Graham sent around a timeline of events. Here's a complaint that was sent to the 1:10th rep. Now, we know the rule is 2.4 and nothing can be done, but really, does anyone that has raced on the track agree with it any of it?
Quote:
I understand that the DMCC intends to hold round 1 of the championship on a track with 2.0 metre wide lanes, even though it was carried by a 2/3rds+ majority at the AGM that the new width would be a minimum of 2.4m.
As you and most quick racers know, 2.0 meters rules out overtaking without taking excessive risks – and when taken, and resulting in contact between cars, could be interpreted to be unsportman-like or bad driving – it’s just not sensible to make such a thin track.
It baffles me as to why the club would construct such a thin track, especially considering not only that it was built several months after the RCCAOI rulebook was updated, but also that it was the DMCC’s committee member charged with coordinating the track design whom made up part of the majority that carried the rule change! Bizarre.
Although I had intended to support all four rounds of the championship, I cannot commit to round 1 knowing that the DMCC has intentionally reneged on their agreement when applying to host the round. (I received one due to my association with RacewayOne). I assume that you received a signed copy by return of the agreement sent out to the DMCC earlier in the year in which the “Minimum Requirements” includes the new track width of 2.4m.
I don’t think it is wise to get the championship off to a compromised start like this – however if the track was to regulation, I’d be happy to participate.
It also isn’t fair to the clubs that considered the application form and decided that they could not make the minimum requirements and didn;t apply. How does it look if the first round doesn’t make these requirements?
In my experience, no 1/10th offroad national meeting has ever fully fulfilled the full scope of the rulebook – sometime no scrutiny, sometimes no results are posted, sometimes there is a marshal missing etc. - and I accept this, but at least these are all things that the race director can deal with on the day due to their unforeseen nature. But knowing that there is a problem a month before the meeting is a very different issue.
Perhaps you’d be good enough to let me know if the situation with the track gets resolved – I don’t intend to participate otherwise.
|
You are entitled to make a complaint of course, but we are also entitled to debate it if we feel it doesn't make any sense. The rule was brought in for areas of the track that are far from the rosterum. I don't think any of the above applies to the naul other than "rule states 2.4m, naul is 2m". A technicality. Also, the rule that was "voted in" seemed to be misunderstood by the people voting it in. It was a guideline, presumably because some track areas are big with parts of the track hard to see. There is no need to make entire tracks 2.4m.
Do fast drivers need the extra 30cm? I would have thought that the good drivers stick to the racing line, they don't need the track to be wider.