Off road 1/10th Nationals

[noreargrip]

I wasn't there so I just want to know..why is there a problem?

[Mugenextreme]

No problem

[Click]

Originally Posted by Mugenextreme

No problem

The only problem I have is my poor memory

I still maintain there was some discussion about this rule change, again as I keep saying, from memory, I thought it was agreed that the 2.4m would be applied where possible and/or it would be an aspirational width if the location allowed.

I think we should all just move on, it's water under the bridge

We have a good thing going in the Naul, long may it last

[Mugenextreme]

Originally Posted by Click

The only problem I have is my poor memory

I still maintain there was some discussion about this rule change, again as I keep saying, from memory, I thought it was agreed that the 2.4m would be applied where possible and/or it would be an aspirational width if the location allowed.

I think we should all just move on, it's water under the bridge

We have a good thing going in the Naul, long may it last

Think we will have to get a film crew in and tape next agm Kev. So we can back track on what was said.

[Meath77]

Anyone remember what the reasons for the change were?

[Mugenextreme]

Originally Posted by Meath77

Anyone remember what the reasons for the change were?

Tomorrow evening went I am on the pc and not the tablet. I will post a link to the proposal if you want.?

[The Doktor]

Originally Posted by Click

The only problem I have is my poor memory

I remember it like you do Kev.

The new rule was proposed. It was then discussed by those who were there, as there was a worry that it may be a dictate rather than an aspiration. It was then agreed that it would go into the rule book in a slightly amended form to show this.
Its how I remember it, and also what I wrote down on my copy of the rule proposals on the day.

The proposal was:
12.4.3 The Minimum track width is 2.4 meters. The start straight for finals is a minimum of 3 meters. The straight is a minimum of 20 meters in length.

The reason for the proposal was:
The 2m minimum track lane width rule is not being used sensibly. 2.4m allows for a more appropriate width for sections of the track far from the rostrum.




As you say though, lets move on. The racing is good at the naul, and its also dry

[Meath77]

Originally Posted by Mugenextreme

Tomorrow evening went I am on the pc and not the tablet. I will post a link to the proposal if you want.?

Yeah, that would be interesting, cheers.
Edit: no need, just saw lees post

[Click]

Originally Posted by Mugenextreme

Think we will have to get a film crew in and tape next agm Kev. So we can back track on what was said.

[noreargrip]

apology to mugenxtreme..i read my post back and sounded a bit harsh when i asked if there was a problem..wasnt meant that way and hope it wasnt taken that way..
I don't know the ins and outs of the situation between all involved but sounds wrong to me..I'm not laying blame at anyone's door.i have my opinions about the situation but I'm keeping them to myself.
the rccaoi ran a couple of rounds last year .one in particular at ballymena where the turn out was very poor..there was a discussion about if there was enough people to even run the meeting..don't think there was enough people to even marshall all posts if I remember correctly ..but we had a talk between the racers and decided to go ahead and run it the best we could..I don't know the rule book but I got the impression that the meeting wasn't fully up to what it takes to run an rccaoi event.i understood finals had to have a full compliment of marshals.. please correct me if I'm wrong but that's the impression I got ..so the drivers decided at the race briefing although it was far from ideal,we had a small turnout of hardcore racers that wanted to race..so it went ahead..
so I suggest why can't something similar happen at the first round at naul..?
let it be put to the racers on the morning what the problems are and find out their views and come to a decision...
And if its still decided unsuitable we are all still there and can race ourselves anyway..
I think the rccaoi need the members more than the club members need the rccaoi going by the very poor attendance at last years series.
if there's not enough entries therefore not enough people to run the meeting safely does that mean no rccaoi series?..
due to my brca commitment I cannot compete in the complete series..but I wish to in the future that's why I'm so concerned..

[The Doktor]

Originally Posted by Mugenextreme

from what I can see the club committee choose not to make an attempt to alter the track to bring it more in line with the track specs. .

Id just like to point out that this is incorrect. The club committee did not choose to not make an attempt to alter the track, the club MEMBERS choose to keep our track as it is.
The track was designed by members, and voted on by members. It is not for the committee to dictate how things should be, its always up to ALL the members.

[Click]

Originally Posted by noreargrip

apology to mugenxtreme..i read my post back and sounded a bit harsh when i asked if there was a problem..wasnt meant that way and hope it wasnt taken that way..
I don't know the ins and outs of the situation between all involved but sounds wrong to me..I'm not laying blame at anyone's door.i have my opinions about the situation but I'm keeping them to myself.
the rccaoi ran a couple of rounds last year .one in particular at ballymena where the turn out was very poor..there was a discussion about if there was enough people to even run the meeting..don't think there was enough people to even marshall all posts if I remember correctly ..but we had a talk between the racers and decided to go ahead and run it the best we could..I don't know the rule book but I got the impression that the meeting wasn't fully up to what it takes to run an rccaoi event.i understood finals had to have a full compliment of marshals.. please correct me if I'm wrong but that's the impression I got ..so the drivers decided at the race briefing although it was far from ideal,we had a small turnout of hardcore racers that wanted to race..so it went ahead..
so I suggest why can't something similar happen at the first round at naul..?
let it be put to the racers on the morning what the problems are and find out their views and come to a decision...
And if its still decided unsuitable we are all still there and can race ourselves anyway..
I think the rccaoi need the members more than the club members need the rccaoi going by the very poor attendance at last years series.
if there's not enough entries therefore not enough people to run the meeting safely does that mean no rccaoi series?..
due to my brca commitment I cannot compete in the complete series..but I wish to in the future that's why I'm so concerned..

I think your comments are full of common sense, the problem is common sense is not being applied in this situation.

Of course we need rules so that we all know how to play the game BUT if a particular rule is being applied unfairly or just does not make sense then this is where common sense should apply.

Some racers might say 'it states in the rule book 2.4m and that is that' at one level they are correct but in context of a small country with a VERY small community of RC racers AND limited options when it comes to places to race they are SO wrong, in my opinion.

[celticpanman]

Some racers might say 'it states in the rule book 2.4m and that is that' at one level they are correct but in context of a small country with a VERY small community of RC racers AND limited options when it comes to places to race they are SO wrong, in my opinion.[/QUOTE]

[Rayzerp]

Originally Posted by noreargrip

apology to mugenxtreme..i read my post back and sounded a bit harsh when i asked if there was a problem..wasnt meant that way and hope it wasnt taken that way..
I don't know the ins and outs of the situation between all involved but sounds wrong to me..I'm not laying blame at anyone's door.i have my opinions about the situation but I'm keeping them to myself.
the rccaoi ran a couple of rounds last year .one in particular at ballymena where the turn out was very poor..there was a discussion about if there was enough people to even run the meeting..don't think there was enough people to even marshall all posts if I remember correctly ..but we had a talk between the racers and decided to go ahead and run it the best we could..I don't know the rule book but I got the impression that the meeting wasn't fully up to what it takes to run an rccaoi event.i understood finals had to have a full compliment of marshals.. please correct me if I'm wrong but that's the impression I got ..so the drivers decided at the race briefing although it was far from ideal,we had a small turnout of hardcore racers that wanted to race..so it went ahead..
so I suggest why can't something similar happen at the first round at naul..?
let it be put to the racers on the morning what the problems are and find out their views and come to a decision...
And if its still decided unsuitable we are all still there and can race ourselves anyway..
I think the rccaoi need the members more than the club members need the rccaoi going by the very poor attendance at last years series.
if there's not enough entries therefore not enough people to run the meeting safely does that mean no rccaoi series?..
due to my brca commitment I cannot compete in the complete series..but I wish to in the future that's why I'm so concerned..

Yeah Mark thats how I remember it...I think there was a vote on the day in Ballymena about the various options we had. Ended up combining clubman and Mod for the qualifiers as not enough marshalls.... it just made sense as the people who did turn up just wanted to race. Common sense obviously only applies to years that end in an even number.

[Meath77]

Is it possible to scrap the 2.4m rule change and revert back to the old one as there seemed to be a mix up between what was agreed at the meeting and what was written down on the rule book? I know people are saying "if you want your say, go to the meetings", but there doesnt seem much point if we vote on one thing, and another is written down into the rule book!
And just to make the whole "rule change" more ridiculous is:

The reason for the proposal was:
The 2m minimum track lane width rule is not being used sensibly. 2.4m allows for a more appropriate width for sections of the track far from the rostrum.

That doesn't even apply to the naul, the high rosterum and smaller track area means the entire track is clear!

[mixer]

Originally Posted by Mugenextreme

What are u on. If u want i can post the proposal from the agm if you want it made clearer. The rule had one change to It 2.0 to 2.4 for all areas off the main straight.
It's not a rubbish change it was done for a reason it just happens now that the track the club have proposed to run with doesn't suit the guidelines. Some people made a complaint to the rccaoi committee and from what I can see the club committee choose not to make an attempt to alter the track to bring it more in line with the track specs. The rccaoi are stuck in a difficult position because what is voted in by the driver present at the agm is the guideline they are are asking to run with as it's not the committee who make up the rules. If there is a issue as clearly some drivers had then what do they do forget the handbook altogether. Why have a rule book then.

Hi Colin what complaints were made???

[Mugenextreme]

Originally Posted by mixer

Hi Colin what complaints were made???

Mick , it maybe that i assumed it but since the thread started with Rccaoi cancelled the round due to the track being to narrow and then question about rules regarding track width throughout the thread. For the Rccaoi to have even gotten involved and make a ruling on something like this there would have to have been a complaint or a concern about the track made from somebody. Why else would they have gotten involved?

[mixer]

Originally Posted by Mugenextreme

Mick , it maybe that i assumed it but since the thread started with Rccaoi cancelled the round due to the track being to narrow and then question about rules regarding track width throughout the thread. For the Rccaoi to have even gotten involved and make a ruling on something like this there would have to have been a complaint or a concern about the track made from somebody. Why else would they have gotten involved?

I go with that Colin... but it baffles me that someone would make a complaint about round one venue when it was announced as being griffeen valley... it was only due to weather conditions that the venue had to be changed and this infomation was only between the two committees and was not made public...

[Mugenextreme]

Originally Posted by mixer

I go with that Colin... but it baffles me that someone would make a complaint about round one venue when it was announced as being griffeen valley... it was only due to weather conditions that the venue had to be changed and this infomation was only between the two committees and was not made public...

Mick there was no set venue for round 1 Griffen or Naul according to the rccaoi site. In saying that if someone had a concern about the specs of the Naul, whether or not it was to be the host venue or not something could have been sent in prior to any announcement with the assumption it would be the host venue. Regardless of the factors involved in choosing it over griffeen. If weather is a factor why not work with the rep or committee and choose a more suitable date where there maybe a better chance of good weather and use griffeen where a track suitable to cover all angle can be ran at.

[kartstuffer]

Main reason for that is that there is a perfectly good track at the Naul that is raced on every week and could easily be used if common sense were to prevail.
The second reason is that the members want to race every Sunday and not waste time ripping up a track at the Naul to lay one in Lucan as I believe the fire-hose at Lucan is not suitable!! And the pipe is screwed to the floor in Naul.
These are my observations as I am not on any committee a just want to have some RC fun with like minded others.