SCCAForums.com

Dave, "torqued off" doesn't really describe it well enough.

Mark,

I didn't write the original rule, or the proposed change.  I participated in the committee process that created the latter.  Oddly enough, we don't write rules to effect you personally either way, if we did, they would be much more specific, and probably name names. :)

Considerable member feedback initiated looking at the seat rule again.

I still don't see where either version was worth getting someone's panties in a bunch, but I suppose everyone looks for windmills to tilt towards...championships are not being won becuase of light, expensive seats.

DaveW

Howdy,

47CP:

I didn't write the original rule, or the proposed change.  I participated in the committee process that created the latter.  Oddly enough, we don't write rules to effect you personally either way, if we did, they would be much more specific, and probably name names. :)

You mean you don't all spend your time thinking of how to irritate Mark Andy?  Are you sure?  Sometimes it seems like you'd have to be trying to be that good at it.... :-)

 

Considerable member feedback initiated looking at the seat rule again.

I still don't see where either version was worth getting someone's panties in a bunch, but I suppose everyone looks for windmills to tilt towards...championships are not being won becuase of light, expensive seats.

Since Steve likes to talk about dangerous precedents, here's one that I don't like.  The idea that "we're going to tweak the rule until its right" is NOT ok in my book.  It blows rules stability all to hell and requires folks to constantly need to "chase the rulebook" every year just to stay above water.  That's unattractive, and I'm really strongly opposed to it, no matter what my take on this particular set of rule tweaks is.

I absolutely support the new rule for 2008.  No question.  But the part that "torques me off" here isn't whether or not that rule exists... Its that we changed the rule, going through the full member comment process, and I and others modified our stuff to be compliant in good faith that our efforts wouldn't be rendered useless _the very next year_ by the SCCA.

I'd _much_ rather have stable rules that had imperfections for my particular situation (read, most of the damn solo rules, or rules for motorsports in general) vs. having unstable rules that mean you never know what you're going to get from year to year.

There was a time to comment on the 2008 rule.  That time passed and a decision was reached.  Re-evaluating that decision 6 months later because a few folks couldn't be bothered to participate in the process the first time is totally insane and a slap in the face to everyone that _does_ participate.  This wasn't some critical issue, a safety issue, or whatever.  If, when the 2008 proposal had come out, the SEB had withdrawn it because of member comment, I don't think you'd see me participating in some 30 page thread about it.  I.e. I tend to agree that its not worth getting your panties in a bunch either way.

But changing rules every year to try and appease the current loudmouths? _That_ I do find to be worth getting supremely p*ssed off by.  Its not an acceptable way to create & maintain the rules for a grassroots sport like autocross.  I participated in the process and did my best to ensure I stayed compliant with the rules.  Why should I be the one getting screwed over here, vs. the guy that suddenly woke up one day and discovered Fastrack, _particularly_ when some of those folks are on ACs?

Mark

marka:

Howdy,

CHRISFP78:

http://scca.com/documents/Fastrack/08/0 ... y-solo.pdf

 

Looks like a change is in the works.

 

Chris 

That's just great. 

I think so to. 

Chris 

Mark, we chase the rulebook every year regardless. It always ends up in a friends hand, 3 people ahead of you in line for registration, just as the workers start eyeballing the line for them.

FWIW...I also participated in the comment process the first time around too. I still had to change my mounts.....

I'm sure this will likely cause continued argument just because of another rule change so soon after the last one, but I think this ruling does better effect the statement they wanted to make with the first rule change.  And it does less to slight the people at the who would have had trouble safely complying with the new rules as currently written. I especially like that the safety aspects of it refer out to the general vehicle safety guidelines in 3.3.3.B.2 as well, since safety guidelines for mounting seats really should be a global thing and not class specific.

While it's unfortunate to have two rule changes so close together, I suspect it won't be putting too many people out of their way to comply with the new rule, and I also think this new suggested rule is the way it probably should have been rewritten in the first place.

For what it's worth, I did not submit any comments during the first round because I wasn't familiar with how the rules changing process works.  Now that I receive the FasTrack notifications by email, I'm paying a lot more attention, and I've submitted my comments for both this new, new seat rule and the brake modification proposals.  I'm still new to the whole "involved member" stuff I guess.

-N 

marka:

I absolutely support the new rule for 2008.  No question.  But the part that "torques me off" here isn't whether or not that rule exists... Its that we changed the rule, going through the full member comment process, and I and others modified our stuff to be compliant in good faith that our efforts wouldn't be rendered useless _the very next year_ by the SCCA.

Mark

I think it's a bit far fetched to say your efforts in complying with the 08 rule has been rendered useless.  Under no circumstance would a seat that was legal under the current 08 rule be made illegal by the proposed version of the rule.  the change only effects the cost control portion of the seat rule and the mounting holes.

Howdy,

Marshall Grice:

marka:

I absolutely support the new rule for 2008.  No question.  But the part that "torques me off" here isn't whether or not that rule exists... Its that we changed the rule, going through the full member comment process, and I and others modified our stuff to be compliant in good faith that our efforts wouldn't be rendered useless _the very next year_ by the SCCA.

Mark

I think it's a bit far fetched to say your efforts in complying with the 08 rule has been rendered useless.  Under no circumstance would a seat that was legal under the current 08 rule be made illegal by the proposed version of the rule.  the change only effects the cost control portion of the seat rule and the mounting holes.

Considering that my seat was already mounted in accordance with both sets of new rules, and that I had to modify the mount to make it weigh more (which will no longer be required if the new, NEW rule is adopted), I think that's pretty much the definition of "rendered useless", since I wouldn't have had to make the modifications at all.

Mark

As a VW owner, I was thrilled to see the language requiring original mounting points removed, as that is not an easy feat in anything by the over-engineering firm from Wolfsburg.  I wrote in in specific support of this.

I'm not winning any championships any time soon, but I know full well that when I get beaten, it's because the other guy drove better, not b/c his seat was 2 pounds lighter than mine. 

marka:

Howdy,

Marshall Grice:

marka:

I absolutely support the new rule for 2008.  No question.  But the part that "torques me off" here isn't whether or not that rule exists... Its that we changed the rule, going through the full member comment process, and I and others modified our stuff to be compliant in good faith that our efforts wouldn't be rendered useless _the very next year_ by the SCCA.

Mark

I think it's a bit far fetched to say your efforts in complying with the 08 rule has been rendered useless.  Under no circumstance would a seat that was legal under the current 08 rule be made illegal by the proposed version of the rule.  the change only effects the cost control portion of the seat rule and the mounting holes.

Considering that my seat was already mounted in accordance with both sets of new rules, and that I had to modify the mount to make it weigh more (which will no longer be required if the new, NEW rule is adopted), I think that's pretty much the definition of "rendered useless", since I wouldn't have had to make the modifications at all.

Mark

Doodie,

Then you understand how many of us felt when our FIA rated, 100% legal and safe 14 pound seats were rendered illegal by the first rewrite of the rule.  Oh, and my seat cost $250 shipped to my door.  So quit harping on about $1000 seats.

Chris H. 

subrew:

 

Doodie,

 

Then you understand how many of us felt when our FIA rated, 100% legal and safe 14 pound seats were rendered illegal by the first rewrite of the rule.  Oh, and my seat cost $250 shipped to my door.  So quit harping on about $1000 seats.

 

Chris H. 

Amen!! 

P.S.  YES, I understand that I had kart seats before, and I never argued that they were safe in a rear impact (or would someone running a stock '60s car w/oem seats for that matter) but g*d knows they were safely mounted.