Cal Club Autocross Forums

Proposed change to CSCC Solo Supplemental Regulations:

KEEP:
7.7 TOTAL POINTS: Points for each competitor will be totaled at the end of the year.
The driver’s Class or overall average (per 7.4 or 7.5) shall be added respectively
for each non-work/run Event. Each competitor must have worked on the day of the
event or have approval from the CSCC SOLO Committee to be listed on the
results as a Sanctioned Event Official for work outside of the event. This approval
must be requested by the Event Chairman.

ADD
7.7a AVERAGE GIVEN WHEN CERTAIN EVENTS CONFLICT WITH REGIONAL EVENTS: Points card holders who attend another SCCA event, either as an official or as a participant may request their average if the event conflicts with a CSCC Solo Regional Championship. Such events would include attending a Regional or Divisional Club race as an official or corner worker; attending a National Tour or National Pro Solo event; attending the Solo Nationals or Pro Solo Finale; attending the SCCA National Convention. This is list is not all-inclusive and the Solo Committee may grant an average for a conflicting event not on the list as it sees fit.

Bingo! number 2 - sounds good to me!

A simpler approach is also worth consideration, with thanks to Mike Simanyi:

7.7.1 Averages for local-SCCA conflicts. Averages are available at the discretion of the CSCC committee for any conflict between CSCC and SCCA events, to be requested in advance of the event.

Looks like a winner to me, Bob - good stuff.

I would prefer the first add - as leaving it up to the discretion of the Committee opens up a whole can of worms. If it SPECIFICALLY says what you are getting your average for then case closed.

deleted

Deleted.

Renee Angel wrote:I would prefer the first add - as leaving it up to the discretion of the Committee opens up a whole can of worms. If it SPECIFICALLY says what you are getting your average for then case closed.

So my original 7.7a? That also give the committee some leeway.

Leeway or the highway? Discuss among yourselves.

I deleted my post because I was an idiot and misunderstood the proposal.

I was saying it should be case by case, but with guidelines.

The proposal words it differently, but gives good guidelines while leaving the door cracked open for unusual situations. I think that is the most fair course.

The whole thing on averages is that they are all or should be special unusual situations. There are things you should be able to count on, but also some special situations the committee should consider.

I would hope we're all better than this.... But do we need a warning, that abuse of the rule will not be tolerated. An example, somebody has locked up the championship as long as they get say, 35 points at the last event. Instead of risking a disasterous result, they find a way of getting there average. Something obvious like going to SFR to corner work at Thunderhill, something they've never done before. Probably not necessary, and not something I've ever seen happen.

I have several things to say about this particular issue, including the refusal to allow Lisa to take her average for the event opposite Nationals. I would rather do it on the private forum. However, I have recently learned that my safety steward status was apparently erroneously removed from my profile and I have been excluded from the private forum. Can I please get that corrected so that I can participate in the appropriate location?

Thank you.

I prefer the first version, too. But with a simpler title like 7.7.1 AVERAGE FOR EVENT CONFLICT.

I agree with Steve that it would be nice to somehow include something to avoid abuse, just not sure how to do it. Maybe just the fact that it has to be asked for and approved by the committee is enough.
Maybe 'If you attempt to screw with us and abuse this rule, all points for the the year will be removed and you will be banned for life." }:)

Rick Brown wrote:I prefer the first version, too. But with a simpler title like 7.7.1 AVERAGE FOR EVENT CONFLICT.

I agree with Steve that it would be nice to somehow include something to avoid abuse, just not sure how to do it. Maybe just the fact that it has to be asked for and approved by the committee is enough.
Maybe 'If you attempt to screw with us and abuse this rule, all points for the the year will be removed and you will be banned for life." }:)

Yes, simpler title, please.

Abusers will be chained to the recycling plant fence for the entirety of one event. In July. }:)

Rick Brown wrote: Maybe 'If you attempt to screw with us and abuse this rule, all points for the the year will be removed and you will be banned for life." }:)

How about.... All points for the year will be removed and given to Steve Ekstrand and you will be required to buy dinner at the non-feng shui Coco's for all committee member attendees.

OK, so back to serious discussion. Third Revise:

7.7.1 AVERAGE FOR EVENT CONFLICT: Points card holders who attend another SCCA event, either as an official or as a participant may request their average if the event conflicts with a CSCC Solo Regional Championship. Such events would include attending a Regional or Divisional Club race as an official or corner worker; attending a National Tour or National Pro Solo event; attending the Solo Nationals or Pro Solo Finale; attending the SCCA National Convention. This is list is not all-inclusive and the Solo Committee may grant an average for a conflicting event not on the list as it sees fit. Requests must be made in advance.

Mentions Regional and Division volunteering.
So, the Run-Offs is excluded?

Mentions club racing. What about other SCCA series?

What about driving in those series?

I don't like the first version for a couple reasons. First, it's unnecessarily verbose. Our Supp Regs are already victim of that; we don't need to foster more of the same.

Second, it specifically states "Points card holders who attend another SCCA event..." That would exclude, for example, any co-driver whose car owner takes the car away to run in another SCCA event.

Edited to add: I think "SCCA event" encompasses all the conflicts, whether they're competitions, meetings, etc.

I think conflicts may exist for competitors outside the short list of attendees at other events. Is that really how we want to limit the average?

Mike

Mike Simanyi wrote:
Second, it specifically states "Points card holders who attend another SCCA event..." That would exclude, for example, any co-driver whose car owner takes the car away to run in another SCCA event.

Because the co-driver would need to attend said event? Good point.

Aren't the Run-Offs club racing? And other SCCA series should be listed.

Run-offs are club racing. But they aren't Regional or Divisional.

Do you really want to give an avg for driving in a SDR local event???


But there may be situations where you would. Lets say they asked Renee and Brian to come run a SDR event and give an SSS workshop while there.

Steve Ekstrand wrote:Run-offs are club racing. But they aren't Regional or Divisional.

Do you really want to give an avg for driving in a SDR local event???

But there may be situations where you would. Lets say they asked Renee and Brian to come run a SDR event and give an SSS workshop while there.

Three good points. How about including a clause for special exceptions to be approved by the committee. Clearly the SSS workshop event should apply.

Runoffs are a non-local SCCA event, but an SD Championship isn't. So have the rule read:

Averages are available for conflicts between CSCC and non-local SCCA events, to be requested in advance of the conflicting event, for approval by the CSCC Committee. The Committee will review requests for special SCCA-related exceptions on a case-by-case basis.

We have in the past granted avg's for non-scca events that directly related to the promotion and benefit of the sport of autocross. I assume that will not change???
These were rare and extraordinary events.

Dave DeSpain was so impressed with Bob Tunnells call in that he wants to film an exhibition shoot out between Tom Berry, Ryan Buetzer, Bob Tunnell, Mark Daddio, and John Thomas at the Tirerack test facility.

Sorry Tom, use a drop.

As I stated above, the whole average concept wasn't originally for event conflicts. Over the years as specific conflicts came up, that item was added to the informal list of approved things. First Tours and Pros (mainly Pros since that was a true series and there were several within reasonable driving range), then the National Convention, then Regional racing/working.

While there has to be some ability to approve other things, there also has to be some cut off. At some point a person has to make a choice as to what's more important to them, the local series or some other activity. I'm guessing there isn't another Solo group in the country that does this. The current issue with Nationals is a (hopefully) one time thing and Lisa's situation even more unique, though it could happen with a Tour/Pro also.

Seems we are looking at any out of region National Level Solo Event, any CalClub Region event as a worker/competitor, and other events on a case by case basis. Not saying I agree or disagree at this point, just what I'm seeing.

Trying to define this rule is very interesting. Do we really need it? How often should it come up? Drops are available and if we happen to wittingly or unwittingly plan ourselves into another debacle like the nationals this year, it can be easily dealt with on a one-off basis. Hopefully with less bloodshed.

I'm not necessarily opposed to the rule, but I am opposed to legislating to every possibility. If everybody thinks it is a necessary regulation to have, fine. But are we thinking this through or just having a knee-jerk reaction to a recent situation?

I think if it will encourage our local competitors to enter and compete in national events I'm all for it.

Though I'm fine with a general rule, keeping it case by case.

KJ Christopher wrote:If everybody thinks it is a necessary regulation to have, fine. But are we thinking this through or just having a knee-jerk reaction to a recent situation?

We've operated under a functional rule along these lines for years. It hasn't been defined Supp Regs, and I think we should have something in the rulebook about it even if it's worded somewhat vaguely. I think it's better to have people ask the committee "Would this be a valid case?" than just to assume they'll get their average or, worse yet, decide not to participate in "higher level" SCCA functions so they can run with us.

Mike

Steve Ekstrand wrote:Run-offs are club racing. But they aren't Regional or Divisional.

Do you really want to give an avg for driving in a SDR local event???


But there may be situations where you would. Lets say they asked Renee and Brian to come run a SDR event and give an SSS workshop while there.

I'm not making a morale judgment about one kind of event over another. The idea is to have something in the Supps that reflects the zeitgeist of the committee and is flexible enough so that special circumstances can be reasonably considered. That includes Lisa's situation, or Renee helping out with an SS school out of the region, or even in the region. Some requests for an average should be guaranteed, but by no means do I think a rule that tries to establish an all-inclusive list is in the best interests of the region and its efforts to promote Solo and motor sport in general.

Sure, there are drops. However there often personal reasons people need to use them. Work, family, sickness, broken car, broken leg--I'm lookin' at you Fireball. What about Ryan's competition in the TDI Cup? Does anyone think that we should rigth a rule such that he could not apply for his average? I don't.