AROCA Vic Competition Rules for 2009

[branko.gt]

Jim,
it is really disappoint that you come with these comments six months after the new rules have been voted in. If you truly want to make a positive impact I would suggest that you now start discussion for the change of the rules for the comp year 2010.
May I also suggest that a change in tone might not be out of place. If you believe that some specific rules are in contradiction with the philosophy of the specific class please make a reasonable argument. As it is your original post post comes across as childish and self serving with little explanation to support your stand. 

The rules should be changed if it is reasonable to do so, not because you don't like them.

For instance, CAMS uses 1.7 as FI factor. Why shouldn't we? Which factor do you propose and why?

[jimnielsen]

Branko, its not such an issue at all for 105 type Alfa's, but in 116 type cars, and others it restricts tyre selection. If you modify a GTV so that it has larger brakes, for example, you may well want to go for 16" wheels to permit this, but you need to keep the overall tyre diameter at around 600 mm so that the final drive ratio still makes sense. The way to do this is to use lower profile tyres. The new rules permit the use of 8" rims in modified class, but this makes little sense because on a 16x8 rim, tyres will need to be lower profile to maintain the final drive ratio.  Likewise, on 116 Alfa's people increase the length of the lower part of the upright to raise the roll centre height. You need 16" wheels to do this - producing the same set of issues.  Compound selection: there is a narrow range of rubber available, especially for 'r' type tyres in 16/17"  - the new rule restricts this selection further.

[jimnielsen]

I've said it all before Branko, but to summarize..

1.7 is used in both CAMS improved production and sports sedans. You can have ANY turbo, with no inlet restrictor and all the mods' that are required to make these turbos produce massive power.  In our standard class, however, only unmodified turbos are permitted. They produce modest gains in power. A factor that allowed them to compete in the next class would make sense, so that cars under 2L could compete with over 2L cars. Again, in 'modified' only unmodified turbos are permitted - they produce modest gains in power.  A factor that allowed them to compete in the next class would make sense, so that cars under 2L could compete with over 2L cars. In racing class, its a different issue, and a more complex one.

[branko.gt]

Jim,

the rules change was supposed to simplify the classes and clarify the restrictions with respect of the class philosophy. There is no claim made they are perfect or that everyone will be satisfied with the change. The discussions were quite extensive and the rules we have are the best we could come up with. This is not to say that the discussion should stop or that the rules should not be changed again to make them better, more relevant, fair ......

I would have to agree with you on the turbo factor, having done little bit more research. In hindsight, a factory standard forced induction should have a factor of 1.4. On the other hand, in the racing class with no limitation on modifications, the factor should be 1.7, as it is with CAMS.

In my opinion the tyre ratio and the resulting rim size limitation may well be seen as a limiting factor in brake and suspension modification and therefore in support of the class philosophy. I don't think this was ever an intention though, just a lucky (or otherwise if you like) coincidence.

[alfagtv58]

This is all really good debate, it's just a shame it wasn't raised during the period where it could have made a difference for '09!!  While I dont think we ever expected the new rules to satisfy everyone straight away there is an opportunity to fine tune them more for 2010 and beyond, but the ways the rules are written, we are stuck with them for this season.

Jim raises some valid arguments and i think they need to be taken on board.  Consider this topic on the agenda for the next committee meeting.

By the way Jim, I don't think Brad was trying to censor your view.  Censoring would have been modifying your original post or just plain removing it, he was simply offering his opinion to it.

[jimnielsen]

well, fair enough, maybe I was a bit over the top with the censoring bit. I appreciate that we have to use the rules that were voted in for 09' and your willingness to listen to my views. I have probably said enough about this for now. Wish my car was working so that I was at Winton!

cheers, jim.

[Brad M]

Wish my car was working so that I was at Winton!

I second this point

[Eddy Bidese]

Brad
would you mind responding to my comments and subsequent request of Feb 27 on this topic
thanks  Eddy

[Sheldon McIntosh]

From Competition Rules

3. Suggestions for changes to these rules to identify deficiencies of current rules or areas for improving the
rules to ensure their effectiveness must conform to the following guidelines:
a. Name of member proposing the change.
b. Narrative describing the proposed change.
c. Rationale for the proposed change.
d. Implementation plan, ensuring minimum disruption to competition outcomes.
e. Submit it to the Competition Sub-committee prior to August for consideration.

This forum is not the Competition Sub-committee.

[Brad M]

Brad
would you mind responding to my comments and subsequent request of Feb 27 on this topic
thanks  Eddy

As Sheldon revealed, it's not my place to action your request.

The Vice President owns the competition rules so to speak and given the passion on the topic the next one is likely to call for submissions on rule changes. I refer to the next one as the position is up for election at the AGM... any takers?

Unfortunately i was not able to attend the ratification meeting and this unfortunate rule got up.

Just want to clarify on the aspect ratio that the submission didn't create this rule it was already there in the old base modified. I guess I struggle to see where discomfort comes from because now a 45 profile tyre puts a competitor in race class as opposed to super modified. I always thought if someone is going with such a low profile tyre it wouldn't be the only modification made and the car has more power than standard.

From my personal perspective as someone who loves getting in one of my Alfa's and flogging it around the track at a Sprint day, the detail in the rules doesn't concern me. For me it's all about the buzz of holding on around Turn 1 at the Island, the Kink at Sandown or the Esses at Winton.

[Sheldon McIntosh]

As a competitor in the club sprints, when new rule proposals were being discussed, I felt that I would like to at least see what was involved in drawing up new rules, if not to have my say.  Hence I made sure I was at the 'idea showers' and read through thoroughly all proposals before they were voted on.  I went out of my way, as did many others, and many people put a lot of effort into drawing up new proposals.

I personally find it quite disappointing the tone that some people have taken regarding these rules.  I have no issue with people having misgivings or questions about these rules.  I have issues with certain rules too, some of them don't suit me and I would like them changed to suit myself and my car.  I went to the meetings and tried to argue my point, but I realised that people more experienced than me, and people with the club in mind-not just their own agenda, had better points than me, so I was prepared to leave it at that.

I think it is a bit rich to complain, six months later, about the hard work that many people put in, and to expect them to drop everything and respond to your complaints in a public forum.  A PUBLIC FORUM, not an official channel of the club.

And people still wonder why it's so hard to get people to commit to many hours of unpaid work on the committee.

[Ray Pignataro]

Sheldon I think the answer is give me the big trophy at the beginning of the the race season.my performance wont matter  so much, I will think the committee and rules are vary fare.Others may disagree but I guess you cant make every one happy.

[Eddy Bidese]

Brad

Thanks for your response . I had ASSUMED that you as the Competition Secretary, as the author of this thread , and on the basis that  you had been commenting on the thread ,that you may well have been the person to carry my request forward. However as now advised,  I will place my request with the Vice President and post a copy on this forum.

It appears from the thread that the rules mayremain unaltered for this competition year and as such if that is the ruling I have no difficulty in complying. However I make no apology for POLITELY making an enquiry about the opportunity for a change.


As for the ruling in total, I have been competing in club sprints for a number of years and understand that there was an existing aspect ratio of 50 in place. And yes my car is quite highly modified, but because I wish to qualify for a number of classes outside of club racing, particularly Historic Rally, I am not prepared to modify the car to make it fully competitive in AROCA Vic racing class. This one ruling change tips me over the edge, so I submitted my comments in the lead up to the rule change.As stated previously, I make no apology for taking the opportunity of having the ruling re-visited. All I would want to do is compete equitably with vehicles in my class. I absolutely agree with your perspective of getting out there and having fun on club sprint day!!!!!

Brad, I an not involved in the AROCA committee and I do thank you and all those involved on a voluntary basis. I have been involved over the years in many similar positions in club groups , even in re writing racing rules, so I think I can appreciate your position.



Sheldon

Sorry to disagree but while this forum is a public forum it is in fact  an official channel of the club. Should you consider any of my postings to be disappointing in their tone please email me at ebidese@bigpond.com  me and I will pass on my mobile phone number so we can discus on the phone or face to face. If the comments were not directed at me please post accordingly.

[Eddy Bidese]

Copy of submission on rule change

To the Vice President

Request for amendment to the Competition Rules for consideration at the next available opportunity. I believe the protocol for varying the competition rules requires a submission via your office as follows. Should that not be the case please pass on the request or otherwise advise how I may proceed.

Thanks

Eddy Bidese

3. Suggestions for changes to these rules to identify deficiencies of current rules or areas for improving the
rules to ensure their effectiveness must conform to the following guidelines:
a. Name of member proposing the change.
b. Narrative describing the proposed change.
c. Rationale for the proposed change.
d. Implementation plan, ensuring minimum disruption to competition outcomes.
e. Submit it to the Competition Sub-committee prior to August for consideration.


Submission as follows

A Eddy Bidese

B Remove entirely any reference to Tyre aspect ratio as a determinant of a " Modification" that affects class within the competition rules.

C The overiding desire of all rules in my opinion is to firstly provide an environment which encourages club members to compete. Secondly they should provide for an even footing under which to compete, which in itself is encouragement.

There are many other existing types of modification allowed which determine the class under which competitors run. There are even limits to wheel width. Trying to achieve appropriate guard clearance with wide wheels or with wheels that are larger in diameter than standard often requires a lower than standard aspect ratio. Trying to achieve a reasonable gearing with the use of these same wheels also necessitates a lower aspect ratio. These constraints are compounded by  the limited availability of tyre choices in the larger diameters.

With the constraints of the relatively standard chassis, wheel width and guard clearence,and tyre choice  there is sufficient limitaion existing without the need to limit aspect ratio. My personal situation is that I am adversely affected by this rule, but I believe others are also. I did not compete at round 1 at Winton ( but not not for this reason)

D Implementation. If it is within the committees capability to vary the rules before the next event ( being only the second event for the year) that the rule be changed before that date. If the consideration is that too may will be affected to not cahnge the rule till the end of the year, then so be it.

E Submitted as requested

.

[Brad M]

D Implementation. If it is within the committees capability to vary the rules before the next event ( being only the second event for the year) that the rule be changed before that date. If the consideration is that too may will be affected to not cahnge the rule till the end of the year, then so be it.

Eddy, after witnessing and being apart of the process to change the rules last year, the rules won't be looked at until mid-year and any changes made won't be effective until next year.

To all those reading this thread and thinking of changes they would like, the process followed last year was;
- A call was put out for submissions (in various forms eg. Magazine/Newsletter/this Forum).
- A competition sub-committee is called together to discuss the merits of any submissions, last year's meeting was on the 3rd of June.  The rules stipulate the structure as being Vice-President as chairman, Competition Secretary and One Representative from each of the classes. Just like to note that only one person submitting one of the four proposals was in attendance, not being able to argue you point does put your request at a disadvantage as it becomes up to interpretation.
- The rules modified accordingly and distributed amongst to the Sub-commitee for review.
- Notice was given that new rules were being considered (in various forms eg. Magazine/Newsletter/this Forum).
- A Special General meeting took place in August and the rules were voted on.