Small Formula car HST elimination...

[FVRacer21]

.....
Maybe an alternative to the current system of ranked racing events where we awarded points based on the number of entrants in a class and the position you finished.

......

I proposed a seed system which I now realize should have been a ranking system (not a tennis player). Or Handicap or some other system. That way we end up with a nationwide ranking and the top 30 drivers in the country get an invitation.

You would have a minimum number of starts etc., but like baseball's hitting leaders, you could have drivers from all over the country competing against each other. Then the Runoffs would be like the World Series or Superbowl that would determine who would be best.

Who wants to set up the criteria? - Steve started - I would add pole position and fastest race lap. What else could we put in there?

ChrisZ

Edit - even if the SCCA would not adopt this - it would be a neat way to analyze drivers.

[BLS]

I don't know when it ended, but when I was younger (a lot!) a runoffs invite had to be earned by points within each region:
National races in each region counted 9 points for 1st place, 6 for 2nd, 4 for 3rd, 3 for 4th, 2 for 5th, and one point for 6th place. The top 4 in points were invited to the runoffs, 7 regions x 4 = 28 drivers invited per class. Somewhere along the line FV was changed to invite 6 per region. That was it, no other way to qualify. I recall that you could include 2 national races outside your region.

[Steve Davis]

I don't know when it ended, but when I was younger (a lot!) a runoffs invite had to be earned by points within each region:
National races in each region counted 9 points for 1st place, 6 for 2nd, 4 for 3rd, 3 for 4th, 2 for 5th, and one point for 6th place. The top 4 in points were invited to the runoffs, 7 regions x 4 = 28 drivers invited per class. Somewhere along the line FV was changed to invite 6 per region. That was it, no other way to qualify. I recall that you could include 2 national races outside your region.

Both FV and FF were allowed 6. All other classes got just 4.

[pacratt]

I don't know when it ended, but when I was younger (a lot!) a runoffs invite had to be earned by points within each region:
National races in each region counted 9 points for 1st place, 6 for 2nd, 4 for 3rd, 3 for 4th, 2 for 5th, and one point for 6th place. The top 4 in points were invited to the runoffs, 7 regions x 4 = 28 drivers invited per class. Somewhere along the line FV was changed to invite 6 per region. That was it, no other way to qualify. I recall that you could include 2 national races outside your region.

Minuscule point of order...in your post, change the word "region" to "division".
Glenn (I trim my lawn with nail-clippers...lol)

[John LaRue]

If I was king of the SCCA I would get rid of the CRB and FSRAC and the accompanying conflicts of interest (real or perceived). Each class would need to create a committee that decides the rules and direction of their own class and need to have near-unanimous agreement among the participants on any change that would then be presented to the BoD. Similar to what Tony is doing with FF and the recent tire rule change. It makes no sense that the CRB and FSRAC make decisions for all classes but most of the classes have no representation on either. Give the power back to the people that are most affected by it.

For all intents and purposes that is what you are currently experiencing but for your failure to reference SCCA Staff and their role. The CRB is now being chaired by a member of the BOD, Dayle Frame.

[EYERACE]

Other than John LaRue - and thank you John, I know you do care - does anyone here believe those other "powers-that-be" in the SCCA actually read what all of us post here? .......simply because this section of ApexSpeed is titled SCCA Board of Directors it doesn't mean most anyone else from SCCA reads what's here or cares

.and because there's maybe a couple (to give 'em the benefit of the doubt - out of I'm not sure how many) of them that do read what we post here..........shall we who post here believe those couple actually care what we say ???

crickets by too many other than John LaRue it seems to me

[Mmbeau]

and because there's maybe a couple (to give 'em the benefit of the doubt - out of I'm not sure how many) of them that do read what we post here..........

Well considering one of them is permanently IP banned here, that cuts the F/SR representation on the CRB who might read this in half.

[Peter Olivola]

Other than John LaRue - and thank you John, I know you do care - does anyone here believe those other "powers-that-be" in the SCCA actually read what all of us post here? .......simply because this section of ApexSpeed is titled SCCA Board of Directors it doesn't mean most anyone else from SCCA reads what's here or cares

.and because there's maybe a couple (to give 'em the benefit of the doubt - out of I'm not sure how many) of them that do read what we post here..........shall we who post here believe those couple actually care what we say ???

crickets by too many other than John LaRue it seems to me

Do you talk with your BoD member? I realize that's become something of an ancient concept, but it's still the best way to communicate exactly what you want them to hear.

[Rick Kirchner]

Well considering one of them is permanently IP banned here, that cuts the F/SR representation on the CRB who might read this in half.

Who is that? I don't recall whatever drama led to it. Who's on the FSRAC? Can't find it on the website.

[John Nesbitt]

Who is that? I don't recall whatever drama led to it. Who's on the FSRAC? Can't find it on the website.

It is behind two logins. (Why, oh why, does the SCCA website have such a goofy, convoluted member access procedure?)

Go to scca.com, click on member profile (upper right). Login.

Then click on Boards and Committees. Another login.

Then, under Road Racing, click on Formula/Sports Racing Committee.

Caveat: The club is not real good at keeping these committee etc. lists up-to-date.

[Rick Kirchner]

It is behind two logins. (Why, oh why, does the SCCA website have such a goofy, convoluted member access procedure?)

Not a member at present, so that excludes me. Wonder why they think this should be member-only info?

Hopefully someone will post...

[Jim Garry]

It is behind two logins. (Why, oh why, does the SCCA website have such a goofy, convoluted member access procedure?)

Go to scca.com, click on member profile (upper right). Login.

Then click on Boards and Committees. Another login.

Then, under Road Racing, click on Formula/Sports Racing Committee.

Caveat: The club is not real good at keeping these committee etc. lists up-to-date.

There's most likely a shorter URL than this one but this gets me straight to the member portal and requires no extra log ins.

https://my.scca.com/eweb/DynamicPage...=yes&Site=SCCA

[Mike B]

Who's on the FSRAC? Can't find it on the website.

[Rick Kirchner]

So I searched for all these guys on here. I might be mistaken, but I believe the last post by one of them was at least 3 years ago.

So if these guys are the class reps, and this site represents a virtual "town hall", imagine if your representative never showed up - or at best, just hid backstage and never came out to discuss things with his constituents so that although he was appraised of peoples opinions on the matter, you don't know his or the vote.

[Peter Olivola]

So I searched for all these guys on here. I might be mistaken, but I believe the last post by one of them was at least 3 years ago.

So if these guys are the class reps, and this site represents a virtual "town hall", imagine if your representative never showed up - or at best, just hid backstage and never came out to discuss things with his constituents so that although he was appraised of peoples opinions on the matter, you don't know his or the vote.

They, the CRB and the BoD seem to have done a decent job with the FF tire change. I wonder what the difference is?

[Steve Davis]

There is no 'requirement' for members of the FSRAC to 'seek input from public forums'. They take their guidance from SCCA, but pretty sure that SCCA does NOT tell them HOW to get the input they (think they) need to address SCCA issues.... if there are any. I THINK the FSRAC takes it's guidance more or less from the CRB.. and maybe the BOD if either of them thinks they NEED more input.

Since there is an email address for each of them as well as an automatic 'send to fsrac' email on the SCCA site (somewhere). You can feel free to send any specific thread(s) that you think they need to see to them via email. Lead a horse, etc...but if you haven't done that, it's unlikely that any of them visit this forum (or any other) on a regular basis.

I also don't THINK the FSRAC is tasked with INITIATING anything on their own. I could be wrong. Perhaps John L knows more about how they are supposed to decide what they should be working on?

Steve, FV80

[Ed Womer]

seems unfortunate that the only thing they seem to be good at is terrible decisions and lightening my wallet.

So they wonder why we aren't interested in contributing? IT IS YOUR JOB TO KEEP ME INFORMED, not mine to endlessly chase after what you are doing while you hide everything from us!

If you choose to want to lead ( I am using that lightly) it should be YOUR responsibility to keep those you choose to lead informed.

Ed

[Peter Olivola]

seems unfortunate that the only thing they seem to be good at is terrible decisions and lightening my wallet.

So they wonder why we aren't interested in contributing? IT IS YOUR JOB TO KEEP ME INFORMED, not mine to endlessly chase after what you are doing while you hide everything from us!

If you choose to want to lead ( I am using that lightly) it should be YOUR responsibility to keep those you choose to lead informed.

Ed

I'll ask again: What was different about the approval of the new FF tire rule?

[DanW]

I'll ask again: What was different about the approval of the new FF tire rule?

I think the difference was the 50+ FF driver letters submitted to the board.

The challenge for the competitors and tech compliance folk in Impound was the proposed wording was mangled when it got to the final Fastrack/GCR text. The wording caused some confusion. I got called to impound to "OK, 'splain it to me, Lucy!" The way the text read, it appeared the treaded Hoosier VFF tires were for use in the rain.

[Peter Olivola]

I think the difference was the 50+ FF driver letters submitted to the board.

The challenge for the competitors and tech compliance folk in Impound was the proposed wording was mangled when it got to the final Fastrack/GCR text. The wording caused some confusion. I got called to impound to "OK, 'splain it to me, Lucy!" The way the text read, it appeared the treaded Hoosier VFF tires were for use in the rain.

Thank you.

[SteveG]

I think the difference was the 50+ FF driver letters submitted to the board.

The challenge for the competitors and tech compliance folk in Impound was the proposed wording was mangled when it got to the final Fastrack/GCR text. The wording caused some confusion. I got called to impound to "OK, 'splain it to me, Lucy!" The way the text read, it appeared the treaded Hoosier VFF tires were for use in the rain.

We've had this conversation about mangled text in another thread. To summarize; I just had to make the statement that I can run wet tires anytime I want.

But it looks like they're try to fix it.
From April Preliminary Tech Bulletin:

Alternatively, Formula F cars with rocker arm suspension (e.g., Swift DB1, 1987-90 Reynard) and/or outboard suspension on at
least one chassis end may use the following tires:
Dries:
Front - Hoosier H43130 R60A 20.0 x 6.0-13 or H43164 R60A 20.5 x 7.0-13 bias ply slick
or
Hoosier 44165 135/545-13 VFF
Rear – Hoosier H43307 R60A 22.5 x 7.2-13 bias ply slick
or
Hoosier 44170 165/580-13 VFF
Wets:
Radial wets or VFF tires listed above

Apparently there was a clerical error between the February Tech Bulletin and the March GCR.

[John LaRue]

Candidly, your FSRAC is the best advisory committee in the organization. I started out on the FSRAC and then after moving to the CRB would sit in on their meetings. I never witnessed any political games or what we called "garage protection" within the FSRAC, some other AC's did not do as well.

Steve is correct in that these committees FSRAC, ASAC, BSAC, SMAC, GTAC, ITAC... are all advisory in nature. They do not develop ideas or set policy. They are reactionary in design. The advisory committees are tasked with reviewing the letters that are routed to them by SCCA Staff. Occasionally they will be asked to review a matter by the CRB or Staff. They use their experience, personal time, and resources to develop responses to the letters that come through their group which are routed to the CRB. They are DISCORUAGED from participating on websites and social media (I was one of few who would venture onto the websites and social media) The official communication channel is the letter system which I advised of on a regular basis.

Ed - The system is volunteer at all levels. Perhaps SCCA Staff who is salaried has an obligation to "inform" you but to expect a group of volunteers (AC's or CRB) to do more than they are already charged with is pretty silly. (FWIW - I tracked the time I spent on email for 2024 and it amounted to over $35,000 in lost billables!)

Rick - The only "votes" which matter at this point are those of the BOD. Per the Operations Manual the CRB is

responsible for establishing rules, specifications, and standards for competition vehicles, as well as rules and standards for scheduling, organization, conduct, and supervision of Road Racing programs; and the licensing of drivers and officials. The CRB supervises the execution of these rules and standards. The CRB shall work in concert with the Road Racing Department to ensure such rules and procedures mesh smoothly to the benefit of the program and the participants.

When I first joined and Jim Wheeler was chairman the CRB usually met on its own but for 1 or 2 BOD liaisons. I recall on a number of occasions that our face to face meetings did not include the liaisons. At some point staff began to sit in on the meetings. In the last year or so of my tenure the BOD chairman, BOD liaisons, Staff, and countless others would be on the calls and/or at the face to face meetings. The CRB is now chaired by a member of the BOD.

Peter - the primary "difference" with the FF tire rule was that Tony S. spent countless hours interacting with FF and CFF drivers/participants to develop the idea and garner support. That was then run past Hoosier to get their approval (since they had the spec FF tire) and then was presented to the FSRAC. By the time the FSRAC reviewed the proposed rule change there was a large number of supporting letters that had been submitted through the SCCA Letter System. The CRB approved the rule based on the FSRAC recommendation. In actuality, this rule change was processed just as all others. The difference was that the "author" of the proposal invested a large amount of time and effort to communicate with others and gain their support. In most instances there simply is little or no response submitted by the membership regarding a proposed rule change so they are either struck down or approved on the merits of the proposal.

[Peter Olivola]

Peter - the primary "difference" with the FF tire rule was that Tony S. spent countless hours interacting with FF and CFF drivers/participants to develop the idea and garner support. That was then run past Hoosier to get their approval (since they had the spec FF tire) and then was presented to the FSRAC. By the time the FSRAC reviewed the proposed rule change there was a large number of supporting letters that had been submitted through the SCCA Letter System. The CRB approved the rule based on the FSRAC recommendation. In actuality, this rule change was processed just as all others. The difference was that the "author" of the proposal invested a large amount of time and effort to communicate with others and gain their support. In most instances there simply is little or no response submitted by the membership regarding a proposed rule change so they are either struck down or approved on the merits of the proposal.

No notes.

[Ed Womer]

Okay John, I guess I should have said the scca from an organization point should inform the drivers of any affected rule change. It would have been difficult years ago to have a list of drivers per class and sent mail to them, but not anymore. With computers there is ABOSLUTEY no reason not to email every affected driver base on class participation. Now if the national office is unwilling or unable to set up a system like this, then maybe a cleaning of the paid staff should happen and replaced with someone who can.

As for the lost time you could have billed your customers, maybe you should have not wanted a position that takes from your job? Using that reasoning, all of who respond here are losing potential money for taking the time to respond. In reality, I am retired so it isn't costing me any billable time, but then again my life experience is valuable to some.

If you don't want to make something work better but just go along or worse, dictate to others, then maybe you should go away. Sorry if you take that wrong but my life experience has given me the right to say things and you are that thin skinned then so be it. If someone doesn't want to make it work better or improve something, well you know who is the problem.

Ed

[Peter Olivola]

Okay John, I guess I should have said the scca from an organization point should inform the drivers of any affected rule change. It would have been difficult years ago to have a list of drivers per class and sent mail to them, but not anymore. With computers there is ABOSLUTEY no reason not to email every affected driver base on class participation. Now if the national office is unwilling or unable to set up a system like this, then maybe a cleaning of the paid staff should happen and replaced with someone who can.

As for the lost time you could have billed your customers, maybe you should have not wanted a position that takes from your job? Using that reasoning, all of who respond here are losing potential money for taking the time to respond. In reality, I am retired so it isn't costing me any billable time, but then again my life experience is valuable to some.

If you don't want to make something work better but just go along or worse, dictate to others, then maybe you should go away. Sorry if you take that wrong but my life experience has given me the right to say things and you are that thin skinned then so be it. If someone doesn't want to make it work better or improve something, well you know who is the problem.Ed

I get informed of every rule change via Fastrack. Don't you?

[John Nesbitt]

i get informed of every rule change and proposed rule change via fastrack. Don't you?

ftfy

[FVRacer21]

Okay John, I guess I should have said the scca from an organization point should inform the drivers of any affected rule change. It would have been difficult years ago to have a list of drivers per class and sent mail to them, but not anymore. With computers there is ABOSLUTEY no reason not to email every affected driver base on class participation. Now if the national office is unwilling or unable to set up a system like this, then maybe a cleaning of the paid staff should happen and replaced with someone who can......

Ed

Years ago, there were people pushing to go to 1600 engines in FV. The problem was we still had 600 people running actively and this was at the dawn of the computer revolution and still the uproar was substantial. Today we may have only 300 "active" FV drivers in the country. We might not have an accurate count, but the SCCA does of who raced - (not total race entries but individual drivers). It would be easy to contact them through email as I bet 50% or more do not visit ApexSpeed.

I was hoping that the proposed electronic log book would have expedited that, but I understand this is still just a wish. Then we would really know how many cars were out there.

The problem with the current system is that once a letter is submitted it is behind a wall of secrecy. The only way someone knows what was submitted is if the submitter published it around. The letter system should be in a searchable database so we can see what has been submitted, BEFORE it is decided - for or against. Then we can make our voices heard. On really big items, the CRB might float a "what do you think" but it is usually the little things, or the things that get shot down, that usually cause the most trouble.

ChrisZ

PS - I also keep track of my volunteer hours with other organizations and it is substantial. The problem it shows is a lack of volunteers in general - especially young members. Most of our younger volunteers are from SCCA families, not a bad thing but does not bode well for future growth unless we go to a paid workforce. I could not afford to race under that model.

[Peter Olivola]

The problem with the current system is that once a letter is submitted it is behind a wall of secrecy. The only way someone knows what was submitted is if the submitter published it around. The letter system should be in a searchable database so we can see what has been submitted, BEFORE it is decided - for or against. Then we can make our voices heard. On really big items, the CRB might float a "what do you think" but it is usually the little things, or the things that get shot down, that usually cause the most trouble.

Have advocated for this with every one of my BoD members for at least two decades. It's the third rail of SCCA's structure.

[FVRacer21]

Originally Posted by peter olivola
i get informed of every rule change and proposed rule change via fastrack. Don't you?



ftfy

John Nesbitt

==============================

Sometimes the time between proposed and confirmed is a bit short. It is the time BEFORE it becomes proposed that is important.

ChrisZ

[CheckeredFlag]

I get informed of every rule change via Fastrack. Don't you?

Yes, but that's after all the decisions have been made.

[924RACR]

yes, but that's after all the decisions have been made.

exactly

[teamfun]

They are DISCORUAGED from participating on websites and social media (I was one of few who would venture onto the websites and social media) The official communication channel is the letter system which I advised of on a regular basis.

Similar to what Ed Womer said about email lists, perhaps in this day and age this policy should be changed. Since when is more (respectful and honest) communication a bad thing?

So much of our groups frustration came at being blindsided by the HST and Runoffs changes without any time to address or react.

[Peter Olivola]

Yes, but that's after all the decisions have been made.

Certainly not the absolute best and as noted even when proposed rules are published there's all too often a short window before adoption.

Let me be clear about why I think all change proposals, regardless of source, should be available to the membership immediately in the form they were submitted.

1. It provides anyone affected by the proposal the earliest possible opportunity to evaluate and respond to the proposal.
2. It would make known immediately the source of the proposal.
3. Number 2 would have some influence on those making proposals and would most likely reduce the volume of proposals being dealt with by the staff, committees and BoD which would give them more time to be thorough with their consideration.

There is no escaping the club's history with self serving change proposals. The above would be a strong deterrent and would also provide a way to quickly gauge member opinion.

The answer I always get is a desire to protect the privacy of those making proposals. This isn't health care. We don't need the equivalent of HIPAA. It only fosters distrust of the process.

[John LaRue]

Rule Changes—A rule change typically affects an entire class, a method of car construction, or the way acompetitive event is conducted. The Club Racing Board is not authorized to unilaterally implement rulechanges; they can only recommend that the Board of Directors approves them. They are published inFastrack as recommended items and 30 days should elapse to allow all affected parties to submit theircomments, either directly to the National Office or to their Area director (or both).

Assuming that the rule making process is followed (see https://www.scca.com/pages/cars-and-rules ) any recommendations that come from the CRB are to be published in Fastracks. Commencing on the date pf publication there should be a minimum of 30 days for commentary by the membership on any rule change. Because we started publishing the minutes as preliminary while I was on the CRB the actual time for comment before action by the BOD should now be more than 30 days. It is incumbent upon the members to read Fastracks for this to work; there is a mass email reminder notice when Fastracks is published.

The problem in my opinion is that the process is not always being followed. Rule changes can and have been ushered through as Race Memo's (RM) or Errors & Omissions (EO) which do not necessarily require advance publication or give the membership an opportunity to comment. To my knowledge there is no definition in the GCR or other governance documents as to what type of action constitutes a Race Memo. As far as I was concerned only items that impacted an upcoming event and for which there was not ample time to give notice should be considered for RM status. Usually these related to classing a car or dealing with a technical or operational issue that had flown under the radar. This loop hole can and should be closed by providing that any action taken via a Race Memo is only effective for 60 days thus allowing time for the matter to be run through the proscribed notice process. It should also be stated that a subject can only be addressed through a RM once.

[Steve Davis]

.... there is a mass email reminder notice when Fastracks is published. ...

I'm guessing that you are referring to the ~'monthly?' email about 'SCCA STUFF' that we all get (Kerry's SCCA notes is it?).. and down at the bottom of that.. WAY DOWN AT THE BOTTOM, is the tiny little 'cone' for Road Racing that shows a Quote mark? thingie if there is anything relevant to Road Racing.. and if we click on that, it takes us to a page where there MIGHT be a message about Prelim or 'non prelim',, minutes or NOTHING of note in one of the 10 or so other categories of possible notices.

I wouldn't really call that a 'mass email about Fastracks'. Most of that email is HYPE about the 'new things' going on in SCCA. The actual useful messages are buried behind several CLICKS and personal searches for anything that MIGHT be useful, only noted way down at the bottom of that page. If there is anything more like a 'Possible Rules Change Notice' than that, I am not getting it.

Many years ago, we could actually SIGN UP for an email notice that the CRB and/or BOD minutes were posted with a DIRECT LINK to those postings (which I did). That was great for a couple of years.. until SCCA just QUIT sending them. I sent emails asking what happened to those notices .. and got 'crickets'.

Only recently did someone post somewhere about that little ' next to the Road Racing cone at the bottom of that message and what it meant... that it was time for me to go look for 'something' that might be of interest. That IS better than the NOTHING NOTICE that we've been getting for the last few years. Pam Richardson (BOD secretary?) also POSTED on this forum, when minutes or prelim minutes were posted.. for a while. Maybe she's just not in the position any more?

I REALLY like the mentions in the last 2 or 3 posts. I have often wondered WHY "we" don't have access to 'letters to the (INSERT GROUP HERE)'... and be able to just look through them. It is still pretty ridiculous that in all these minutes notices that we do get, there are MANY notices that 'a person' sent "something" in and the response it - The CRB disagrees and your suggestion is 'not within the philosophy of this or that class .. or similar.. and we never know WHAT it was.

I do agree with the posts that having ALL of those submitted 'letters' available for everyone to view would be a massive improvement to allowing 'all of us' UNDERSTAND what's going on with at least most of the stuff that happens SUDDENLY when no one saw it coming.
Steve, FV80

[John LaRue]

I'm guessing that you are referring to the ~'monthly?' email about 'SCCA STUFF' that we all get (Kerry's SCCA notes is it?).. and down at the bottom of that.. WAY DOWN AT THE BOTTOM, is the tiny little 'cone' for Road Racing that shows a Quote mark? thingie if there is anything relevant to Road Racing.. and if we click on that, it takes us to a page where there MIGHT be a message about Prelim or 'non prelim',, minutes or NOTHING of note in one of the 10 or so other categories of possible notices.

I wouldn't really call that a 'mass email about Fastracks'. Most of that email is HYPE about the 'new things' going on in SCCA. The actual useful messages are buried behind several CLICKS and personal searches for anything that MIGHT be useful, only noted way down at the bottom of that page. If there is anything more like a 'Possible Rules Change Notice' than that, I am not getting it.

Many years ago, we could actually SIGN UP for an email notice that the CRB and/or BOD minutes were posted with a DIRECT LINK to those postings (which I did). That was great for a couple of years.. until SCCA just QUIT sending them. I sent emails asking what happened to those notices .. and got 'crickets'.

Only recently did someone post somewhere about that little ' next to the Road Racing cone at the bottom of that message and what it meant... that it was time for me to go look for 'something' that might be of interest. That IS better than the NOTHING NOTICE that we've been getting for the last few years. Pam Richardson (BOD secretary?) also POSTED on this forum, when minutes or prelim minutes were posted.. for a while. Maybe she's just not in the position any more?

I REALLY like the mentions in the last 2 or 3 posts. I have often wondered WHY "we" don't have access to 'letters to the (INSERT GROUP HERE)'... and be able to just look through them. It is still pretty ridiculous that in all these minutes notices that we do get, there are MANY notices that 'a person' sent "something" in and the response it - The CRB disagrees and your suggestion is 'not within the philosophy of this or that class .. or similar.. and we never know WHAT it was.

I do agree with the posts that having ALL of those submitted 'letters' available for everyone to view would be a massive improvement to allowing 'all of us' UNDERSTAND what's going on with at least most of the stuff that happens SUDDENLY when no one saw it coming.
Steve, FV80

Why don't you guys quit screwing around wasting your time on line and call the Staff and/or the BOD Chairman and ask them?

[GregAmy]

Assuming that the rule making process is followed...The problem in my opinion is that the process is not always being followed.

Especially lately, the CRB has been getting a lot more..."liberal"...on their interpretations of what "rules change" means. As in, like pulling stuff out of their anterior.

The Board of Directors is the ultimate authority and responsibility for rules. They have chosen to delegate to the Club Racing Board the flexibility to change items that affect performance; the common term among the advisory committees is "weights, plates, and tires" (adjusting weights, adjusting intake restrictions, adjusting wheel/tire sizes).

Es&Os - errors ommissions - is also within their authority, clarifications of errors in the regs, omissions, and/or clarifications, anything that does not substantially change the written regs.

Everything else is supposed to go to the membership for feedback and forwarded to the Board of Directors to approve it. That has not been happening well, lately. Happened again this month, pulling something whole cloth that isn't in the GCR and that they cannot support by the existing regs (and, in fact, directly contravenes existing regs). But our BoD is either not paying attention or choosing to look away, so these go unnoticed.

So I get the frustration here. But your ire should be directed at your BoD rep(s) to get off their arse and perform their oversight of our CRB.

As for "they're not telling us anything"...balderdash.

Many years ago, we could actually SIGN UP for an email notice that the CRB and/or BOD minutes were posted with a DIRECT LINK to those postings...SCCA just QUIT sending them

As you note, that was discontinued a looooong time ago, Steve. Some system got changed and those got dropped.

However...on the 10th of every month, the Fastrack prelims get posted in Road Racing. They are there for the membership to review the proposed Fastrack for things like typos, errors, really bad calls, anything that we should get back to the CRB before they are officially published...

...which happens on the 20th of every month.

We're all adults, right? We have a calendar? Put some big red "X"s on those dates to remind yourself. Happens every month.

Pam Richardson (BOD secretary?) also POSTED on this forum...

Pam is no longer in that role. Shelly Pritchitt is now managing it and she posts in pretty much every Facebook group related to SCCA Road Racing. Terry Hanushek posts them on The Brown Board. I post them in the Production and Improved Touring forums.

Shelley does this as a courtesy, it's certainly not a requirement of her role, and you can't possibly expect her to hit every forum and every group of every place everywhere on the Internet? Maybe someone would like to volunteer to post them here? Honestly, it's not surprising Shelly doesn't post in this forum because, and let's be frank, this board is not well known except within its tight community (same goes for Prod and IT...did you know we had those...?)

As for...

...I have often wondered WHY "we" don't have access to 'letters to the (INSERT GROUP HERE)'...

Now we're on the same page. It grabs my goat when I get a response from the CRB to a letter with its verbiage having absolutely nothing to do with my original request. I mean, did y'all actually read what I wrote? Or are you just pretending not to?

With some 175 or so letters under my belt (and a pretty decent success rate) I've experienced some Deusies...

10th and 20th of every month, team. Jot it down.

GA

https://www.scca.com/pages/fastrack-news

Updated: 4/21/2025

2025 May CRB Minutes 2025 May Technical Bulletins 2025 May COAs

And to respond or request: https://www.crbscca.com/

[FVRacer21]

"And can you, can you imagine fifty people a day,

I said fifty people a day walking in singin that we need access to the letters and walking out.
And friends, they may thinks it's a movement."

Regards to Arlo

ChrisZ

[brian styczynski]

Assuming that the rule making process is followed (see https://www.scca.com/pages/cars-and-rules ) any recommendations that come from the CRB are to be published in Fastracks. Commencing on the date pf publication there should be a minimum of 30 days for commentary by the membership on any rule change. Because we started publishing the minutes as preliminary while I was on the CRB the actual time for comment before action by the BOD should now be more than 30 days. It is incumbent upon the members to read Fastracks for this to work; there is a mass email reminder notice when Fastracks is published.

The problem in my opinion is that the process is not always being followed. Rule changes can and have been ushered through as Race Memo's (RM) or Errors & Omissions (EO) which do not necessarily require advance publication or give the membership an opportunity to comment. To my knowledge there is no definition in the GCR or other governance documents as to what type of action constitutes a Race Memo. As far as I was concerned only items that impacted an upcoming event and for which there was not ample time to give notice should be considered for RM status. Usually these related to classing a car or dealing with a technical or operational issue that had flown under the radar. This loop hole can and should be closed by providing that any action taken via a Race Memo is only effective for 60 days thus allowing time for the matter to be run through the proscribed notice process. It should also be stated that a subject can only be addressed through a RM once.

I believe this thread started with a race memo, or at least I remember the document number starting with RM-

I find the Kerri Speed emails extremely easy to be notified of CRB activity

[John LaRue]

i believe this thread started with a race memo, or at least i remember the document number starting with rm-

i find the kerri speed emails extremely easy to be notified of crb activity

rm-24-08