Go Back  R/C Tech Forums > International Forums > Australian Racing
Official AARCMCC EP On Road Thread >

Official AARCMCC EP On Road Thread

Like Tree84Likes

Official AARCMCC EP On Road Thread

Old 01-18-2016, 01:43 PM
  #46  
Tech Regular
iTrader: (5)
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 394
Trader Rating: 5 (100%+)
Default

The AARCMCC AGM was conducted last night.

A number of matters were discussed including voting of office bearers who form the executive of the association.

The EP section was duly represented by all three of your committee members.

Executive roles for 2016 are as follows;
President - Michael Toms (EP OFR section head)
Vice President - Ed Clark (EP ONR section head)
Secretary & Treasurer - Clive Silva (EP ONR)

We thank Michael Turner for his 8+ years of dedicated service and professionalism.

We congratulate Michael Toms on his re-appointment as president.

We look forward to strong representation at executive level by Ed & Clive.
DamianW is offline  
Old 02-22-2016, 02:05 AM
  #47  
Suspended
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Nov 2015
Posts: 95
Default AARCMCC EP ONR Jan 2016

Please find link below to the latest AARCMCC EP ONR Regulations


AARCMCC EP ONR Jan 2016

Last edited by AARCMCC EP ONR; 02-22-2016 at 02:20 AM.
AARCMCC EP ONR is offline  
Old 02-22-2016, 10:15 PM
  #48  
Tech Adept
 
Blui3's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Location: Newcastle & Brisbane
Posts: 116
Default

Originally Posted by AARCMCC EP ONR
Please find link below to the latest AARCMCC EP ONR Regulations


AARCMCC EP ONR Jan 2016
Can I make a suggestion and that is to make a pocket size copy (Drivers copy) with just car info in it. Say par 9 to 12. Would be a nice to have thing
Blui3 is offline  
Old 02-22-2016, 11:52 PM
  #49  
Tech Elite
iTrader: (2)
 
ta04evah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Sydney, Australia
Posts: 2,616
Trader Rating: 2 (100%+)
Default

Originally Posted by Blui3
Can I make a suggestion and that is to make a pocket size copy (Drivers copy) with just car info in it. Say par 9 to 12. Would be a nice to have thing
There's PDF reader apps available for smart phones & tablets, one way to have the rules readily available.
ta04evah is offline  
Old 03-07-2016, 03:42 AM
  #50  
Suspended
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Nov 2015
Posts: 95
Default

Two rules proposals have been sent to clubs this evening for voting on.
These are;
Proposal 004 - Touring Car Weight Limit
Drop weight limit of TC to 1350g

Proposal 005 - Class Cross Entries
Allow cross entry between all classes at sanctioned events

Voting for these proposal closes on the 7th April 2016.

These proposals were both submitted by SMA today, and we have as a committee have already discussed them and believe they would both be beneficial alterations to the rule book.

(Please note, that IF the proposals are passed, the regulations will not be adopted until the next rule adjustment are made on the 1st July, so will not affect the upcoming VIC or NSW State championships)
AARCMCC EP ONR is offline  
Old 03-29-2016, 07:40 PM
  #51  
Suspended
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Nov 2015
Posts: 95
Default

We'd like to thank all the clubs that have so far voted for the recent rule change proposals, which are;

Adrenaline Arena (both)
Understeer (both)
SMA (both)
Mornington Peninsular (both)
SERCCC (both)
IMCC (both)
CastleHill (both)
West Coast (both)
Riverstone (004 only)
Moorebank (005 only)
Templestowe (005 only)

The deadline for these rule proposals is fast approaching. If any racers don't see their club listed above, please get in contact with your club committee's to make sure your clubs have their votes logged in time. (A reminder email has also been sent to all EP ONR affiliated club contacts, with details of how to log the votes). Voting closes on the 7th April.
AARCMCC EP ONR is offline  
Old 04-11-2016, 12:14 AM
  #52  
Tech Champion
iTrader: (4)
 
TryHard's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Adelaide, Australia
Posts: 5,386
Trader Rating: 4 (100%+)
Default

.
TryHard is offline  
Old 04-11-2016, 12:15 AM
  #53  
Suspended
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Nov 2015
Posts: 95
Default

Voting for the two most recent rule proposals has now closed, and the results are as follows;

Proposal 004 - Reduce weight for touring car to 1350g - 18 responses
Yes - 17; No - 1; Abstain - 0
Rule proposal carried

Proposal 005 - Allow cross entry of classes at sanctioned events - 20 responses
Yes - 4; No - 15; Abstain - 1
Rule proposal NOT carried

The new weight limit will be put into the rule book, and will be effective from 1st July 2016.
(This means for the upcoming NSW state titles, the current weight of 1380g is the limit)

Thanks to all the clubs who voted on these proposals, rest assured there will be more to consider soon. If any clubs still did not receive the voting emails, please contact the committee at [email protected]
AARCMCC EP ONR is offline  
Old 06-22-2016, 05:46 AM
  #54  
Suspended
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Nov 2015
Posts: 95
Default

Reminder of the rule change proposals that are out with your clubs right now - if your club committee has not spoken to you and you want to have your say - track them down!
8 days to go, we want responses from as many clubs as possible.
Any rules that are passed will be live from July 1.

The general background for these proposals is to clarify and simplify certain sections of the current rule book, which has been in dire need of an update for a while.

We do ask that racers keep an open mind when reading through the proposals, rather than dismissing any proposal with a 'but that's how we have always done it'.

We want to improve the section, making it easier for clubs to run events, whilst also making them more enjoyable for all racers. The proposals put forward we believe will help in this regard.

The proposals put forward aim to;
1) Improve organisation of the EP ONR events calendar, having dates set prior to the start of any year.
2) Clarify event application guidlines/expectations, and provide more opportunity for smaller clubs to run sanctioned events.
2) Adjust the event formats to give more racing for all driver, not just the top guys.
3) Simplify the ISTC technical regulations, reducing scrutineering time, as well as removing current ambiguity.
4) Simplify tyre allocations at events.
5) Introduce clear and coherent rules for the dealing of weather delays at events.

The EP ONR Committee are more than happy to answer any questions racers may have on the proposals.

Alternatively, the committee can be contacted on the [email protected] email address.

Voting closes on the 30th June, with the accepted proposals being integrated in the 1st July rule book update.

Proposals can be downloaded from the link below.

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B8A...R6ZDM2anc/view
AARCMCC EP ONR is offline  
Old 06-22-2016, 09:28 AM
  #55  
Tech Champion
iTrader: (2)
 
Radio Active's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Newcastle, Australia
Posts: 7,132
Trader Rating: 2 (100%+)
Default

Minor Wording Issue

I think the wording of the proposed 2.4.2 is less than ideal. "2.4.2 Meeting format, classes run, track specification, Prizes and scheduling are at the host club discretion."

I do not think you really mean that track specification should be at the Host Club's discretion. I think you mean that the host club has the freedom to arrange the circuit as they wish within the constraints of Section 3 (notwithstanding 2.3.3). This may seem obvious, but I promise you someone will wilfully misinterpret it and no one will be able to stop them when the time comes.


Most Proposed Changes Look Pretty Reasonable

Otherwise most of this looks good, worthy of consideration anyway. I haven't gone through things with a find tooth comb, but on first glance I like the increased flexibility of Section 2. The proposed 3.14.5 is sensible and has been a matter of controversy for a while, so this should clear that up.

I like 6.5.2.1 Limiting people to two spec motors will go a long way to stopping wallet racers bolting in a new motor any time its necessary and overgearing it for one super run.


Changes to Qualifying and Final Formats are Poor

There is only one area where you are definitely going backwards.

The changes proposed to the provisional qualifying order and the finals are going to recreate most of the problems that were fixed in the last proposal voted in ~3 years ago.

Take the first part: "6.9.12 The format for counted rounds to determine a driver’s provisional qualifying position will be based on dropping their worst two (2) scores out of the qualifying rounds."

The provisional qualifying order concept was introduced to create consistency between what happens normally, how regrades take place, and how qualifying positions are determined in the event of wet weather or cancelled rounds. The goal was to eradicate any confusion for drivers and officials, because the same system would apply no matter what.

Under the current system a driver can go and look at the board, see where they are qualifying, and know that if it pours down with rain at that instant that is where they will qualify, or if a regrade takes place then, then their current position as displayed on the board is the one they are regraded into.

You've now half changed this so that wet weather is dealt with differently, and changed the formula for the provisional qualifying order. The computer system will now have to be changed if it rains, and drivers will find themselves in a different position to where they thought they were. Guaranteed this will lead to someone not applying the correct formula and someone missing out on their rightful final spot, because that type of thing has happened before.

What's possibly worse though is that nobody seems to have noticed that the provisional qualifying order would still apply to regrades – with the changed formula! So, what now happens at the regrade after round 2 when the formula says you have to drop the drivers' worst two results? Prior to the latest change, how the first regrade was supposed to be applied used to be a source of confusion with different people doing it different ways. The last few meets I went to under the old system there were always arguments.

The changes to how the result of the finals is calculated produces exactly the same result in 1 or 3 leg finals. In 2 leg finals, which you might have for a B final say, you're now counting both legs. Was that the intention?

Previously the rules were written in such a way as to allow the rule set to be used at events with more than 3 finals. AARCMCC events are 3 finals and there was/is a rule that specified that, but part of the prior change was aimed at producing greater utility with the rule set, and making it easy in future should AARCMCC clubs vote to go to more than 3 finals. The proposed rule change does away with this without any significant advantage.

The change to what to do for finals in the event of wet weather, I have to say I'm not a fan of. Why should the pole sitter get an automatic win for the 3rd leg if it rains? There's too much emphasis on qualifying as it is.

Imagine this. The 3rd and 4th qualified drivers have a win and a third after two legs. The pole sitter has a 2nd place and a 7th or something. It rains, the pole sitter automatically wins the 3rd final, and therefore the event. Doesn't seem fair.
Radio Active is offline  
Old 06-23-2016, 07:27 PM
  #56  
Tech Champion
iTrader: (4)
 
TryHard's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Adelaide, Australia
Posts: 5,386
Trader Rating: 4 (100%+)
Default

I'll run through the changes to the finals in turn. Something to think about though is that you need to think of a lot of these proposals in a holistic manner. We have purposefully tried to keep the regulations seperate to make the proposals easier to follow, but also work together to provide better events.

1) 2.4.2 applys to a new grade of event, not a State or Nationals. These would be purely to allow sanctioned events to be run at clubs to get experience, without the pressure of a state or nationals event. We are looking specifically at events like the Newcastle GP, Tamworth's Easter meeting and similar. As such, we don't want to be to restrictive on clubs... it's more for proving out the organisational side of things. Hence leaving the specification open to a clubs discretion for tracks.

2) Counting rounds for the event tie's into the format going to a 5qual, 3 Finals format The main intention of the formula as written is to make it clear that it is the two worst scores that are dropped, as events should only be shortened by wet weather, in which case the new wet weather rules would take precedence. (There is the caveat via 6.1.1 that clubs can run a different format, but that has to approved by the section committee... in which case counting rounds can be altered and then published on the event entry form)

A large intention of the proposals is to simplify the rule book and make it easier to follow. 6.9.12 as currently written does not do this, and would be quite superflous to requirements when viewed with other proposals.

However, I will agree that to suit re-grades, a re-wording is needed. Either specifically to account for regrades after 2 and 4 rounds, or adjust the formula used. Something I'll raise with the rest of the committee.

[My personal preference would be to do away with re-grading altogether, as it frankly isn't needed having had a seeding practise round on the first morning of the event.. but frankly I don't think that would get through!]

3) The meeting format proposed would be adjusted to 5 and 3 for all. Any club intending to run an event will be expected to schedule 3 leg finals for all competitors classes, including B and C's. So a lot of the confusion on results you are talking about is simply not warranted, as if there is no wet weather, then simply put, you'll race three legs and count two. Simple.
5 and 3 is a well known and popular format, and easy to schedule into two days. It also provides equal amounts of racing for all drivers (not favoring the A finalists), and greatly simplifies the schedule for event organisers and drivers. No need to have to try to create space for A finalist to charge batteries within the finals schedule, keep racers at the track for longer... and you actual race more!
Now, if there is wet weather, then the proposed wet weather regs take precedence (via 7.3.1) which has a more detailed way to account for finals as you've read.

4) What if the TQ man gets taken out by 2nd place who then goes onto win the first final, whilst TQ post his 7th, but then TQ doesn't get a chance to rectify that as it rains...is that fair either? No system is perfect, but I would argue that giving recognition for the performance put in already that weekend is fairer than most.
TryHard is offline  
Old 06-23-2016, 09:47 PM
  #57  
Tech Champion
iTrader: (2)
 
Radio Active's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Newcastle, Australia
Posts: 7,132
Trader Rating: 2 (100%+)
Default

Originally Posted by TryHard
I'll run through the changes to the finals in turn. Something to think about though is that you need to think of a lot of these proposals in a holistic manner. We have purposefully tried to keep the regulations seperate to make the proposals easier to follow, but also work together to provide better events.

1) 2.4.2 applys to a new grade of event, not a State or Nationals. These would be purely to allow sanctioned events to be run at clubs to get experience, without the pressure of a state or nationals event. We are looking specifically at events like the Newcastle GP, Tamworth's Easter meeting and similar. As such, we don't want to be to restrictive on clubs... it's more for proving out the organisational side of things. Hence leaving the specification open to a clubs discretion for tracks.
Ok. I see what you mean here now. I think this would be clearer if 2.4 read "2.4 AARCMCC EP On-Road Sanctioned Event Application (Non-Championship)".

HEATS

Originally Posted by TryHard
2) Counting rounds for the event tie's into the format going to a 5qual, 3 Finals format The main intention of the formula as written is to make it clear that it is the two worst scores that are dropped, as events should only be shortened by wet weather, in which case the new wet weather rules would take precedence. (There is the caveat via 6.1.1 that clubs can run a different format, but that has to approved by the section committee... in which case counting rounds can be altered and then published on the event entry form)

A large intention of the proposals is to simplify the rule book and make it easier to follow. 6.9.12 as currently written does not do this, and would be quite superflous to requirements when viewed with other proposals.

However, I will agree that to suit re-grades, a re-wording is needed. Either specifically to account for regrades after 2 and 4 rounds, or adjust the formula used. Something I'll raise with the rest of the committee.

[My personal preference would be to do away with re-grading altogether, as it frankly isn't needed having had a seeding practise round on the first morning of the event.. but frankly I don't think that would get through!]
I'm going to completely disagree with you. I think the proposal adds far more complexity.

Here is 6.9.12 as it stands:

Originally Posted by AARCMCC EP ONR Rules
6.9.12 PROVISIONAL QUALIFYING ORDER

Drivers will accumulate points over the qualifying rounds. A driver’s best rounds (or round) will determine their provisional qualifying position, all other rounds will be discarded.

Discarded rounds will not be used for tie breaks.

The format for counted rounds to determine a driver’s provisional qualifying position will be based on their best 50% of completed heats, i.e.:

1 round of qualifying, 1 round counts, 0 discarded
2 rounds of qualifying, 1 round counts, 1 discarded
3 rounds of qualifying, 2 rounds count, 1 discarded
4 rounds of qualifying, 2 rounds count, 2 discarded
5 rounds of qualifying, 3 rounds count, 2 discarded
6 rounds of qualifying, 3 rounds count, 3 discarded

The Current Rule is Simpler:

Q. How many rounds count?
A. 50% of completed rounds, rounded up.

That's dead simple to remember. Applies in all situations – qualifying, rain, re-grades, the lot. It is also dead easy to program into a computer! The simplicity of this formula was the primary reason it was proposed, and voted in overwhelmingly by clubs just a few years ago.

As you acknowledge, regrading now requires a new rule if the proposal goes through, to add to the different rule for rain, adding more complexity.


Current Rule Makes More Sense for using Rules for Non-Championships Events:

If the intention is to make more use of the AARCMCC rules for additional sanctioned events that might run cut-down formats, it makes even less sense to adopt the proposal.

The current rule can be applied to non-Championship meetings with reduced heats far more easily than what is being proposed. If you wanted to run a meet to AARCMCC rules with only 2 heats, now you could, if the proposal gets through you'd have to make up something different for how many heats to count.

The inconsistency is bad because it means computer systems are more likely to be set-up incorrectly come a championship, and drivers and officials will be less familiar with what the system is. The more often a system is used, the more familiar people are with it. Currently the qualifying rules work for all sizes of events without alteration, and the same rule word-for-word is used in offroad. Change it and we'll have a dog's breakfast of different systems again.


Current Rule is Simpler for Computer Systems:

The fact the current rule is easy to program into a computer is far more important than most people seem to realise. Perhaps people have been spoilt over the last 3 years, and have forgotten the dramas of having to change the settings when it rained. I've been to events where there were delays in excess of an hour while qualifying was sorted out. Sometimes the software does strange things when you try and change the settings part way through a meeting. And I'm not referring just to the software most used in Australia.


Produces the Same Result with your preferred Meeting format:

You've indicated that 5 heats will be preferred (quoted below). Under the current system, 3 count out of 5. Under the proposed system 3 count out of 5. So why bother changing it? Why make the rule more complex to achieve the same result?


FINALS

Originally Posted by TryHard
3) The meeting format proposed would be adjusted to 5 and 3 for all. Any club intending to run an event will be expected to schedule 3 leg finals for all competitors classes, including B and C's. So a lot of the confusion on results you are talking about is simply not warranted, as if there is no wet weather, then simply put, you'll race three legs and count two. Simple.
You could easily change the regulation that mandates the number of lower finals to be run without touching anything else. The regulations as written were actually designed to make changing it in that way easy!

If you did that, then it's just as simple, there's no reason to change the other regulations.

Originally Posted by TryHard
5 and 3 is a well known and popular format, and easy to schedule into two days. It also provides equal amounts of racing for all drivers (not favoring the A finalists), and greatly simplifies the schedule for event organisers and drivers. No need to have to try to create space for A finalist to charge batteries within the finals schedule, keep racers at the track for longer... and you actual race more!
I agree with all of that. And I prefer having more racing for those who qualify outside the A final.

Some will argue that the scheduling is still served by having Double lower finals, and has the advantage that you finish with a climax with the 3rd leg of the A finals. That's a fair point, but if we can have more actual racing for everyone then I'm in favour.

That has nothing to do with changing the formula for counting finals though. I don't understand what you are hoping to achieve here.

Again, at the moment it is dead simple. A minimum 1 final counts. If more than 1 final is run, drop your worst, count the rest.

What you haven't taken into account though is the utility of the rules for other non-championship events. A single day meeting won't have time to run triple-As for everyone. As the rules for finals are currently written, that's not a problem, whereas with the change proposed, again, you're going to have a different standard for AARCMCC events!

For 3 finals that's exactly the same. However, there are clubs around the country who use the AARCMCC rules for their club meets, and there are other major meetings that use them too. These meets won't be offering triple finals for every A, B and C final. They may not even use them for the As. I know of clubs that use 2 finals to AARCMCC format for their club meets. If you remove the provision for different numbers of finals from the AARCMCC rules then you will get clubs in the habit of running differently to AARCMCC. I don't think that's good for the organisation.

At the moment the AARCMCC Finals format can be used for Round events too. Change it the way proposed and you won't be able to.

Originally Posted by TryHard
Now, if there is wet weather, then the proposed wet weather regs take precedence (via 7.3.1) which has a more detailed way to account for finals as you've read.
I don't understand why you want one set of rules for rain and one for normal circumstances when you could have one set of rules that did both jobs. Surely it is simpler for competitors to only have to remember one set of rules.

You should also keep in mind that sometimes there are delays that aren't the result of rain.

Originally Posted by TryHard
4) What if the TQ man gets taken out by 2nd place who then goes onto win the first final, whilst TQ post his 7th, but then TQ doesn't get a chance to rectify that as it rains...is that fair either? No system is perfect, but I would argue that giving recognition for the performance put in already that weekend is fairer than most.
If there is an accident, then that's racing. The pole sitter does not have a birthright to victory. If the other driver was at fault I would expect them to be penalised.

What's not fair is handing the win to a driver who is behind in the finals race. Finals are separate to qualifying. At the moment qualifying is used as a tie-breaker of last resort. And the only reason we use it at all is because you can't plan trophies for a tie.

Additionally, all of the software used in Australia I'm familiar with has no option to do what is proposed. That will have to be done by hand, increasing the risk that errors are made.

The subject of how to break ties in various situations was discussed in great detail at the 2010 AGM by the Club Heads. This was the last joint Electric Section AGM. But held at the Onroad Championships in Bendigo, so it was mainly onroad clubs in attendance. Unlike some other AGMs we had more than a quorum.

The offroad clubs wanted to use the discarded final to break ties, the onroad clubs felt that the fastest time was the best way to go. Everyone was in 100% agreement that qualifying should not be used. That qualifying once it was done was done. That was the point there was strongest feeling on at the meeting.

In the end the agreement that was made was that if in doubt we should go with a format that replicates what IFMAR does. And that's what the current rules do.

You're seeking to change the regulation, that means the onus is on you to convince the clubs that what you are proposing is better. Not simply a change for the sake of it, or similar but different, but actually better. I haven't heard a good reason why any driver should be gifted the win in a race not run.

I strongly recommend that clubs vote AGAINST Proposal 010 and AGAINST Proposal 013.

Last edited by Radio Active; 06-23-2016 at 10:29 PM.
Radio Active is offline  
Old 06-23-2016, 11:27 PM
  #58  
Tech Champion
iTrader: (4)
 
TryHard's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Adelaide, Australia
Posts: 5,386
Trader Rating: 4 (100%+)
Default

Your opinion is your opinion, and you are quite entitled to it.

As a quick response;

1) Non-championship events - You've totally missed the flexiability of formats for such events, as they are all to be left to clubs discretion - See proposal for 2.4.2. If a Club wants to run a different format with different number of counting rounds, great, go for it. Let the committee know and it's all good. Hell, try Reedy format if you want, or 5 counting finals... The counting rules proposed are intended ONLY for state and nationals championships, where it would be expected to follow the 5 and 3 format.
Your point about the rules working better as they are for non-championships events is just not valid when the proposals give the clubs the flexibility to run a sanctioned event with (almost) whatever format they want. We want clubs to be inventive, and feel like they can try new things... and these days that is part of the challenge to get people to attend events.

2) Wet weather/delays - as clearly outlined in the proposals, the current rule sets wet weather rules are contradictory and in various different places throughout the rule book. Going to a single section that takes precedence is far simpler, in the eyes of many racers. Just look at how long you and I took at NSW state titles trying to find all the relevant regulations in the rule book, when we could have turned to one section and be done with it. The current rules just do not have this ease.

3) Counting of finals - The committee as a whole agreed that counting qualifying is worth contributing to the overall results, when a delay happens. All feedback we have had from racers has been generally positive in this regard. Bare in mind a lot has changed since 2010.

As a genral comment trust me, we would not have put any proposals forward if we didn't feel they would make events better.

Do feel free to contact us directly to discuss this more, as the option has always been there. The email address is in this thread, and all the committees phone numbers are easily available too. This goes for any club out there who have questions regarding any of the proposals.

Last edited by TryHard; 06-23-2016 at 11:50 PM.
TryHard is offline  
Old 06-23-2016, 11:31 PM
  #59  
R/C Tech Elite Member
iTrader: (315)
 
nexxus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Perth, Australia
Posts: 8,947
Trader Rating: 315 (100%+)
Default

...guys please don't report posts if it's little more than a dissenting opinion. I get enough emails a day as it is
nexxus is offline  
Old 06-24-2016, 12:12 AM
  #60  
Suspended
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Nov 2015
Posts: 95
Default

Originally Posted by Radio Active
I strongly recommend that clubs vote AGAINST Proposal 010 and AGAINST Proposal 013.
Can you please confirm if it is ALL of proposal 10 you personally take issue to, or 10A, 10B and/or 10C in particular?

We have decided to step away from IFMAR, yes. the IFMAR rules are there to serve a once every 2 year event of the worlds best drivers where racers are committed to rain days if required and the prime intention is to declare a world champion.

Our events are for a distinctly difference purpose. It is also considered by many racers the IFMAR rules are antiquated and controlled by too few with little racer consultation (two people essentially for ONroad) and little care for what racers are experiencing at local club races and regional events such as our stats and national championships.

I would also suggest, if you have not already, you discuss your concerns with your club(s)

Please also refer to the ROAR and BRCA rules on the same issues for comparison.
AARCMCC EP ONR is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service -

Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.