new 2011 rule changes

[desotoman]

For criticism to be elevated to the level of "constructive" it needs to actually be submitted to the SCTA for consideration. Otherwise it's just whining.   

I submitted a Rule change request the very last day that one was allowed in 2010 for the 2011 rule book. Since I did not have a great deal of time to go into specific details on what specifically should be changed, I recommended my suggestion go to the Roadster Committee for their input on what I thought was wrong with the class. This is the email I received back.

Thank you for your rule book change submission. This is the only confirmation email you will receive. You will be contacted by an SCTA representative shortly.
Thank you for being a part of the LSR community.

Name: Tom G.

Address: xxxxxxxxxxxxxx

City: xxxxxxxxxx

State:xxxxxxxx

Zip Code: xxxxxxxxx

Home Phone: xxxxxxxxxx

Email Address: xxxxxxxxxxxx

Cell Phone: 000-000-0000

SCTA Membership - SCTA: checked

Issue: Where is the Roadster? On some vehicles that run in the modified Roadster classes both front engine and rear engine classes, you cannot tell where and what the roadster body is. Any more all you can see is the sides of the body. The turttle decks you cannot even see with all the streamlining of the parachute packs, wing mounts, etc.

Rulebook Section: 5.B

Rulebook Page No: 50

Desired Outcome: To keep the vintage class bodies looking original, and not looking like lakesters.

Reason for Chg: Some of the newer Modified Roadsters both front and rear engined are looking more like Lakesters than Roadsters. When looking at some cars you cannot see some of the stock panels that are required to be there. This is not a Lakester class, but it is sure changing into one, when one is allowed to cover up stock panels for more aero packages.

Side Effects: Some roadster owners would have to change some panels on their cars. Some would have to change wing mounts etc.

Desired Rulebook Wording: I would like to see this problem brought up to the attention of the Roadster Committee for review. And for them to bring the classes back into line with wording they deem appropriate to keep  this a true vintage body class.


I was never contacted by an SCTA Rep to discuss my rule change. The phone number I submitted has an answer machine, and my email address is still good. I heard my suggestion offered a "brief comedic moment" at the rules meeting. Every rule change proposal ended up either saying "Passed, Denied, Withdrawn, Sent back to committee,  Recommended to Board, Recommended to Aero Committee, but mine was the only one that said No Solution.

So what did I learn from this experience? First, don't wait until the last minute to put in a rule change. Second, don't suggest what you are asking for consideration, to go back to a Car Class committee for review, since I was never contacted to discuss my point of view. Third, Be very specific on what exactly you want changed, and why. Forth, Be proactive and email, and call the head of your Car Class, to make sure they know and understand you point of view.

If this post only helps one person writing a rule change, I have accomplished at least something, and all my time was not a total waste.

Tom G.

[Bob Drury]

  Tom, check my post #172 on page 12.  I still feel this is the way it should be.               Bob

[jl222]

  Stainless...like the vague wording on helmet side supports ''from front edge of helmet. Is the measurement taken by placing helmet at back of seat or on driver sitting in car? Adds 1/2'' -1 1/2'' to measurement according to head position in my case.

              JL222

[dw230]

Another couple of good ideas.

Stainless, you and the others on this board go ahead and vet all the changes as to sentence structure, wording, impact, etc. I will hold the book until you are happy. I will tell the board tomorrow night that the rulebook is being held.

Tom, you figured out why there was no credence given your "suggestion". There was no suggestion, just a statement that someone else should take a look at the problem. As a matter of fact the roadster committee had passed around several change requests for consideration before the meeting. This was done more than once so that the change would be as easy as possible.

Thanks all,
DW

[saltfever]

I can think of other easier and much more effective ways of achieving your "goal" and those methods don't have anywhere near the negative fallout . . .

I'm always interested in a better way that fosters good communication and understanding. Even if it is not easier . . . a clear understanding will cost me less!    What are you suggesting, JR?

[saltfever]

Stainless, you and the others on this board go ahead and vet all the changes as to sentence structure, wording, impact, etc.
DW

I'm estatic! I thought I was just a lowly forum member and Dan has elevated me to board status. This is progressing nicely 

[SPARKY]

Mayor,  If you please,  hold up theirs if you like, but I would like to recieve mine as the Christmas gift that you have already given us by hustling it through the process.. thanks again!

[desotoman]

Tom, you figured out why there was no credence given your "suggestion". There was no suggestion, just a statement that someone else should take a look at the problem.

That is all fine and dandy. Maybe "You will be contacted by an SCTA representative shortly" should be taken out of the SCTA response. Would make for less hostility when they don't do what they say they will.

If there was "no suggestion" in what I sent in to SCTA, why was it even considered or put on the agenda to discuss.
It should have been returned to me saying insufficient information for a rule change request.

I thought the Roaster Committee was the source for all the Roadster complaints. So what better group could I have gone to for their opinion and their advise for correcting something that they know is out of control.

The good new out of all of this is that I was not the only one who thinks the Modified Roadster Classes are out of control, and we have some new rules that will go into effect in the new rule book, that address what my rule change was all about, even if it was labeled No Solution.

Tom G.  
 

[Bob Drury]

   Going back to what Dan said, I think the challange he made is fair:  Lets see if any of us can come up with better verbage for how to work with the rules to make them more concise and easy to understand to all of us.  Remember that the rules have been made.  
  The challenge is to make it so a newby can pick up the book and have  few if any questions after reading the rule.
  One problem we will face is the same one our rules committee faces with every proposed new rule, how do we make the rule broad enough to cover all the classes necessary and still simple to understand.
  My first suggestion would be more sketch's such as the current roll cage diagrams.  I think that a lot of us panic when we read terms such as "inclusive of structure deflection" out of our current rule book.
  That one three word phrase sums up what I feel is wrong with our rule book.
  I know a few lawyers who would have to stop and think if they read that.  
  "Make it simple"  needs to define our book.  It is well put together, just not understandable by the masses (dat be us).
   As far as amending the new rules (if possible), I suggest we spell out our concerns as to the new rules first, with a straight forward  statement on how our vehicle or class is affected.
  Then list how you feel the rule could be changed or modified while keeping in mind that the rule is not going to be recinded, it is here to stay.
  AS an example, either John or Troy Langlo made a suggestion that the head restraint rule say   something like " the rules commitee highly recomends the lateral head restraint continue to the forward plane of the drivers helmet".
  My suggestion would be to leave the current rule as stated, but add "except for where entrant can show tech inspectors that egress from the drivers compartment would be greatly hindered or not possible  in a reasonable amoujnt of time".
  Remember, the rules commitee is made up of racers, and should be adressed with the same dignity and respect that you would like to receive from them.
  We can make this thing better if we all show a little patience and respect for each other.
                                                                                            Bob Drury


'





'

[Stan Back]

Bitch, Bitch, Bitch.

Tom -- you've had some impact on the RMR Roadster rules.  Can't you read?  At least 35% of some of it should now resemble a roadster.  Of course, the 50% forward part doesn't have to.  And that's the way you wanted it all along, right?  So what if they look like pregnant lakesters?  So what if some of them look like the driver is turning the front axle with his feet?  You don't have one (do you)?  All's well that ends well.  Let's be more specific next time.  Like gas caps on Model A's.  Stuff like that.  You know, 20 years from now, there probably won't be anyone who can define a roadster (and, as you know, we can't even do it now).

NSP said not to post this late.

Stan Back

[jl222]

  If anyone has watched the NHRA pro-stock cars you might have noticed the retaining tabs for their lexan door windows  [their is usually a good shot after the burnout when they open the doors blowing the smoke out]
  These tabs mount on the inside roll bar which will further restrict exiting.
  The tabs are recommend by one of the manufactures to prevent blowout.

               JL222

[Bob Drury]

  John,  I think if it was me, I would make a template of the existing door glass curvature and bandsaw or lazer cut perimiter pieces out of half inch aluminum.  I would then tig weld that to a bottom mounting flange which is well gusseted and bolt it through the top of the inner door panel.  You might even run braces on down to the bottom of the inner door.
  Next, I would drill and tap that perimiter bar on about 2" centers.  I think I would also use fender washers between the bolt heads and lexan......................    Bob

[jl222]

Another couple of good ideas.

Stainless, you and the others on this board go ahead and vet all the changes as to sentence structure, wording, impact, etc. I will hold the book until you are happy. I will tell the board tomorrow night that the rulebook is being held.

Tom, you figured out why there was no credence given your "suggestion". There was no suggestion, just a statement that someone else should take a look at the problem. As a matter of fact the roadster committee had passed around several change requests for consideration before the meeting. This was done more than once so that the change would be as easy as possible.

Thanks all,
DW

  Dan I know this is more work for you than I can imagine, and I appreciate your efforts. I put in my rule change request on
 SCTA highly recommending hans type devices instead of requiring them and I can live with the new rule  and the lexan rule.
  I hope that the helmet support rule be put on hold for a year like the hans device [ remember that the devices were modified
after the date of my rule request]. There is going to be a lot of problems with smaller cars, the helmet support rule and room
getting in and out .
  I would recommend that the helmet support be what a Nascar seat would be [not sure but about  eye cutout in helmet]
 after all Nascar deals with a lot more crashes than we do and some involve being t-boned. That should be good enough for us.
  I have an idea this ruling was made after viewing the Danny Thompson video, but dang his seat belts were mounted to high which
allowed him to move foward -up and down more than normal and on top of that they were not as tight as they should have been.
  I hope you don't take these criticisms personally as I consider you one of my best SCTA friends and the wording part has got to be a real bitch.

                            JL222
  
                        

                              
 

[hitz]

I noticed that if I extend my side helmet support forward to where it is even with the front of the helmet, I will lose a good amount of peripheral vision. This may cause loss of spatial orientation. It also might impact on the eye shield. I ran my support to the edge of the eye hole on my helmet just for that reason. Maybe someone could take another look at that rule.

I appreciate all the work done on the rule book. The SCTA has got to be one of the best racing associations in the world. Thanks.

Harvey

[desotoman]

That is all fine and dandy. Maybe "You will be contacted by an SCTA representative shortly" should be taken out of the SCTA response. Would make for less hostility when they don't do what they say they will.

If there was "no suggestion" in what I sent in to SCTA, why was it even considered or put on the agenda to discuss.
It should have been returned to me saying insufficient information for a rule change request.

I thought the Roaster Committee was the source for all the Roadster complaints. So what better group could I have gone to for their opinion and their advise for correcting something that they know is out of control.

The good new out of all of this is that I was not the only one who thinks the Modified Roadster Classes are out of control, and we have some new rules that will go into effect in the new rule book, that address what my rule change was all about, even if it was labeled No Solution.

Tom G.  
 

Bitch, Bitch, Bitch.

Stan Back

Thanks Stan,

Your right, don't mean to sound huffy, so I will adjust my tone. If I have offended anyone personally I apologize, and am sorry, as this was not directed at any one person. I have been trying to modify my post but for some reason the edit or modify tab has disappeared. So once again, if I have offended anyone I apologize, as that was not my intent. My intent was to save someone from making the same mistake I did, and to point out things that need to be improved, or addressed in the organization.  

Tom G.