, that's a hard no. NO SFI certification either. Neither need our money.
Manufacturer can self certify the rain light meets the current FIA standard. My letter is written and ready to mail.
Nice attempt at misdirection. Try to compose a legitimate argument.Quote:
Originally Posted by Peter Olivola
It's at least as legitimate as any of the hysteria being posted on this subject.Quote:
Originally Posted by Rick Kirchner
Peter, your positions would have more gravity if you actually owned a car and drove.
in this century...
Oh? Is that the only qualification for having a different perspective?Quote:
Originally Posted by Rick Kirchner
Okay - this thread is done.
Write your letter and get ready for round two.
ChrisZ
With all due respect, not a snowballs chance in H*ll.Quote:
Originally Posted by bassracer
When drivers are reluctant to file protests against other drivers for on track incidents, and they want every incident called in by every corner and want the Stewards to adjudcate every incident, this results in mandatory cameras and the associated "discussion" about cost, and what happens if video not available etc. Expecting drivers to politiely police each other?????
There are some sanctioning organizations that do have class defined rule sets that they vote on at the beginning of each season.Their structure and their bylaws allow this and provide some defined structure for a) who gets to vote and b) what counts (ie 50% + 1 or super majority etc) as approval. It would take a pretty big change in SCCA structure to go that direction likely requiring a vote of the members to change bylaws. And that vote in the Catch 22 department would take a paper vote of the membership to go to electronic voting.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Todd Butler
We do have experience with self-defined class rulesets. For example, in my experience in the 2000s as CF driver rep for WDCR, the local CF driver community (i.e. MARRS competitors) voted every year on rules. To this day, the MARRS SSM crowd maintains its own rules, as do other MARRS-specific classes.
Keep in mind that these are Optional Regional Classes, specific to MARRS, with very small populations. Even SSM boasts fewer than 100 (maybe 75?) drivers. So, small, manageable groups, whose members all know each other personally
Whether this model is transferrable to Majors classes nation-wide is another question.
Good point John. I've also seen the same with Regional Only/Local classes. That works because everybody pretty much knows everybody else. Also somebody or a small group of somebodys steps up to put out the proposals, keep track of the input, put the revisions out there and then there is that issue of who is a valid voter for a set of local class rules and how it gets approved. It still takes volnteers to put in the time and effort to drive it. There's also a trust issue (see above everybody knows everybody) that assumes the proposals are generally agreed for the good of the class and not just the fast guys or the guys with deep pockets trying to maintain a competive edge over the rest of the field.Quote:
Originally Posted by John Nesbitt
CRB for all it's percieved faults exists to try and provide reasonably level playing field between cars in classes and deal with overall safety requirements. Probably 90% of the class rules change requests are from competitors. Even if we did abolish the CRB and go to self governing class rules, there would still need to be volunteer committees much like the CRB advisory structure to solicit/write/publish those class rules. Self governing class rules can work locally, but when you go nationally, I believe the only viable options are SCCA/CRB-like models or Benevolent Dictatorship (eg NASA or Pro Series) unless one surrenders and says "no guarantee of competiveness" and run what you brung like Champ Car or Lucky Dog.
Why? Because there is a wide variety of LED output values, some so small that 100 of them wouldn't be visible at night across a room, much less in the rain. Some would not put out light in the visible band, rendering them useless.Quote:
Originally Posted by problemchild
I'm not making a judgement about the need for a rule change and I personally think the proposed requirement is ridiculous. But counting LED's is as useless as it gets. No rocket scientist needed for this, any plain old ordinary electrical engineer that deals with LED's can tell you this.
I don't care. This is a completely artificial crisis which needs to be resolved with a simple common sense solution.Quote:
Originally Posted by BLS
I went away for 4 days and this thread continues. So many important issues to fix in SCCA, and we waste time on this.
Greg is right. The whole thing could be handled any number of ways. For instance: make the requirement an DOT/ SAe approved light to such and such standard. They are plentiful and inexpensive and the approval self certified by the manufacturer is engraved in the lens.
I have been using motorcycle combo tail light, brake light, license plate light with all 30 LEDS wired to be on at once. I have reached out to the manufacturer (Muth Mirror Systems) to find out what the illumination in candla at 24 deg and 4 deg is. this what I recall being referenced in the FIA standard. So picck a standard that is reasonable and make t a minimum.
On the subject of lost FIA stickers they are much more involved than lost tech stickers since you have to get therm from the FIa. A tech sticker can be replaced by going to tech with your logbook and they can pull your sheet for the event and issue you a anew sticker.
Quote:
Originally Posted by problemchild
Doesn't matter. The suggestion to count LED's is not a way to solve the rain light "issue" being discussed nor the solution to the ills of the club.
I don't disagree, just trying to keep a perspective that this "problem" doesn't actually need to involve the officials and can be supported through mutual respect for safety. Especially if specific specifications are not regulated and some of the economical solutions listed in this thread are possible - there is little excuse to be a stealth car in the rain.Quote:
Originally Posted by Todd Butler
So... everyone have fun in the wet/damp Sunday at the Sprints?
Turn 1 for P1/P2 was definitely a wall of spray on the start of the race, looking from the back... and I was following Mike, the letter writer, into the mess.
I, and those with me (judging by my rearview camera) were smart, played it safe, and left some space into 1, at the cost of some distance lost to those in front. Which we easily made up into 5.
Then my race fell apart with the return of a bad coil connection, but that's another sob story.
How did everyone else find it? Didn't seem like we lacked for FIA lights... and I'm 99% sure I saw a P1 with (flashing, probably FIA) lights - yes, more than one - mounted so badly they were heavily shrouded and nearly impossible to see on the pace lap, without spray (God knows I wasn't getting close enough to see the car once we launched)...
When is the BOD expected to vote on this proposal?
Normally they vote on the accumulated recommendations at their December meeting.Quote:
Originally Posted by Steve Demeter
I've suggested this multiple times in the past:
I think each posters 'signature' should include the date of their last involvement in a sanctioned race event ...
(mine was last week)
then everyone could decide, prior to responding, if they actually cared what someone who hadn't raced in xx years actually thought :confused:
YMMV as they say
Based on the August preliminary minutes posted today, the FiA rain light is here to stay. Plan to buy the spec FiA light or not race SCCA. They clamped down pretty hard on the opposition.
August 2023 Prelim Minutes 07.13.pdf (connectsites.net)
so as was mentioned previously in this thread, when do we see minimum requirements for the sedan people too?Quote:
Originally Posted by CheckeredFlag
oh, wait....
"Thank you for your input."
Lazy bastards.
Perhaps you should volunteer to serve on one of the advisory boards.Quote:
Originally Posted by 924RACR
Is that supposed to be a joke? The advisory committees have absolutely no authority. Thanks but no thanks. I see what's going on with how the CRB and BoD are treating the CSAC with those T5 classification and Dodge Neon stunts that were pulled on them, forcing a later retraction of those non-CSpec cars.Quote:
Originally Posted by John LaRue
Not a surprise. When your customers complain and challenge your authority, double down and show them your power.
The old boys club thinks it is 1973. :(
And the Flagtronics in car flagging system.Quote:
Originally Posted by CheckeredFlag
to save some people clicks:
Taken Care Of
GCR
1. #34370 (Stevan Davis) Proposed Rule Regarding RAIN LIGHTS in F/SR Cars from April FT Thank you for your letter in response to letter #33905 requesting that FIA 2019-spec rain lights be mandated for all formula and sports racing cars. The recommendation was published for comment in the May Fastrack and was ratified by the SCCA Board of Directors as part of a Club Racing Board rules package. The new rule for GCR section 9.3.32.B.2 mandating FIA 2019-spec rain lights for F/SR was published in the Updated June GCR to become effective 1/1/2024.
The video accompanying the letter requesting FIA rain lights was quite graphic in showing the difference between minimum spec rain lights and LED rain lights. Many of the responding letters argue for setting a minimum lumens requirement and requiring acquisition of a lumens measurement device for SCCA Tech groups. Agreeing on a minimum lumens spec, agreeing on view angle, agreeing on a reliable measurement device, providing said device to the Regions (or mandating that they acquire one), and specifying and then consistently carrying out measurements are all problematic. The FIA spec is enforceable.
Note that unlike other driver personal safety items such as helmets, harnesses, fire bottles, and HANS devices, the rain light impacts the safety of others on track just as much as it does the person who is in the car to which it is attached. The one-time expense of the FIA 2019-spec rain light is very cost-effective compared to the cost of a single accident avoided.
__________________________________________________ _______________________
"Agreeing on a minimum lumens spec, agreeing on view angle, agreeing on a reliable measurement device, providing said device to the Regions (or mandating that they acquire one), and specifying and then consistently carrying out measurements are all problematic."
To me, this is kind of a bogus argument. I have seen almost zero discussion, other than this thread.
A couple things need to be asked, and we can start with: is an Afterburner acceptable in the eyes of the CRB?
If so, then use THOSE specs as a baseline, without FIA certs. And there are a ton more questions that could be listed & answered objectively... but that is one of the lowest-hanging fruits I can think of.
The FIA spec is NOTHING, if I own a high-quality printer. We literally have run into that issue with safety gear the past couple years, remember?
Not kidding at all; If you don't like it then jump in and help change or improve it. We need more people with good ideas!Quote:
Is that supposed to be a joke? The advisory committees have absolutely no authority. Thanks but no thanks. I see what's going on with how the CRB and BoD are treating the CSAC with those T5 classification and Dodge Neon stunts that were pulled on them, forcing a later retraction of those non-CSpec cars
Believe it or not, the advisory committees recommendations are most frequently followed by the CRB just as they have been in this instance regarding the FIA rain light.
Late to the comments.... I was looking at one FIA approved light and it had no sticker. Approval number was molded in the case. Of course it was on the back requiring removal for inspection.Quote:
Originally Posted by Steve Demeter
"Agreeing on a minimum lumens spec, agreeing on view angle, agreeing on a reliable measurement device, providing said device to the Regions (or mandating that they acquire one), and specifying and then consistently carrying out measurements are all problematic."
In other words requires effort and potentially an expense for SCCA so go pound sand. I think I'll be headed to other sanctioning bodies to race....
Such horse****. I don't think the rain light rules have changed in 20+ years, and then suddenly with 1 letter and within 3 months the rule is changed? This generated 18 responses, at least 8 of which were clearly against. And yet within 3 months it's a done deal? I'm sure there were some good and reasonable alternatives presented, and obviously ignored. You say get involved, but for most of us this is the typical expectation for dealing with the club, so why bother. "Thank you for your letter" is a running joke, because it such an accurate and succinct example of how we're treated.Quote:
Originally Posted by John LaRue
I wonder who drew the short straw to write that response. From what I can tell the everyone ran rings around the published rules procedure.
https://www.scca.com/downloads/43127...ocess/download
The Board of Directors (BoD) meets monthly. Items recommended by the CRB are considered twice a
year, typically during the August and December meetings. When considering the items, the BoD takes
into account the comments of their constituents. The BoD may also establish when a particular
recommendation is to become effective. Normally, this would be October 1 of the current year, or January
1 of the following year, but special circumstances may demand more immediate implementation.
Now I am going to have to write to my director, explaining why my region will be getting one less entry for 2024 - if I can afford to race at all. (with the safety costs, increased entry fees, increases parts prices etc.)
I will include that if this is such an important safety feature, why is it not included in ALL cars. I cannot think of a more critical case of a GT1 car running up on a STL car in the rain.....
ChrisZ
Jean-Pierre Sarti : Lately, I sometimes get very tired, you know? Very tired.
I was on the FV Ad Hoc Committee for MANY YEARS (9?).. in all that time, the only time I can recall that SCCA 'heard' what we said was when we did a FULL REWRITE of the FV GCR section to clear up EXISTING wording and update it to 'more recent than 40 years prior' - with NO RULES CHANGES.. just clarifications and removing conflicts. After many other 'recommended' rules changes - good ones - things that would SAVE RACERS $MONEY$ .. (like Spec Tire, Disc Brakes, 'Control Intake Manifold' - things that would make the class BETTER), SCCA tossed out the AHC (ignoring all of our suggestions) and 'invented' their own new FV Committee.. which served for 2 years. During that brief time, SCCA implemented 3 rules changes (2 of which we recommended before being disbanded).. then SCCA 'DELETED' that Committee.. again. And.. interestingly, while the AHC posted pretty decent MINUTES of each meeting they had.. the 'new' Committee was prohibited from passing ANY INFORMATION to the public (drivers) about their discussions. NOTHING was ever published except for the rules changes.Quote:
Originally Posted by John LaRue
The FSRAC is the only Committee that I'm aware of covering all of the classes under this enforced rules change. As mentioned above, the previous Rain Light requirement was a 15 watt trailer tail light. NOT ADEQUATE by any measurement if it was raining. SO.. during the last 50 years, almost EVERY OPEN WHEEL CAR has already taken it upon themselves to install a better tail light. NOW - suddenly, ALL existing lights (no matter HOW GOOD THEY ARE- undoubtedly FAR SUPERIOR to the original rule) .. have to be tossed in the trash.. then dig into the wallet for an FIA LIGHT that most likely is NOT ANY BETTER than the Afterburner (most common implementation that I know of.. or a knock off of it) that most of us already have.
SO.. WHAT 'advisory boards' were consulted with this rules change.. that's going to cost pretty much EVERY OPEN WHEEL RACER IN SCCA a couple of C-notes (wait until 'the word' gets out about the MANDATORY REQUIREMENT for the real price to be determined) and a measurable amount of WORK to remove and toss the old Light and install the new one - probably a different size and form factor... and maybe a CURRENT HOG for those of us with 'constant draw' battery systems (no charger).
Flagtronics coming at the same time.. WHAT'S NEXT? And no one can figure out why SCCA membership is declining....
I think I'll go back and reread the post from Cliff about his EV cars .. and rules.. and entry costs. Hopefully, SCCA won't manage to integrate them anytime soon.
FORTY NINE YEARS - actually more.. just 49 since I joined SCCA .. and it's looking doubtful that I'll 'make the grade' for that fifty year pin. I have until the end of January to decide .. unless I just go ahead and resign now.
This REALLY .... REALLY.... TICKS ME OFF!! (maybe you can't tell?)
Steve, FV80
I'll probably go back and edit this post after I cool down a bit.. but maybe not!
OK.. here's my first update... I'll construct a poll.. lets see what WE think....
Please read the poll and submit a response.
CRAP.. my POLL Could have worked .. I just didn't figure out HOW to do it until it was too late. Can't be edited now. Maybe try again later with a new poll.
Here is an aggressive thought...
Just no one do it.
We are a club. And the members have made their thoughts very clear on this.
If more than half the F/SR entries simply refuse to buy the new FIA spec lights & show up to race anyway, is the region going to turn us all away? Regions can't afford that. :meatball:
Interesting thought Matt. I think we MIGHT need the support of the STAFF of the race though.. or we'll be wasting a lot of time, effort and MONEY just to be DQ'd after the race(s).
Actually, the STAFF of each race COULD specifically 'OVERRIDE' the GCR in the event supps (which would have to be approved by HQ, of course) and say that Rain Lights will be checked for 'adequate functionality only' .. or something like that...
Steve
Perhaps... but again, are they gonna DQ the entire run group(s)?
They might do it 1 event, but they would also know no one would bother even entering next time.