| Arnie | 12-02-2005 10:56 AM |
pe problems? what's "pe" mean? premature ejaculation?
So, what, we can't even discuss the tentative rules? As it seems california didn't participate or feel like participating, perhaps this was a needed wakeup call to this region?
So, what, we can't even discuss the tentative rules? As it seems california didn't participate or feel like participating, perhaps this was a needed wakeup call to this region?
| mrmodular | 12-02-2005 12:48 PM |
[QUOTE=dirtfarmer]:huh:
All of this premature, anyway. Someone had pe problems and posted this before the stewards (I am one of the Divisional Stewards) have even completed discussions. Then the rules package has to go to the Board of Directors for voting. After the BoD vote they become the national rules.
David Brooks
SEDiv[/QUOTE]
The stewards discussed and VOTED in favor of this proposal three days before this thread started.
All of this premature, anyway. Someone had pe problems and posted this before the stewards (I am one of the Divisional Stewards) have even completed discussions. Then the rules package has to go to the Board of Directors for voting. After the BoD vote they become the national rules.
David Brooks
SEDiv[/QUOTE]
The stewards discussed and VOTED in favor of this proposal three days before this thread started.
| cowapult | 12-02-2005 01:24 PM |
After I saw this thread, I asked my steward. He told me the info was not final and should not be posted
| dirtfarmer | 12-02-2005 05:46 PM |
[QUOTE=Arnie]pe problems? what's "pe" mean? premature ejaculation?
So, what, we can't even discuss the tentative rules? As it seems california didn't participate or feel like participating, perhaps this was a needed wakeup call to this region?[/QUOTE]
Well, actually I meant "personal ethics", but you may be a bit closer to home. Discussion is always welcome and necessary; I was trying to alleviate the increasing divide among us. The Cali thing is more complicated than you know, but it appears there are RallyCrossers there who want to be heard. They've been operating with no steward for some time, and have just now come back on board. The rules that were posted are in no way tentative. The proposal was submitted for discussion, and it was discussed.
So, what, we can't even discuss the tentative rules? As it seems california didn't participate or feel like participating, perhaps this was a needed wakeup call to this region?[/QUOTE]
Well, actually I meant "personal ethics", but you may be a bit closer to home. Discussion is always welcome and necessary; I was trying to alleviate the increasing divide among us. The Cali thing is more complicated than you know, but it appears there are RallyCrossers there who want to be heard. They've been operating with no steward for some time, and have just now come back on board. The rules that were posted are in no way tentative. The proposal was submitted for discussion, and it was discussed.
| greg donovan | 12-03-2005 12:44 AM |
[QUOTE=cowapult]After I saw this thread, I asked my steward. He told me the info was not final and should not be posted[/QUOTE]
the steward in my region told me the same thing.
the steward in my region told me the same thing.
| pcowan | 12-04-2005 12:44 AM |
[QUOTE=Arnie]pe problems? what's "pe" mean? premature ejaculation?
So, what, we can't even discuss the tentative rules? As it seems california didn't participate or feel like participating, perhaps this was a needed wakeup call to this region?[/QUOTE]
As a "Californian", I can say we would have like to have been included, both from the SFR and GravelCrew sides. It certainly wasn't for lack of want and had it not been for browsing the boards we wouldn't have known this was going on. From what I know, we haven't recieved any official word from the SCCA asking for input either.
So, what, we can't even discuss the tentative rules? As it seems california didn't participate or feel like participating, perhaps this was a needed wakeup call to this region?[/QUOTE]
As a "Californian", I can say we would have like to have been included, both from the SFR and GravelCrew sides. It certainly wasn't for lack of want and had it not been for browsing the boards we wouldn't have known this was going on. From what I know, we haven't recieved any official word from the SCCA asking for input either.
| Arnie | 12-04-2005 12:58 AM |
Well, its been a productive thread then. Seems like it might have jolted the california contingent into a bit more activity. Make your voices heard!
| yellowhammer | 12-05-2005 10:21 AM |
Am I reading these rules right? Rally tires are an acceptable mod to pick off of a "mods menu" for production classes? I think this is a big no-no and will damper the enthusiasm of new rallycrossers that we need to grow rallycross. Tires are a huge advantage, IMO much more than camber plates or anything else.... I agree the "middle" classes made too many classes, but allowing tires in production assures new people with street tires are going to get frustrated cause they don't have a chance....
I have reversed myself 180 on this issue. I used to say- "Get tires or tuff it" since I feel that should obviously be the first purchase for someone serious about RX. But I feel there should be a class in which totally un-modded cars can play and be competitive. Getting people into RX is of course key to growing the sport..... let people play a couple times and if they like it they'll be back and start buying the "goodies" I hate as much as anybody to compare RX to AX, but I rarely see somebody show up at their first Autocross with a $600 set of Hoosiers..... it takes a while to get into it before most people see the need to plunk down serious tire money. I think taking tires off the table in production makes sense as it more equally levels the playing field.
I agree with a couple things being allowed like harnesses, seats, cat-back, and such, but I say kill the tire option in production. And anybody thinking snow tires are a secret loophole around no rally tires is just kidding themselves. They (snow tires and "rally" tires) should be treated the same. you can't use the DOT benchmark cause rally tires have to be DOT approved to be legal for transit stages at a rally, no? :huh:
....and why are "06 Rallycross rules" being publically posted when they haven't been made official anyway?!?
I'm sure these points have been argued both ways in this mammoth thread- just throwing my .02 in.
John Barnett
Rallycross Chairman
Tennessee Valley Region SCCA
I have reversed myself 180 on this issue. I used to say- "Get tires or tuff it" since I feel that should obviously be the first purchase for someone serious about RX. But I feel there should be a class in which totally un-modded cars can play and be competitive. Getting people into RX is of course key to growing the sport..... let people play a couple times and if they like it they'll be back and start buying the "goodies" I hate as much as anybody to compare RX to AX, but I rarely see somebody show up at their first Autocross with a $600 set of Hoosiers..... it takes a while to get into it before most people see the need to plunk down serious tire money. I think taking tires off the table in production makes sense as it more equally levels the playing field.
I agree with a couple things being allowed like harnesses, seats, cat-back, and such, but I say kill the tire option in production. And anybody thinking snow tires are a secret loophole around no rally tires is just kidding themselves. They (snow tires and "rally" tires) should be treated the same. you can't use the DOT benchmark cause rally tires have to be DOT approved to be legal for transit stages at a rally, no? :huh:
....and why are "06 Rallycross rules" being publically posted when they haven't been made official anyway?!?
I'm sure these points have been argued both ways in this mammoth thread- just throwing my .02 in.
John Barnett
Rallycross Chairman
Tennessee Valley Region SCCA
| Porsche914boxer4 | 12-05-2005 11:50 AM |
[QUOTE=Arnie]Well, its been a productive thread then. Seems like it might have jolted the california contingent into a bit more activity. Make your voices heard![/QUOTE]
uh, we probably have more rallycrosses statewide than regions have as a whole. I think you're missing the point: most of us in CA don't want to deal with the SCCA at all, so things have evolved without them (gravelcrew, etc). we just want to come and drive, not deal with the SCCA's bull%hit.
uh, we probably have more rallycrosses statewide than regions have as a whole. I think you're missing the point: most of us in CA don't want to deal with the SCCA at all, so things have evolved without them (gravelcrew, etc). we just want to come and drive, not deal with the SCCA's bull%hit.
| Got Pink? | 12-05-2005 11:57 AM |
Snow tires and rally tires should definently not be considered the same. In any region where it snows often many people have snow tires for use on the street just as people in areas where it doesn't snow have all season tires. Also what about rallyx in the snow? Snow tires are not only useful but almost essential in real snow or ice if you want to navigate the course safely.
I don't like the idea of rally tires in production either but its really hard to draw the line on legal tires anywhere. For example if you disallow 'snow tires' what about the Nokian WR's? are they snow tires or all seasons? It would depend on who you ask. Nokian calls them an all season tire with good snow traction.
I don't like the idea of rally tires in production either but its really hard to draw the line on legal tires anywhere. For example if you disallow 'snow tires' what about the Nokian WR's? are they snow tires or all seasons? It would depend on who you ask. Nokian calls them an all season tire with good snow traction.
| Arnie | 12-05-2005 02:18 PM |
[QUOTE=Porsche914boxer4]uh, we probably have more rallycrosses statewide than regions have as a whole. I think you're missing the point: most of us in CA don't want to deal with the SCCA at all, so things have evolved without them (gravelcrew, etc). we just want to come and drive, not deal with the SCCA's bull%hit.[/QUOTE]
that's cool and understandable, however in that case, theres no point in debating or participating in the SCCA's rule making then. Just continue on with the California rules as has been up to this point. No sense getting getting involved in this discussion. And if you do just want to come and drive, then you shouldn't care what anyone's rules are. Just get out there and drive. You shouldn't really care what class your car get's put into.
that's cool and understandable, however in that case, theres no point in debating or participating in the SCCA's rule making then. Just continue on with the California rules as has been up to this point. No sense getting getting involved in this discussion. And if you do just want to come and drive, then you shouldn't care what anyone's rules are. Just get out there and drive. You shouldn't really care what class your car get's put into.
| Porsche914boxer4 | 12-05-2005 03:17 PM |
[QUOTE=Arnie]that's cool and understandable, however in that case, theres no point in debating or participating in the SCCA's rule making then. Just continue on with the California rules as has been up to this point. No sense getting getting involved in this discussion. And if you do just want to come and drive, then you shouldn't care what anyone's rules are. Just get out there and drive. You shouldn't really care what class your car get's put into.[/QUOTE]
I disagree completely. There is a HUGE difference between regulation (like in CRS classes for example) and over-regulation, like these rules obviously are.
And just because i'm not interested in the SCCA's crazy rules doesn't mean i'm not into what class i'm in.
I disagree completely. There is a HUGE difference between regulation (like in CRS classes for example) and over-regulation, like these rules obviously are.
And just because i'm not interested in the SCCA's crazy rules doesn't mean i'm not into what class i'm in.
| MoDrift | 12-06-2005 02:21 PM |
[QUOTE=Arnie]Well, its been a productive thread then. Seems like it might have jolted the california contingent into a bit more activity. Make your voices heard![/QUOTE]
As I've already said earlier in this thread, given there was [u]absolutely no effort[/u] by the SCCA to notify the San Francisco Region SCCA that rules were being discussed in the first place, this is far from a lack of interest or desire on our part.
On the whole I'm glad to see some kind of national effort to build the sport, but don't take regional absenses from discussion personally if there is no national effort to make it a "national effort" in the first place.
That all being said, I am happy to see things moving forward. And as long as everyone is scared to death of even *thinking* about a rules system as nightmarish as Solo II / AutoCross, it's only going to help the sport come together. The proposed 2006 classes are a big step in the right direction from the 2005 classes that fell from the sky. My only deal breaker is rally tires. RallyCross is not Rally... but I've already made my several points about this earlier in the thread.
I don't underestimate at all the time and effort it takes to get a list of classes together that keep everyone mostly happy. And after all that, everyone still won't be 100% happy. However complaining about, say, bushings being allowed "here" rather than "there" is one thing, but rally tires are a fundamental aftermarket modification and advantage in the dirt.
We currently run with the Calfornia Rally Series classifications at our events since there was no concept of national SCCA classes when we started the program. The CRS classes are beautifully simple and basically fair. I think a decent number of our competitors would not be adverse to seeing a little more granularity in a class system though, especially when we run up 80-90 cars like we did last month at our new venue. Of course, I know how our CRS competitors already feel about that. ;)
Skylar Stein
RallyCross Chief
San Francisco Region SCCA
[url]http://www.sfrscca.org/RallyX[/url]
As I've already said earlier in this thread, given there was [u]absolutely no effort[/u] by the SCCA to notify the San Francisco Region SCCA that rules were being discussed in the first place, this is far from a lack of interest or desire on our part.
On the whole I'm glad to see some kind of national effort to build the sport, but don't take regional absenses from discussion personally if there is no national effort to make it a "national effort" in the first place.
That all being said, I am happy to see things moving forward. And as long as everyone is scared to death of even *thinking* about a rules system as nightmarish as Solo II / AutoCross, it's only going to help the sport come together. The proposed 2006 classes are a big step in the right direction from the 2005 classes that fell from the sky. My only deal breaker is rally tires. RallyCross is not Rally... but I've already made my several points about this earlier in the thread.
I don't underestimate at all the time and effort it takes to get a list of classes together that keep everyone mostly happy. And after all that, everyone still won't be 100% happy. However complaining about, say, bushings being allowed "here" rather than "there" is one thing, but rally tires are a fundamental aftermarket modification and advantage in the dirt.
We currently run with the Calfornia Rally Series classifications at our events since there was no concept of national SCCA classes when we started the program. The CRS classes are beautifully simple and basically fair. I think a decent number of our competitors would not be adverse to seeing a little more granularity in a class system though, especially when we run up 80-90 cars like we did last month at our new venue. Of course, I know how our CRS competitors already feel about that. ;)
Skylar Stein
RallyCross Chief
San Francisco Region SCCA
[url]http://www.sfrscca.org/RallyX[/url]
| greg donovan | 12-06-2005 02:45 PM |
[QUOTE=MoDrift]As I've already said earlier in this thread, given there was [u]absolutely no effort[/u] by the SCCA to notify the San Francisco Region SCCA that rules were being discussed in the first place, this is far from a lack of interest or desire on our part.
On the whole I'm glad to see some kind of national effort to build the sport, but don't take regional absenses from discussion personally if there is no national effort to make it a "national effort" in the first place.
That all being said, I am happy to see things moving forward. And as long as everyone is scared to death of even *thinking* about a rules system as nightmarish as Solo II / AutoCross, it's only going to help the sport come together. The proposed 2006 classes are a big step in the right direction from the 2005 classes that fell from the sky. My only deal breaker is rally tires. RallyCross is not Rally... but I've already made my several points about this earlier in the thread.
I don't underestimate at all the time and effort it takes to get a list of classes together that keep everyone mostly happy. And after all that, everyone still won't be 100% happy. However complaining about, say, bushings being allowed "here" rather than "there" is one thing, but rally tires are a fundamental aftermarket modification and advantage in the dirt.
We currently run with the Calfornia Rally Series classifications at our events since there was no concept of national SCCA classes when we started the program. The CRS classes are beautifully simple and basically fair. I think a decent number of our competitors would not be adverse to seeing a little more granularity in a class system though, especially when we run up 80-90 cars like we did last month at our new venue. Of course, I know how our CRS competitors already feel about that. ;)
Skylar Stein
RallyCross Chief
San Francisco Region SCCA
[url]http://www.sfrscca.org/RallyX[/url][/QUOTE]
the CRS rules are ver similar to what we used to run in land o lakes in MN.
we had G2 stock/prepared, G5 stock/prepared, and open stock/prepared. the big divider was rally tires, that automatiacally put you into prepared. snow tires wouldnt do that. that is because we live in the snow/belt and all of us have snow tires. stock meant stock. although we did allow things like cars w/AGX in stock.
six classes. it worked pretty good too. not thrilled about having to race against those dang zippy G2 golf GTis w/my former G5P FWD legacy. but oh well.
On the whole I'm glad to see some kind of national effort to build the sport, but don't take regional absenses from discussion personally if there is no national effort to make it a "national effort" in the first place.
That all being said, I am happy to see things moving forward. And as long as everyone is scared to death of even *thinking* about a rules system as nightmarish as Solo II / AutoCross, it's only going to help the sport come together. The proposed 2006 classes are a big step in the right direction from the 2005 classes that fell from the sky. My only deal breaker is rally tires. RallyCross is not Rally... but I've already made my several points about this earlier in the thread.
I don't underestimate at all the time and effort it takes to get a list of classes together that keep everyone mostly happy. And after all that, everyone still won't be 100% happy. However complaining about, say, bushings being allowed "here" rather than "there" is one thing, but rally tires are a fundamental aftermarket modification and advantage in the dirt.
We currently run with the Calfornia Rally Series classifications at our events since there was no concept of national SCCA classes when we started the program. The CRS classes are beautifully simple and basically fair. I think a decent number of our competitors would not be adverse to seeing a little more granularity in a class system though, especially when we run up 80-90 cars like we did last month at our new venue. Of course, I know how our CRS competitors already feel about that. ;)
Skylar Stein
RallyCross Chief
San Francisco Region SCCA
[url]http://www.sfrscca.org/RallyX[/url][/QUOTE]
the CRS rules are ver similar to what we used to run in land o lakes in MN.
we had G2 stock/prepared, G5 stock/prepared, and open stock/prepared. the big divider was rally tires, that automatiacally put you into prepared. snow tires wouldnt do that. that is because we live in the snow/belt and all of us have snow tires. stock meant stock. although we did allow things like cars w/AGX in stock.
six classes. it worked pretty good too. not thrilled about having to race against those dang zippy G2 golf GTis w/my former G5P FWD legacy. but oh well.
| cowapult | 12-14-2005 12:15 PM |
Just a heads up, don't anyone start prepping your cars based on the classes you've been discussing here. The word is that the actual classes will be very different and should be released in January.
| AngryBlueRS | 12-14-2005 03:34 PM |
[QUOTE=cowapult]Just a heads up, don't anyone start prepping your cars based on the classes you've been discussing here. The word is that the actual classes will be very different and should be released in January.[/QUOTE]
Agreed, although they do sound pretty similar to the class structure a nameless person suggested earlier in this thread. ;)
C
Agreed, although they do sound pretty similar to the class structure a nameless person suggested earlier in this thread. ;)
C
| cowapult | 12-14-2005 04:06 PM |
[QUOTE=AngryBlueRS]Agreed, although they do sound pretty similar to the class structure a nameless person suggested earlier in this thread. ;)
C[/QUOTE]
They sure do! Luckily, it sounds like they also cut almost as much as they added, so the total number of classes only increased by 1.
C[/QUOTE]
They sure do! Luckily, it sounds like they also cut almost as much as they added, so the total number of classes only increased by 1.
Không có nhận xét nào:
Đăng nhận xét