New Time Trials Rules

[Matt Rowe]

Jeremy is correct, the old rules required 2 officials as a minimum at hillclimbs (PDX and level 2 also required 1 extra person). My initial interpretation of the new rules is that we can now operate an event with only one official. I would be curious who here thinks a hillclimb could be operated effectively with only one official. Personally I think the argument is a red herring and solution for a problem that didn't exist. I appreciate Steve's confirmation that we never had an issue with getting volunteers involved, the problem is finding enough volunteers to do all of the work so that they aren't overwhelmed.

Just to be clear, in a decade of supporting the time trials program in NEDIV and nationwide we never got to the point where we told an event "sorry you can't hold that event the rules won't allow it." We were always able to find a way to identify existing officials or accept prior experience.

[jerdeitzel]

Matt, I completely agree that you could not run an event with just one official. But, there are times when there are no "official" licensed officials on hand to run the event under the old rules. That dosnt mean that there is nobody there qualified or willing to do the jobs. Just that not everyone was able to issue an "official" license on the spot. So in theory, that opened you up to liability concerns for not following the rules.

It seems to me that it is all about making it a bit easier to get things done and put on events under the new rules without having to be afraid that you broke a rule. It is all about putting on a safe event. Every event is different in regards to what that takes. If the rules allow for some leeway in that, is that bad?

[Matt Rowe]

And the point I made in my prior post is the old rules never prevented us from safely holding an event within the bounds of the rule book. No change was needed to achieve the goal you stated.

[jerdeitzel]

I guess i just don't see how the new rules made that any different in regards to running a safe event either.

The great things about the new rule set is that its a win win for everyone. If you want to put in tighter restriction for things then what is in the rules, then you are more then welcome too. If other regions see fit to not add anything, that is fine too. Really, a pretty good all around change by the TTAC IMO!

Now, i will give my real opinion on the new rules. They still really did nothing that is going to make a significant change in participation numbers in regards to level 3 type events. (which is what i would compare what any other group would call Time Trails). We still have a roll bar, safety suit, etc requirements that all other groups do not run under. Without this change the SCCA will never compete with NASA, NARRA, etc on the TT front.

[FV95]

Jeremy,
What is your opinion of the one instructor per novice rule? Works well at a PDX. In my opinion it is not practical at a hill climb. Those who wrote these rules should have at least consulted with those of us who have been running one of the better (if not the best) hill climb series in the country. This new requirement could make it miserable to run an event...Think about 20-25 novices....now we need 20-25 instructors....two up on touring runs? How to handle formula cars? .....We might just get one run in on Saturday after we get done catering to the newbies on a one to one basis.
The "new" rules emphasize teaching driving skills...fine at a PDX, that is as it should be. At a hill climb, I prefer to emphasize the safety approach to driving. Sliding off the course at a PDX or in a parking lot is no big deal. We are in an entirely different situation.
John

[jerdeitzel]

John, From what i see in the new rules, a Chief driving instructor in not even required in level 3 or 4 events so that means that the 1 on1 rules does not apply. In fact, in the old rules all instructors at a PDX were suppose to be official's and had the same 1 on 1 ration. Try and find 70+ driving instructors that have that for an event like Drive for Babies.

As for being able to spin off in the grass and it being no big deal on a track. Well, lets just say that i have seen more contact with walls and such at the tracks then i typically see at a Hill.

FWIW, I just narrowly missed being in a students car that contacted a wall fairly hard 2 weeks ago. Thankfully the student and instructor were not hurt. He have it easy on the hills compared to trying to take new folks out on track. I worked an evenbt last month that was probably the craziest thing i have ever done in my life. Try getting 80% newbies with very expensive sport cars out on a track that you can go 150+mph.

[jerdeitzel]

I sense a lot of animosity about the fact that the "PHA" or really the regions that make up PHA did not seem to have a say in the new rules. I guess i am very curious as to what exactly went down.

Did the PHA have a rep at the National convention where this all started?
Did the PHA address their concerns to their divisional TTAC member?
DId each region involved in the PHA try and make their own comments to the divisional TTAC member that were ignored?
Did anyone that was upset about what was going on individually send in letter to the TTAC? (i find it hard to believe that you guys did not know that the old rules were changing)
Are you really that surprised that they might not have wanted to hear that much about the rule changes from the Old guard that wrote the rules that they were throwing away?
Did anyone in the PHA try and forge new relationships with other divisional TTAC members that could have helped the cause in regard to the vote on these rules?

Its seems to me (and please correct me if i am wrong) that just sitting there and saying "they didn't ask us" is maybe a bit unrealistic. Maybe i am completely wrong and you guys fought this head on with all resources. Please enlighten me so i have a better picture. Because, from my point of view all i see is the same old, nobody likes change thing going on?

Signed the guy who will never sit back and follow blindly what has always been.

PS. I also have a rant about the SCCA TT license. The SCCA TT license means nothing to anyone outside of the SCCA. We issue these for competing in hillclimbs or track trials to a lot of folks who never even encountered another car on the track. If you find someone who has a NASA TT license you know that the person is very capable of being on track and passing others and it carries over to almost all other orgs that give it respect. Why do we not just have a hillclimb license?

[TKnorr]

As PHA president, I had no prior knowledge of the development of the new time trial rules. No one in my region or PHA was aware of these impending changes in the time trial rules. PHA has been in existence for 54 years and runs more hillclimbs than anyone else. Unfortunately, SCCA does not collect data from the incidence reports they receive, therefore conclusions can not be reached related to the effect certain safety rules have on protecting drivers from injury or death. Our very experienced stewards, have observed many times the effect certain safety rules relate to incident outcomes.
Insurance companies use actuaries to determine their insurance rates; they are not qualified or particularly interested in specific safety rules. The current insurance rates have gone down for the last number of years. Could this be because of the implementation of the rules and PHA's safety record?
PHA has developed a plan to address the time trial rules issue as it relates to our events and will implement this plan for our 2014 events.
Tom Knorr, PHA President

[Mark Aubele]

I sense a lot of animosity about the fact that the "PHA" or really the regions that make up PHA did not seem to have a say in the new rules. I guess i am very curious as to what exactly went down.

Did the PHA have a rep at the National convention where this all started?
Did the PHA address their concerns to their divisional TTAC member?
DId each region involved in the PHA try and make their own comments to the divisional TTAC member that were ignored?
Did anyone that was upset about what was going on individually send in letter to the TTAC? (i find it hard to believe that you guys did not know that the old rules were changing)
Are you really that surprised that they might not have wanted to hear that much about the rule changes from the Old guard that wrote the rules that they were throwing away?
Did anyone in the PHA try and forge new relationships with other divisional TTAC members that could have helped the cause in regard to the vote on these rules?

Its seems to me (and please correct me if i am wrong) that just sitting there and saying "they didn't ask us" is maybe a bit unrealistic. Maybe i am completely wrong and you guys fought this head on with all resources. Please enlighten me so i have a better picture. Because, from my point of view all i see is the same old, nobody likes change thing going on?

Signed the guy who will never sit back and follow blindly what has always been.

PS. I also have a rant about the SCCA TT license. The SCCA TT license means nothing to anyone outside of the SCCA. We issue these for competing in hillclimbs or track trials to a lot of folks who never even encountered another car on the track. If you find someone who has a NASA TT license you know that the person is very capable of being on track and passing others and it carries over to almost all other orgs that give it respect. Why do we not just have a hillclimb license?

Excellent post.

[RallyKeith]

As PHA president, I had no prior knowledge of the development of the new time trial rules. No one in my region or PHA was aware of these impending changes in the time trial rules. PHA has been in existence for 54 years and runs more hillclimbs than anyone else. Unfortunately, SCCA does not collect data from the incidence reports they receive, therefore conclusions can not be reached related to the effect certain safety rules have on protecting drivers from injury or death. Our very experienced stewards, have observed many times the effect certain safety rules relate to incident outcomes.
Insurance companies use actuaries to determine their insurance rates; they are not qualified or particularly interested in specific safety rules. The current insurance rates have gone down for the last number of years. Could this be because of the implementation of the rules and PHA's safety record?
PHA has developed a plan to address the time trial rules issue as it relates to our events and will implement this plan for our 2014 events.
Tom Knorr, PHA President

Well said Tom.

[tedebayer]

Appreciate the input from all... I hope the result of this discussion will culminate in people finding a way to either A. work through it or B. help to create the change they wish to see. We all do this for FUN... none of us are making a living at this (unfortunately) and their is no fun fighting on foums and torn up over perceived changes that are not yet clear. I appreciate we are discussing here and still respectful of each others right to a differing opinion. Ultimately, PHA should do what it is right for PHA.

Two notes :
1. It was explained to me that the National Board told TTAC to "fix it." They gave them timelines and parameters to work within... and that they wanted barriers to participation gone and rules simplified. They told them to work with input from TTAC reps who represent their respective regions as an ADMINISTRATIVE council. They were pushed to make decisions, to get it done and information was not sent out to all regions... it was sent to Divisional reps who REPRESENTED their regions. So... let's say YOU were put in charge. How would you have accomplished this? MAJOR changes needed to be made quickly as SCCA was losing a percentage of members and particpants... and it was time to ACT or give up the TT market and let competitors have it. Would you open up to a free for all of input? Let the forums get bloody with opinions being fought out on public display? I'm thinking WW III would result and the damage to SCCA, it's image and reputation as a car club would be marred in ALL disciplines. SCCA wanted to keep a positive public image and not make us all look a idiots... they put a committee (TTAC ) in charge of writing them. They gave them loose parameters... so Divisions and Regions can write their own rules through their supps. So...."you run a clean ship and stay safe, go to it. You start having problems and incidents, we will come in and tweak the rules and take action .... " I am not totally in agreement with the way did it... but I am not sure that any other way would have yielded results in a timely manner with out starting a war that would have damaged relationships inside our membership and publicly humiliated all of us as SCCA members. If that were the result, it would have been better to scrap the TT program and let competition have it ... and focus on what we do and do it well in SCCA. That would have been a better use of our time, money and effort.

2. PHA's insurance rates went down THAT is good news. They also went DOWN for SCCA Time Trials, SCCA road races, NASA road races and NASA Time Trials over the last 2 years. Insurance companies are not Time Trial specialists... they process data and statistics. They are seeing that the way many clubs are running Time Trial events (that are FAR looser than SCCA) are not yielding negative trends and incidents are within insurable bounds. If that changes, they will go up or add new clauses. Bet on it. So you disagree with insurance company definition of safety? I DO AS WELL... so we change our supps to beyond what the SCCA rules say and beyond what the insurance company will allow. We can go tighter than they will allow, and then, we are NOT incurring liability as we are still within the rules... and then some.

Why did SCCA not contact PHA for information? Why did they not use resources and knowledgeable people like Matt? I have no idea. Not to offend but PHA is not a part of SCCA. PHA may run by the some of the rules of SCCA and it may run with many members/officials/stewards but.... PHA is free to run their events under their own rules, NASA TT rules or even SCCA 2012 Time Trial Rules for Level 4. Correct? Am I wrong? PHA operates on some of the rules but not all already! I don't see why it is an issue that SCCA did not contact PHA for input. They did get input from SCCA reps from all divisions who collectively run more Time Trial Track Events than PHA has each year... .and they came up with new rule documents that do not restrict Hillclimb... they allow Divisions to run the way they choose through their supps. They are leaving it up to you.

SO? Run the way you always did and there is no problem. In my opinion, PHA does not need to change a thing... they are doing it RIGHT. Please use the SCCA rules as a guideline (or last year's if you prefer) write your own supps as you have been doing and continue to set the standard. Thanks, Ted

[Mazdahead]

At the fall PHA meeting this past weekend the membership has decided to determine where we feel the rules changes impact the PHA in a negative way.
A committee was formed to catalog a list of changes we feel are needed and re-write our supplemental rules for 2014 to make sure it works for the PHA and level 4 hillclimbs.
The new supplements will be forwarded to SCCA national for approval as soon as we can to allow them time for review.
If objections come from national that need to be addressed we could challenge the language of the new Time Trial Rules on the topics we feel are not in the PHA's best interest.
This may take some time to iron out, but in the end I expect it will be better than before.
I have been doing tech inspection at events and have been aware of the liability that is carried with that function because Joe Foering used to bring it to our attention.
Personnally, I have never run an event and was unaware of many of the responsibilities that the organizers and stewarts have on their shoulders.
It seems like there is more concern from the existing stewarts of the PHA than the general membership and it was not about their personal liability, but more about explaining to a family of an injured or expired driver why we changed the rules. Let's see what our committee comes up with before we jump off the bridge!
If I did not get my facts straight, someone jump in and correct me. I am just trying to let everyone know what happened at the meeting in regards to the rules changes.

[TKnorr]

All PHA events are sanctioned and insured by SCCA!!!! Of course PHA is not recognized by SCCA. PHA develops the schedule of events and establishes the rules that pertain to class champions. PHA does not have a problem with "market share" We had good numbers of entrants during the recent recession; our numbers continue to increase. There is no "graying" in PHA. Our entries include many young drivers. At every event we have a lot of novices. Actually, SCCA could learn a lot by attending one of our events. Two of our events are covered by live TV via cable TV. All of our Hillclimbs are a collaboration with local communities. Communities benefit economically as well as local charities... Little League Base Ball, Boy Scouts, Fire Companies, Historical groups,
Cancer, etc. Hillclimbs are truly unique in many respects. They also require safety standards that are related to nature of the events and surrounding hazards. We do not engage in "wars". PHA is a family with common interests... mainly to keep our events going. Our three meetings per year address issues and problems associated with the successful continuation of our events. This all done in a very professional manner.
Tom Knorr, PHA President