2020 Speed Series regulations - draft copy

[graham frankland]

6 hours ago, cphelps said:

May I politely suggest that we now close this topic? It's getting to be ectremely disrespectful, and doesn't reflect the friendly, welcoming nature of the Speed Series. These rules are the SSOT trying to revitalise the championship and we have to appreciate their efforts and see how things progress. 

Hi Charlotte

I agree most of the people in the SS are a great bunch of friendly people who I love having a banter with but it is now becoming much clearer that the SSOT have been working on these changes in the shadows for quite a long time without sharing any of their ideas with the SS entrants (some with up to 22 years membership). To be presented with the "this is what it is" "take it or leave it for 2020" attitude from the SSOT without any discussion is "Dickensian" in the extreme and should not have happened in this day and age!

There is no reason because we are raising our dis-pleasure at this high handed treatment and disrespect from the SSOT that we should close the topic!

Sorry but I still hope we can be friends!

Glutey   

[AdamR]

1 hour ago, graham frankland said:

Good Question!

I think it is TE plus 2 entrants in the proposed G Class

But I could be wrong!

G

 

That's what I thought too, but could also be wrong!

 

Using 2019 data, it seems that the new 'proposed' rules will put nearly all of the "usual suspects" (those with highly developed cars and / or who attend more than 10 rounds) into W4: Del, Garry, potentially Dave Cleaver, Team Phelps, John Hoyle, Howard, Keith, Craig, Marto, Graham and others I may have missed.

 

That leaves a couple of people in W3 completing 10 or more events (Terry E, Matt T, Steve E), plus a light smattering of competitors in W1 and W2 - none of whom would complete enough events to win the overall.

 

Unless there are significant changes in attendees or car specs for 2020, the overall SS winner seems a foregone conclusion...? 

 

Or is that good incentive for newbies to come and have a plan, or someone to put 1b tyres on and move 'down' into W1 or W2? 😁

[Howard]

Keith and I have both been on 1b tyres this year. I'll be in W2 and imagine Keith would be too.  I really wouldn't call my car highly developed. 

[AdamR]

Knew I'd miss something, thanks!

[Marto303]

15 minutes ago, Howard said:

Keith and I have both been on 1b tyres this year. I'll be in W2 and imagine Keith would be too.  I really wouldn't call my car highly developed. 

Howard

if your comparing against Del, Ade or Dave C I’d agree, but for our former class D you don’t win the championship or class in an undeveloped car. 
 

Surely you can see that the issue here is not with any fellow competitors but brutish way these changes have been forced on us no consultation or consideration. 

[Captain Colonial]

36 minutes ago, graham frankland said:

I guess it is not easy to understand how the proposed new rules affect the different sections of the championship when you have not (i don't think so anyway) participated yourself!

Glutey

You guess wrong.  Kindly do not make assumptions about what I understand and don’t understand Graham - I know and understand far more about it than you realise.  Far more.

 

i have to say that I came close to entering the SS several times in the past but like this year, the unjust vitriol cast by a noisy minority upon the SSOT in these annual draft regs threads stopped me dead each time. Sadly, it appears some things do not change. 
 

30 minutes ago, Marto303 said:

Scott

Thats exactly the point we feel unhappy about.

 

The SSOT have changed everything without even asking our opinions let alone listening to our concerns. 

 

 

That’s funny.  Every time I have stumbled into this section of the forum for years, someone has been complaining about the rules or this or that and someone from the SSOT has listened and responded - these rule changes are evidence of them listening.  I distinctly remember a few years ago when the competitors badgered the CompSec so hard for rule changes that the end result was that the SS very nearly missed the deadline for approval and almost didn’t take place.

 

The rules are different or amended every year, yet each time the same competitors who complain about the existing rules are surprised when it happens.  Go figure.
 

The SSOT work bl**** long hard hours for no reward in order to try to give back and make the series as fair and exciting as possible.  Still some people cast aspersions and abuse on them, some of it bordering on libellous.  Keep it up and these volunteers may decide they’ve had enough and might just chuck in the towel and say stuff it, and then you’ll have no SS at all.  Is that what you want?

 

For heaven’s sake, you gentlemen have made your points.  Now let the SSOT do their work and stop whingeing.  They are DRAFT rules.  They heard you.

 

And will someone please lock this thread - it ceased being useful several pages ago. 🙄

[Howard]

40 minutes ago, Marto303 said:

but for our former class D you don’t win the championship or class in an undeveloped car. 

You do if you're a driving god 😁🤔

 

Sorry, couldn't resist 😄

 

That, and playing the numbers game and choosing events carefully. The new system changes that somewhat, which I think is a good thing. I can start going back to venues I've long avoided because the target times were so out of reach.

[Marto303]

23 minutes ago, Captain Colonial said:

You guess wrong.  Kindly do not make assumptions about what I understand and don’t understand Graham - I know and understand far more about it than you realise.  Far more.

 

i have to say that I came close to entering the SS several times in the past but like this year, the unjust vitriol cast by a noisy minority upon the SSOT in these annual draft regs threads stopped me dead each time. Sadly, it appears some things do not change. 
 

That’s funny.  Every time I have stumbled into this section of the forum for years, someone has been complaining about the rules or this or that and someone from the SSOT has listened and responded - these rule changes are evidence of them listening.  I distinctly remember a few years ago when the competitors badgered the CompSec so hard for rule changes that the end result was that the SS very nearly missed the deadline for approval and almost didn’t take place.

 

The rules are different or amended every year, yet each time the same competitors who complain about the existing rules are surprised when it happens.  Go figure.
 

The SSOT work bl**** long hard hours for no reward in order to try to give back and make the series as fair and exciting as possible.  Still some people cast aspersions and abuse on them, some of it bordering on libellous.  Keep it up and these volunteers may decide they’ve had enough and might just chuck in the towel and say stuff it, and then you’ll have no SS at all.  Is that what you want?

 

For heaven’s sake, you gentlemen have made your points.  Now let the SSOT do their work and stop whingeing.  They are DRAFT rules.  They heard you.

 

And will someone please lock this thread - it ceased being useful several pages ago. 🙄

Scott

Im sorry, although I have massive respect for you and the work you’ve put into this club,  I have to disagree. 
 

At this point in time there has been zero response on the questions raised. We do not complain or abuse as you put it just for the sake of it. 
 

Unlike you, many of us have put years of hard work and a small fortune  into competing and  development of our cars to try and become competitive in our class and simply ask that that effort be considered before our former classes be disbanded. 

 

These may be draft regs but having been submitted to MSUK once approved are very difficult to amend. 
 

I have no wish to fall out with anyone involved but I will not be bullied by you  into silence. 

[tolf]

This thread is going beyond a discussion now and going to end up with rudeness and further issues. 
I am locking this now and will discuss with the committee. 

[Andy Banks]

Folks,

 

On behalf of the Committee and the SSOT, we have called a halt to this thread at this time as it seems to have run the course it was opened for and now drifted to areas that are uncomfortable, inflammatory, borderline defamatory and sailing pretty close to the edge of what we voted in as a set of behaviours in our constitution.

 

No response to this statement is expected or required but considered and polite feedback is as ever welcomed in connection to the draft regulations as shared with you in the initial post. Please remember that our much needed, welcomed and trusted Sponsors are members too and we must present a friendly and professional public image at all times, if there is a real need to vent, please use PMs but beware that behaviours in PMs are just as expected elsewhere…

 

I have said it before; I, supported by the committee am extremely uncomfortable of any public bashing of any fellow member or contributing organisation and especially of those who are elected and/or chosen to provide this club and its members with a service. If you can't offer up constructive feedback without having to sleight others, then please keep your feedback to yourself.

 

What has been offered in this thread is early sight of what has been a considerable effort from the SSOT in consultation with me and the rest of the committee and subject matter experts on what are some fairly significant changes. This was done, as has been said from the outset (and explained in the accompanying document), to try to improve and simplify the system, attract and retain competitors and ensure we minimise the risk to the existence of the Speed Series in a climate that is clearly failing grassroots motorsports across the board; we are all trying really hard to keep this going. Change must and will happen, the old ways were not working, we agree new or different ways as a team and move on.

 

The SSOT have nothing to hide, all the points made in the earlier posts are well understood and have already been discussed. Decisions have been made within the SSOT to which all have agreed to abide by and support, even if an individual did not personally agree, as being the best way forward in terms of scoring and classes and are necessarily and sadly reflective of previous low entry numbers. It is not necessary to have the further input or the iterative contribution from the wider membership during this process; on that point we are no different to all of the other championships out there. It is also quite a reactive thing to which the SSOT and Committee have done their best to respond to quickly and accommodate if possible. Again, consider other clubs and how they approach their regs… we have taken the choice to publish the draft regs so you can get a head start, not all clubs do, seems we are to be dammed if we do and damned if we don’t.

 

There will always be opposing views, that is perfectly natural, expected and accepted, there is no one size fits all and I know this has been borne out at pretty much every session the SSOT has conducted to reach the conclusions they have. The Committee do not feel that any one individual currently has any overarching sway, nor that any of these changes are unilateral, it’s a team game and we discuss, argue, vote and move forward, it’s what our constitution tells us to do, it's what our club is all about.

 

We do appreciate all the views and feedback, some most sensible and logical but I am not and nor are the majority of the Committee experts in this area, this is why we have the SSOT and why we as club must accept and respect that they are the doing right thing by everyone, there is nothing personal, dictatorial or unilateral here.

 

For now, peace and harmony please, let's see where the new regs take us, let's see if we can work together to promote the Speed Series and make it better and bigger.

 

Any related threads and PMs (including other social media) will be appropriately moderated to ensure we are on track to achieve that and remain as the friendly club.

 

Thank you.

 

[John Loudon - Sponsorship Liaison]

Please disregard any copies of regulations in this locked thread. The SSOT have issued a revised version at the following thread which should be the only copy referred to.

 

Best wishes

 

John (on behalf of the SSOT)