graham frankland Posted May 9, 2019 Posted May 9, 2019 The real issue here is the "green eye monster" syndrome Get out and support the events and not just moan and say the rules need changing because you decided not to go and hence not got any points! The results of the two guy's at Angelsey will probably not be too significant when all the points are added up at the end of the season! During my time on the SSOT these special conditions rules were debated and amended long and hard! On balance over time they work pretty well! Also Mark Stanton's earlier post is also very relevant in this instance! Glutey 1 Quote
Scottish Bloke Posted May 9, 2019 Posted May 9, 2019 I remember when this used to be fun!! Come on guys, support and applaud the guys who turned up, the effort and commitment to travel, remember that those who make the rules do so with vast experience, in a voluntary capacity, to the best of their ability and with everybody's best interests at heart!! NO set of rules will ever suit all of the people all of the time so please try and respect what the ssot have achieved and continue to work hard to improve. And to go back to the point Steve made in his original comments, get out there and improve your personal times/targets. We all started somewhere, so.e people will end up being very quick, some won't. We cant all be superstars!! Rich 3 Quote
maurici Posted May 10, 2019 Posted May 10, 2019 12 hours ago, stephenh said: I think it is sad that there has been implied criticism of a competitor in the Speed Series for scoring "too many points", particularly a competitor who I suspect is either a novice or is not very experienced, or maybe has an under developed car for his or her class. Hold on a minute... No one is criticizing any competitor... he is done NOTHING wrong and shouldn't be taken that way. Neither the opportunity of debating a rule that appears to be inconsistent. Why do we have such a inclination to take things personally? This is NOBODY's fault... but that doesn't means is right, and being able to debate such things should be taken naturally... 2 Quote
stephenh Posted May 10, 2019 Posted May 10, 2019 Maurici, the rules cannot be changed part way through the season. To do so would be plainly unfair. Therefore airing grievances about another competitor's score on this open forum achieves no good at all. If a competitor has a grievance then the way to deal with it is covered by the regulations and by the blue book. 1 Quote
maurici Posted May 10, 2019 Posted May 10, 2019 Still you are missing my point, or as often happens, I'm unable to make my point. First thing I've said is that the competitors have done nothing wrong and that is nobody's fault... so i can't see how you take it as a complaint against a competitors score. I couldn't care less about it. My complaint (not even a complaint) my debate... is against a rule that in certain circumstances will reward going slower than faster. And that is wrong in a "SPEED" championship. Do we agree at least with this last point? Rules can't be changed partway the season, i get it and i thing nobody is asking about it. The debate here is if is the rule is right or not, or if it could be re-definded for a more fair outcome when it is applied. To make it clear again... I have ZERO grievances about anyones scores. I've myself taken "profit" once on this rule, and I raised back there the oddness of it. And ill repeat myself again... Taking things personally instead of trying to take it as an opportunity of healthy debate to try to improve stuff for following seasons is what doesn't helps. Just my view anyway. 2 Quote
maurici Posted May 10, 2019 Posted May 10, 2019 11 hours ago, graham frankland said: The real issue here is the "green eye monster" syndrome Get out and support the events and not just moan and say the rules need changing because you decided not to go and hence not got any points! The results of the two guy's at Angelsey will probably not be too significant when all the points are added up at the end of the season! During my time on the SSOT these special conditions rules were debated and amended long and hard! On balance over time they work pretty well! Also Mark Stanton's earlier post is also very relevant in this instance! Glutey And... I couldn't disagree more with that point. The "shut up and play" approach is just wrong, especially in a friendly environment like this as there is not a single moan addressed to an individual. 1 Quote
Tony Smiley Posted May 10, 2019 Posted May 10, 2019 To close my contribution to this discussion; my assertion still remains that this rule should only be applied if the conditions warrant it, and in this case the “conditions” were as favourable as they were in the round held at Anglesey in April. Anyone who believes that the “conditions” doesn’t refer to something that could affect all of the competitors, such as rain, poor visibility, extremes of temperature etc. are wrong, in my opinion. The intention is that the times of 61% of the competitors attending the event is used as a means of deciding the revised target times in such a situation, not to trigger the rule regardless. It was, after all, originally referred to as the “Wet Day” rule, not the “low number of attendees” rule. I have or had no intention of criticising any competitor, just the way the rule was invoked based on the number attending and not the “conditions” prevailing at the time (in fact I doubt if anyone even considered the conditions, as it appears to happen at every event that has a low attendance). That’s it from me, I’ll go and try to improve my times, assuming conditions are favourable. Tony 3 Quote
SimonRad Posted May 10, 2019 Posted May 10, 2019 1 hour ago, Tony Smiley said: To close my contribution to this discussion; my assertion still remains that this rule should only be applied if the conditions warrant it, and in this case the “conditions” were as favourable as they were in the round held at Anglesey in April. Anyone who believes that the “conditions” doesn’t refer to something that could affect all of the competitors, such as rain, poor visibility, extremes of temperature etc. are wrong, in my opinion. The intention is that the times of 61% of the competitors attending the event is used as a means of deciding the revised target times in such a situation, not to trigger the rule regardless. It was, after all, originally referred to as the “Wet Day” rule, not the “low number of attendees” rule. I have or had no intention of criticising any competitor, just the way the rule was invoked based on the number attending and not the “conditions” prevailing at the time (in fact I doubt if anyone even considered the conditions, as it appears to happen at every event that has a low attendance). That’s it from me, I’ll go and try to improve my times, assuming conditions are favourable. Tony I totally agree with you Tony. I’ve decided to concentrate on a different championship this year and I probably won’t join the series next year, partly to do with unclear regs but mainly because of some of the comments on here. 🙁 I’m not jealous of somebody scoring more points than me, and I haven’t criticised a competitor I’ve criticised the regs. What a shame. 1 Quote
maurici Posted May 10, 2019 Posted May 10, 2019 @SimonRad You are free to take your own decisions and focus on another championship… BUT: Ambiguous rules, wouldn’t be the word… The championship is made in a way that you can actually compete against other people without being in the same event than them EVER in the whole season. Is made in that way to ensure everybody has as much opportunities to compete as possible, and compatible with most of the agendas. However, doing it like this, you will always have unfair situations as you will never be competing in the same conditions of other competitors and this is a fact that needs to be accepted. The comments in here, well. There is always a huge resistance to modify the rules here, even put them to debate without offending someone seems impossible. Always happens. But at the end the SSOT always takes good note of our suggestions and so far there is a good compromise between competitors wishes and the regulations. For sure they will take a look for next year so see what can be done with this rule. 4 Quote
AdamR Posted May 10, 2019 Posted May 10, 2019 bl**** hell, what happened to the angry Spanish man we know and love? 😄 Seriously though, spot on. I can't think of other series / championships that allow such a broad range of venues and dates, allowing drivers to 'compete' with each other despite never meeting! (Said in a positive way). The regs are there up front before we join, so the decision is ours. 1 1 Quote
maurici Posted May 10, 2019 Posted May 10, 2019 6 minutes ago, AdamR said: bl**** hell, what happened to the angry Spanish man we know and love? 😄 Seriously though, spot on. I can't think of other series / championships that allow such a broad range of venues and dates, allowing drivers to 'compete' with each other despite never meeting! (Said in a positive way). The regs are there up front before we join, so the decision is ours. Saving my anger for the scrutineers and the MSA 😛 I'm trying a different approach... to see if I can made it trough a post without upsetting someone... XD 4 Quote
John Loudon - Sponsorship Liaison Posted May 10, 2019 Posted May 10, 2019 Events are not just run for our championship alone. Lots of other championships go to the same rounds. For the sake of a few quid, it makes sense to me to enter more than just one to make your entry count towards more than one championship. I see no point in avoiding one championship, especially if it is our own 1 Quote
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.