PDA

View Full Version : Agm - Rule proposals and Agenda


MattW
21-09-2007, 06:19 PM
Rule proposals and Agenda are posted on the main BRCA site - discuss.

ashleyb4
21-09-2007, 09:36 PM
Im liking the one about the people who have been f1's and stop racing cant go any lower then f3. Means the proper can compete for the end of season finals.

A

CDS MODELS
21-09-2007, 09:47 PM
rule 16.3 change to marshalling should be interesting for the likes of mr boulter!

Lee
21-09-2007, 10:07 PM
Im liking the one about the people who have been f1's and stop racing cant go any lower then f3. Means the proper can compete for the end of season finals.

A

Ash you would still of had mark and nick at the F3`s, so your point isn`t valid

ashleyb4
21-09-2007, 10:24 PM
I know but for a "true" f5 to win the end of season finals would be very difficult but you are racing for the top f5 place really. Not for the win.

A

matdodd
21-09-2007, 10:47 PM
Stan was a true F5 as hes never had an F1!

ashleyb4
21-09-2007, 10:59 PM
Hasnt he wow stan is a true F5. Learn something new everyday.

A

_sleigh_
22-09-2007, 06:00 AM
rule 16.3 change to marshalling should be interesting for the likes of mr boulter!

Boulter will be alright, as he normally gets Bloomers/Benfield (or Brooke depending on the event) to cover for him.

It been proposed to stop those racers that never seem to marshall, and always get Dad to do the job.

losixxx
22-09-2007, 07:35 AM
think rule change 17.3 is a good idea at least if its published it may make others take notice and help with rule 17.13 change..

PTRU
23-09-2007, 07:38 PM
I think there are to many rule changes. to many restrictions and way to many penalties. being proposed.

we do not enforce or use the rules we have already so why add more

This is a sport we all do this for fun, most of the rules are all ready in place,
you will kill the fun if any more penalties come in to force.

Slight word changing can mean a completely different rule so read very carefully

Why not implement the rules we already have properly.

Be very careful and if you do not go to the AGM and vote you will only have your selfs to blame.

bert digler
23-09-2007, 07:56 PM
I think there are to many rule changes. to many restrictions and way to many penalties. being proposed.

we do not enforce or use the rules we have already so why add more

This is a sport we all do this for fun, most of the rules are all ready in place,
you will kill the fun if any more penalties come in to force.

Slight word changing can mean a completely different rule so read very carefully

Why not implement the rules we already have properly.

Be very careful and if you do not go to the AGM and vote you will only have your selfs to blame.
you might p*s* yourselves here but hopefully common sense will be applied to these rules at meetings;)

Lee
23-09-2007, 08:08 PM
you might p*s* yourselves here but hopefully common sense will be applied to these rules at meetings;)

No if you read rule 16.9 rev 4 in the onroad section it states "common sense is not permitted at any brca sanctioned event"

sorry mate:rolleyes:

super__dan
23-09-2007, 08:25 PM
I think most are sensibe.

15.32 is sensible but how to police it? Is it up to drivers to organise themselves in a line before going up to the rostrum, then after getting trannies getting their allotted place one by one take their place. This is reasonable except when time is tight and the previous final are slow getting off the rostrum I've had to rush onto the rostrum, grab tranny and try to get some of a lap in to check everything.

17.3 I defo agree with and seemingly didn't need to 2nd by Phil Sleigh in the end. I could not except last year that we couldn't find out if/what a driver had been penailsed with for a blatant break of the rules. Transparency is really important if everyone believes we are all treated fairly.

17.6 I agree with the sentiment of for defo. Where the offence warrents is sensible in the real world bit interpretation can lead to dissagreements, I hope it's passed or reworded so the sentiment stays.



Rule 21.4.1 Proposed Lee Martin 17.8.07
I struggle with this one, I can see what Lee means but think 15 is too few, 25 say is more reasonble IMHO


Rules Section 10 Proposed Lee Martin 17.8.07
But bearing in mind above, I simply don't understand why you've prompssed this one too Lee? Surely an F2 who hasn't finished in the top 15 (by previous proposal), but comes 5th at the F2 champs cannot be more deserving of an F1 license than someone who finishes 16th at the nationals. Lets bear in mind only 15 F1's would have excluded Truman and Cree in 2wd and Bradders and Woody in 4wd!!!!!!!

Ref numbers I wouldn't have agreed with this before this year but the numbers were so utterly crap this year I now do. This years numbers didn't stick properly and printing them randomly on the sheet was a right farce.

There concludes my thoughts, sorry fr boring you ;)

Northy
23-09-2007, 08:38 PM
I don't really see what is wrong with 40ish F1's. The 33 1/3% number was used as it was 40 of 120 drivers. When Nationals were full years (and years) ago no one ever thought 40 was too many. I agree it was when we only had 80ish drivers doing nationals, hence the % idea.

G

PaulRotheram
23-09-2007, 08:39 PM
lees idea was to reduce F1's to make the people who get the grade 'really' deserve it, and make f2 and f3 grades more meaningful.

super__dan
23-09-2007, 08:48 PM
lees idea was to reduce F1's to make the people who get the grade 'really' deserve it, and make f2 and f3 grades more meaningful.

I don't think it does that.

Paul Worsleys suggestion of investigating this idea fully is the best idea in my opinion, whether we have an interim year of say 25 F1's might be for the best?

Lee
23-09-2007, 08:51 PM
Is it wrong though to move the f1 grade out of 90% of peoples reach, dont forget this is still the top 40 people in the uk, at some nationals this year there could of been 150 people if we count the reserve lists. plus the regional championships so overall i dont think 40 is a bad spread.

Maybe have an F0 for the top 10 if they really want to feel special, but surely the euro`s is for them?

_sleigh_
23-09-2007, 10:16 PM
Maybe have an F0 for the top 10 if they really want to feel special, but surely the euro`s is for them?

Hmm.. People wishing to feel special, should go ask there parents for a hug now and again. :D

Lee Martin
24-09-2007, 07:32 AM
OK, think as you will....my theories do work although even i have gone off the idea of top 5 at F2's etc...

as for F1's......why do you really want a ~F1???

is it to make you feel special? i think so.....is it so you can say your F1....cause thats the only real reason????

The limited numbers of F1's will see other end of season finals dramatically increase...

The F2's can run on its own again to good effect, not just 5 heats....

im trying to make racing better for the future of the hobbie....i dnt care what formula people are, i want more people to race and help there local clubs..as im sure more F1s' would attend regionals if they were F2, as it would mean something....

slap me if im wrong here....but something needs to be done in order to help the clubs. these are the foundations of racing......

40 F1's is too much! only 120 drivers racing....maybe 15 is too small an amount..but im trying to highlight a problem here.

Lee

trekkerkk
24-09-2007, 09:43 AM
well said pidge,
we need to increase non national racing,
clubs regionals they all need more support,

trekkker

Lee Martin
24-09-2007, 10:00 AM
exactly

least someone cares trekkker!

lol

i kno i havent had many book into my winter series yet! may cancel first meet.....

Northy
24-09-2007, 12:11 PM
But is it due to the number of each licence grade really? :confused:

Last year, by the time I had all Nationals and Regionals on my calander I had very little time for any club meetings if I wanted a life outside of racing also. Isn't that the problem?

G

bigred5765
24-09-2007, 01:00 PM
the only real fair way i can see of doing this, is to take the total number of drivers that have competed in 4 or more events and split it 5 ways,IE 150 drivers 30 x f1 30 x f2 etc
and may be drop regional drivers to f3 max only,

strobe
24-09-2007, 03:31 PM
I thought i might bring this old chesnut up. Kiddy tyres.
(sorry if this is in the wrong thread)
Are racers happy with this years choice or will they be happy going back to Ballistic Mini-Pins like previous years.
Who actually decides what tyres are used at national events.

WHITTLER555
24-09-2007, 04:38 PM
Talking about old chesnuts:
Rule 3.7 Proposed: Paul Worsley 05.09.07.
Amend to read: - ‘Commercially available’ – Where the term commercially available appears in BRCA documentation in regard to racing equipment allowed in 1/10th. Off-Road sanctioned events, it is defined as any item or items being accessible for purchase by anyone and therefore must be or have been available in UK retail outlets in reasonable volume at any one time.
(Rationale: - The section needs to be covered when items are temporarily not available or items have been discontinued but still used).

Does this mean that the one off cars where home made bits are put on and cars that are in development like the Aero, X11 etc are banned until I can buy it in a UK model shop?

I go on about this every year!!:D

New Rule 15.32 Proposed John Spencer 17.8.07
Driver’s rostrum positions for “A” and all other finals to be decided by qualifying position (pole first choice to 10th last choice). (Reason: It is not fair for the driver in pole position to lose his preferred rostrum space as he has most to lose in the final).

Love it, how many times do you find yourself at the opposite end of the rostrum in the final even though you qualify on pole!

losixxx
24-09-2007, 04:48 PM
other way to look at it is if you want a prefered space get to the rostrum steps first to make sure your first up! thats what i do..

think the only mention of commercially available is to do with tyres not cars themselves!

Stu
24-09-2007, 04:58 PM
New Rule 15.32 Proposed John Spencer 17.8.07
Driver’s rostrum positions for “A” and all other finals to be decided by qualifying position (pole first choice to 10th last choice). (Reason: It is not fair for the driver in pole position to lose his preferred rostrum space as he has most to lose in the final).

Love it, how many times do you find yourself at the opposite end of the rostrum in the final even though you qualify on pole!

It would be great, the only way it could not be a good idea is if no-one comes forward to police it. Maybe the referee team will do it?

_sleigh_
24-09-2007, 05:07 PM
I thought i might bring this old chesnut up. Kiddy tyres.
(sorry if this is in the wrong thread)
Are racers happy with this years choice or will they be happy going back to Ballistic Mini-Pins like previous years.
Who actually decides what tyres are used at national events.


The host clubs nominate two tyre choices with the help and guidence of the National Committee.

_sleigh_
24-09-2007, 05:10 PM
Talking about old chesnuts:
Rule 3.7 Proposed: Paul Worsley 05.09.07.
Amend to read: - ‘Commercially available’ – Where the term commercially available appears in BRCA documentation in regard to racing equipment allowed in 1/10th. Off-Road sanctioned events, it is defined as any item or items being accessible for purchase by anyone and therefore must be or have been available in UK retail outlets in reasonable volume at any one time.
(Rationale: - The section needs to be covered when items are temporarily not available or items have been discontinued but still used).

Does this mean that the one off cars where home made bits are put on and cars that are in development like the Aero, X11 etc are banned until I can buy it in a UK model shop?

I go on about this every year!!:D

The "Commercially Available" tag is only for specific rules, and not as a broad-brush across the whole rule book. I can only think of a couple of times it's used... Tyres, Cells & Motors.

Northy
24-09-2007, 05:22 PM
Talking about old chesnuts:
Rule 3.7 Proposed: Paul Worsley 05.09.07.
Amend to read: - ‘Commercially available’ – Where the term commercially available appears in BRCA documentation in regard to racing equipment allowed in 1/10th. Off-Road sanctioned events, it is defined as any item or items being accessible for purchase by anyone and therefore must be or have been available in UK retail outlets in reasonable volume at any one time.
(Rationale: - The section needs to be covered when items are temporarily not available or items have been discontinued but still used).



And what on earth is a "reasonable volume"? I think this is a little vague tbh.

G

WHITTLER555
24-09-2007, 08:24 PM
It says " in regard to racing equipment". As your car is one of the main components of racing equipment I would say that it is covered under this rule proposal.

Otherwise we need a very specific list that could be arguably taken down to the nth degree.

Either say tyres, cells etc or let it be a free for all.

The prototype cars is a sticky subject, cars need to be developed for the benefit of all racers, however, lets say someone came up with the most efficient drive train on a car which made it quicker or techno shocks which soak each bump up perfectly.

If this was only available on one car which is not commercially available then I would think it was an unfair advantage, because I can't buy it.

I am just playing devils advocate, this discussion happens every year!

WHITTLER555
24-09-2007, 08:29 PM
Just going back to Rallying, but maybe the manifacturers should ensure at least 10 cars are available, a bit like the old homologation rules for Group B rally cars.


or maybe not HA!HA!:D

Stu
24-09-2007, 08:33 PM
I know where you are coming from, why do tyres, motors & cells need to be 'type-homologated' and not the cars?

The line needs to be drawn somewhere, I personally I think it's about right where it is currently, but it does always make good discussion.

Stu
24-09-2007, 08:38 PM
Just going back to Rallying, but maybe the manifacturers should ensure at least 10 cars are available, a bit like the old homologation rules for Group B rally cars.


or maybe not HA!HA!:D

Intersting idea. Is it about money?

E.G, If Pidge had not done well with the Aero this year and pre-orders for the car had not been made they would probably not had the funds/confidence to make a mould for the car. Exposing the prototype was needed. It's different for bid names like AE, granted, but again it's a part of their marketing strategy, just for other reasons.

Sorry dude, just playing anti-devils advovcate.

DaveG28
24-09-2007, 10:49 PM
To be honest I think its difficult to have this rule. I can easily have a car (such as the 501x) shipped from abroad, anyone with a credit card can, but I have never seen it available "in the United Kingdom". Same for many parts. I'd be more in favour of "commercially available either in the UK or to be delivered to the UK".

WHITTLER555
25-09-2007, 04:27 PM
E.G, If Pidge had not done well with the Aero this year and pre-orders for the car had not been made they would probably not had the funds/confidence to make a mould for the car. Exposing the prototype was needed. It's different for bid names like AE, granted, but again it's a part of their marketing strategy, just for other reasons.

Sorry dude, just playing anti-devils advovcate.

Well I did not really want to mention that car too much and no disrespect at all to Lee, he drove really well this year BUT, would it be fair to say he would've done as well with a Losi XX4?

Would I have been an F1 this year if I had an Aero to race? (probably not!):D
Did that car have a unique performance advantage?

We will never know, it is a catch 22 situation, development of new cars is needed to progress the sport BUT if a ONE OFF, not commercially available, has such an advantage and lets say it was mine and I won next years championship then I would think my peers would want that car and question how I did it.

Again NO DISRESPECT TO ANYONE, just proposing a possible point of view.
I don't mind the prototypes but racing fully commercially available cars would be fairer because there would be no excuses to give if your peers have equipment everyone could buy.

Playing devils, devils, anti, anti advocate!:D

Chris Doughty
26-09-2007, 07:28 AM
what happens when someone dremels a part to get more clearance? does it become a prototype?

Nick Goodall
26-09-2007, 08:20 AM
Rule 21.1 Proposed: Paul Worsley 05.09.07.
Add: - Drivers that have achieved a top fifteen place in the overall Off-Road National Series since 1990 will not be demoted lower than F3.
(Rationale: - Stops top drivers retuning from the past and collecting F4/F5 trophies).

:D:D:D

This makes me chuckle really...... i obviously got Paul's back-up by having another go at racing :)

I would happily honestly give the trophy away to anyone that feels they truely deserve it, i had fun winning trophies years ago and i can say hand on heart the last reason i entered the F2's / F3's was in the hope i might "Collect" a Trophy.

I only just started having another go this year and obviously it was too late to enter Nationals, so the only way for me to do any sort of competitive racing was by doing the above events.........

I didn't really think about people getting upset by it and to be honest surely the sport moves on a fair amount in 6 years (in my case) and even more so for F1's that were racing in 1990 for instance.

Also as pointed out you will always get the odd person like Stan who hasn't been an F1 and will be able to turn up and race anyway so what difference does it really make?

I just found that with Regionals being so poorly attended at least i got to do some proper racing at the F2's and F3's.

spenner
26-09-2007, 09:24 AM
To be honest i didn't hear anyone moan about you or Stan soing the end of season finals!!!

I think it is a good idea though with not going any lower than F3, just thinking about the likes of Drescher who have been away racing snoring cars and can't get in Nationals!!

We want to see the best of the best, that includes you Nick !!
Just need to put little bit more time in 'like 6 weekends a year!!!'

Speaking of which Mr Goodall how are things looking for your rides for next year ??

PM Me if you got nothing sorted...

Nick Goodall
26-09-2007, 10:01 AM
Maybe they could allow Ex-F1's to race, but to then be excluded from the final positions or something.... too late now to worry about and i expect the rule will be approved so i'll just have to see!

At least i would still get to do the F2's next year, but due to getting Married i don't think i can do Nat's in 2008 either so was hoping to do all of our Regionals and CML meetings, then the EOS Finals again just to get more practise in, then i could hopefully have a proper bash in 2009!

super__dan
26-09-2007, 11:29 AM
To be fair, I can see why someone might think that ex F1's shouldn't do them. This is in no way saying anything about whether you should or shouldn't have raced Nick, I'm just saying I can see where someone who would say then is coming from.

However Stan is completely different, he's just become really good and this is the first year he's chosen to do nationals and EOS finals to show it, it's completely differenent. Now he's proved he's good enough and got his F1 so he can't do them again, this is how the new rules work.

losixxx
27-09-2007, 10:50 PM
Amend to read: - At all National format events outdoors, tracks will be a minimum of 3 meters wide and 130 meters in length.
(Rationale: - the current minimum length of 100 meters is possibly OK for indoor events, but would result in lap times being too low at outdoor events).

wonder if this rule change will have any implications for applications?

ashleyb4
27-09-2007, 11:00 PM
I would like to see the rule changed about the width of the track trying to design a track that is technical and nice to drive hat is 3 meters wide is really really hard to do.

A

Chris Doughty
27-09-2007, 11:06 PM
I would like to see the rule changed about the width of the track trying to design a track that is technical and nice to drive hat is 3 meters wide is really really hard to do.

A

I think your too late to add to that list ash

ashleyb4
27-09-2007, 11:11 PM
Yup i know that chris i always think of stuff after its to late:(. I think it would be good to have say the first and second corner at least 3 meters wide for the mad dash into the first corner in finals. But i think it would posibly be better it it was 2.5 - 2.8 meters as just that extra 20 cm would push that corner in and make the track that little bit more tight and challenging.

A

Chris Doughty
28-09-2007, 07:17 AM
so you think Kiddy, Bury Metro and Southport are not challenging? Stotfold - that place is hard...

they all seem to be find with the 3m rule??

you can submit a rule now, but I believe it will only be a topic for discussion, the rule can't be passed but it can be talked about.

tyreman
28-09-2007, 06:19 PM
I would like to see the rule changed about the width of the track trying to design a track that is technical and nice to drive hat is 3 meters wide is really really hard to do.

A

Ashley I made the track 4m wide at some points at Coventry and you still went off:rolleyes: don't make it any harder for yourself than it already is.;)

ashleyb4
28-09-2007, 07:01 PM
No i prefer a tight track because that means i can run my 19 in my 2wd and i can drive so much better with that in but when there is such a long straight i loose so much time its mad. But if the corners are reallt tight i can carry alot of my speed into th corner meannig less braking and less acelerating meaning more smooth driving. And hopefully less crashing.

A

Chris Doughty
28-09-2007, 07:20 PM
so what you are saying is that you want all national tracks to be just like your preferance?

David Church
28-09-2007, 07:33 PM
No, can you make all the National tracks the kind where I go good on?????

Oh wait, i dont go good anywhere, hahahahahahahha

losixxx
05-10-2007, 10:12 PM
so who's actually going to attend the AGM and get a vote?