New Rules - Tech, Policing, and Scrutineers

[Brendan]

I'm with ya! Does Jimmy P realize that PC currently has a SRF, Dwarf, Mini Cup , S2000, Miata, etc... in it, how are these cars like an E30 M3?

Yes, he does. But those cars are closer to an E30 M3 than Corvettes are...

Pretty sure that Jimmy's main complaint is that Super C would likely split the PC E30 M3's across classes. I'm guessing some at power/weight, but Fred would probably be Super B and Jimmy Super C.

[paultg]

I strongly feel that the WHOLE membership be involved in ANY rules/class votes. How can we be sure that other members may not be considering entry into the "old" SP and P classes now or in the near future? Shouldn't they have a voice? and, who determines "the effected members"? It shouldn't matter if a member ran one event this year, or no events for the past few years, but the outcome of the vote of a small minority may effect their future plans to compete.
They are still sustaining members and may plan to run more events when circumstances allow. I believe the whole membership has a vote on all the rules/classes.

More important, in my estimation, is the subject of safety gear required for the new proposed classes. The proposal, based on points added to showroom base points, totally overlooks the safety factors that go along with the "modifications" allowed.

Sam, this came up before in another thread, and this was my response, I'll add it here as well:

So being a board member on my home association has now put me on both sides of the fence now, and we only have 150 owners. I'm going to have to disagree with you only because of the size of the club and the effort put forth for something like this is huge.

Whenever we ask for input at home; we get a handful of folks who actually evaluate it and care; a bunch of folks who couldn't give a rates ass and don't vote, and another handful of folks who just want to say no to anything the association has tried to do (in this case cause they are old and cranky), so it becomes a complete waste of everyone's time; and you eventually loose the members who are trying to actually help out cause they give up.

We elect board members because we are looking for them to make decisions for the club in the interest of members. If they are to ask permission every time a big decision comes up, nothing will ever get done.

Paul G.

To add this this; the board and folks who wrote this proposal up have gone above/beyond trying to communicate about it in my opinion. If there are still members with no knowledge of this proposal and are currently prepping cars for next year already, then what would their vote even be good for, they are way behind the curve on this already. It's not the job of the BOD to make sure every single member has a say and vote. End of story.

If you disagree then that is an entirely separate set of rules to re-write; on how the club communicates and functions, elects the BOD members, how long of a term they should carry out, these are all things to be consider. - Paul G.

[zchris]

John, as the President/caretaker of the club, you need to ask yourself will there be any member that leaves due to the new rules disenfranchising them. In any group. If the rules are left alone, nobody leaves as its status quo. The SCCA in its infinite wisdom just realigned the Touring classes. There are 13 T1 racers in California that have en mass left the SCCA and joined NASA, as NASA gave them a place to play unchanged. Well meaning members of that club just doing the "right thing". It always sounds so magnanomous when your changing things for the better. Until you look at the wreckage you've left behind. I'll get off my soapbox now.
Chris

[Georgethefierce]

I'm with ya! Does Jimmy P realize that PC currently has a SRF, Dwarf, Mini Cup , S2000, Miata, etc... in it, how are these cars like an E30 M3?

Yes, he does. But those cars are closer to an E30 M3 than Corvettes are...

Pretty sure that Jimmy's main complaint is that Super C would likely split the PC E30 M3's across classes. I'm guessing some at power/weight, but Fred would probably be Super B and Jimmy Super C.

I think that's the point....and an E30 being closer to a low horsepower purpose built race car than another production car doesn't make sense to me.

[paultg]

John, as the President/caretaker of the club, you need to ask yourself will there be any member that leaves due to the new rules disenfranchising them. In any group. If the rules are left alone, nobody leaves as its status quo. The SCCA in its infinite wisdom just realigned the Touring classes. There are 13 T1 racers in California that have en mass left the SCCA and joined NASA, as NASA gave them a place to play unchanged. Well meaning members of that club just doing the "right thing". It always sounds so magnanomous when your changing things for the better. Until you look at the wreckage you've left behind. I'll get off my soapbox now.
Chris

I guess I see this as less of a concern, but maybe that is because I'm a touring class guy. I can't think of another local club that puts on an event like COM, most don't even allow timing, let alone do a competition TT. I can certainly see the concern with SCCA because as you mention there are quite a few other racing clubs to play with. I don't think a huge amount of COM members would up and leave and go to a NASA or SCCA wheel to wheel event, isn't it a much more risky and $$$ option?

[dradernh]

I don't think a huge amount of COM members would up and leave and go to a NASA or SCCA wheel to wheel event, isn't it a much more risky and $$$ option?

NASA runs TTs using a classing system with rules very much like the proposed rules. The principal differences are that they run TTs during 20-minute sessions with everyone on the track at once, and the nearest franchise uses NJMP as its home track. That franchise's 2012 results can be seen here: http://www.nasa-tt.com/Northeast_Regional_Results. Since it's not W2W, there's no more risk and, like COM, the cost comes down to how much the owner is willing to spend to reach the limit of the rules. It's apples & oranges, though - I find that the flavor of a COM TT day is preferable to that of a NASA day.

[Brendan]

I'm with ya! Does Jimmy P realize that PC currently has a SRF, Dwarf, Mini Cup , S2000, Miata, etc... in it, how are these cars like an E30 M3?

Yes, he does. But those cars are closer to an E30 M3 than Corvettes are...

Pretty sure that Jimmy's main complaint is that Super C would likely split the PC E30 M3's across classes. I'm guessing some at power/weight, but Fred would probably be Super B and Jimmy Super C.

I think that's the point....and an E30 being closer to a low horsepower purpose built race car than another production car doesn't make sense to me.

We are talking about two E30 M3's that are in fact much closer to purpose built race cars than production cars (And in the grand scheme of things, both are relatively low HP). Neither of them is remotely any where near street legal. I think PC as-is makes a lot of sense, but I do think that goes out the window some for PB and PA because of wide power discrepancies due to forced induction.

[nateh]

I strongly feel that the WHOLE membership be involved in ANY rules/class votes.

I agree with this as well. The future of the Prepared classes should not be decided by current participants in those classes, but by all members - many of whom may be deterred from joining them by the current rules.

[iamrazor]

I can't really comment on 9 pages of posts, but I think we need to remember something:
Are the current rules perfect? no
Are the proposed rules perfect? no

People are reluctant to change, which I understand. It's human nature. Personally, I like the change and would vote in favor of them. If they don't pass, I'll still come back for the fun on track, the people I meet, and let's not forget, the BBQ!

[dradernh]

Are the current rules perfect? no
Are the proposed rules perfect? no

People are reluctant to change, which I understand. It's human nature. Personally, I like the change and would vote in favor of them. If they don't pass, I'll still come back for the fun on track, the people I meet, and let's not forget, the BBQ!

+1

I see my competition as whoever is running similar times, and right now they're sprinkled from SSx to PA. The new rules were going to pull them into or towards whatever class I would end up in, and I thought that was a good thing competition-wise for everyone. My only concern was the wide range of the Super classes, and that was alleviated somewhat by the recent addition of Super C.

[WillM]

I find that the flavor of a COM TT day is preferable to that of a NASA day.

We received an unsolicited email from a long-term member that attended a NASA event this summer. They absolutely hated the event, particularly the tech line(s) associated with classification. He begged us to not change our Prepared class, stating that he'll never attend a NASA event ever again.

That said, it has come to our attention that NASA has plans to increase their participation in the Northeast. Seems their TT events / results in the northeast are anemic at best, with less than 20 cars per event and on average, 2-4 cars per class. They are a for-profit business. I can only assume that they look at our results and see an opportunity to make some profit from our members.

Concerning on voting for the rules and who should have say in what, I think it goes without saying that we (the BoD) agree that our members voices need to be heard.

Personally, I put more weight on the opinions of members that are running the classes we're talking about. In other words, when looking at ST rules, I'm giving more weight to members that have been running in ST as opposed to members that have not.

I think of it like voting on town issues. The current citizens of the town are the ones that need to be heard, not the people that might move in someday.

[Tim Mahoney]

I'm one of those who got alerted to the proposed rules change via the survey. I'm also one who believes my competition (touring class) should be those who run similar lap times to me. The proposed rules seem to accomplish this better than the current ruleset. Am I going to:

A) See another survey
B) Get to vote
or
C) Wait for the BOD meeting results

What's the next step?

Thanks,

Tim

[C5toSM]

Please visit the link below to view the current schedule for development of the 2013 rules package. Your board has added an additional board meeting this Tuesday night that will focus on the proposed touring classes and safety. When the job is finished we will hold a member vote by E Ballot to allow members to ratify the package should they so choose. As always: member feedback is encouraged. See schedule for details:

http://comscc.org/rules/2013-proposal/

John Spain, COM President for
The COM Board of Directors