AROCA Vic Competition Rules for 2009

[Brad M]

Attached are the updated Competition Rules for 2009, they will be ratified at the August Club Night.

The rules were updated through the Competition Sub-committee evaluating and discussing submissions from members.

** Document removed, due to a small formatting error (Appendices was to read Associate Class). **

[Brad M]

Attached are the Competition Rules minus the small formatting issue around Associate Class (not that important, but resolved).

[Brad M]

A comment in another post prompted my memory...
There was some conjecture amongst the sub-committee that the wording around the minimum entrant rule was not clear. The following was the agreed wording to best reflect the intention of the sub-committee.

From GENERAL INFORMATION
"3. Three (3) competitors (a current AROCA(Vic) member) are required to award a trophy for first place for the class at an event. Likewise three (3) competitors are required to have competed at an event during the year where another competitor was also competing in the same class, to award an annual trophy for first place for the class."

This translates to 3 competitors are to have participated over the year at the same or different event/s to award the annual trophy (plus at one of the events there was to have been competition, ie another competitor in the class). Points are always awarded regardless of the number of participants at individual events, it is just that a trophy may not be if the minimum is not met.

[Brad M]

As specified in the updated Competition Rules for this year, entrants are required to fill in a declaration at start of the competition year. The declaration form is attached and will also be available at Winton for check-in, general rule is if you think you are running in Standard, Modified or Group S fill in the form.

[jimnielsen]

These rules are the worst that we have had so far, and are biased capriciously against the more modified vehicle. Its also simply a joke that in 'modified class' only standard non-modified turbo's are allowed, however they car still has a bias of 1.7x engine capacity. Has anybody looked at the possible range of cars this actually could involve? Its simply ridiculous that any Alfa with series 45 tyres has to be in racing class (with the exception of a very few that were standard with 45's) - so anyone who moves to 17" wheels on  (say) a 116 type Alfa and then uses 45 aspect ratio tyres to keep the rolling diameter similar will have to be in racing class. In effect, in Modified class you can swap a twinspark engine into a 105 - but you can't put 45 series tyres on a 105 with a standard engine and still be in modified class. What we needed was less classes with more competitors in each, not fewer classes with less competitors in each.

[Brad M]

Interesting point of view there.

What we needed was less classes with more competitors in each, not fewer classes with less competitors in each.

Your point on tyres is that the old rules allowed a minimum of 50 profile in Base Modified yet was free in Super Modified, new rules are the minimum is 50 in Modified to achieve less classes. More classes according to capacity are provided for (but not all likely to be used) in an effort to not require another meeting should someone want to run a 1300 GTJ against other like minded folks.

From the rules "105/115 and 116 series are interchangeable to original configuration" means you can swap the engine without constituting a modification, a Twin spark in a 105 isn't original configuration to my knowledge ... I stand to be corrected though.

Such posts are not in the greater interest of the club, should anyone want rules looked at you are welcome to submit a proposal to the competition sub-committee (as stated in the rules).

The following in a link where the minutes can be found, and any of those in attendance will agree that the rules were the consensus decided at the meeting.
http://www.alfaclubvic.org.au/component/option,com_smf/Itemid,68/topic,1435.0/

[jimnielsen]

Well, I disagree that "such posts are not in the greater interests of the club". You have no right to attempt to censor my views.

[Thmpar]

As a dumb ass mechanic and tyre fitter.I have to agree with Jim, how can tyre profile and or size be seen as a class requirment.
if i want to achieve the same rolling diameter as a 235-45-17 i will just fit 205-65-15.
or 225-60-15 they are all within 3 mm of each other.
What perciveable advantage can be seen through a lower profile.The only way to take advantage of such thing is to use r spec tyres
but there is also plenty of them available for road use aswell so that can also be argued on those grounds.

[Eddy Bidese]

At the time the draft rules were distributed for discussion I commented that the aspect ratio parameter was not a good idea, and I think Jim commented similarly at the time. I use only 16 inch rims and need to us 45 ratio to get the rolling diameter and guard clearance needed in my 116 GTV6 . Unfortunately i was not able to attend the ratification meeting and this unfortunate rule got up. If it could be replaced can someone tell us how and when?

[Eddy Bidese]

In further reading of today's posts please treat my comments on the removal of aspect ratio as a determinant , as a submission to the relevant committee for resolution as soon as possible. Thanks

[Sheldon McIntosh]

Its also simply a joke that in 'modified class' only standard non-modified turbo's are allowed, however they car still has a bias of 1.7x engine capacity. Has anybody looked at the possible range of cars this actually could involve?

Could you explain your reasoning here?

By my reading of the rules you can still change engine internals/engine management etc, but must retain the standard turbocharger.  Surely you're still getting a benefit over a non-turbocharged car?  If you fit a larger turbocharger how is that different to someone fitting a turbo to a naturally aspirated car?

That's my reading of it anyway.

[jimnielsen]

I think it makes sense to add a capacity penalty to forced induction cars - various groups have been doing it for ages. What I don't think is sensible is to put the multiplier at 1.7. In standard class, the cars involved hardly have any power to weight advantage over their non forced induction counterparts, but we are essentially creating a new class for them to run by themselves (if they were actually competing) along I guess with GTA's and Breras...The same in modified class, we have essentially have sequestered these cars into a group by themselves. In terms of modification, I agree that all of the 'mods' are still open to these cars and that an appropriate penalty is required, but 1.7x is too much. In racing class I don't actually think that we should have capacity groups or turbo multiplier limits. I had no problem beating all comers in my 2L giulietta, and Alan Goodall has no problem in beating my turbo 155 in his non-turbo 75.

cheers~jim

[Sheldon McIntosh]

So basically what you're saying is, now that you've got a turbo, these rules are no good because they don't suit you?

For what it's worth I suggested a penalty of 1.4 when this issue was discussed (that's what I remember the penalty always being), but was assured 1.7 was a pretty universal ratio.

I do agree with you about the aspect ratio though.  In Standard Class, you can put on any shocks you want, but you can't have any profile tyre?  Seems a little inconsistent.

[Evan Bottcher]

Hey Jim,

How come you're raising this a couple of days before the first event?  The comp sub-committee meeting was ages ago, then draft rules were posted here for comment, they were voted on at a club meeting, there's been plenty of time for this to be argued about.  I'm not saying your wrong or right, I'm just a bit disappointed in the 'tone' of your posts - not very respectful to the folk who give up a significant amount of their personal time to try to improve our competition rules for everyone - and genuinely tried to ensure everyone had input.

I'm sure there'll be plenty of proposals again at the 2009 comp sub-committee meeting.  I know it's probably unreasonable to expect you to attend the meeting from Bendigo.  This year I can probably organise teleconferencing through my company so that regional members can be more directly involved - would that help?

thanks,
Evan.

[branko.gt]

...
What perciveable advantage can be seen through a lower profile.....

if there is no benefit why would you want to use lower profile tyres with bigger rims? and why is this such a an issue ?