Draft Regs for discussion

[Annatastic]

Afternoon all,

Please have a read of the proposed 2005 Series Regs below.

These regs are in final draft form, so the content is a reasonable representation of what to expect.

However, the Clubman 'cut-off' point is yet to be finalised and is therefore TBA in this version, as is the co-efficient list.

Rest assured, we're really close to having this completely decided, but as the Committee realises there will probably be much discussion of the co-eff and cut-off points, we'd like to get feedback on the remaining content of the regs now. Any major concerns that do not revolve around the 'missing' pieces of the regs should be raised in this thread for Committee discussion.

The Committee will be meeting tomorrow evening to finalise the cut-off and co-eff list and discuss any concerns that you may raise in this thread.

Thanks,

2005 Series Committee

[tortfeaser]

Sometimes people think more words mean added precision. This isn't necessarily the case. Here's a few examples:

2. (d) - weather is force majeur. Also, it would be possible to can an event without a result after more than 50% of stage distance has been run - does the ACT series propose to issue results for that event apart from the organiser?

3. (b) - copy thereof. Mon Dieu. 'However, Novice...' sentence is redundant.

4. (c) - there's no appeal process anywhere else in the conditions, why would there be one for category eligibility?

5. (b) - 'offending vehicle' - redundant and stupid.

6. (a) to (d) - why say general requirements? Adds wiggle room. PRC includes FIA Group A.

4. (g) (v) - obtain and forward. Its hard to forward something you haven't obtained. Also, no requirement to forward a correctly completed form - should I send a blank one? 4. (g) (i) doesn't require presentation of proof within a certain period. All this stuff could be rewritten much more succintly and clearly.

8. (b) - "subsequent to" or even just following.

8. (j) - how exactly does this clause relate to 8.(b)?

Also:

1. - It's debateable whether having a series sponsor is fundamental to the success of a series.

6. (b) - you can have 2WD N4 vehicles. This clause would prevent that.

4. (d) - does best scoring round include rounds where points were scored as an official?

4. (e) - When do you nominate a category as a codriver? You register for one, but there's no nomination process. Also, why does the driver have to register when drivers can score points with a non-registered codriver? Why not say that drivers have to appear on the coefficient list to determine relevant category if they were registered for the codriver to score points.

5. (d) should specify the range of actions that the committee may require in order to determine the value of registering for the series.


And people think Public Servants are the sole purveyors of bad language.

[Spac]

Not a comprehensive reply, but here are the simpler ones.

2d. Force Majeur can also include earth-quakes, bush-fires, war (I assume), and so on. We use the wanky word for the same reason as CAMS do - it's needed (in this case).

3d. Yes, it is redundant, but people are stupid. The more things are spelt out, the less confusion there is...
Given that the harshest criticism so far is "redundant", it will stay!

5b. Technically yes, but once again, this is about spelling things out very carefully to the people who wish to play the loop-hole game ("Well, maybe we didn't have stickers, but who says it's us that will have to lose our points??"). You might think that's an unrealistic scenario, but you'd be wrong! /

6 (a)-(b) PRC doesn't totally include Gp-A (ref: Waggy's fuel lines a couple of years ago). If anything, the real argument should be whether Gp-A is allowable, seeing as most supp regs won't allow Gp-A (beyond the obvious bit where Gp-A mostly is the same as PRC).Shooting from the hip here, I reckon we could probably get away with removing the reference to Gp-A entirely.

4g(v) - If you're so stupid as to send a blank form, we don't want you to register! (PS: Yes, I am being frivilous, don't bother jumping down my throat!). This sounds very Monty Python or something...

8(b) - Whatever. You say tom-ate-oh, I say tom-art-oh.

8(j) - Again, whatever. You change your team, you get no award. And if that doesn't learn ya good and proper, then nuthin' will!
Seriously, if you want to be considered for the Teams Category, then you don't change your team during the year.
But nobody is going to get an award anyhow, so why do you care?


Also:

1. Given the way things are currently working,
I'll say that a sponsor is essential - without one the series would find it very difficult to get moving each year. Sure a loan or a donation could probably be obtained - but I'd be calling that sponsor-ship!

6(b) - yeah, you can. Never thought of that. Never seen or heard of anyone owning or thinking about owning one though.
Can you give me a list of N4 2WDs?

4(d). Yep, same as always.

4e.

When do you nominate a category as a codriver? You register for one, but there's no nomination process.

Sorry, you've lost me on this subtelty. Or are you simply playing the phonetics game?

Also, why does the driver have to register when drivers can score points with a non-registered codriver?

Because you used to (and I'm talking about several years ago, not 2004) be able to score points as a nav with a non-registered driver, and that caused a world of pain WRT deciding whether a driver would have been eligible for (say) Clubman points (and therefore if their co-driver would be eligible for CM Co-D points), particularly seeing as it would often be a decision made at the finish venue after people had beers in them...
This was an attempt to close the loop hole with the minimum of pain, nothing more or less.

Why not say that drivers have to appear on the coefficient list to determine relevant category if they were registered for the codriver to score points.

That could work for CM, but wouldn't for Novice.
The idea was to make as many registered people eligible for points at any round without wading into the murky depths of hypotheticals... ("IF he was registered for Novice...").

As to bad language, well, yeah - they've evolved and have been tweaked by different people at different times, and probably are due for a re-write... At least the intent is clear, unlike the CAMS Manual...

[Spac]

You're right KW, that was very disturbing... Esp WRT 8(b)...


As for 8(j) and how it relates to 7(b), this simply means that we COULD make an award for the Teams if we felt like it. But if we don't feel like it, then we have no obligation to do so.
Simple, really.

As an aside, there a bigger potential loop-holes than you realise - look at 7(a), which says that the prize pool must be divided in a certain way - if we dipped into the prize pool for other awards, we'd be acting contary to clause 7(a), and risking, ah, I dunno, flameage or something...

[tortfeaser]

Holy crap indeed

Sure, I was being picky, its an opportunity to fix stuff.

2.(d) 'weather' is redundant not 'force majeur'. Etc means nothing. I go on with this one 'cos you could end up in a situation where the event was cancelled and official event results not issued, but still the event would count for the ACT series by the 50% thing.

Sorry, 4.(d) on the appeals thing, not 4.(c)

6.(a) to (d) - general in the CAMS manual refers to Schedule R - General Requirements for all Rally Cars - something specific. General = specific in that case.

On the drivers-registered-so-codrivers-score-points, the coefficient thing was to ensure you could put someone in the right category. I take Spac's point about Novice though. Maybe novice codriver should have the same limitations as driver - (although I won in 2003, I don't think I would have exceeded the 6/4 thing). As to conning Brad Goldsborough into giving you a run to guarantee the championship - how's that different to paying for a season with a front runner?

[tortfeaser]

2WD N4 - Alfa 164 3.0l, is the Volvo S60 2WD? BMW E46 320

[Spac]

I think you've made the point yourself there - if someone who is a crap nav managed to con Brad G into running for the year, so said crap nav could win something, that "team" would only be eligible for GC points - so Mr Crap Nav would not be able to score any points for Novice, Clubman or Silver Cup.
Which would be what should happen in this case, surely?

Edit because I was making assumptions: In the above case, Brad would have to be ACT registered (and is eligible for only one category - Gold Cup), so the Nav would be only able to score GC points.



The real question is: What is a Novice Co-driver?
1. Is it the co-driver who sits next to a novice driver?
2. Or is it a novice co-driver who sits next to any driver?
3. Or is it a novice co-driver who sits next to a novice co-driver?

Option #2 is basically unworkable, and nobody really cares anyhow (sorry, but it's true - if I wrangled a season's ride with KW, would anyone care that I'm a 'novice' navigator?).

Option #3 is the theoretical ideal, but how often can you get a crew of true novices? Most novice navs want to go for a ride with someone with some experience, and most novice drivers want a nav with some experience...
Add in the potential safety issues, and the bit where it is considered a good thing if an experienced nav can get into a car with a novice driver, option #1 becomes the only option.

The bit where it's damn difficult to work out what events a nav has done, is just another nail in the coffins of options #2 and #3.

[Spac]

Alfa 164 must be out of homolgation by now (even Australian extra long life homologation)?
If you can keep a FWD S60 on the road, then you've got GC ability anyhow...

[Kagan]

Add in the potential safety issues, and the bit where it is considered a good thing if an experienced nav can get into a car with a novice driver

Something I have never worked out... Can someone please explain the safety concerns when both crew members are novice. I fail to see it, there have been/are novice crews out there and I don't think they are any more at risk than anyone else.

[Spac]

You weren't at Caltex 2001 (or was it 2002?), Kagan? Remember the black Liberty?

I used the word 'potential' for a reason, BTW.

Look, it's not a big deal, but I feel much more comfortable if a novice driver does his/her first event with a experienced nav.

Hey, I did my first event with an even less experienced nav, but if my significant other* or (god forbid) child was about to do her/his first event, I'd make sure their nav had some previos experience.

*She has, and I did!

[mattj]

When I did my first rally it was with a more experienced driver, and it definatley made a difference, especially for mum and dad!, but it also gave me a chance to fully “acclimatise” myself to navving I guess without as much worry of what could happen, had my driver been a novice as well.

Also with the draft regs is it possible to use the registration forms for the series off these regs? Or should I just wait for the final ones to come out? Stupid question I know but I haven’t entered a series before and wasn’t sure of which way to go.

[tortfeaser]

Wouldn't Tams have been a novice with Rallyboy? Look how that one turned out.

[Kagan]

Black Liberty? Not if it was 2001 I wasn't there, what happened???

I understand the use of the word potential, however we all have Potenstial safety concerns every time we rally, I just don't see how it is enhanced so much with novices that the idea of a true novice team would be discouraged*

*Not saying that the regs discourage it, it just appears to be a club thing to discourage it which I can't quite understand. (in our first year I won Novice Navigator, this was when there was not an award for it at all, however you could score points in the series. When Dad asked why after competeing in a series all year it was not reconised at the end, he was told it was a way to discourage Novice Nav's and drivers being together in the car) I just don't see why we would activley, or inactivley discourage this.

[Kagan]

Tort

That was an extreme case where someone OBVIOUSLY had some CRONIC brain fade!!!!! I don't think any nav could have stopped his attempt to get that 180B into orbit!!!

[Shorty]

Hhmm..

My first event as a competitor was Back in the Black.

My drivers first event as a competitor was Back in the Black.

Did we finish? WITH FLYING COLOURS.

I understand where you are going but for some of us the combination of novice driver and novice co-driver has worked quite well. Especially over the past couple of years!


Anyway, back to the topic.