Printable View
This simply is not true. Look at SRF. Do you consider those fields to be healthy? They made everyone do a $10,000+ engine swap in order to keep the class going. Not only did it not hurt them, it has dramatically helped them.Quote:
Originally Posted by Daryl DeArman
Yes.Quote:
Originally Posted by smsazzy
That was 1994, 18 years ago. What most would consider a fairly stable ruleset.Quote:
Originally Posted by smsazzy
If we rewound to 1990-ish and all those who had collected all the Renault bits refused to evolve, SR would not be where it is today. Rules stability is one component that has lead to such a healthy class. If they are all still Renault powered, wouldn't be near the numbers they have today.
If you feel like 1 drastic rule change in a class that is almost 30 years old isn't a "stable" ruleset I don't know what to say.
The latest FastTrack has been posted and member input is being requested regarding chaning minimum weight. Whether you are for or against it, please submit your input to the CRB. This is the only way SCCA will get an accurate picture of the will of the class.
FastTrack: http://scca.cdn.racersites.com/prod/...k-may-club.pdf
PAGE 26
Address to send member input:
http://www.crbscca.com or www.clubracingboard.com
Reference Letter 7689
Oh boy, here we go again.
This isn't meant to rehash the debate, just submit your opinion to the CRB.
I've been off the form for a good while, like Steve trying to make mucho $$$$$$ to buy the current light weight hot car...
I've changed my responses to questions about FV. About a month ago I was talking to a guy from Canada and one thing led to another and I mentioned tha I raced last year (very abreviated) in the Canadian F1200 series. He was very interested...so I showed him a photo on my iphone and he was more interested..when I told him 60 HP he said his street bike had 120 HP and the conversation ended... Now I mention that we have 120 HP and the cars weigh 1000 lbs with driver....it always keeps their interest.
A few years ago I got to ride in the two seat Dallara at Indy and the feeling on the straights at speed was no different than in a Vee. Acceleration and corners were another story, but if you could get a skeptic behind the wheel the issues of sexiness and HP would go away...
Hey , maybe we can get someone to build a two seat Vee.....
No question about that. But few are going to make the upfront investment of many thousands of dollars if they THINK it looks unsexy.Quote:
Originally Posted by grapefarmeral
Make it look sexy.. lie about weight and how fast she is.... sounds like an old girlfriend...
Dont forget to vote. Either side for or against, make sure you vote.
We have plenty of horsepower....almost as much as this Can Am ATV
http://na.canamoffroad.com/files/neu...e_Overview.jpg
If that don't work get one of these http://www.sracing.com/Store/Electrical/Electrical.htm (Shorai Lithium Ion battery) and save 12 lbs immediately.Quote:
Originally Posted by smsazzy
Good batteries. We use them in our race motorcycles in the AMA XR1200 class.
I put one in my F1200 this year. Great weight savings. Would recommend their charger. So far so good.
Small package for same CCA
Well, fastrack is out, no weight increase. 2:1 letters to the CRB against the increase.. Moving on..
Tiago,
It's a shame the CRB decides which survey to accept or deny!
Mark
I wasn't going to say it, but yeah. ;)
Don't forget the distinction between the two processes. One was a survey, outside the control of the CRB and club. The other was the formal response in the form of signed and confirmed letters written to the CRB. Regardless of the details, the CRB was unable to vet the survey but the letter process is well documented and controlled. Another effect: the weight change was a simple rule change and the spec tire represented a major undertaking.
Bryan,
Don't forget the EGO's invovlved in these surveys, and the "not my idea" or
"not invented here" principal. I agree the "spec tire" would have been a major
undertaking, but to dismiss it outright smells a little fishy etc....There were over
200 people who participated in the survey, and I bet the amount swamped the
amount of letters received by the CRB, but the opinions in the letters were construed
as "golden", while the survey was conducted by a uncontrolled mob whose opinion
we're labeled as "not serious"
Mark
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.
I'd like to remind everyone that the CRB entertains resume's all year long for both the advisory committees and the CRB itself. Membership changes every year and new folks will be needed for 2013. It's tough work but very rewarding.
Brian,
I find it hard to believe, after quickly dismissing the survey results, that they
work diligently to hear all sides or they wouldn't have been so quick to dismiss.
Mark
92' Protoform P-1/004
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! :D
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..
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Matt King
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.
Steve, FV80
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Steve Davis
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by budawe
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.
I did not see this - link pleaseQuote:
Originally Posted by Tiago Santos
ChrisZ
Also,
I tried three times to upload my response and got error messages.
Guess I have to get out the old pen and paper.....
Chris Z