$201X Rules Committee proposal

There was a lot of stress yesterday and today from all over our little world. I know that it is impossible to create a happy place for every one of the people reading, competing and running the events associated with the magazine. Generally in issues like this cooler heads prevail. Never have I been considered a cooler head but I think that I have a suggestion moving forward.

I propose the establishment of a seven person rules committee made up of two past Challenge competitors, one SCCA steward, one NHRA steward and three representatives from Motorsports Marketing.

Obviously there is a lot involved but it would be my suggestion that the following years rule set be developed prior to the current years Challenge occurs allowing for the rules to be introduced at town hall prior to the banquet.

What is your opinion?

The staff had a Challenge Advisory Board this year that included past Challenge competitors help review the rules.

As someone bitten by the challenge a couple of times I would be happy to represent and stop changes throughout the year. Once the rules are done, they are done for 12 months.

I also propose at least 4 competitors be a part of this so that we get a broader spectrum of opinions and experiences

In reply to aussiesmg:

As noted, there WERE competitors involved in this version. I believe there were 5 of them.

aussiesmg wrote: Once the rules are done, they are done for 12 months.

12 months is too short. It takes longer than that to build a decent Challenge car.

But 3 years was too long. It left too much undetermined. It also creates a big problem for anyone starting a build in year 2 1/2, only to find a big unexpected rules change thrown at them.

I suggest an annual review of the rules, with rules remaining in place 24 months. Changes to the rules posted 18 months in advance.

In other words, a review begins at the event in 2016. Review period lasts 6 months. Rules are posted 6 months after the 2016 event for the 2018 event. (Which means there will be 2 rules sets known at a time- the 2017 rules, and the upcoming rules for 2018)

I would also suggest that once posted, they are no longer up for debate, discussion, or change, except to align with safety requirements (which should not hit the budget adversely). Anyone that doesn't like them, well, it's kind of too bad.

Someone else can probably word it better than me.

I do not think that everything needs to be decided by a large committee. Increasing the number of procedures and levels of bureaucracy is probably a bad idea.

It is a laudable goal to include as much input as possible from all interested parties, but I urge the staff to maintain a certain distance when it comes to running events. Someone, ultimately, must be in charge...

Personally, I really do try to be nice because I really do like most everyone (even most of the staff), but this isn't reallly about being nice. Simply put, rules are rules. Just carve them in stone in black and white and let them stand. Most entrants are mature enough to either follow them or ignore them at their own prerogative.

tb the reason I suggested a "Gang of Seven" was very specific. No split decisions while still sharing a variety of input. I could care less the make up as long as the competition is represented from various levels of skill and financial standing.

Personally it doesn't matter if I get to install a free on my budget set of $300.00 each tires. I'd rather see everyone limited to DOT treadwear 200 tires! But I'm guessing my ideas would be shot down like a North Korean Taepodong-2

\In reply to John Brown:

I don't think that you have a bad idea, I just always default to being vigilant against scope creep. It appears we have hit the tipping point here and now spend more time talking about rules than we do cars...

Perhaps I have run out of energy to talk and only have enough left to actually race... I might need to shut up and let you all enjoy the arguments...

You make a few very good points. I particularly applaud the concept that we consistently recognize the equal worth of the poor and inept; I used to be both!

FWIW, either way I am still an advocate for those in power showing a little spine instead of being overly conscious of the feelings of each special little snowflake out there.

I like the way Lemons does their rules. Simple, to the point, and arbitrarily interpreted at their whim when needed. No committees and not much discussion.

In reply to dculberson:

Very interesting point of view! I hated the atmosphere of lemons racing but it does, in fact, work for some.

Probably wouldn't translate well to the environment of the challenge but it is not without its merits...