 |
How
Things Sometimes Work (This is not an official document or article, but with the number of people on the autocross list who may not be all that familiar with the workings, it seemed like a good idea. No guarantees that any of this is perfect since it's once again off the top of my head, where the air is.) by Karen Babb ex-SEB member among other things (standard disclaimer applies, Copyright 1998 KCB, you can't quote this, all of that paranoid stuff) SCCA has 50,000 or so members, each of whom resides in a locale which is part of a geographic designation called an Area. There are also geographic competition designations called Divisions. Sometimes a Division is the same as an Area; the Northern Pacific Division is known as Area 9. However, sometimes this isn't true; the Northeast Division is three Areas combined (#'s 1, 2, and 3, I think). This kind of stuff is documented in the SCCA Operations Manual and the Directory, which anybody can buy from the National Office. They are to some extent the "tech documentation" for the club. Suffice it to say that the country is divided up in two different ways for two kinds of use, sometimes along parallel boundaries but not always. Don't worry about why they are divided like they are; it has to do with populations, competition divisions, race track locations, and a whole bunch of other stuff which relates to the entire club not just Solo. Members in each Area have periodic opportunities to vote for the National-level position of Area Director. The elected Directors are the highest authority in the Club, referred to by the familiar label of Board of Directors (BOD). They must approve any action of significance, for example the selection of the location for Club Racing's National Runoffs, major realignments among the National Staff positions, picking the Convention site, and rule changes for the various venues. They are in addition largely concerned with the overall health and well-being of the club, especially financial issues such as the purchase of the HQ building in Denver, the setting of membership dues, and the allocations to each of the departments. These guys (and gals) are the Big Honchos. The names and addresses of the members of the BOD are listed in Sports Car magazine each month (on the page where the magazine's staff is listed). Within the "amateur" side of SCCA there are "rulemaking committees" referred to as Boards; one each for road racing, solo events, etc. The Club Racing rule makers are called the Comp Board. The Solo Events Board is the all-too-familiar SEB. Each of these groups is made up of volunteer club members who are appointed by the BOD. When impending vacancies are known for a rule-making board such as the SEB, a notice will appear in Sports Car indicating the affected Division(s), if applicable, and requesting that interested members submit their relevant information to the National Office. A good submittal will typically include a cover letter indicating why the individual wishes to be on the subject board, and a resume' of relevant experience within motorsports as both a competitor and an administrator. These submittals are passed onto the BOD and the current rules board, whose members will discuss the applicants and arrive at a consensus as to their preference for recommendation to the BOD. The BOD votes on the final selection, and that person transitions into the vacated position, normally at year end. The numbers and distributions of the members of each board vary. In the case of the SEB there is one member per Division for a total of eight. This distribution is not mandated by SCCA, but has been in place for some time. Other rule-making boards have different numbers and distributions of members. Pro series' such as Pro Solo and professional road racing are administered by the National Office and will not be addressed here. "Solo" also includes Solo I, which covers hillclimbs and various flat-track and other time trial events. Solo I in general uses quite a bit of the road racing rules and many of their safety requirements and classifications. Solo II covers that sport which most people also know as autocrossing. The National Office employees (e.g. Howard, Tasha, Paige) are paid by the club to take care of the nuts and bolts of operating such a large organization. This includes not only road racing, rally, solo, etc. but insurance and legal concerns under a department called Risk Management. There are also clerical employees who take care of copying and routing mail, distributing documents, taking phone calls, etc. These folks all perform absolutely essential services. Howard Duncan, who oversees Rally and Solo, is a past SEB member. Rules change proposals for Solo, including classifications, come from both the general membership and from within the SEB. Literally hundreds of member letters come in each year which address various issues of concern, either in response to the requests published in Fastrack or because a member believes a problem exists and action is needed. Sometimes a member will actually propose a solution; other times they'll simply point out a perceived problem and tell the SEB to "do something." The address to write to is in the front of the rule book; for Pro Solo concerns, input should be addressed to the Pro Solo Manager, and for Solo I and II concerns they should be addressed to the Solo Events Board. The same P.O box address works for both. Other things the SEB covers include the interpretation of the existing rules. If a member can't figure out from what is in the rule book whether they can perform a modification to their car, they can write to the SEB and ask. It is the member's job to research the car and provide the data if any is required. The board will examine the question and try to figure out (1) if the envisioned modification is believed to be allowed or intended by the existing rules and (2) if the rule needs to be rewritten or at least publicly clarified to see that the area in question is covered better. In general the rule of thumb members should follow in considering a vehicle modification is that if the rules don't explicitly authorize something, it should not be done unless the SEB has issued a formal approval and/or clarification. This is sometimes known as the "If it doesn't say you CAN, then you CAN'T" approach, or "assume the answer is NO and go from there". The SEB members receive packets in the mail each week which contain copies of these letters as well as internal SCCA correspondence (such as safety bulletins, staff changes, memos relevant to Solo, etc.). A packet has come to be known humorously as "the dreaded mass" since the arrival of one means each member has some homework to do. Member letters alone come in clumps of from 2 or 3 to twenty or more each week. An SEB member doing a conscientious job must read all of these and prepare informal written commentary to send to the National Office for distribution to the rest of the SEB, either by email or by hardcopy in a following week. In essence most issues are "discussed" in writing in this manner. Somewhat similar to a very slow email list. In addition there are wording proposals to write and review, technical data about cars to be evaluated, subcommittee reports to process, event administration matters regarding Nationals et.al. to decide about. Overall there are usually between 800 and 1000 correspondence items to deal with in a given year. Conference calls take place every couple of months. The SEB actually meets face-to-face three times a year; once at the National Convention, usually in February or early March (and they pick up much of their own tabs for this, too), once around June in Denver, and once at the Solo II Nationals in September. The Convention and Denver meetings are usually the most productive, since at Nationals there is little time to meet and still manage to be available as much as possible for appeals, Protest Liaison duty, and in-person member input. In February and June the SEB will sit in a conference room from typically 8 a.m. to at least 5 p.m. for a couple of days (they've been known to go to 10 p.m. or so) and discuss in detail those major issues which are pending. Preparation for these meetings involves reviewing recent correspondence (and figuring out how to pack it all to bring along), researching necessary topics in current and past rules if applicable, and often composing draft wording for rule change proposals and/or clarifications. A rule change proposal cycle takes more than a couple of weeks. Except for some administrative items and those changes which are authorized under existing rules (e.g., 12-month re-classifications, tire exclusion list changes), proposals are published in Sports Car at which time member comment is solicited. After a reasonable time has passed, the input received is considered and the SEB comes up with a final disposition of the proposal (withdraw, revise, delay, or send to the BOD with a recommendation of approval). Then the item must get onto the agenda for the BOD when they meet either in person or by conference call, and they will discuss the proposal and vote to either approve it, turn it down, or request more information from the SEB before considering it. An interpretation also takes a while; the request must be circulated among the SEB, discussed in the weekly mailings, a consensus must be reached, and the ruling written. That's why the rule book says to allow six weeks. In reality that is a fairly short time for such an item to be resolved, especially when one adds in the lead time required for Sports Car publication and/or the time needed for a two signature letter to make its rounds after a decision is made. When an issue comes up, be it a new car classification, a re-class request for an existing car, a preparation allowance change, whatever, it needs to be examined from a wide range of perspectives. That in part is why it's good to have both technical people and "big-picture" philosophical people on the SEB. The technical people can evaluate the specifications, make educated guesses as to performance parameters, etc. The philosophical people can try to anticipate membership perceptions, effects on participation, accessibility, and costs, differences between National and Regional implications, and how the issue fits into concerns such as overall category philosophies. In reality each SEB member does some of both. What the SEB almost religiously tries not to do is be driven by concerns about sponsorship, contingencies, and other forms of manufacturer support. This may sound unrealistic and naive, but that's the way it is. Roger Johnson in North American Pylon has said the SEB should "be kinder to its sponsors". The board doesn't think it should do that. Which is of course not to say that SEB members don't appreciate sponsor participation, but if the decision-making process is to retain any kind of reasonable integrity it can't be influenced by that sort of concern. And the board just doesn't talk about that stuff if they can possibly help it. Think about it; if rules were sponsor-driven, there might well be a spec tire for Stock, and nine spec-car classes in Stock each of which belonged to a "contributing" make and model. Is this something that would be in the best interests of the majority of SCCA members competing in Solo II (as opposed, for example, to that 2% or so who make up the National-level elite)? Probably not. SEB members may well hope that participating manufacturers do make products which will work and which serious competitors will use, but legislative "help" is not part of the picture. Stock classing is probably the issue which causes the most consternation on a regular basis. The majority of cars will fit somewhere tolerably well based on the "looks like a duck" typecasting approach, but there will probably always be examples of both new and old cars which don't. New cars can be reclassed immediately within 12 months of their initial classification (so obvious glaring errors can be corrected), but other changes require the full cycle of publication, feedback, discussion of input, and approval by the BOD. Two kinds of classing problems are prominent; the newer car which is either an overachiever or an underchiever and doesn't seem to fit with the ducks it resembles on paper, and the older car which seems to be in a similar boat. If a car is an overachiever, the SEB will usually hear from drivers of other cars in the class who now see their platforms of choice as being uncompetitive and are seeking legislative relief. If it is an underachiever, the board will hear from drivers of that car who have essentially the same view. Jeff Altenburg once characterized the extreme cases of each as "I Stock; I want a class I can win in the car I have." Yeah, don't we all... The SEB has a subcommittee which covers the areas related to Stock classing; it acts an advisory committee which is asked to examine overall issues and the interrelationships among the classes, and as a technical committee which is asked to acquire and provide specifications and "typecasting-based" recommendations. This group currently consists of Rick McDaniel, Andy Bettencourt, Steve Brolliar, Rich Fletcher, and Jack Burns (I think). In the case of the overachiever car, the questions which the SEB tends to discuss include--but are not limited to--various issues such as (in no particular order) the availability of the car and of any special options or packages needed to optimize it, evaluation of the car's ability to compete in the proposed destination class versus the reasons for its "domination" in its current class, projected effects of leaving the car where it is on participation in the current class, effects of moving the car on participation levels in the proposed destination class as well as the class it's coming from, how the affected classes fit into an overall picture of the structure, whether the move is or should be part of a package to better implement that structure, and a variety of other factors which may include the economical accessibility of affected cars. Member input which is of the most use helps in evaluating these issues by providing data such as technical specifications, option variations, production numbers, and to some extent results from major events under good conditions with drivers of known ability. An issue from a few years ago was the HS classification of the Cosworth Vega. Mal Kooiman took an HS title (by a very small margin) in this car and suddenly concerns arose that it might be a ringer. The possible action considered was a move to E Stock. As with many older cars, accurate specifications were hard to come by, especially in the areas of wheel size, LSD availability, and engine output. Fortunately, one SEB member was able to attend events where Mal competed and to find out more about the car's preparation level and provide additional evaluation of it and its driver. They even weighed the Vega at one event. Its strengths compared to most of HS are its power and RWD; weaknesses include weight and suspension. The following year in Salina the car finished well but could hardly be said to appear dominant. The eventual conclusion of the SEB was that the Vega did not appear to pose an obvious problem in HS at this time. In the case of the underachiever, some of the above questions are also discussed. The difficult situation here is when a car doesn't seem to fit well where it is but the only logical place to put is is another class where it might well dominate. The SEB is regularly besieged with letters of the "if you build it, they will come" variety promising huge turnouts of Car X if only they would move it down to a slower class. Examples of cars which have been the subject of such input lately include the BMW 325 series, the Dodge GLH-S, the 12A 1st-Gen. Rx7, and a host of others. The reality is that it is technically impossible to have classes such that every single car will have an equal chance to win. While in the case of the underachiever which the board decides not to move it may appear that a "loser" is being chosen, the more likely truth is that a "ringer" is hopefully being avoided. If an underachiever addressed by member request can be moved to a class where it doesn't appear to be likely to dominate and suddenly disenfranchise most of the class it's going to, and where it still at least somewhat fits in, a proposal may well be put into Sports Car for feedback, but caution is usually exercised. A key factor in both types of considerations is the difference between "contender" and "overdog". It is typical for those who are in a subject car to characterize it as a contender at best, while those who fear it will of course represent it as an overdog. The SEB has to try to see past the individual interest and evalu ate only the car and its relationship to the subject classes. Preparation rules are another area which sees plenty of action. Member input comes in about two flavors; those from people who have already made Modification X and now want that to be legal in the category they want to run in (Stock and SP are the most popular areas for this), and those from people who want to make Modification X so their car will be faster and/or more durable, and they want it to be legal in their target category. Occasionally there will also be a request to remove an allowance. Areas the SEB will discuss when trying to figure out if a change which would increase preparation allowances is appropriate include issues such as whether the allowance is expensive to use, does it make a car faster, can it be misused to provide an unintended improvement, does it have positive or negative effects on car safety, will it upset the balance of competition in any class which is currently seen as healthy and stable, is it available and accessible to all or most cars in a particular class, what is the most extreme case envisionable of this modification, is it considered to be within the intent of the category as a whole, does it open a possible can of worms with regard to provoking additional requests in related areas which are beyond the scope of the category, etc. A type of preparation expansion which is occasionally brought up is the allowance in SP of alternate camshafts. Just a few of the questions which arose the last time this came up include:
As you can probably tell, discussions of this nature aren't exactly brief or simple. Often the SEB will turn to its subcommittees (there is one for each preparation level) to ask for recommendations. Many times the answer to a request which makes sense for one car has to be No, because of the potential for undesirable impacts across the category. It's not often easy to thoroughly explore such changes. That's why the boards and committees get paid the big bucks (<G> or ;-), whichever you prefer). |
 |