WMCA Road Racing Classing Review – Pre-AGM Package.
Authors: Doug Campbell and Gary Roberts
Please review prior to the AGM.
Contents
Definitions (Page 1)
Summary of Competitor Feedback (Page 2 + 3)
Overview (Page 2)
Comments on Rationale (Page 2)
Comments on Mandate (Page 2)
Comments on Criteria (Page 2)
Comments on Summary (Page 2)
Comments on Conclusions (Page 3)
Comments on Recommendations (Page 3)
Proposal for presentation and review at the AGM (Page 4 + 5)
Tech Committee Recommendation (Page 4 + 5)
Part 1.a “Core Classing Structure” (Page 4)
Part 1.b “Stability Period” (Page 4)
Part 2. “Additional Classes” (Page 4)
Part 2.a “Adding an Additional Class(es)” (Page 4 + 5)
Part 2.b “Retiring an Additional Class(es)” (Page 5)
Authors’ Contact Info ( Page 5)
Definitions
GT – Grand Touring
IT – Improved Touring
NASA - National Auto Sport Association, a for profit American motorsports organization not affiliated with ACCUS nor the FIA
PT – Performance Touring
ST (NASA) – Super Touring
ST (WCMA) – Sport Touring
WCMA – Western Canadian Motorsport Association
Summary of Competitor Feedback for a Tech committee review.
Overview
Feedback regarding the “WMCA Road Racing Classing Review – Preliminary Report” was received via E-mail, Web forums (ie WCMA, Straightpipe), in person at WCMA events and WMCA Member club meetings (CSCC and NASCC). Despite request for formal feedback in the form of an email, many limited their comments to conversation (whether in person at meetings or events or via web forum), for that reason some of the summary may seem/be anecdotal.
Comments on Rationale
Most competitors seem to largely agree with the rationale, while some took issue with one point or another. The vast majority clearly agree that a review is appropriate and needed. Some pointed out that no matter what rules are used, there will always be disparity between some cars in the same class and the rule set was unlikely the main reason we have minimal visitors from, or competitors traveling to, other areas (excluding ChumpCar). Only 3 competitors thought the rules worked as is.
Comments on Mandate
There was one only comment on the mandate, which came from several competitors in a variety of ways, but largely in the form of questions. “How will we add new classes in the future, like was done recently with Spec Miata, or could be done with American Iron? And how/when do we remove classes when their attendance drops, or is zero, like GT4 and 5, or one day will happen to Challenge Car”
Comments on Criteria
The majority of the criteria was widely accepted. However there was one item that was conflict-ridden “Must align with areas that members could visit, or other racers could visit from”. Many felt that we could have our own unique rule set. About 40% of competitors providing feedback felt changes to our current rules were the best options, however there was very little consistency in what the changes should be.
There was one item that was missed and that should be added based on the feedback “Must be conducive to growing motorsports in the WCMA”
Comments on Summary
In regards to the commentary on the CASC-OR – GT (lap time based classes) one competitor at the NASCC felt that it was unfair to describe it as “not it the spirit of racing in the WCMA”, as it had worked well for the annual “GT money Race”. However all in the room (except this competitor) agreed this would not be the correct approach for the WCMA.
Comments on Conclusions
There was very little feedback suggesting that a different region or body offered a better solution than NASA ST and PT or that any of individual the conclusions “Preliminary Report” were wrong. There was some feedback that there may be some concerns in the form of dyno time and the related cost.
Some concerns raised that were not in conclusions:
1) PT‘s Preparation Points system - How do we know what is being claimed as preparation points?
a. Solution offered: PT classing form must be filled out and kept in Vehicle logbook.
2) Measuring an HP rating at the track… no mobile dyno
a. Solution offered: Traqmates could be used for compliance (Used in Regional events in NASA)
3) PT’s Point system – Is somewhat complicated and points could be hard to calculate
a. NASA has a spreadsheet to make this very easy
4) PT’s Dyno Reclassing – PT’s cars are not dyno reclassed solely on HP to Weight, NASA does not publish how they reclass and we may not reclass the cars the same as NASA
a. No solution at this time,
i. Trial and error.
ii. Approach NASA for formula
Some other points of support raised that were not in conclusions:
1) Ease of Changing classes in the NASA system
a. There are a series of smaller steps and by adding or removing single parts or weight, competitors are able to easily move up or down a class where there may be more competitors
Comments on Recommendations
The comments on the final recommendations were varied but there are a few items that are not included in the recommendations and should be adopted, whether or not the classing rules are changed.
1) Guide lines for the addition of classes
2) Guide lines for the retirement of classes
3) A commitment to rules stability for a specified period of time
There were many suggestions on how to modify our current rules set, but which were different, with a majority looking to include some sort of power to weight calculation, as a major change from our current formula. With comments online and via email, about 2 in 3 responses were in support of adopting the NASA ST and PT rules, however while attending an NASCC meeting only about 1 in 3 supported the proposal. This puts competitors who responded formally or informally at about 50/50, it is important to note that not all of the 50% opposed to NASA are set against the idea. Many are open to the proposal but feel the WCMA could come up with something better.
While It would be possible to say that adopting the NASA ST and PT rules was the clear winner with 50% in support and the other 50% spit between a dozen different ideas, and some of that 50 % willing to accept the NASA rules, that would not be fair to the idea that the WCMA can come up with something better.
Proposal for presentation and review at the AGM
The follow proposal is the recommendation of the WCMA Tech Committee based on member feedback from original proposal authored by Gary Roberts and Doug Campbell. The WCMA Tech Committee recommends that the competitors adopt the following as presented below:
Tech Committee Recommendation
Part 1.a “Core Classing Structure”
Effective Jan 1st 2016 the WCMA will terminate the following classes, Improved Touring, Sport Touring and Grand Touring classes and replace with NASA’s Performance Touring and Super Tour classes (pending NASA’S permission).
Spec Miata, Challenge Car, IT-J, Open Wheel and Vintage classes and the sporting regulations are not affected by this proposal and will remain the same
This will not in any way affiliate the WCMA with NASA.
If unable to attain permission from NASA to use their classes’ rules, then empower the WCMA Tech Committee create classes in the same format, spirit, structure, and comparable to NASA’s Performance Touring and Super Tour classes, having a power to weight calculation, and preparation points calculation options.
Part 1.b “Stability Period”
This “Core Classing Structure” will be in place for a minimum of 3 years (until at least Dec 31st, 2018), with a comment to review in 2018 for the 2019 season. It is our intent that the rules will remain stable during this period with yearly updates to realign with NASA, however Technical Bulletins or clarifications maybe issued as required.
Part 2. “Additional Classes”
Additional classes are defined any closed wheel class not in the “Core Classing Structure”. The WCMA Tech committee recognizes a need for a structure to add and retire additional classes to the core structure. This additional Classes are often Make, Model, or Country of manufacture specific.
Part 2.a “Adding an Additional Class(es)”
1) To have a “new” class added the WCMA you must propose the new class at an AGM. This is done in advance to allow the Tech Committee to monitor participation for the following 2 seasons
2) In the following season cars will declare themselves to the new class but run in the appropriate PT or ST classes. If the average car count for the new class is 5 or higher (class/event) at any track for the season, or is higher than 10/class at one event, the class will be added the following season (example if there was no Spec Miata, SM cars could run in Performance Touring D as SM’s and be classed and Score in PTD for a season).
3) Exceptions.
a. In cases where a member is able to provide compelling evidence that a class will immediately meet the minimum car count (5), or a complete business case for development, the Tech Committee may add the classes at its discretion following the AGM.
b. In case of additional “Class Structures” (example German Touring Car, Honda Challenge, etc), Tech Committee may its discretion, add all the classes in the structure once any two classes have met the minimum car count.
Part 2.b “Retiring an Additional Class(es)”
If an “Additional Class” fails to maintain an average car count of 4 cars per event (at any one track), the class will be put on probation at the AGM. If the class fails to maintain an average car count of 4 cars per event (at any one track) in the following seasons, the class will be retired. Cars from the retired Class will be able to run in the appropriate Performance Touring and Super Tour classes.
In case of additional “Class Structures”, the whole Structure should generally be retired at once. Tech Committee may at its discretion, retire all the classes at the structure at once if there aren’t two classes meeting the minimum car count.
Authors’ Contact Info.
Thank you for taking the time to review summary and our proposal on behalf of the Tech Committee.
Gary Roberts and Doug Campbell
Gary Roberts
gary.roberts@dnow.com
Doug Campbell
talongeo@shaw.ca
