2012 SCTA Rules CHANGES

[maguromic]

Just a guess John, but it might be to stop the construction of tunnels.

Pete

I think Pete hit the nail on the head.  I think they don't want you energizing the bottom.  Tony

[Dynoroom]

Or it could be as simple as George doesn't have a rear deck......         And that is who purposed the rule.

[4-barrel Mike]

I was trying to visualize what the rule would look like. 

Maximum height 65", minimum above highest point of body 6".  

I'd say that it works well for that car, but is it workable for all in the class??

Mike

[dw230]

A problem with people who propose rules. They don't give a fig for you, its their ox.

This rule has been bantered about for a few years. George's stick-to-it-ness got it thru this year. As badly written as it is.

Once again, may I suggest you contact the authors with your concerns.

Hey - how about an Aerodynamic Committee? Volunteers?

DW

[Dynoroom]

My club (LSR) voted against this rule change, but as you can see.........  

[Stan Back]

"Hey - how about an Aerodynamic Committee? Volunteers?"

I thought I was the Head Stirer.

Stan

[Peter Jack]

Sometimes you have to scramble to stay on top Stan!

Pete

[Tman]

Maybe the Frances have some spare time to help with that Dan?

[Stainless1]

Every rule change that is not done for safety generally provides an advantage for a competitor and a disadvantage for another competitor. 

[grumm441]

Hey - how about an Aerodynamic Committee? Volunteers?

DW

Sounds good. I'm up for it, if we can have the meetings at my place
G

[Bob Drury]

  "Change is good", well yes sometimes it is, but not always.
 I applaud the SCTA rules and its rules committee for being forward thinking, especially when it comes to rules regarding safety.
 Some of you who know my history might want to dispute that statement, but in reality, I do not oppose rule change, only rule change when the fix hasn't been identified or been established.
 Keeping in mind that any SCTA club member can initiate a rule change which, for better or worse, can be greatly influenced through "good old boy" relationships, I still favor how the rules are and can be changed.
 The majority of voting club members, along with the appointed rules committee are amongst the most active and experienced members of our racing fraternity, and are out to try and keep our sport thriving, while keeping us safe at the same time.
 I don't pretend to know the what if's or what not's of the "wing rule", but as I posted on this site several months ago, "who better to make up a rule to make Comp Coupe safer than the entrants who race in that class".  God knows that if there is any class that needs help in safety, it is the comp coupe class.
 I am sure that as with any political discourse, most of the people affected were too  f--king lazy to offer any help with making the suggested new rule.
 The good thing about our rule process is that they can now kick the can, bitch about what is, and hopefully make the rule better.
                                                        Bob Drury

[Stan Back]

"Every rule change that is not done for safety generally provides an advantage for a competitor and a disadvantage for another competitor."

You've pretty well hit the nail on the head, Stainless.  That's probably why some rule changes lately have been phrased as safety changes.

Stan

[dw230]

Every year in the rules meeting ALL proposals are discussed. If a proposal is made that would benefit a single competitor(the proposer) and is clearly transparent that it would benefit that person only it is rejected right away so that we can move on.

DW

[Tman]

Or nullify another effort.......................................ahem, Saltcat. Just saying

[dw230]

Trent,

If the details were known that comment would have been unnecessary.

Contact the team if you must be 'in the know'

I sign - disappointed,
DW