Jack Dolan on rules

[JackD]

A race series changes with the series and the new one might feature a way different vehicle. The health of the new series depends on the prior notice to the participants and their buy in. All things have to be considered along with marketability to the fans,the suppliers, builders, and even the safety.
LSR stuff is different and is forever. If you make a rule change, it should be the minimum to follow technology and safety and never obsolete anything that has gone before . Burt is an example of how it should be done. His package should never be allowed to run today because the safety requirements that have proven themselves time and again would not allow it. He did know about the value of shaved and prepared tires and that is a lesson that is still tough for some to swallow. Now that does not include shoe polish in the cracks but you should know how to care for the tires. A modern streamliner has a number of safety requirements that would outlaw it and the evolution of those has not hurt it. Todays liner can be really aero with the lessons learned over the years and his power package could be much faster and safer. That should be the objective.
M should be a sit up bike with restrictions to suit the handicap of the riding position and A should allow anything within the bounds of open bike safety . If you have the allowances of a special construction class A and you got beat by a sit up bike in your class, you need to spend more time on your class because it is lacking and you are slow too. There is no shame in being slower if that is what you want, but to beat a real person instead of buying the paperwork plays a little better when you look back on it.
The class change limitations have to do with season points and have some justification for many. Whatever class your entry fits into on race day is it and tomorrow is another race day and another entry package with a different configuration.
I did it every day of Speed Week for 2 years in a row, a different class every day , and set records in all of them and some still stand more than 20 years later. Do you think I was sand bagging? I guess you would best ask some of the competition like the S2000 Honda project with Car and Driver might be a good place to start.
This whole thing should not be a secret and you should well know how I feel about it.

[Bob Drury]

Jack, what your saying makes sense ( did I really say that?), and I would be the first one to say we should never make mid season rule changes, or in fact change the rules,(other than for safety reasons) that a car is or at least should be built under, but I hope that our rule book, like any rule book, can be looked at, and if deemed necessary, be modified if it is found that any rule that has no benifit to the racers, can and should be looked at.  That has to be the longest sentance ever written on this board, and I think Jon should award me extra points even if it means changing the rules.  lol........................

[JackD]

In recent years the MC rules were screwed up and down to the point that
 when published they were found to be completely unworkable.
 Upon review by those affected the changes were completely abandoned.
The blind are leading the deaf off that same cliff again.
I want to be nicer than that, I really do.

[John Noonan]

Well said Jack!

J

[LittleLiner]

As the posts to this board show over and over it is apparent that the process of ?improving? rules is fraught with problems.  There seems to be unlimited opportunity to get it screwed up.  But this could be avoided, if not completely, than at least somewhat.  

It might be prudent to circulate proposed rules changes to prominent members of the LSR community for review and comment BEFORE the changes are published.  Get some input, ideas and alternative views before carving the words in stone.   I am not suggesting that the proposed rules changes be released to the entire general public for comment.  Folks like me (new-be, wannabee, never made a pass at Bonneville, at least not yet, etc) may be interested and have (on occasion) good ideas, but that is beside the point.  

I am sure that the power brokers at SCTA are all seasoned veterans.  In no way am I suggesting they aren?t trying super hard to get it right.   And I am certain from what I have read on LandRacing.com that the folks at SCTA are respected and experienced and qualified to judge the merits of suggested rules updates.

But it is imperative that other people, outside the rules ?committee?, review the results of the rules change process to get a fresh point of view.  Some professions call this Peer review.   The people doing Peer review of potential rules changes should be real, live, experienced, card carrying, respected, LSR racers.  

I suggest that discussions in the past here on this board such as the discussions involving tires and leathers for 200 plus mph bikes would have been better if conducted directly between the rules makers and the expert competitors (e.g., Guthrie, Noonan, Dolan, etc) well before the changes were published.  The difference is that it would be conducted in a controlled group (not open to all) and ample consideration could have been devoted to identifying concerns, issues, inconsistencies, unclear wording etc. etc. etc. . . .

The objective of any set of rules should be to have a set of standards that are based on safety issues.  Beyond that they should be fair, clear, consistent and enforceable.   In the realm of 'fair' it may be necessary to sometimes 'protect' the investments and hard work of existing competitors even if that means placing restrictions on new technology.  A prime example of what I mean is the separation of flathead and vintage inlines from other engine classes.

One recent set of posts here dealt with 'classic lakesters'.  Good points were made.  So what do you do?  You could outlaw any lakesters that aren't built in the WW2 wing tank design.  Or you could set up a whole new classification for 'open wheel' cars that are not otherwise 'legal traditional' lakesters. Or you could have a few engine classes for traditional lakesters and leave everything else as is.  Or?  You can see that this quickly turns into a real can of worms.  And I only have opinions and don't have solutions.

   Whatever the path that is followed on new rules and changes to existing rules, I feel strongly that the injection of a peer review process would more that justify the effort required.  

Later . . .

[JackD]

In the first years after SCTA assumed the control of the bike program from AMA we had an annual cussin and discussion MC meeting at Bonneville. It was usually Tuesday evening at a place to eat and our group of 40 to 60 was most welcome and hungry.
The meeting objective was outlined and the 75% of the bikers that only run Bonneville felt like they could not only hear but be heard. The meeting started with the tech guys going over any problems that came up during inspection that might be solved by rereading the rule book or making a minor change just to clarify the intent. Subject matter experts were there to listen to the problem and noobie victims also. The standards of behavior and the progress made was remarkable when you consider you had the 2 smokes, the cammers, da knuckles, pans, shovels, flat heads, and liners all in the same room. Normally you might expect more guns but it was very friendly because they were all lumped together for the same reason. That was racing and fair racing was the common objective. Their were the talkers, the experts , the so called experts and the listener's. That seemingly diverse bunch really was quite productive.. The amazing part of it was very few rules actually changed and it was mostly to clarify by explanation or slight changes in the wording so it read the same in Minnesota, Florida, and even So Cal. The principal inspector was from Canada and even he seemed to understand. The Production rules actually tightened up with respect to visual features but nothing that killed those that went before. The push rod class was established and adjusted the following year when more information became available and no harm was done. Any changes suggested were boiled down to rulebook language and everybody had the same understanding. That greased it through the board and you found it in the rulebook exactly the way you heard it. The reputation established during that time was good enough that it worked quite well. Because it was in front of everybody it actually resulted in very few real changes and didn't go on all night.
El mirage was less complicated with fewer people and most were at Bonneville anyway. Because they saw each other many more time during the year there was no real need for a meeting.
You suspect that might have changed don't you ?
It is going to be tougher to pull it back but the handwriting is in the wall and all over the sidewalk that it is having some problems.
Until some stability comes back to it the problems will continue and be the death of it. Even some of the cars guys went and the only reaction I can remember from them was "DAMN". The natural reaction to the car guys from the bikers was "BITE ME". That hasn't changed much.
Tire companies take a look at the format and just cringe at the thought of getting involved as just 1 example. There are many more.
Don't lose it.

[landracing]

Well there is a system in place now that "kinda" runs along those lines... there is a motorcycle committee and a motorcycle rules panel.. I think the committee comments and then the rules panel votes then it gets taken to the board...

Problem is as this year, committee recomendations were taken and then rewriten, reworded, moved around and the base of the initial recommendation turned into something totally different...

The only way I can see rules changes for the good is to have an online discussion for it.. People cant travel across the USA to meet at Russ ODaleys house for the meeting... You could get more involved if you could do it online.. More access to computers then there is plane tickets.. And the more involved the better..
Like an online group call, either chat or board would work... Live media would work better then board talk if you were going to do it in one night.. However if process was over a month then a board could work satisfactory...

Jon

[Bob Drury]

If you remember, I proposed this very thing on here about two months ago, and amongst other things, J.D. left in a snit.  It seems some of the old timers do not wish to open up existing rules or proposed rules to open debate, especially if you are not a SCTA member.  I am speaking about BNI meets using SCTA rules.  Once again, I will state that we outsiders are not seeking a vote, just the oportunity to openly discuss rules before they are voted on, and open up this discourse to help better our sport.  I don't think the voting members ever intentionly try to hinder the racers, but I don't think they always know all the facts before their votes.  I realize you will never make every one happy, but input from the racers in affected classes sure can't hurt.  I personally think if we had a SCTA Board liason from the rules committee openly communicating on this site, it would help.  I appreciate some members, especially Dan Warner, who openly offer advise and corrections on this site.  Dan has been a valuable asset, even if you or I don't always agree.  Bob

[landracing]

Well said Bob on the whole thing..

And YES Dan is a valuable asset to the site when needed rules clarification and other beer questions answered...

THanks DAN for all you do.

Jon

[JackD]

The size of the bike meeting was just about right. Too big and it gets out of hand and nothing is done.
While this format is good and has a place, it is not a replacement for and annual MC meeting. The % of participation on here is really small and that is the basis for a lot of the problem. I can think of 2 principals that were challenged on here and 1 quit. The other tried to lie out of it and after they were caught, they have not contributed since but remain a major part of the problem. The on line format should be the natural extension of the meeting that first of all outlines the proposed changes and provides several month for comment.

[landracing]

Jack im proud of you.. Finally a post that can be read and understood without the Encryption.. Well stated and yes I agree an extension to the Motorcycle meeting.. Can get alot done and info received from October, Nov and Dec plenty of time before the meetings...

Jon

[JackD]

That was meant to be over his head.
Now what ?

[Bob Drury]

Jack, having met Jon in person, how could you not shoot it over his head? lol..............Not vertically challenged Bob

[JackD]

I know both Marion Owens "Mo" and Tommy Christensen"TC" and that represents the large and the small. They both know I would rather have a girl rider like Angelle or Karen.
Size does matter and Jon is too big in spite of his altitude that is reflected in his attitude.
But far be it from me to tell him, I would rather he saw it from a girl.
Joe Machismo really hates it when I say that.

[JackD]

As soon as you limit the access to the information you limit the ideas, perpetuate the mistakes, and the entrant suffers with the sport.
When it got away from the annual meeting at Bonneville , the progress made, and the reasons for taking the program in house started to fail.
It has bottomed out a couple of times since and managed to recover when more eyes examined the remains.
The last laffer I heard was their would be no meeting at Bonneville because it wasn't in the budget. So the immediate question was "How much does it cost and does SCTA have the money ?" Well the answer must not have been money because it never cost anything except the participation of the entrants that seems to be lacking.
When the tank maximum size rule was introduced in error, it was not only misunderstood but the origin was said to be with AMA. That was as wrong as anything I ever heard and saying that to the public spoke volumes. Pictures on here of the various application of misunderstood rules tells quite a story that is the basis for a lot of the problems.