SCCAForums.com

The latest Fastrack and last months Sportscar both mention that the CRB is taking a look at their rule making procedures.  I figure that this would be a good time to float ideas about how to improve them (and I think the SRB should consider their procedures too).  Nothing gets members fired up like changes to their class rules, reclassification of cars or the lack of same, so I think a transparent process is very important to reduce bad feelings.  So I will start this out with some thoughts, feel free to suggest better ideas or just tell me how stupid I am.

 I think each category (Touring, Production, Stock, Street Prepared, etc.) should have a published policy of when cars should be considered for being bumped up or down a sub class or given favorable or unfavorable competitive adjustments and how the classification of new vehicles should be determined.

 I think the data that the commities and boards use to make their decisions should also be posted.  And I think this info should include class results in National events, actual competitor vehicle weights, actual tire type and size used, and potentially things like tested wheel HP, wheel size, aero/bodywork notes/configuration (& pictures).

Hopefully, this would prevent the perception that the SCCA uses voodoo or personal bias (or worse, lawyers, bean counters, and insurance agents) to determine the rules.

This is all I can come up with in 5 min, the floor is now open for your expert (or not so expert) opinions.
 

---

Bruce Funderburg
'02 CMC 7 - DM
'04 Subaru WRX STi - STU

It will be of little avail ... if the laws [or rules] be so voluminous that they cannot be read, or so incoherent that they cannot be understood...
Alexander Hamilton

Did you catch the rule-change effectively immediately in the April Fastrack for Solo Stock class?

I didn't know that a rule-change could be effective immediately? I thought it had to go through some approval and be introduced for the next competition year.

 The SEB has recommended, and the BOD has approved, the rescinding effective immediately upon publication of a 2008 rule change covering catalytic converts in Stock. The effect of the removal of this change is that the first two paragraphs of 13.10.E now read as follows:

“Any part of the exhaust system beyond (downstream from) the header/manifold or catalytic converter, if so equipped, may be substituted provided the system meets the requirements of 3.5. Stainless steel heat exchangers are permitted only if the physical dimensions and configuration remain unchanged. Modifications of any type, including additions to or removal of, the catalytic converters, thermal reactors, or any other pollution control devices in the exhaust system are not allowed and the system must be operable. Replacement catalytic converters must be OE if the vehicle has not exceeded the warranty period as mandated by the EPA. Converters must be of the same type and size and used in the same location as the original equipment converter(s). This does not allow for a high performance unit. If the vehicle has exceeded the warranty period, replacement catalytic converters must be OE-type as per

Section 13.”

 

NOTE: This was done per SAC recommendation, based upon new information which has been provided regarding the availability of replacement OE catalytic converters for vehicles more than a few years old.

 

---

Aut tace aut loquere meliora silentio.

 

Good point.  The new rule proposal and clarification process could be better specified.  I can think of at least one case where a late season "clarification" caused a huge rant from the class, as it totally changed what everyone had interpreted the rule as saying and potentially made 75% of the cars illegal.

 Surprised this thread isn't getting more comments, as complaining about the rules seems to be a normal part of a racers week.
 

---

Bruce Funderburg
'02 CMC 7 - DM
'04 Subaru WRX STi - STU

It will be of little avail ... if the laws [or rules] be so voluminous that they cannot be read, or so incoherent that they cannot be understood...
Alexander Hamilton

modernbeat:

Did you catch the rule-change effectively immediately in the April Fastrack for Solo Stock class?

I didn't know that a rule-change could be effective immediately? I thought it had to go through some approval and be introduced for the next competition year.

 The SEB has recommended, and the BOD has approved, the rescinding effective immediately upon publication of a 2008 rule change covering catalytic converts in Stock. The effect of the removal of this change is that the first two paragraphs of 13.10.E now read as follows:

“Any part of the exhaust system beyond (downstream from) the header/manifold or catalytic converter, if so equipped, may be substituted provided the system meets the requirements of 3.5. Stainless steel heat exchangers are permitted only if the physical dimensions and configuration remain unchanged. Modifications of any type, including additions to or removal of, the catalytic converters, thermal reactors, or any other pollution control devices in the exhaust system are not allowed and the system must be operable. Replacement catalytic converters must be OE if the vehicle has not exceeded the warranty period as mandated by the EPA. Converters must be of the same type and size and used in the same location as the original equipment converter(s). This does not allow for a high performance unit. If the vehicle has exceeded the warranty period, replacement catalytic converters must be OE-type as per

Section 13.”

 

NOTE: This was done per SAC recommendation, based upon new information which has been provided regarding the availability of replacement OE catalytic converters for vehicles more than a few years old.

 

 

 Now I just pulled up the unofficial pdf version of the rule book and found this as I scrolled to page 3 of 336.

 

 Effective January 1, 2008, previous editions of the SCCA Solo Rules are
superseded by the following SCCA Solo Rules. The SCCA reserves the right
to revise these Rules, to issue supplements to them, and publish special
rules at any time at its sole discretion. Changes of this nature will normally
become effective upon publication in SportsCar Magazine; but may become
effective immediately in emergency situations as determined by SCCA.
Questions concerning Rules clarifications should include the information required
by Section 2.2.B of the Introductory Section of these rules and be addressed
to:

 

 Now I think part of the problem with the original suggestion that there be a published list of things like tire type and size for every car, the weight of the car, and so on gets into personal setups to a degree which to me says you want everyone to share every little detail about what they are doing.  Now when Ford lists the weight for our car at 3450lbs and we shave 30lbs+ in changing wheels and tires and weigh in at 3444lbs on SCCA provided scales, I am not sure how the weight of the car has much to do with anything regarding how its classed.  Granted yes, this is a stock class car and there could be weight issues in other classes where there are more mod allowances but all the same, back to personal setups. 

As for the use of NT results as a basis, this seems to go on forever and neither side actually gains any traction for their argument.  I think the figure was 75% of all NT participants last year were one event only and total participation was only about 2000 people deep.  So maybe for the ideas of bumping cars to help avoid heavy over/underdog situations there needs to be more info than just a couple thousand people.  This all actually ties in with the "Are there too many classes" thread.  When you are trying to develop a 'fair' rule set for this many classes and cars, to publish all the info used, or heck even use all the info already published it would be so time consuming that the end justification would not be worth it.  So long as the Secret Car Club of America sits and spins, we will go back and forth about rules changes, car classing, adding/removing classes, blah blah blah.  If someone was able to prove the worth of driving quickly around a parking lot X times per year to manufacturers and the like, you might find we could gain quite a bit of support in terms of well documented information, sites, contingencies, warranty programs, and publicity. 

---

Rob S.
116 FS 2008 Ford Mustang Bullitt

Central Carolina Region

ccytrader:

 Now I think part of the problem with the original suggestion that there be a published list of things like tire type and size for every car, the weight of the car, and so on gets into personal setups to a degree which to me says you want everyone to share every little detail about what they are doing.  Now when Ford lists the weight for our car at 3450lbs and we shave 30lbs+ in changing wheels and tires and weigh in at 3444lbs on SCCA provided scales, I am not sure how the weight of the car has much to do with anything regarding how its classed.  Granted yes, this is a stock class car and there could be weight issues in other classes where there are more mod allowances but all the same, back to personal setups. 

As for the use of NT results as a basis, this seems to go on forever and neither side actually gains any traction for their argument.  I think the figure was 75% of all NT participants last year were one event only and total participation was only about 2000 people deep.  So maybe for the ideas of bumping cars to help avoid heavy over/underdog situations there needs to be more info than just a couple thousand people.  This all actually ties in with the "Are there too many classes" thread.  When you are trying to develop a 'fair' rule set for this many classes and cars, to publish all the info used, or heck even use all the info already published it would be so time consuming that the end justification would not be worth it.  So long as the Secret Car Club of America sits and spins, we will go back and forth about rules changes, car classing, adding/removing classes, blah blah blah.  If someone was able to prove the worth of driving quickly around a parking lot X times per year to manufacturers and the like, you might find we could gain quite a bit of support in terms of well documented information, sites, contingencies, warranty programs, and publicity. 

 

For many classes, the cars are already required to be weight during impound.  And this info is normally posted at the event.  I suspect the commities already uses this info, but its is not widely availible to most members.  If the minimum weight for a class is x, and the tops cars A & B can consistently make that weight, but C & D are way over, then that would seem to be relevant info for possible changes in the minumum weights.  As a first pass, most of us look at the stock weights and tire sizes, but some cars can lose wiegh t easier than others, and some can fit a much wider than stock tire while others can go only slightly larger.  Again, all this relates to the competitive potential of the car.  The most important factors for a car are the tires, weight, and horsepower.  The rulemakes should understand how these factors compare for the cars in a class (based on real data, from actual as raced cars) if they are to provide some sort of balance.  And the membership need to understand why the rulemakers do what they do to prevent charges of bias or stupidity and general dissatisfaction.  If I had a dollar for every time I had heard someone say they quit racing or switched sanctioning bodies after "the SCCA screwed up the rules" or "made my car hopelessly uncompetitive" I would be a rich man.

 National or National Tour results for are obviously relevant, but probably need some adjustment depending on the level of competition for that class, for that event.  Obviously you don't want to give favorable adjustments to cars that already dominate the class, and the harder questions is determining when & how to give help to those cars that are mid pack or worse.

 An examples from club racing (I don't club race, yet).  A few years ago in T1, the Corvettes had been dominating for years.  If you looked at their specification they were allowed to use several different aftermarket suspension parts and wider tires.  Thier competition, the Viper, not only didn't get to use non stock parts, it also had to run a restrictor.  All this despite the fact that the Viper had yet to win a championship, and the Vettes had won for 10 years straight.  This is the kind of thing that makes members think something shady is going on even if it is not.  Some concrete data showing that the Viper was 2 seconds faster on some tracks, but just happened to be slow around Mid Ohio would help the membership understand the situation.

---

Bruce Funderburg
'02 CMC 7 - DM
'04 Subaru WRX STi - STU

It will be of little avail ... if the laws [or rules] be so voluminous that they cannot be read, or so incoherent that they cannot be understood...
Alexander Hamilton