AI/CMC Texas Points for Round 6! **2010 Points are Final!**

[RichardP]

connecting a strut brace too close to roll bar mounting point is violating a "black and white" rule...

Except that he built the car years before a few words were changed in a sentence to make his car illegal. Him missing the subtle change sounds a bit like the human error you mention...

Richard P.

[GlennCMC70]

Back on topic - again.....
Points sheet attachment updated to correct for an error in breaking a tie for 2nd in CMC. Season points ties are broken by overall points first, then by number of wins.
Sorry for the error.

[GlennCMC70]

connecting a strut brace too close to roll bar mounting point is violating a "black and white" rule...

Except that he built the car years before a few words were changed in a sentence to make his car illegal. Him missing the subtle change sounds a bit like the human error you mention...

Richard P.

There is a redlined version of the rules posted along w/ a list of rules modified each year when the rules are released. Human error yes, subtle.... not so much.

[RichardP]

There is a redlined version of the rules posted along w/ a list of rules modified each year when the rules are released. Human error yes, subtle.... not so much.

We are going to have to agree to disagree on that.


From the new rules announcement posted by Al:

The 2010 CMC rules are posted in our rules section and will be on the national site shortly!!! Thanks to everyone that submitted their thoughts and to our directors for taking the time to discuss and decide how to go on each. I wanted to take a little time to explain the reasons for the changes, as well as some logic around the things that were submitted but that we didn’t accept into the rules. So, in order of appearance in the rules:
- We established all directors as equals other than the Chief National position. It just makes more sense this way, since all regions have a right to be represented in the decision process. We’ll still volunteer folks to help at the track, but our intent is to have a director in every region.
- We moved the penalty text from the driver’s infraction section down to the points section. This will reduce confusion around what constitutes a zero drop DQ.
- The dyno certification section got a little bit of cleanup, but no fundamental change in purpose.
- We added an option for running a diagonal across the roof in T-top and convertible cars instead of a straight bar down the center. This should be easier to retrofit and actually makes the whole structure stronger.
- We are allowing CMC2 3rd gens to run an LT1. This is not “instead of” resolving the TPI issue, as we are still going strong with that testing, rather it is another option which might make a lot more sense for some folks.
- We are increasing the minimum weight of 99-04 Fords that opt for an aluminum block or a 302. These engine choices result in much less engine mass, resulting in a balance advantage. This same logic was applied to the LS1 cars, so it makes sense to be consistent.
- We’re adding a class designator on the front and rear glass to help people identify the class and reduce out of class racing.
- We’ve modified the chassis brace rule to close a loophole that could result in what amounts to a true “through the firewall” cage. This is a cost reduction measure to keep folks from feeling the need to spend incremental money on chassis stiffness.
- We’re allowing C6 PBR calipers where C5s were allowed since for some reason these are cheaper.
- Of course we incorporated the items that were in the tech bulletin around CMC2.
.

I wouldn't have gotten that his car was illegal from that description. I very much consider that subtle.

The redlined version was promised for later and supposedly it was posted later. I never saw it and it certainly isn't available now.


Richard P.

[mitchntx]

Human error should be given more leaway over a direct violation of a rule... just my 2 cents....

And then we are right back to gray areas ...

Because Glenn and I fight all the time and it pisses Al off, do I get less leeway than Randy does because Al and Randy work together?

Working around the rules leads to more issues.

If the rules are not what everyone wants, then lobby to change the rule, instead of multiple interpretations.

I still stand on the ground that a violation is a violation.

If I'm too lazy to read the rules and get caught doing something illegal, whether it be by accident or not, it's not the rule's fault ... it's not the director's fault ... it's my fault.

[RichardP]

So, Jeff’s car was illegal, black and white, per the current CMC rules. Jeff was responsible for reading, knowing, and making sure that his car complied 100% to these rules. He failed on that and that’s not fair to the other competitors who do show up and compete with a 100% legal car. He should have been penalized for his non-compliance and been required to correct the issue. I think we are all good on that. However, there does seem to be a bit of question on the level of penalty handed down.

As for a DQ being a season ending deal, your right. But w/ 4-5 drops per season, some guys will take the chance to only get caught less than 4-5 times and use those for their drops. Not something we want. So the idea was to "make it hurt" so the penalty for one offence was far worse than the reward if not caught.

I agree with this. If there is no effective penalty, people will push the bounds. It’s a risk/reward thing.

On the other hand, Jeff’s case doesn’t seem to fall under this. When he welded the subframe connectors on, did he have in his mind that the extra performance benefit of the intermediate spot welds was worth the small chance that he would be caught and penalized? I don’t know the answer but I have a pretty strong opinion. I just don’t see a risk/reward payoff here. I’m guessing he had no idea that his car was illegal and if he did he would have corrected the problem. Again, his fault 100%.

So what other rules are people violating and what penalties are being handed out for these infractions? At a minimum, I have noted multiple infractions of CMC rules 7.2.2 and 7.2.3. I was asked by Todd to help with tech at an event earlier in the year and handed Todd a list of vehicles in violation of one or both of these two rules (non-compliances by 3.5 of the CMC rules). The current CMC rules as written require a non-droppable DQ for these violations. I do not believe any penalties were handed out for these violations.

Actually, looking through the event photos from Eagles Canyon (I didn’t make the event because I was instructing at TWS), it seems like there were still vehicles in violation of these rules.

[As a frame of reference, in my engineering judgment, I believe that the performance benefit between Jeff’s rule violation and the violations I listed above are of the same order of magnitude. That’s my opinion, of course. ]

We are either going to follow the rules or we aren’t. I think it’s great that we are following the rules and checking for non-compliance. If we follow the rules, the penalties for violations need to be fair, reasonable, and most importantly consistent.

Right now, as the rules are written, a sticker violation is a non-droppable DQ offense while “accidently” punting off a competitor so he doesn’t get the points he needs to pass you in the championship is a droppable DQ. Maybe this could be adjusted in next year’s rules.


Richard P.

[Rob Liebbe]

Since rule changes have crept into this conversation, I'll add an observ ation and request. Dave Balingit's DQ at Nationals was due to the fact that he did not catch a rule change and subsequently did not update his car to be in compliance. I think the majority of us at Nationals were surprised by the "class indentifier" sticker rule which changed in June 2010. The air dam/radiator deflector caught at least on competitor off guard at Nationals.

Is there a problem with the rules update system that can and should be addressed. About a week before Nationals I printed out a copy of the CCR and the CMC rules. When I got back from Nationals I happened to notice that one of them had changed. I don't recall which one, but there is a version number on the top of the document in big numbers and it had a higher revision number than the one I printed two weeks earlier. I received no notification of this change other than I happened to be checking the rules at a random time. I assumed that the rules were changed at the off-season and not changed again until next year, but that does not appear to be the case.

My point is that even throughout the middle of the year, the rules change. Are the changes notified to us somehow? Is it on one of the forums? Which one? I can only follow a limited number of forums. If I missed the notification, someone please let me know what forum or e-mail list I need to get on. If this is not happening with any kind of structure so that the competitors know about it, then I request that this be done as soon as possible.

[GlennCMC70]

As a frame of reference, in my engineering judgment, I believe that the performance benefit between Jeff’s rule violation and the violations I listed above are of the same order of magnitude. That’s my opinion, of course.

So how does missing/wrong sized graphics increase/decrease chassis rigidity? I'm honestly cunfused as to how these two hold the same "order of magnitude" w/ regards to on track performance. I do not think I'll ever hear someone say I beat them due to my illegal graphics package. However, I can see how folks would say the car is faster now that I've increased chassis rigidity. Please help me understand.

From what Jeff said, he didnt know his car was that way. He dropped off the sub's w/ the car to the cage builder and it was all done at the same time. I too feel there was minimal gain from the mod (I think it should be legal) and I would do it in a heartbeat if I could.

From past comments you have made, you felt the lexan windows should have resulted in a DQ, no matter how poorly implimented. But in this case, you feel as though the penalty should not be a DQ, even if it was poorly implimented. Do I have that right?

I do think this is exactly what you said -
"So it's OK to have illegal parts if you implement them poorly???"

I'm not trying to be a dick w/ you Richard and I have alot of respect for you, but I need some help seeing your perspective.

[GlennCMC70]

Since rule changes have crept into this conversation, I'll add an observ ation and request. Dave Balingit's DQ at Nationals was due to the fact that he did not catch a rule change and subsequently did not update his car to be in compliance. I think the majority of us at Nationals were surprised by the "class indentifier" sticker rule which changed in June 2010. The air dam/radiator deflector caught at least on competitor off guard at Nationals.

Is there a problem with the rules update system that can and should be addressed. About a week before Nationals I printed out a copy of the CCR and the CMC rules. When I got back from Nationals I happened to notice that one of them had changed. I don't recall which one, but there is a version number on the top of the document in big numbers and it had a higher revision number than the one I printed two weeks earlier. I received no notification of this change other than I happened to be checking the rules at a random time. I assumed that the rules were changed at the off-season and not changed again until next year, but that does not appear to be the case.

My point is that even throughout the middle of the year, the rules change. Are the changes notified to us somehow? Is it on one of the forums? Which one? I can only follow a limited number of forums. If I missed the notification, someone please let me know what forum or e-mail list I need to get on. If this is not happening with any kind of structure so that the competitors know about it, then I request that this be done as soon as possible.

As far as I know, the CMC rules are only updated once a year - in the off season. Al always uses the "Tech Bulitin" post to update mid-year changes.

The CCR on the other hand is totally different. I have complained directly to JWL about this. There is NEVER a notice that the CCR is updated. In fact, when I ask where the change is when mid year updates happen, I cant get an answer. I bet the CCR gets updated 10 times a year.

----Sorry. I just looked and I'm 3 versoins behind and there is a list on the cover page listing what rules were changed. My 2009 copy is not that way, so it seems this is a change for 2010. This is likely something CMC can adopt.

[gt40]

The CCR on the other hand is totally different. I have complained directly to JWL about this. There is NEVER a notice that the CCR is updated. In fact, when I ask where the change is when mid year updates happen, I cant get an answer. I bet the CCR gets updated 10 times a year.

IMHO changes to the rules (CCR or series,) need to be published and a notification needs to go our at the same time. It is important to notify everyone of a change to give them as much time ti adapt to the new rules as possible.

Putting a notification on a forum won't work because that means everyone has to check that forum regularly. That's no better than going to the national web site to see of they got updated. Both require action by all the competitors.

Instead, there needs to be an email distribution list that is used ONLY for official rules updates and notifications. At least with that, all the competitor has to do is check their email, which, in this modern age, everyone should be doing at least daily.

If it were two weeks before nationals and I discovered a significant rule change I'd be pretty pissed.

And yes, any change in the rules needs to be CLEARLY identified in the rules document.