I've created this thread as an open invitation to CARS officials in an attempt to open dialogue re. the 2wd rule changes.

Keith it would be great if you could forward this link and get involvement from CARS, as some people feel that emailing is getting no results.

Lets get this out in the open and have discourse between people who pay entry fees and those who sanction events as well as make rule changes.

Won't happen on a third party forum.
(There are plans for a moderated forum on the CARS site... but that development is moving slowly)

Definitely won't happen on Rally Anarchy.

---

First Rally: 2001
Driver (7), Co-Driver (44)
Drivers (16)
Clerk (10), Official (7), Volunteer (4)
Cars Built (1), Engines Built (0) Cages Built (0)
Last Updated, January 4, 2015

Quote
john vanlandingham
Blame is for idiots. losers.

Quote
Morison
Won't happen on a third party forum.
(There are plans for a moderated forum on the CARS site... but that development is moving slowly)

Definitely won't happen on Rally Anarchy.

Obvious question is why?

Quote
RWD4ME
Obvious question is why?

Only on a moderated forum that CARS has control over so that there can be some level of authentication of who is posting and knowing that they are a real stakeholder. There would also be the ability to properly handle posts that intentionally misrepresent the facts and/or cross over the line into defamation.

The reasons for not on Anarchy should be obvious.

Frankly speaking, while many on the current board personally participate on forums, i have the impression few think it is the right place for the sanctioning body to get involved in discussions.

---

First Rally: 2001
Driver (7), Co-Driver (44)
Drivers (16)
Clerk (10), Official (7), Volunteer (4)
Cars Built (1), Engines Built (0) Cages Built (0)
Last Updated, January 4, 2015

Quote
john vanlandingham
Blame is for idiots. losers.

Sounds like you'd rather have a corporate policy meeting. Those are always so productive....

If there is any intention to continue the subject. Has there been any ironed out plans for regional events to continue allowing old classes? In which case, cars that cater to the old rules will compete against cars restricted by the new rules as in the past? or will competitors be spread across more classes?

Quote
aj_johnson
Sounds like you'd rather have a corporate policy meeting.

Why do people always think it is 'me' taking these positions.
As someone who works in communications I can say there are many vaid reasons for a sanctioning body not getting involved in conversations on internet forums, particularly unmoderated or anonymous forums.
Not the least of the reasons is that each individual board member can really only express their own opinion or their impression of the discussions and decisions. That gets too quickly assumed as the 'official' position. To have someone represent the association officially would be, frankly, too onerous/costly.
That isn't to say that soliciting feedback from the stakeholders is too onerous, the board is taking steps to reach out and solicit feedback on issues moving forward. (No-one disputes that the new classes weren't handled as well as they could/should have been.)

Quote
aj_johnson
Has there been any ironed out plans for regional events to continue allowing old classes?

Why do I have to keep answering that question?

Yes, the regions are free to continue recognising Group 5 for as long as they want to.

It will be up to each region to determine if they want to.
At the moment it looks like it will be the same 5 classes you see in the national series and that Gr5 will stay around afterwards at the regional level.

Quebec is a bit of a test case since their Jon Nichols cup scores any 2wd class recognised by CARS so they combine the new Open 2wd and Gr5 this year. (But had not allowed Gr5 in previous years)

---

First Rally: 2001
Driver (7), Co-Driver (44)
Drivers (16)
Clerk (10), Official (7), Volunteer (4)
Cars Built (1), Engines Built (0) Cages Built (0)
Last Updated, January 4, 2015

Quote
john vanlandingham
Blame is for idiots. losers.

Somebody who can tolerate this dodging an ducking better than I should ask Morison what makes a volunteer board member with a Open turbo 4wd car or no car at all a "stakeholder"

"Stakeholders, it seems, are those guy on the long list that Media man keeps ignoring who these non-stakeholders on the notorious committee have decided to boot out of the National events and relegate them to Regional events which are routinely shortened making it impossible to directly compare overall stage times---to see how they would have done in the National had they been interested in coughing up more money.


And of course its silly to expect board members to speak in an open forum where people's names are public.. obviously controlling dialog and silencing any dissenting voices is paramount...It is about control and controlling the "public face" of the series... All one big happy family. The 650 plus post on SS.com hundreds and hundreds elsewhere are from only a handful of malcontents and the whole of the membership stands in serried ranks behind its wise leaders...

---

John Vanlandingham
Sleezattle, WA, USA

Vive le Prole-le-ralliat

www.rallyrace.net/jvab
CALL +1 206 431-9696
Remember! Pacific Standard Time
is 3 hours behind Eastern Standard Time.

Quote
john vanlandingham
Somebody who can tolerate this dodging an ducking better than I...

What dodging and ducking?

Quote
john vanlandingham
..should ask Morison what makes a volunteer board member with a Open turbo 4wd car or no car at all a "stakeholder"

There are a range of stakeholders in the sport that include people building cars, people entering events, volunteers, organizers, clubs, parts suppliers, etc. Depending on the issue, the thoughts of different communities of stakeholders will have different weights.
The funny thing is that the volunteer board members are supposed to be representing the stakeholders they represent, but are also bound to make the decisions they feel are in the best interests of the association. In many ways, they lose their voice as stakeholders when they accept the role of representing a region. (Does it always work ideally? probably not)

Quote
john vanlandingham
"Stakeholders, it seems, are those guy on the long list that Media man keeps ignoring...

I didn't realise you wanted me to do something with your long list... more on that later.

Quote
john vanlandingham
who these non-stakeholders on the notorious committee have decided to boot out of the National events and relegate them to Regional events which are routinely shortened making it impossible to directly compare overall stage times---to see how they would have done in the National had they been interested in coughing up more money.

First, the committee members are, without question, stakeholders in the sport in Canada. Certainly some of the people on your list are also stakeholders - I don't think anyone would say otherwise.

Second, Group 5 continues as a national class as a result of the board hearing, and listening to, concerns expressed by stakeholders.

Third, For both Rocky and PFR regional entries can run the full length of the national event (in multiple events) for within dollars of the same money as the national entry. If the stakeholders (customers) want it, I'm sure it'll come.

Quote
john vanlandingham
All one big happy family.

No-one is suggesting everyone is happy about everything and the board is taking the idea of soliciting feedback seriously. I really doubt doing so on third party forums will ever happen.

Quote
john vanlandingham
The 650 plus post on SS.com hundreds and hundreds elsewhere are from only a handful of malcontents and the whole of the membership stands in serried ranks behind its wise leaders...

Your words, no-one elses.
However, if you look at who was posting in the 650 plus post thread - it isn't a lot of unique people. It is a few, 'talking' a lot.

Now: The list...
There is NOTHING stopping any of those cars from being entered in a Canadian event in the near future in a class that they are built for.
If these cars show up and enter events, the class is virtually certain to be kept.

---

First Rally: 2001
Driver (7), Co-Driver (44)
Drivers (16)
Clerk (10), Official (7), Volunteer (4)
Cars Built (1), Engines Built (0) Cages Built (0)
Last Updated, January 4, 2015

Quote
john vanlandingham
Blame is for idiots. losers.

Quote
Morison

Quote
aj_johnson
Sounds like you'd rather have a corporate policy meeting.

Why do people always think it is 'me' taking these positions.

Because your tone comes across as a person who is making the rules. As such one can only assume that it is your stance, or that you've given up fighting for your point of view. Either way you've assumed the position.

Quote
Morison

Quote
aj_johnson
Has there been any ironed out plans for regional events to continue allowing old classes?

Why do I have to keep answering that question?

I meant beyond the currently vague Regionals can do what they wish for the near future. I was rather asking if there was a longterm solution for stateside competitors wanting to come up and play.

Quote
aj_johnson

Quote
Morison

Quote
aj_johnson
Sounds like you'd rather have a corporate policy meeting.

Why do people always think it is 'me' taking these positions.

Because your tone comes across as a person who is making the rules. As such one can only assume that it is your stance, or that you've given up fighting for your point of view. Either way you've assumed the position.

Quote
Morison

Quote
aj_johnson
Has there been any ironed out plans for regional events to continue allowing old classes?

Why do I have to keep answering that question?

I meant beyond the currently vague Regionals can do what they wish for the near future. I was rather asking if there was a longterm solution for stateside competitors wanting to come up and play.

And he asks about dodging and weaving..oi!

I've rarely encountered somebody as consistant at keeping "the official face" and yet is so poor at it...

---

John Vanlandingham
Sleezattle, WA, USA

Vive le Prole-le-ralliat

www.rallyrace.net/jvab
CALL +1 206 431-9696
Remember! Pacific Standard Time
is 3 hours behind Eastern Standard Time.

Quote
aj_johnson
Because your tone comes across as a person who is making the rules. As such one can only assume that it is your stance, or that you've given up fighting for your point of view. Either way you've assumed the position.

I thought I've been fairly clear that I'm trying to help people understand the process and thoughts of the 'board.' I haven't had a vote on the board for 3 or 4 years now although I am still a part of the discussions.

Quote
aj_johnson
I meant beyond the currently vague Regionals can do what they wish for the near future. I was rather asking if there was a longterm solution for stateside competitors wanting to come up and play.

I'm not sure what you want or expect in a 'longterm' solution.

The regions have a certain amount of autonomy in what they do. That was most drastically seen about a decade ago when the Quebec championship went to a 2wd only championship, no forced induction, with two 'cups,' one for Gr2 and one for PSport. For some time, AWD cars weren't even allowed to enter for the longest time.
In other words, CARS isn't in a position to 'mandate' Gr5 cars be allowed in regional for x number of years as that is ultimately a region decision.

The closest Canadian events to you (1200miles return) are in the Western Canada Rally Championship, where it has already been said that Gr5 will exist as a class for the foreseeable future. It is also a championship where the national events offer regional options that give you the full distance of the National.

If you really want to enter the national in a Gr5 car - for national seeding points or novice championship points, as examples - you will be able to, you'll just be scored in the overall standings only as of 2015, unless that changes.

If you want to come up and 'play,' as in have fun driving the piss out of your Gr5 car down the stages and be scored in regional or national events you'll be able to do that.

If you want to come up and take part in a regional Gr5 championship and run the full distance of the national you'll be able to do that.

If you want to come up and run your Gr5 car in the National Championship event so you can get national seeding points and score points for the North American Rally Cup for 2wd you'll be able to do that.

If you want to come up and run your Gr5 car in the National Championship and be scored in the Open 2wd championship, you'll be able to do that as long as you fit a 32mm restrictor unless the requirement for a restrictor is removed from forced induction cars. (the board has already said that some of the reasons Gr5 was reinstated was to see how many people would support the class AND to see if the cars really are slow enough unrestricted to not be an issue.)

If you want to come up and run your Gr5 car in the National Championship and win the Open 2wd Championship you'll be able to do that but you'll have to fit a 32mm restrictor unless the requirement for a restrictor is removed from forced induction cars and start a minimum of three events (which means ~8,000 miles of towing) and score enough points to win in Open 2wd (which probably means at least 18,000 miles of towing.)

That's all 2015 and beyond.

Until then, Gr5 remains a national championship class.

---

First Rally: 2001
Driver (7), Co-Driver (44)
Drivers (16)
Clerk (10), Official (7), Volunteer (4)
Cars Built (1), Engines Built (0) Cages Built (0)
Last Updated, January 4, 2015

Quote
john vanlandingham
Blame is for idiots. losers.

Note to readers, I have known several WA State Representatives, one WA State Senator, a King County Council person, and they all failed in the most fundamental understanding of what their job was as well, so bear that in mind in the following...

Canajian Media Relations Putz wrote, in a complete misunderstanding of what it means to be representing a person or group of persons means:

Quote

The funny thing is that the volunteer board members are supposed to be representing the stakeholders they represent, but are also bound to make the decisions they feel are in the best interests of the association.

That is the error that leads to so many stupid, uncompromising, illogical, rigid and unsatisfactory results in every situation I can think of. rally, Unions, governance in real world

All those State reps 2 who i know socially all said the same thing.


Sorry, REPRESENTATIVES should REPRESENT the wishes of those the were chosen to REPRESENT...
Not make up shit they imagine are "bound to make the decisions they feel are in the best interests" whoever..

The OTHER Representative is supposed to represent the interests of the people who put him--or her---there.
Not make up other shit because he imagines he is "bound to make the decisions they feel are in the best interests".

The term for that in political discourse is "Paternalism"

We don't need no fawking paternalistic putzes guiding us, we know what we want and for the most part we know what the point is...

Representatives yes, paternalistic schmucks --or worse "talk of Benevolent Dictators", no.

Naturally that means representatives must talk in depth with people he represents, and that is very time consuming, but it's a volunteer position both in our little sport and in real life....and nobody forced anybody to volunteer.
But that's the only way a Rep can know the will of who they are chosen to represent..


And for themselves, be mindful of what they should be doing...

Our culture has given us the proverb
The road to hell is paved with good intentions,

and life and history is really a long record of the truth of that statement.

---

John Vanlandingham
Sleezattle, WA, USA

Vive le Prole-le-ralliat

www.rallyrace.net/jvab
CALL +1 206 431-9696
Remember! Pacific Standard Time
is 3 hours behind Eastern Standard Time.

John, I know very well what it is means to represent people. I've been elected numerous times in numerous roles to do so and in most cases I was approached and asked to take on the role so don't suggest it is a matter of me being a meglomaniac 'wanting' these positions or 'the power' - that certainly isn't the case.

Having actually sat on volunteer boards of one type or another for most of the last 20 years, I understand well the balance of representing the people who have put me there and following the legal responsibilities of being a director. I'll note that in my experience representing the thoughts and will of one's constituents isn't, normally, in conflict with doing what is in the best interests of the association.

The following document outlines the legal responsibilities of directors of not-for-profit corporations:

http://www.ic.gc.ca/eic/site/cilp-pdci.nsf/eng/cl00689.html

The 'short' version of the above document from Industry Canada, which deals with the responsibilities of being a director of a not-for-profit association is below.

Quote

The duties of directors
Directors are required to exercise their power with competence (or skill) and diligence in the best interests of the corporation. They owe what is called a "fiduciary duty" to the corporation. The duty is a "fiduciary" duty because the obligation to act in the best interests of the corporation, at its core, is an obligation of loyalty, honesty and good faith. Modern corporations statutes governing business corporations provide a concise formulation of the fiduciary obligation owed by directors. Most of the corporations statutes governing not-for-profit corporations do not. The formulation of the fiduciary duty of directors has been developed at common law by Canadian and English courts or set out in the Civil Code.

---

First Rally: 2001
Driver (7), Co-Driver (44)
Drivers (16)
Clerk (10), Official (7), Volunteer (4)
Cars Built (1), Engines Built (0) Cages Built (0)
Last Updated, January 4, 2015

Quote
john vanlandingham
Blame is for idiots. losers.

Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 03/05/2013 11:39AM by Morison.

I’m chiming in here as I respect the opinions and voices being put forth, but at the same time want to point out what I often see happening in this discussion.

Keith, I applaud your determination to keep the lines of communication open about what is going on as much as you can. I completely understand why CARS would not want to “post” on public forums (not that I agree with it, but I understand). I am surprised by your willingness to post, even if it is the “party line”, and I am often curious if you take heat from the rest of the board for your posts (not that I would condone you taking the heat! )

To the rest of the vocal “prole le ralliat”, it is unfortunate that CARS has not been as open as they could have been about upcoming changes (an openly receptive to suggestions). I think most of the people responsible for the rule set have realized toes have been stepped on - and maybe they would have lost competitors - and so things are being done to rectify the situation. How far that goes is yet to be seen.

But as a CARS member looking for info on what’s going on, let’s not beat up on Keith too much, lest we lose our only intel! In many ways he has been the only one to get out any information beyond the “official posts” on the CARS site. I think he is doing a pretty good job of putting up with the heat over decisions that he certainly did not implement singlehandedly. Let’s at least give him that.

It would be great if CARS built an official forum where questions could be raised and answered in an official manner. Of course the difficulty of providing an official response is difficult given the time lag between someone posting a question, and an agreed upon answer being delivered.

As for the “show-up to play and we’ll let you play” mandate, I can attest that it seems pretty much the case. Open class Monster Justy would have been hampered by some 1000 lbs of ballast, but it has been made very clear to me that we will be given an exception. I think this will be the case for anyone who is unreasonably penalized by the weight restrictions (and the weight restrictions for production class have been lifted). As for the 2wd debate, it is my understanding that there is still ongoing discussion, so wee will see what comes forth.

As for communications directly with CARS, it was not well handled in the onset (I was one of the ones who did not receive an email response, even after sending a few, until I started PM’ing people on SS). I think initial onslaught of “WTH are you doing to my sport” emails would have been overwhelming. I think the board has fixed the problem though.

My 5 cents, as we no longer have a penny.
Carry on.

Matt

Quote
Mad Matt F
Keith, I applaud your determination to keep the lines of communication open about what is going on as much as you can. I completely understand why CARS would not want to “post” on public forums (not that I agree with it, but I understand). I am surprised by your willingness to post, even if it is the “party line”, and I am often curious if you take heat from the rest of the board for your posts (not that I would condone you taking the heat!)

Thanks for voicing that on the forum Matt. I hear much the same when I talk to people and, occasionally, through PMs or emails but not so often actually on the forums. I also hear a lot of 'why do you bother...' from rally types as well.

Only once or twice have I been asked to cut back on posting. The most obvious one was the SS.com thread about the class changes and that was simply because anything we would say would get twisted, misrepresented and lead into another slew of posts that were nothing but detrimental to the discussion.

Quote
Mad Matt F
It would be great if CARS built an official forum where questions could be raised and answered in an official manner.

That is in the plans, but I can't realistically predict when it will come together.

Quote
Mad Matt F
I think the board has fixed the problem though.

Communicating with all of the stakeholders will always have problems of one sort or another. The board is working on ways to better get feedback and has been fairly successful. We've started to use survey software and have gotten clear and valuable feedback on a couple of issues (Tracking and Spec Fuel.)

---

First Rally: 2001
Driver (7), Co-Driver (44)
Drivers (16)
Clerk (10), Official (7), Volunteer (4)
Cars Built (1), Engines Built (0) Cages Built (0)
Last Updated, January 4, 2015

Quote
john vanlandingham
Blame is for idiots. losers.