2015 Rules - open call for rules changes requests

[Al F.]

It is time once again to formally begin our rules editing for the 2015 rules se.t The target is the end of November for having the 2015 rules published. Our goal is to only make changes that clarify intent unless the change reduces cost, improves safety, or enables closer competition (closer competition does not mean lower lap times!).

 

Your role as a CMC competitor is twofold: first, submit Rules Change Requests (RCR) for things you believe make sense and second, to discuss your RCRs and those others submit with your fellow racers and, most importantly, with your Regional Director. Feel free to create a thread in the Rules section of the forum for your RCR, but please keep these threads limited to one specific topic to make it easier for everyone to follow along. Keep these discussions civil and remember that its perfectly ok for others to have a different and even conflicting opinion to your own.

 

To submit an RCR for the CMC Directors for consideration, please submit it to your regional director via email with a cc to me using the format below. Your regional director is your representative, and the two of you discussing your suggestion first will help that greatly. Contact info for all of the regional directors is in the rules book.

 

I will accept complete (and serious) RCRs until Wednesday Tuesday September 30th. I will post RCRs as they come in so everyone can see what they are. For those that are new or unfamiliar with our process, the Directors discuss and vote on the RCRs. Usually RCRs are either overwhelmingly supported or overwhelmingly not supported, but if it is a tie I’m the tie breaker and retain the right to veto. When we’re done, we submit the whole thing to NASA HQ for their review, suggestions, and final approval. It is important to note that NASA HQ can (and often does) veto or add to our list of changes. Its their series after all.

 

I encourage you to do the appropriate due diligence. Read old RCRs, read the director’s cut thread explaining what RCRs were rejected and why. If it’s the same RCR as in prior years, and nothing has changed, its logical to expect the decision to remain unchanged.

 

RULE CHANGE REQUESTS (RCR) MUST BE SUBMITTED IN THE FOLLOWING FORMAT TO BE CONSIDERED (no a post online isn’t enough):

 

---1) Name / Region / Car # / Contact Info (email or phone, etc)

---2) Rule reference # (ex.- Rule 3.2)

---3) Recommended Revised Wording (saying “make rule 5.4 clearer†isn’t enough! How would you word it?)

---4) Reasoning for change MUST include at least 1 of the following:

---------->a) Will decrease series cost because…

---------->b) Will increase driver safety because…

---------->c) Will promote series growth because...

---------->d) Will improve competition because…

---------->e) Will provide more clarity because...

 

HINT – Requests which score points in all categories will have better chances of being accepted than those which score points in 1 category (or worse yet, go against the reasonings above.)

 

Give me a shout if you want to discuss something over the phone or email.

[D Algozine]

Are there only 3 RCR's being considered this year ?

[Al F.]

There are three formal RCRs that were submitted and I posted and one that was submitted and I never posted here but someone did for me (the carbed car RPM limit requirement thread). I am also adding for consideration by the directors the allowance of ford upper control arms since that was discussed heavily but a decision was actually deferred.

[BADVENM]

This is by far the lowest number of rules submissions I can remember since being in the CMC program.

 

Any ideas as to why there are so few? Or, are some/most/all of us content on where things stand between the various platforms?

[suck fumes1548534743]

Less rules changes is a good thing. No one wants to change their car every season.

[Al F.]

A driver for many of the rules changes in the past was the jump from 230 to 260 baseline. Quite a few of other changes have actually not been changes to the allowance itself but rather changes to how the rule is written in order to make it clearer or make it easier to enforce. You would expect that over time that we would have fewer and fewer things that still need to be made clearer.

 

I would expect us to continue seeing changes in order to make it easier to maintain/repair/build a competitive car. Things that in the past might have been taboo now might make a lot of sense because of changes in the market, lack of availability of OEM part, etc. I dont anticipate any changes to the performance parameters of the series.

[MHISSTC]

I am also adding for consideration by the directors the allowance of ford upper control arms since that was discussed heavily but a decision was actually deferred.

 

Appreciated.

 

This seems to be the next weak link in the Ford rear suspension that already allows everything else to be replaced. Non-adjustable with OEM length and +/- allowances specified for both reinforced stock arms and aftermarket arms seems like a good thing to me.

 

This was one of the RCR submissions were were working on before we made the conscious decision to stay completely out of RCR submission BS this year.

[D Algozine]

A driver for many of the rules changes in the past was the jump from 230 to 260 baseline. Quite a few of other changes have actually not been changes to the allowance itself but rather changes to how the rule is written in order to make it clearer or make it easier to enforce. You would expect that over time that we would have fewer and fewer things that still need to be made clearer.

 

I would expect us to continue seeing changes in order to make it easier to maintain/repair/build a competitive car. Things that in the past might have been taboo now might make a lot of sense because of changes in the market, lack of availability of OEM part, etc. I dont anticipate any changes to the performance parameters of the series.

 

+1

[Al F.]

I want to let you know that the rules draft was submitted to NASA HQ a few days ago for their review and approval. I am not anticipating much of a challenge to the recommendations made by the CMC Directors but nothing is final until its final... Hopefully we can see these published in the next week.