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). **
Attached are the Competition Rules minus the small formatting issue around Associate Class (not that important, but resolved).
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.
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.
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.
Interesting point of view there.
Quote from: jimnielsen on February 27, 2009, 12:47:49 PM
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/ (http://www.alfaclubvic.org.au/component/option,com_smf/Itemid,68/topic,1435.0/)
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.
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.
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?
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
Quote from: jimnielsen on February 27, 2009, 12:47:49 PM
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.
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
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? ;D
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.
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.
Quote from: Thmpar on February 27, 2009, 10:06:20 PM
...
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 ?
???
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Quote from: jimnielsen on March 01, 2009, 10:58:04 AM
Wish my car was working so that I was at Winton!
I second this point
Brad
would you mind responding to my comments and subsequent request of Feb 27 on this topic
thanks Eddy
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.
Quote from: Eddy Bidese on March 02, 2009, 08:18:13 PM
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?
Quote from: Eddy Bidese on February 27, 2009, 10:19:44 PM
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
.
Quote from: Eddy Bidese on March 03, 2009, 11:36:53 AM
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.
Quote from: Brad Marshall on March 02, 2009, 11:04:20 PM
For me it's all about the buzz of holding on around Turn 1 at the Island,
So that was your problem at the last 2 visits to P.I . huh? - too busy being distracted about comp. rules and not concentrating staying on the rest of the track. ;D
Guys leave Brad alone, the paint supply has run out!
Sorry, this thread had to be lightened up a bit.
Eddie.
My post was not directed at you personally, however it would be disingenuous of me not to say that your post was simply the straw that broke the camels back. I have no problem with the tone of your posts, I was referring to other posts in this thread, which I believe were unnecessarily inflammatory and bordering on defamatory.
I disagree that this forum is an official channel of the club. Last I looked it is not a requirement of committee members to constantly check the forum just in case something under their 'brief' was mentioned. I stand to be corrected however.
Everyone else.
I guess you Australians haven't heard the saying that 'If you don't vote, you can't complain" since it's compulsory to vote here. But really, if people take no active interest in the rule change process, I think it's insulting to the people that went out of their way to do something to complain about it after the fact. And doubly so to infer that they are biased.
As I said, and others have before me, I have no problem with anyone having issues with the rules, and it's certainly good to have a healthy debate. But the debate needs to be healthy, and at the right time.
Sheldon does this mean im not getting the big trophy?
Quote from: Ray Pignataro on March 03, 2009, 08:01:18 PM
Sheldon does this mean im not getting the big trophy?
We all know it would go to the missus ;)
ouch. that hurt thats why I want the rules amended so that I am just awarded the trophy. If I actually have to compete I wont win.
Thanks for the prompt response Brad and Sheldon. I look forward to the rules meeting to put the case
Cheers
Eddy