by Ricey88 » Wed Sep 14, 2011 9:09 pm
CD Said:
We had a QRDA Meeting on the 17th of August. I chaired the meeting and we had a select group of Sports Sedan competitors who compete in vehicles of differing types/capacities etc. I believed it was a fair representation of competitors on the night.
From a personal point of view, I like and respect Ricey, we've raced together, it's been fair, good fun etc. I would like to make it known to all that there is no "anti-Ricey conspiracy" in QLD!! And for what it's worth, "Big Bad Phil Crompton" wasn't even present at the meeting, so Crompo can take off his flack jacket!! So, there was no anti-Ricey conspiracy from the NASSA representive!!!!!
Chris you've been watching to much SciFi, I don't think I said or implied that , but if its been taken that way I certainly didn't mean that and apologize.
I'm actually willing to bet my left one that NONE of the below proposal items are forcing blokes to keep their Sports Sedans in garages and not race them. Whether there are guys reluctant to build or buy a Sports Sedan due to "non-clarity of rules" is debatable however. Regardless, I am of the opinion that nothing listed below is stopping anyone in QLD from racing their Sports Sedan. To me that is the most important thing, getting cars to race meetings.
If its not black and it isn't white its debatable !
whether i am right or wrong for me its not that people are "stopped " from racing, i am trying to find ways to make people WANT
to go racing.
1) clearer rules makes it easyer for everyone, so it may help the WANT
2) Anything to make it fairer, may help the WANT
3) Anything that increases competitivness may help the WANT
My proposals I aimed at increasing the "WANT to go racing"
Below is a brief summary of our discussion relating to the Proposals.
1) Racing Weights - It was agreed to retain the Current Weights as listed in the Manual. The general view was that there was little point in changing at this stage due to the fact that Engines are not checked for CC limit currently and if they were, they would need to be Sealed. The club has not had one competitor come up to us and complain that their car is not competitive due to the current weight scale.
I don't need to have someone complain before I try to fix the unfair advantage of a 2500cc car having a 100 kg weight advantage over another car with a 2501cc car!
What has the proposed change got to do with sealing engines?
2) TransAm Eligibility - We agreed with your inclusion of b) (need to change the A.S.S.C. to S.C.C.A), but we are still considering the ramifications of c) regarding new car builds. So this one hasn't been knocked on the head yet and is up for further discussion next meeting.
I had an interesting development with this one before the VIC meeting ,two actually, first big bad Phil like I , had been unable to find printed NZ tranZam rules, so there was no point adding that to our rules, but then at / before our club rule change meeting I had a conversation with John Mankie, I was informed that because CAMS had no official ties with S.C.C.A the reference to S.C.C.A. rules was worthless and we would need to reference NZ rules as cams have political ties with the NZ motorsport authority. Best if you sort that one out ASAP And I am volunteering to assist in any way/ time and efffort..
3) Wings - We accepted this, but regardless we agreed that the single plane wing should be no wider than the coachwork. A TransAm wing is not wider than the coachwork on a TransAm, but at 1830mm is potentially wider than a lot of Sports Sedans.
AS proposed by my wording the rule would be unchanged that the wing must still be narrower than the car at the front edge of the wing
4) Engine Eligibility - The majority decided to keep the Rules as they are currently until the End of 2012 . We discussed the inclusion of a Rev Limit for State Championship Racing for Piston Engined Cars, but did not get into specifics. We would also need to look at the impact a Rev Limit would have on Rotary/Forced Induction Engines. Now, to clarify, I actually made a mistake with this and suggested that the current Rule Set is frozen until the end of 2012, when it is in fact 2011. The time is NOW to discuss this point specifically. We will revisit the proposal for Engine inclusion at our next meeting on 21st September and I will inform our mailing list of the intention to do so on the night. I will once again champion the cause here for the inclusion of the engines specified in Ian's proposal as I voted in support of the inclusion at the meeting.
All a can say for the people reading this is WE should either accept or reject NASCAR and V8SC motors there is no logic in having the mopar and not the other manufacturers .A point that was raise regarding this is that we have no control over what either of these bodes will do tomorrow or in the future so the wording of the proposal was ammended to include a limit, as in NASCAR and V8SC legal motor in 2011 should be legal in 3D ss !
Regarding your individual (small rule change/clarifications):
1) Materials - Agreed to change the size listed to 1.20mm.
House keeping and shouldn't need to go to a vote but I have been raising it for many years .
2) Intrusion Bars - The addition of the wording in bold was deemed to be unnecessary as there is a minimum dimension already specified.
This was an addition that was added and none of us got to vote on. a don't know how many cars this affects but for cars that have a engineers certified cage made from 1.6mm chromemoly are not permitted to modify there cage without another $3000 engineers certification. These cars if they have no less than two bars of equal dimensions as the main hoop should be allowed rear diffusers etc..."."
3) Engines - We agreed that the current wording should be retained, your proposed wording may not cater for vehicles with more than one camshaft that do not have lifter bores. I understand your intent with this one, but the current wording appears to work OK.
The paragraph in question has absolutely no reference to heads and overhead camshafts . this is a clarification regarding to the statement "It is permitted to use a cylinder block manufactured by a supplier to the aftermarket provided that: blocks " before the change it read "the centerlines of the crankshaft, camshaft and, lifter bores are in the same relative positions as the original equipment cylinder block; "
This demands that the centerlines are the same!!! not close , not almost, not nearly, but The SAME then it goes on to say relative to what?? "relative positions as the original equipment cylinder block"
For anyone that wants to twist this into some reference to heads and/or overhead camshafts. your would have to keep the centre lines of cam and crank THE SAME i.e. ...no shaving the heads or decking the block
as that changes the position of the centerlines of the crank and cams.!! it was strait forward till it got changed to "
"the centerlines of the crankshaft, camshaft/s and, where applicable, lifter bores are in the same relative positions as the original equipment cylinder block; "
All the new wording does is to cunfuse the original meaning to the point now, where it includes the wording " where applicable,but no definition of what is applicable "
4) Electronic Handling Devices - We held this one over for further discussion, can you define "Launch Control" for us? As far as we are aware, the section "Electronic Handling" COULD cover traction control. I suspect you're aiming at Traction Control through a Motec or Engine Managment system? The ABS issue may need to be clarified at the NSSC level also as I thought we had addressed this previously. Traction Control or however you want to describe it is almost non-policable as we are not a one make category with control ECU etc. I am of the understanding that it is in fact LEGAL to run it, however there is a "gentleman's agreement" not to do so at National Level!! Once again, we have held this discussion over to our next meeting, so we haven't knocked this one on the head either.
5 & 6) "May Be". Agreed this is ambiguious, however you didn't provide an alternate wording for us to consider. Can you let us know how you would like it to read? Once again, let us know how you want it to read rather than having the meeting waste half an hour trying to interpret your intention with this one.
To be honest I don't know what to suggest as I think this needs to be negotiated with the cams rep on the day to form an outcome that is a rule not a MAYBE!!
I guess I'm disappointed that Ian believes there is this giant conspiracy against him and that it's a "jobs for the boys" type of scenario. This is not correct, far from it in fact.
I do not think that at all , not even the tiniest bit.
'History regarding individuals & non production motors in 3D is documented as fact. Absolutely nothing to do with Conspiracy, or jobs for the boys .
I'm disappointed that Ian believes that "all but one" of his proposal submissions were "knocked back" by QLD, because as you can see from the above list, this is again incorrect.
The house keeping is just that it wasn't proposals it was just housekeeping.
Here is another bit of house keeping, 3 time in the rule there is a reference to tyre pleasures, the first is "30psi" the second "1.8 bar" and the third "180kPa".
Is this stopping cars from running ? obviously not but it does make us look AMATEUR ???. I am not about to raise this at a meeting to have it approved to go to the NSSC hopefully it will just get fixed now that it has been raised
What I will suggest to anyone submitting proposals for rule changes is to make damn sure you have every "I" dotted and "to" crossed. I've sat an NSSC meeting with a representative from CAMS present and we've put forward our submissions to them, and they raise questions that none of the delegates had even thought of taking into account prior to making the submission!!
In answer to the thread title, my personal opinion.....
- V8 Supercar engines in Sports Sedans, sure let em' run, don't care either way really.
B.S. you care about everything Sports sedan!
