PA Hillclimb

Thanks Matt, but you stopped a little short of where I was hoping you would go.
Let's just say, hypothetically, that my new 2 class idea (restricted and unrestricked) made sense. Can PHA create such classes disallowing the SOLOII configurations just for the points series championship?

I'll take this question one step further. I have added two additional specs in the class scenario that PHA or National (includes Club Race and TT board) might have a problem with. That was engine swaps from any manufacturer and the suspension change allowance(that's for the guys who want the upgrade crossmember in the Mustangs). If these mods are a threat to increase performance beyond the normal saftey limits (I don't see how when we had 645HP in an MR2 with a roll bar) then if they were excluded could the reclassification be applied?

And lastly, does PHA have the authority to require Roll Cages in certain SOLO II classes? By PHA authority I mean, they set the rules and if a region putting on an event wants to be included in the points series they must include the specs in their supps. This question applies to my second question and if PHA and National have a problem with allowing modifications beyond SM specs, do we appease them with Roll Cage requirements?

Dave Y

Dave
It needs to be re-stated that PHA has NO repeat - NO - authority at all to set or change any rule set by SCCA (Solo, GCR or TT). PHA is a gathering of SCCA clubs that run hillclimbs and as such tries to coordinate the clubs onto the same page so all the events run with the same rules otherwise year end points for championship would not exist. If any one club in PHA runs an event with supps that are different from the others PHA can olny take away that events participation in the points sereies. It does not have any authority for any other official action.

Rick

I agree Rick, I just say it a little different. I use the words "authority" and "rules" but I mean something else.

Never the less. STOP THE PRESSES
This thread is moot. 2009 SOLO II rules no longer has a Street Mod 1 and 2. It is now Street Mod for sedans and coupes with exclusions and Super Street Mod which includes the other cars that were excluded.

Back to square one.

Dave Y.

Rick Kase wrote:Dave
It needs to be re-stated that PHA has NO repeat - NO - authority at all to set or change any rule set by SCCA (Solo, GCR or TT). PHA is a gathering of SCCA clubs that run hillclimbs and as such tries to coordinate the clubs onto the same page so all the events run with the same rules otherwise year end points for championship would not exist. If any one club in PHA runs an event with supps that are different from the others PHA can olny take away that events participation in the points sereies. It does not have any authority for any other official action.

Rick

Thank you Rick for stating the above in a MUCH more clear deffinition of what the PHA actually does.

dspgti wrote:Never the less. STOP THE PRESSES
This thread is moot. 2009 SOLO II rules no longer has a Street Mod 1 and 2. It is now Street Mod for sedans and coupes with exclusions and Super Street Mod which includes the other cars that were excluded.

Back to square one.

Dave Y.

Wait a minute. SM is still the class for 4 seaters. SSM is all others.

STREET MOD (SM): All sedans/coupes (models which were
originally equipped with a minimum of four seats and four
factory seat belts, not sports car based).

Yes it dosn't really seem to change anything other then what the name is. (bye the way, i'm getting the thought that someone who is in the upper rule making process likes the word SUPER)

Change is good when it benefits all. If it's just a name or tag change, why do it?

I guess I'm a little out of touch. I knew the rules back in 2004 when I won the Street Mod Championship running against a highly modified Turbo Conquest by outlasting and reliability (and Mike Ancas crashing his then unbeatable Turbo Neon). Those were the days (listen to me? it was just 4 years ago and I talk like it was a generation or two ago) when we thought that the factory couldn't build faster cars than we could. I think there were more rules then like minumum weight, max cc, turbo multipliers and such. It just looked like a lot less restrictions and exclusions and Super Touring has some real Super Cars. Hey if you don't think there is any significant difference, let's put them together.

Dave Y.

UPDATE: The turbo cars to SM rule will be removed from the supps.

Huh, so turbo cars allowed in SP?

Yes, if on the SOLO class lists.

I thought that the rank and file decided that turbo cars would automatically be upgraded to SM for hillclimbs? That was because the time difference in SOLO is so small, but on the hills the impact of a turbo was a huge advantage? I think you are muddying the waters again!
Will these changes you are going to propose just going to be the law or are the rank and file going to be able to have some input if we don't agree?
I am sure this will be a hot and heavy topic as it was before.

Mazdahead wrote:I thought that the rank and file decided that turbo cars would automatically be upgraded to SM for hillclimbs? That was because the time difference in SOLO is so small, but on the hills the impact of a turbo was a huge advantage? I think you are muddying the waters again!
Will these changes you are going to propose just going to be the law or are the rank and file going to be able to have some input if we don't agree?
I am sure this will be a hot and heavy topic as it was before.

I have not muddied any waters. If anything we have cleared the muddy waters. And yes this is the law. And no, nobody has any input on this change. Now if the general group of members wants to make changes it (can) be done but were talking about making up new classes. I understand its hard to see where this came from and i don't want to get into the BS that is has caused but, The change was never allowed the way it was.

Mazdahead wrote:I am sure this will be a hot and heavy topic as it was before.

Are you reading all this stuf? There are two Witman brothers and you never sign your name so who are we talking to here?

The Witman brothers were at the meeting but left early? Did you voice your opinion?

To be included in "rank and file" you have to hang around and vote!

It's over, it's done. SCCA headquarters said it was not a valid supplimental rule.

If you want to pick up the torch and carry on from here we will be more than willing to supply you with the necessary documentaion and procede to appeal the ruling to National. Let me know if you want to get involved.

Dave Y

Why does it matter which brother you are talking to?
We have different login names and it seems pretty obvious to me who is who?
We attended the meeting that ran very long and I had to catch a flight, no choice, had to leave!
At least we were there and were involved in the conversations!
I must have left before the discussion about Turbos in Street Mod?
And the main proponent of the change last year was not there to defend his position as well!
Since I missed the conversation at the meeting I was just trying to find out why you are moving them back to Street Prepared?
And, yes! Damit I read the thread, why do you feel you always need to add that?
That comment alone is enough to turn folks away from the forum!
Are you always looking for a verbal joust!
Just the facts Danno!

Dale

I'm sorry that my comments came out being rude. I have a bad habit of doing that. It was just that it seemed like you were blaming someone for "muddying the waters" and asking a question that we have covered a number of different ways. The PHA is making every effort to be in perfect compliance with all SCCA rules and regulations. The turbo reclassification was not in compliance.

Thank you Dale for identifying yourself. Everyone I spoke to also had no idea who was who.

Dave Y