207 replies to this topic

[wheel]

The BoD meets next month and will consider it at that time, along with several other REC rules.

wheel

[Keith Andrews]

I just read through the latest posts.  I'm encouraged that that no one tried to manufacture data or offer real technical knowledge as their support for the rule change.  This is more about changing a rule than any benefit the rule change will bring to competition.

 

Here is my synopsis of what I believe happened.

 

The BISIIMBT argument was tried with the folks enforcing compliance of the rule and specs of our class.  The Compliance folks, told those pointing out the difference between the way various builders did valve unshrouding that the rules didn't support their point of view.  The compliance team is technical and the old rule did not address the interior corner one way or the other.  It only spoke about the exterior edge (FWIW that's the sharp that is referenced).  I know this technical stuff gets in the way of a good tale, I apologize for that.  Bottom line the unshrouding rule could not be used to find heads out of spec.

 

At that point those Championing the rules change agenda went to work.  This is where it helps to have an inside track to the rules makers and the rules making process.  The Champions began using their contacts and knowledge of the inner working of the SCCA to make that happen.  It has to help to be able to pick up the phone and talk to folks on the inside.  

 

So now we are looking at a rule change that is divisive to the class.  A rule change that does nothing to make anyone more or less competitive. A rule change that will cost many competitors a bunch of money. This apparently, is of little importance to the those pushing the Agenda.  The Agenda and the ability to change the rules because we can is more important.

 

As I stated earlier.  If a rule was put forward clarifying/defining the unshrouding currently being done, that may have been beneficial.   I just don't see this benefiting the class.

 

As others have said the best way to voice your opinion is by sending your comments to the CRB.  http://www.crbscca.com

[Mike Collins]

^^^^^^^^^

What he said!

[Jamz14]

Here is what I think most of us feel and are saying:

 

When you guys that told us the rules were clear actually convince yourselves that it is clear......... let us know.

[Michael Novak]

Here is what I think most of us feel and are saying:

 

When you guys that told us the rules were clear actually convince yourselves that it is clear......... let us know.

They did----They said rules on heads are set----just a few months ago.............---and now after spending a bunch they are trying it again....    

[FTodaro]

I just read through the latest posts.  I'm encouraged that that no one tried to manufacture data or offer real technical knowledge as their support for the rule change.  This is more about changing a rule than any benefit the rule change will bring to competition.

 

Here is my synopsis of what I believe happened.

 

The BISIIMBT argument was tried with the folks enforcing compliance of the rule and specs of our class.  The Compliance folks, told those pointing out the difference between the way various builders did valve unshrouding that the rules didn't support their point of view.  The compliance team is technical and the old rule did not address the interior corner one way or the other.  It only spoke about the exterior edge (FWIW that's the sharp that is referenced).  I know this technical stuff gets in the way of a good tale, I apologize for that.  Bottom line the unshrouding rule could not be used to find heads out of spec.

 

At that point those Championing the rules change agenda went to work.  This is where it helps to have an inside track to the rules makers and the rules making process.  The Champions began using their contacts and knowledge of the inner working of the SCCA to make that happen.  It has to help to be able to pick up the phone and talk to folks on the inside.  

 

So now we are looking at a rule change that is divisive to the class.  A rule change that does nothing to make anyone more or less competitive. A rule change that will cost many competitors a bunch of money. This apparently, is of little importance to the those pushing the Agenda.  The Agenda and the ability to change the rules because we can is more important.

 

As I stated earlier.  If a rule was put forward clarifying/defining the unshrouding currently being done, that may have been beneficial.   I just don't see this benefiting the class.

 

As others have said the best way to voice your opinion is by sending your comments to the CRB.  http://www.crbscca.com

Keith, I am not in the know but i suspect that is about the size of it.

 

If we get past the why of it, do you think pushing back the enforcement, of a rule change  to say 2017, mitigates some of the negative effects of all of what you and others have laid out? 

 

As you can see, this has been my thought about the deal.

[Bench Racer]

This engine builder working outside the rule words is no different than for example the people killing currently happening in the city of Milwaukee, WI. It's not the friken guns that are killing people, it's the respect/what's between the ears or not between the ears that's killing people. Same deal with the engine builders, they know better, they have the wherewithal between their ears. How about the SMAC/CRB make a rule change and hang a serious penalty on the engine builder. Currently the engine builder skates free. He should receive a penalty in a hell of a hurry when his engines are deemed not to the rules.

[Jim Drago]

This engine builder working outside the rule words is no different than for example the people killing currently happening in the city of Milwaukee, WI. It's not the friken guns that are killing people, it's the respect/what's between the ears or not between the ears that's killing people. Same deal with the engine builders, they know better, they have the wherewithal between their ears. How about the SMAC/CRB make a rule change and hang a serious penalty on the engine builder. Currently the engine builder skates free. He should receive a penalty in a hell of a hurry when his engines are deemed not to the rules.

Once again your way out there..  And this doesn't even effect me, but the above is just nuts. 

[Jamz14]

They did----They said rules on heads are set----just a few months ago.............---and now after spending a bunch they are trying it again....    

 I know. That was the point. So when they REALLY have it all clear, let us all know.

 

The point is that very very few in SM give a shit about any of this. Just make the rule, make it as clear as possible, and the people that WANT to find ambiguity, will. And the people that don't give a shit, still wont. As for me.........I'll be working on my car; before you guys are done and after.

[Bench Racer]

Once again your way out there..  And this doesn't even effect me, but the above is just nuts. 

 

There are normally two actions with reference to rules/penalties that are common, reactive and pro actions. Since the 2014 Runoffs referencing the heads, it's all reactive. Nuff said.

 

Thank you Jim, your "way out" there comment I would consider proactive. Your solution to stop the creative between the rule lines is???
 

[Jim Drago]

There are normally two actions with reference to rules/penalties that are common, reactive and pro actions. Since the 2014 Runoffs referencing the heads, it's all reactive. Nuff said.

 

Thank you Jim, your "way out" there comment I would consider proactive. Your solution to stop the creative between the rule lines is???
 

 

All legitimate interpretation issues will be reactive, thus the clarification/change. That is not SM, but all forms of racing.  I have no problem with harsher penalties as you have suggested in the past, but when you start comparing ANYTHING to do with racing our little girly cars and killing people.. You lose me and 99% of the rest that read this forum IMO.  

[Bench Racer]

, but when you start comparing ANYTHING to do with racing our little girly cars and killing people.. You lose me and 99% of the rest that read this forum IMO.  

I understand it's your site and you may type whatever you care.

 

Which body cavity did you pull this ^ out of???

 

"girly cars and killing people", all your words.

 

[wheel]

Raven,

I'm working on my car, too.  I hope nobody thinks I wanted to spend the hundreds of hours on this deal that I have spent since the Runoffs.  And, I was not the only one.  Let's call it a thousand hours, plus, and be conservative.  Some of the people who build and race these cars have chosen to interpret the rules in a way that might allow a slight competitive advantage.  When this was brought to the attention of the CRB, by protest and by letters, the CRB made every effort to clarify the rules so that any gray areas might be eliminated.  The result is sure to piss off many, please many and cause MOST to say  "And the people that don't give a shit, still won't"

 

Raven,

I'm with you.

[Chris70]

This rule is now out of the CRB hands as they have made their recommendation to the BOD.

If you want to express your pinion you have 1 week to do so to the Board of Directors.

the link to all board members is

 

bod@scca.com

 

Ademir Fedumenti

S.A.C. racing 

[Jim Drago]

I understand it's your site and you may type whatever you care.

 

Which body cavity did you pull this ^ out of???

 

"girly cars and killing people", all your words.

Girly cars.. my words.. 

killing people.. my words..   

 

Your words:   is no different than for example the people killing currently happening in the city of Milwaukee

 

 My only regret is you sucked me in to your crap again  no idea with what me owning the site has to do with anything? Stupidity is stupidity, regardless of who posts it

[Johnny D]

https://www.youtube....h?v=cJe6-afGz0Q

J~

[Bench Racer]

The post was my best attempt at an analogy of what's between the ears (engine builders have something between the ears, the wherewithal) and what's not between the ears (killers have no respect between their ears).

 

You love to needle so much, it's hard for you to not get sucked in.

 

Johnny, your a funny guy with to much time on your hands.

[Johnny D]

https://www.youtube....h?v=XzcWwmwChVE
J~

[Jamz14]

Raven,

I'm working on my car, too.  I hope nobody thinks I wanted to spend the hundreds of hours on this deal that I have spent since the Runoffs.  And, I was not the only one.  Let's call it a thousand hours, plus, and be conservative.  Some of the people who build and race these cars have chosen to interpret the rules in a way that might allow a slight competitive advantage.  When this was brought to the attention of the CRB, by protest and by letters, the CRB made every effort to clarify the rules so that any gray areas might be eliminated.  The result is sure to piss off many, please many and cause MOST to say  "And the people that don't give a shit, still won't"

 

Raven,

I'm with you.

Wheel, My cynicism is strictly limited to the rule itself. My appreciation of the hours it takes for those that do this out of the goodness of their hearts runs very deep.

 

I appreciate your hard work and will be thinking about you and toast you tonight as I crack open a beer and begin the nights work on the car.

[Johnny D]

I was just thinking they were going to go back and look for more grey area's and words to misinterpret.

 

Can we have a rule that allows tech or whoever to DQ on not following the intent of the rule ?

J~