Rules for 2013

[modifiede30]

Can these newly proposed rules be viewed somewhere? All I can find is the forum discusson, and 2012 rules. Would be good if they could be reviewed so that those not running this year, but who will be running next year can evaluate their cars. I'm in the process of building up a car, and would like to avoid doing something that's going to push me up a class and if I know about that now it would save me some time and probably money.

[WillM]

The rules proposal is a work-in-progress and is undergoing constant development. There have been some meaningful changes to the "Touring" ruleset within the past few days. I believe Nick and crew are about to issue an updated document for our webmaster and registration site admin to post.

That said, the current proposal (in .docx format) can be viewed/downloaded at our registration website, here:

http://comscc.carclubreg.com/

Cheers,

Will

[nateh]

What Will said, plus: The BOD is very conscious that people are starting to plan and/or work toward next year, and we've set ourselves as short a schedule as possible to stabilize a proposal, and to finalize it early next year. Also, we plan to post several stages of revision along the way for everyone to review and comment on.

[modifiede30]

I created a tool that you can use to enter information into a spreadsheet and it'll tell you what final class you are in, based on all of the class rules. I followed the new rules in creating the various entry values, and it might help some people evaluate their cars if they're already on the list. If someone wants to post it, let me know and I'll send it along for someone official to evaluate if its accurate. I tried to load a copy but excel isn't allowed. Maybe someone with moderator status can take a look at it and put it up on the website for anyone interested in evaluating their current car.

Here's a link to the file:

http://teaguehome.net/documents/points-system.xlsx

[WillM]

ModifiedE30,

Nice job, and thank you for not only taking the time to build this, but for sharing it too!

That said, the rules proposal team created an 'official' classing spreadsheet and published it when the rules proposal was made public.

This should be on the registration website and downloadable by all members.

Updated versions of all of the documents will be released soon!

By the way, who are you? Just curious as these usernames are hard to keep track of.

[modifiede30]

Thanks for pointing out the one that was published. I saw the pdf document, but never saw they had done a tool so figured I'd start one. To be honest, it was easier to classify my car with it than trying to do it manually but its missing some things from what's been published. I sort of like mine better though - seems a little easier to use.

I'm Daniel Teague - haven't run a car in a few years. After I had kids, I had to take a break. Now that they're a little older, I'm itching to get back, and recently bought an M-Roadster I'll be prepping for next Spring. I was previously running an e30 I had built but the shock towers rusted and I had to part with it - that made the decision easy to stop for a while. Hopefully I'll see you at the track - I should have my car track ready soon.

Cheers.

[modifiede30]

So how do these new rules account for variations between a convertible and non-convertible version of the same car? It would seem while the loss of weight for the convertible would be offset by the loss of chassis rigidity - which would require assessment points to put them on equal ground all else being equal. Do the assessment points result in net zero effect, or does the convertible actually fair more poorly due to points for chassis rigidity assessments limiting what would otherwise be the same performance ehancements?

For example, if a convertible M-Roadster is compared to the M-Coupe, the calculated base points puts the roadster at the same base as the coupe, to which there is a 3.3 performance adjustment bringing the total to its listed showroom assessment of 62.6. For the convertible to have the same chassis rigidity it would almost always require some addition of non-factory bracing. This then puts the convertible at 63.6 whereas the coupe with the same power/weight ratio and otherwise identical performance specs starting 1 point lower. It seems it might make sense for convertibles which have a corresponding production coupe be listed with a point deduction in its performance adjustment figure.

I'm assuming with the list of cars this is going to occur at some point (corvettes, audis, bmws, mustangs). I'd hate to lose a point of modification flexibility to my competitor coupe of the same car.

[Chrispy]

Actually a lot of convertibles are actually heavier than their coupe counterparts due to additional factory bracing. It can be as much as 150lbs!

I think it is fair to think that convertibles should be classed on their individual specs, they are in essence a complete separate trim line.

Will have to see what the rule makers have to say.

[modifiede30]

Some though are very close in weight - but you're right, hopefully they'll account for some of this in the base assessment numbers but if the weights are the same or close, I suspect it won't be captured.

[brucesallen]

All convertibles require added roll bars and these can provide bracing. That will add weight and I don't think there is a "non-factory bracing" penalty.

[modifiede30]

I was assuming that anything that meets the below description would require acknowledgement even if it is associated with the roll-bar/cage structure. If the roll bar or cage ties together any shock tower, which would ordinarily be done to provide bracing, it would meet the below, no?

Non-Factory Trim bracing, including strut/shock tower brace, chassis brace(s) (e.g. X-brace or cross-bar), and engine bracing (not including motor and other drivetrain mounts)

I guess to some extent one could include a roll bar or cage that doesn't tie into shock/strut points, but if its not tied into the chassis anywhere, I'd start to question reliability. If it is indeed tied to the chassis anywhere, is it not "bracing"?

[WillM]

I was assuming that anything that meets the below description would require acknowledgement even if it is associated with the roll-bar/cage structure. If the roll bar or cage ties together any shock tower, which would ordinarily be done to provide bracing, it would meet the below, no?

No - I would consider that a freebie. The roll bar is the roll bar. You should not take any points for 'bracing', even if the roll bar ties together the parts you mentioned above.

[peterfontana]

> I was assuming that anything that meets the below description would require acknowledgement even if it is associated with the roll-bar/cage structure
I believe Will has it right. The roll cage does not also incur the Strut/Shock Tower Brace points. However, if in the design of your roll cage you tie into the rearward facing portion of your front strut towers (assume front engine), and also decide to triangulate the structure by tying the strut tower tops together, I would guess the most likely implementations of this design would necessitate a removable member between the strut towers, and now (in my opinion) you incur the Strut/Shock Tower Brace points. Maybe in the rear you can weld it all up solid so it really is part of the cage, and at this end you are not assessed anything extra - it's free.

[dinoracer]

As we've covered here, this "omnibus" rule book re-write is not a foregone conclusion, but a proposal that it's authors will be submitting as a rules change via the same process that changes to the current rule book are submitted- that is the "Rules change" form available on the main club website

In the mean time, the existing rule book is also open to other, less extensive changes. That is, if the big enchilada we've been hashing out in numerous places on the forum is not submitted, or is and it does not pass, then we've got a number of rules changes that have also been submitted to consider.

The current worksheet listing these proposed changes can be found here.

https://docs.google.com/open?id=0B4lyVo ... DNRVHA2Rzg

Please understand that the submissions on the document linked are available to be reviewed, and discussed, but they not open to revision until the original text, as submitted by it's author, is brought before the BOD at the rules meeting. At this meeting, each of these proposals is read, and must be "moved" to discussion and possible vote by at least 2 board members. If not moved, the proposal "fails" and we move on. If it should be moved, then discussion begins, and during the discussion revisions and amendments to the submission are considered. The original proposal may be voted on as it stands, or a revised version based on the discussions is offered for vote.

This is why we recommend that if you submit a proposal, and feel strongly about it, you come to the meeting TOMORROW NIGHT NOVEMBER 19 to sell it. It's much more likely to be moved if you're there to champion it.

[modifiede30]

Any updates on how the rules discussion went last night at the board meeting? I'd be interested in knowing if the new rules proposal is going to be in place for 2013.