Radio Active

iTrader: (2)

AARCMCC's constitution lays out that it's task is set standards. It's sensible to allow clubs flexibility, but parts of the rule set that can be standardised should be. How does it serve RC racing in the country to again have a situation where different rules exist for how many heats and finals count?

Flexibility is fine for some things, but when it comes to the minutia of the rules that most racers rarely look at, that needs to be consistent. Your average race won't look at the wet weather rules until it rains. If the rules are the same as the normal situation they're familiar with, so much the better.

The few of us left who can remember having different formats for offroad and onroad, and different formats for ROORDA and AARCMCC or ORRCA and AARCMCC will be able to tell you it was a nightmare. Nobody knew what they needed to do to win. You want to recreate that situation.

Changes to wet weather procedure I would support. But the formula for how many heats and finals count is already catered for in all situations. There's no need to change that.

I can't think of any other form of sport, motor sport or otherwise where this would even be considered as a sensible option. It's a dreadful idea IMO. If others feel differently then I guess that's the way the vote will go.

I'm away in a place with no phone reception, so a call isn't an option. I could send an email, but once the proposals have gone out for vote, the appropriate thing to do is to give one's informed or expert opinion on a public forum, so that everyone can see and engage in the debate, and then make a more informed choice.

Radio Active

iTrader: (2)

I did look at the ROAR and BRCA rules prior to the introduction of the current AARCMCC rules in this area. The current AARCMCC rules were designed to improve on them whilst still being consistent with IFMAR. They have done that. They've been working really well in both Onroad and Offroad, and the longer they've been in place the greater the uptake has been for all sorts of events, not just AARCMCC events.

The changes proposed to 6.1 are fine. It's 6.9 and 6.10 I feel are retrograde.
There's no indication in the proposal document that they are separate proposals. If they are, this needs to be made clear.

nexxus

iTrader: (315)

WC voted on the rule changes over the weekend

Proposals 11 and 12 voted down

All other Proposals Voted in favour

thanks

Radio Active

iTrader: (2)

For anyone only reading this thread, and not also the facebook page, or in direct contact with their club, their is an amended document here: https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B8A...JUM1VEVGM/view which shows the rules removed as well as the proposed new rules.

Using that document I've noticed a further issue with proposal 010C*. The proposal changes wording from "highest score amongst their counted rounds" to just "highest individual counting round". This is ambiguous and one of the things that was fixed in changing this rule last time! Because it can mean that of the finals counting for your score, it is the last one you raced that is the tie-breaker (i.e. the highest final).

And yes I've been present at a meeting where a club official was arguing that the 3rd final was the tie-break under the similar wording used previously.

Note that if using the higher final interpretation in conjunction with the wet weather rules proposed, the artificial final populated with qualifying results would be the tie breaker.

* Now split up I see.

TryHard

iTrader: (4)

Your interpretation of "highest individual counting round" seems to be considerably different to everyone else that has viewed these proposals.

The correct interpretation of "highest individual counting round" is simply that... the highest scoring round you have among those counting. Nothing at all related to which round it was scored in, as you appear to suggest. If a driver scores a 10 and two 7's, counting a 10 and 7 for 17, and another scores a 9 and two 8's, counting 9+8 also for 17, then driver with the 10 individual score takes it. Nothing ambiguous in that.

There is no need for further investigation of the counting rounds, as you cannot mathematically have equal points where one score ties and the other doesn't. Either one driver has an individual higher counting round, or both drivers have exactly the same counting rounds. In which case you look at fastest round times.

Ed

Radio Active

iTrader: (2)

I know that's what you mean. The point is it doesn't say that explicitly, and could be taken the other way. Just as when the old rule said that if drivers were tied from their two counted rounds the 3rd final would be used as a tie-break, 95% of people knew that meant the discarded final. But at least one club official argued that wasn't what it said, and we had to have a half hour meeting discussing it.

Chances are any similar misunderstanding would be similarly resolved. But the last thing you want at a rain shortened meeting is to have to waste another half an hour correcting a misunderstanding with a Jury meeting, which is why the wording was fixed as part of the previous proposal to change that rule.

cplus

iTrader: (11)

Daniel,

Please be aware the document you refer to was released at the same time as the proposal voting forms (sorry, actually, 24hrs later from memory) to all the clubs.

In the interests of openess, we also made this available publically (via our Facebook page) for all racers to see and enable additional interaction with their clubs.

This is not something we are obliged to do, but want to do so in the interests of interactive and construction discussion.

Radio Active

iTrader: (2)

Yes, that's appreciated.

I don't have a facebook account, so I don't visit that page very often. The first document I saw was the one released here on this page, which is different. There wasn't any indication here that there was an updated document, so it took me a while to discover that an updated one existed. It's good that it was released so quickly in those other locations though. The response to requests from clubs to supply that extra info was very good.

nudge2325

iTrader: (13)

Hi,
I am just wondering when someone from AARCMCC would be able to reply to my email from Monday 27/06/16.

Thanks
Adrian Field

cplus

iTrader: (11)

Adrian, assuming it has been sent to the EP section, we meet once per week and will discuss your email at the next meeting.

TryHard

iTrader: (4)

.

AARCMCC EP ONR

Voting for the recent proposals has been concluded with the following results;

Proposal 006 - Events - 14 responses - 13 Yes / 1 No / 0 Abstain - Passed

Proposal 007 - Track Prep - 14 responses - 13 Yes / 1 No / 0 Abstain - Passed

Proposal 008 - Scrutineering - 14 responses - 12 Yes / 2 No / 0 Abstain - Passed

Proposal 009 - State Championship Schedule - 14 responses - 13 Yes / 1 No / 0 Abstain - Passed

Proposal 010 - Meeting Formats - 13 responses - 12 Yes / 1 No / 0 Abstain - Passed

Proposal 011 - State Championship Rain Day - 14 responses - 12 Yes / 2 No / 0 Abstain - Passed

Proposal 012 - National Championship Rain Day - 13 responses - 12 Yes / 1 No / 0 Abstain - Passed

Proposal 013 - Wet Weather - 14 responses - 12 Yes / 2 No / 0 Abstain - Passed

Proposal 014 - General Specifications - 13 responses - 11 Yes / 2 No / 0 Abstain - Passed

Proposal 015 - ISTC Technical Rules - 14 responses - 14 Yes / 0 No / 0 Abstain - Passed

Proposal 016 - ISTC Tyre Rules - 14 responses - 13 Yes / 1 No / 0 Abstain - Passed

As you can see, all proposals have passed. These regulations are now in place for all future events.

We'd like to thank the following clubs for contributing;
ACTMRC, IMCC, Castle HIll, TFTR, SMA, Understeer, Mornington Penisular, Adrenaline Arena, Boronia, Logan, Brendale, Adelaide Electric, Perth, West Coast.

Given the large amount of changes, the committee will be forming a "Whats different" document shortly for all racers, to help explain what will be happening at future events.

EC

Radio Active

iTrader: (2)

Now that those proposals have passed, when can we expect a proposal to fix the broken regrade rule?

The first regrade is now to be determined from drivers' best 0 of 2 heats. Given that the rule changes are now live, do we expect the proposal to fix this will be regarded as urgent, and thus implemented immediately rather than on Jan 1?

This provision has not previously been used, so I'm interested in what precedents we set for what we regard as urgent or important.

TryHard

iTrader: (4)

An amendment to that proposal was sent out to all clubs. This amendment alters the re-grading, in that there is now only a single regrade (after round three) during qualifying, based off of the two best scores. This change was made as drivers are already graded off of control practice, and two more regrades was considered excessive.

6.9.8.2 Re-grading of drivers should be carried out on the basis of the provisional qualifying order after the third round of qualifying, counting the two best scores. The Race Director may use their discretion to cancel a regrade in the event of significant or imminent schedule interruption.

The amendment was sent out on the 25th July, by which point only 3 clubs had voted on the proposal. They were given the opportunity to re-cast their vote, and non chose to. The remaining 10 votes were cast after the amendment had been sent out. This change will be written into the rule book for the July 1st update, as it is included as part of Proposal 010.

Radio Active

iTrader: (2)

If you sent out the amendment on the 25th, why didn't you mention that here when you replied on the 28th?

If you had, or indeed if you had sent me an email with a draft, I could have advised better wording than what you have chosen.

The whole point of the provisional qualifying order originally was that whenever an order was required it would be the exact same order printed as 'in progress' on the time sheets. The provisional qualifying order was always the current qualifying order.

What you have now defines the provisional qualifying order as your best n-2 results so far, and then says regrades are based on the provisional qualifying order after 3 heats but that you use your best 2 at that point. That's inconsistent.

It's likely to cause confusion with people who also race offroad who've become used to the provisional qualifying methodology. It was implemented in Offroad a year prior to Onroad, so they've had it longer.

Look Ed, I can't fault your intention or your effort, but I do get the impression that you rushed a large batch of rules here. It looks like you decided that a large number of things needed changing after the NSW State Championships, and that rather than taking some time and using a scalpel to make fine adjustments, you picked out bits of the BRCA rule book and inserted them wholesale. And then because we were close to the cut-off for new proposals before July 1 some things didn't get the scrutiny at your end they would have otherwise. Feel free to say otherwise if that's not the case.

The BRCA rule book is pretty good, and as a starting point that's not bad, but our rule book has a different lineage. And things won't always slot easily in. Some areas of our rule book are actually better. And in fact the provisional qualifying order system I truly believe was one of those. It was the product of 6 months consultation with Race Directors, Racers and Software Developers. We actually made sure the software was implemented before the proposal went to vote in two of the major systems used at Australian meets. You can imagine the work that went into that. Then after all that, we only proposed it for Offroad first, and made sure it worked well for a year before introducing the same proposal to Onroad. If it seems like I'm a little annoyed, maybe that explains why. It was a well thought out, long process, and a lot of work.

In the end the clubs have backed you on these changes. You've done an excellent job for the first half of the year, so I'm not surprised. The clubs trust you at this point. And when you give them a lot of changes all at once they'll fall back on that. But you can't take that for granted, and I urge more consultation outside of the AARCMCC Executive before making proposals of that magnitude again. I reiterate my prior offer to look over anything in advance and offer advice.