|
|
Post by mcfly on Jun 17, 2015 16:59:48 GMT 12
As just mentioned there was plenty of talk about this at the AGM. There were experts there as well from within the delegates. It's time to move on. This is motorsport, things change, costs change, safety changes. If you're not happy, go through the process of trying to fix the issue you have the right way (Good luck, because the right way was clearly agreed in majority already.). If you aren't prepared to do that, move on from the sport. As for the lack of information, if your delegates can't supply you the information you're after on the discussion that happened, that's not SNZ or any other tracks problem. If you simply aren't impressed or disagree with their information given, once again that's no one else's fault. Instead of telling someone to shut-up and put-up, or bugger off, why not take the time to be constructive and answer the simple question he has been asking for weeks,,,,,, "WHY" Clearly there is a competitor that is affected by this alteration, who is not getting any answers from his local rep/track, who just wants clarity. Is this really so hard to provide? I find myself wondering how the situation can possibly arise that a competitor who supposedly "makes the rules" doesn't have any idea why he is making them! Murray cant be the only competitor who does not have the answers because no-one else has provided them for him, so, who the hell is calling the shots if it's not the competitors? |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 17, 2015 17:16:16 GMT 12
Rather than risking your licence with numerous cheap shots, perhaps Murray you should be asking this question...Why have the wheel sub-committee, the Board of Speedway NZ and 41 of the 45 delegates at the AGM (including two members of the Saloon Technical Committee, one of whom is your competitor representative and delegates from at least 22 tracks) all seen that its necessary to make this change? Surely as all of them are volunteers with many lifetimes of experience in the sport its not to inflate their own ego's? Surely they have made what they see to be the best decision for both the class and the sport? Or am I missing something? Rather than - possibly unintentionally - threatening loss of competition licence to a competitor whom you are supposed to be encouraging and helping as Chief Executive Officer of Speedway New Zealand, Can you find out the reason for the sudden banning of the 6 pin hub on the saloons/super saloons and modifieds and just tell us why it is happening please? I actually find this thread ironic in a way, This is a big expensive issue that involves both safety and budgetary concerns. Yet there are questions and issues with both that have still not been addressed yet - possibly we should be asking other questions as well - I have a few as well. I am NOT an SNZ competitor, but I want to be and since you have the following mandates {currently - though I doubt these will change with the new rule book} C3 OBJECTS (a) To be the organisation that represents Speedway in New Zealand. (b) Encourage, control and develop speedway racing, safety and education in New Zealand. (c) Provide governance for the sport of speedway in New Zealand. (d) Make and control rules and regulations for the conduct of speedway racing. (e) Represent the interests of members of SNZ. 2014 rule book page 15 and as part of that = T11-2 Saloon A two-door or four-door passenger saloon approved for racing on SNZ licensed tracks as per Saloon Specifications. a) INTENT: The following Saloon specifications are written in accordance with the constitution to provide a low cost saloon racing class with rules to allow all cars to be equally competitive without unfair advantage. {underline added by me} 2014 rulebook page 141 It is beginning to look like you are intending to provide a HIGH cost saloon racing class instead of the low cost one I was hoping to enter in a few years... ANYWAY - my questions are as follows: 1, When did the problem with six pin hubs first surface - and in what class did they surface first? 2, When SNZ permitted superstock competitors to cut down the size of 6pin hubs to fit a 6-8mm centre - why did snz not choose the safer option of insisting competitors used the thickness of rim the hubs were designed for instead of allowing possibly dangerous changes to the hubs by people who may be unqualified to make these changes? 3, Is there a Structural or Automotive Engineers report on the construction of the hub that brings any problems to light when it is used with larger wheels? - if not, then why hasnt this happened for such a crucial decision? 4, Is there going to be a lead in time when the 6pin hubs may be used until the competitor can replace them? 5, Is there a list of what qualifications the wheel committee collectively own? - not including previous experience as that is not wholly acceptable in a court room these days, but proper certified for the industry qualifications? - if not, then why is SNZ trusting such an important area to unqualified people? 6, If this is being put into effect immediatly, is there a reason why this change is so sudden? After all it DOES affect a large portion of your competitor base. I really hope these questions can be answered - I have noted that many questions get ignored on here though. |
|
|
|
Post by bikeboy on Jun 17, 2015 18:44:57 GMT 12
how did the remit meeting go at your local track Murray?, did you put your thoughts to the delegate from your club? have you found out how they voted ?
SNZ has a democratic process, did you engage in that, or just post on here?
|
|
|
|
Post by panicstations on Jun 17, 2015 19:13:48 GMT 12
I'm with Murray on this issue…
1. Why, what is the real reason that 6 pins are now not safe? I am unaware of inherent problems with the 6 pin system (other than the odd occurrence of a pin breaking which leaves 5)
2. If it does need to be changed why straight away? did they become unsafe overnight?? I think not so why bring this new rule in overnight??
3. How does the CEO of SNZ have a mandate to threaten a competitor of with holding their licence because he isn't pleased with a few comments on a competitor forum such as this?
4. I do struggle to believe that Murray's club 2k's didn't give him an opportunity to look at the remit prior to it going to vote.
I have sold my saloon this season and yes this decision would have cost me significant time and $ and I too would be asking the exact same questions as Murray… WHY!!!!
P.S. Tim need not reply!
|
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Jun 17, 2015 19:29:06 GMT 12
3. How does the president of SNZ have a mandate to threaten a competitor of with holding their licence because he isn't pleased with a few comments on a competitor forum such as this? I think you mean the CEO of SNZ unless something else has happened aside from what's on here. |
|
|
|
Post by Dirtinmybeer on Jun 17, 2015 21:37:14 GMT 12
This discussion has been incredible enlightening. Having just read it from start to finish, the key take always for me is that
1) It is disgraceful that Tim Savill can threaten a competitor for being frustrated and asking questions
2) the implication is that SNZ or specifically Savill has the power to retaliate to something he doesn't "like" by removing a competitors licence I.e he thinks he's god
3) SNZ are arrogant enough to not respond to a competitors / members written questions / correspondence via accepted and professional channels but then object and threaten the said competitor when their frustration overflows and as a result, he poses the question in this forum. Appalling!!
4) SNZ have little regard for the average competitor who competes on a budget and believes it to be their right to impose any idiotic rule onto competitors in the name of safety, imposing significant cost on the competitor with little to no need to qualify their reasoning in a professional manner. They do not view it reasonable to offer a transition time, nor do they take into account the small amount of time between new rules and imposition of those rules / costs to the competitor.
5) SNZ seems to be lite on qualified expertise and qualified assessment, and appear to re-write rules for the sake of writing rules, and that in doing so, the greater focus is on their preservation from the wrath or Worksafe as opposed to delivering well thought out, well written simple rules that everyone can understand and respect.
Only my thoughts and takeaways from reading the discussion, but fair to say I thought Tim Savill came across like a complete ...............
|
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Jun 17, 2015 21:55:22 GMT 12
This discussion has been incredible enlightening. Having just read it from start to finish, the key take always for me is that 1) It is disgraceful that Tim Savill can threaten a competitor for being frustrated and asking questions 2) the implication is that SNZ or specifically Savill has the power to retaliate to something he doesn't "like" by removing a competitors licence I.e he thinks he's god 3) SNZ are arrogant enough to not respond to a competitors / members written questions / correspondence via accepted and professional channels but then object and threaten the said competitor when their frustration overflows and as a result, he poses the question in this forum. Appalling!! 4) SNZ have little regard for the average competitor who competes on a budget and believes it to be their right to impose any idiotic rule onto competitors in the name of safety, imposing significant cost on the competitor with little to no need to qualify their reasoning in a professional manner. They do not view it reasonable to offer a transition time, nor do they take into account the small amount of time between new rules and imposition of those rules / costs to the competitor. 5) SNZ seems to be lite on qualified expertise and qualified assessment, and appear to re-write rules for the sake of writing rules, and that in doing so, the greater focus is on their preservation from the wrath or Worksafe as opposed to delivering well thought out, well written simple rules that everyone can understand and respect. Only my thoughts and takeaways from reading the discussion, but fair to say I thought Tim Savill came across like a complete ............... You're pushing the limits with this post . I think Tim was forewarning Murray after Murray posted this ' Before I seriously totally express my self, my feelings and thoughts in regards SNZ
could someone confirm or deny - pleeeeeeeeeeeeeeease!.If Murray was going to sound off big time then there certainly can be consequences . It's in the rule book somewhere. Seriously unless you are affected by the new rules then it would be better to limit your input or control the tone. |
|
|
|
Post by justafan on Jun 17, 2015 21:58:44 GMT 12
This discussion has been incredible enlightening. Having just read it from start to finish, the key take always for me is that 1) It is disgraceful that Tim Savill can threaten a competitor for being frustrated and asking questions 2) the implication is that SNZ or specifically Savill has the power to retaliate to something he doesn't "like" by removing a competitors licence I.e he thinks he's god 3) SNZ are arrogant enough to not respond to a competitors / members written questions / correspondence via accepted and professional channels but then object and threaten the said competitor when their frustration overflows and as a result, he poses the question in this forum. Appalling!! 4) SNZ have little regard for the average competitor who competes on a budget and believes it to be their right to impose any idiotic rule onto competitors in the name of safety, imposing significant cost on the competitor with little to no need to qualify their reasoning in a professional manner. They do not view it reasonable to offer a transition time, nor do they take into account the small amount of time between new rules and imposition of those rules / costs to the competitor. 5) SNZ seems to be lite on qualified expertise and qualified assessment, and appear to re-write rules for the sake of writing rules, and that in doing so, the greater focus is on their preservation from the wrath or Worksafe as opposed to delivering well thought out, well written simple rules that everyone can understand and respect. Only my thoughts and takeaways from reading the discussion, but fair to say I thought Tim Savill came across like a complete ............... You're pushing the limits with this post . I think Tim was forewarning Murray after Murray posted this ' Before I seriously totally express my self, my feelings and thoughts in regards SNZ
could someone confirm or deny - pleeeeeeeeeeeeeeease!.If Murray was going to sound off big time then there certainly can be consequences . It's in the rule book somewhere. Seriously unless you are affected by the new rules then it would be better to limit your input or control the tone. M7-7-2 Improper comment It is an offence for any SNZ member to publish or permit to be published or connive at, any statement or conduct which improperly criticises SNZ, their Officials, or comments on any matter which is subjudice. I think this is what you are looking for |
|
|
|
Post by Dirtinmybeer on Jun 17, 2015 22:17:36 GMT 12
That's fine. I'm not a SNZ member or competitor, "just" a spectator, although I'm guessing you are referencing Murrays comment. I'm purely stating my observations after reading the entire topic. I could be wrong in my assessment, but that's how I read it.
|
|
|
|
Post by beachboy on Jun 17, 2015 22:25:20 GMT 12
If people think 6 pins are all ok to run in these classes they just need someone to put there neck on the line and get them re approved-certified, your beefs should be with your reps-delegates that voted on the rule change and/or the supplier for not seeking reapproval I would have thought.
|
|
|
|
Post by mcfly on Jun 17, 2015 22:25:19 GMT 12
.[/quote]M7-7-2 Improper comment
It is an offence for any SNZ member to publish or permit to be published or connive at, any statement or conduct which improperly criticises SNZ, their Officials, or comments on any matter which is subjudice.
I think this is what you are looking for
[/quote]
I doubt SNZ could claim "improperly criticises SNZ" in this instance!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 18, 2015 0:05:46 GMT 12
I doubt SNZ could claim "improperly criticises SNZ" in this instance! I'm not saying anyone is right or wrong or discussing the merits of what anyone said but just make the comment that I guess they can if they (SNZ) are the sole judge of what is "improper criticism of SNZ"  |
|
|
|
Post by BarryB on Jun 18, 2015 6:59:27 GMT 12
SNZ also have a Social Media policy which has seen a number if drivers have their licence suspended over the last few years, so what was said could be read as merely hi-lighting that.
Barry B
|
|
|
|
Post by Murray Guy (Grandad) on Jun 18, 2015 9:58:35 GMT 12
If people think 6 pins are all ok to run in these classes they just need someone to put there neck on the line and get them re approved-certified, your beefs should be with your reps-delegates that voted on the rule change and/or the supplier for not seeking reapproval I would have thought.
Can't SNZ amend or put in place rules to take effect immediately if safety related?
Admittedly, in the absence of any reasonable explanation, I'll assume it's a safety concern.
No need for any 'necks on the line', other than mine as the payee and risk taker. SNZ just need to do their job.
I can get a suitably qualified person to certify my hubs and rims as meeting appropriate safety standards for the application proposed which totally removes any SNZ liability BUT reality is I shouldn't have to, and even if I did, SNZ likely wouldn't recognise this.
Safety related issues which affect specific classes, as they impact directly on a competitor and his/her race vehicle, could be and should be addressed by those directly involved in the class and Speedway NZ. It is a very uncomplicated and simple process for SNZ to communicate directly with ALL competitors in each class, OR as needs require, all competitors if the issue is to apply across all classes. Encourage the sharing of thoughts, opinions, experiences. Provide expert commentary. Conduct a poll. Not hard!
A helliva lot less expensive, easier, fairer, logical and practical that trying to get folk to travel mid week (as in my case) a couple of hundred kilometres to discuss all manner of matters unrelated to their class.
The buck stops with SNZ. They know and recognise the impractical processes they apply, force on clubs and competitors and it is up to SNZ to ensure their processes are user friendly and secure maximum member participation. It's up to SNZ to ensure they apply themselves with the required degree of intelligence and free of bias.
I have 10 6 pin rims and two rear hubs. Say $4000 worth.
They have all been certified and approved by the manufacturer AND OR Speedway New Zealand.
They DO NOT require and annual recertification from the manufacture and never have done, for obvious reasons.
From today on, apparently, no manufacturer has agreed to supply 6 pin centres and rims and go through the SNZ required processes. Not surprised!
Okay, NO NEW 6-PIN rims can be supplied and certified. this DOES NOT affect those already in use, or should not.
Come green sheet time, no 6-pin rims to be approved that haven't previously been stamped and approved! Not hard is it? Apparently so for the Board of SNZ.
Easy to check that the pressure plate fits snuggly!
By the way, I didn't think the 6-pin issue was discussed at club remit meetings?
Thought it was an after thought, subject to a 'special general meeting'?
No opportunity for affected party input?
|
|
|
|
Post by johnny28 on Jun 18, 2015 10:31:54 GMT 12
Well for me if the 6 pin set up is that bigger risk in the sport, it should be band from all class not just some!
|
|
|
|
Post by bikeboy on Jun 18, 2015 12:53:52 GMT 12
If people think 6 pins are all ok to run in these classes they just need someone to put there neck on the line and get them re approved-certified, your beefs should be with your reps-delegates that voted on the rule change and/or the supplier for not seeking reapproval I would have thought.
Can't SNZ amend or put in place rules to take effect immediately if safety related?
Admittedly, in the absence of any reasonable explanation, I'll assume it's a safety concern.
No need for any 'necks on the line', other than mine as the payee and risk taker. SNZ just need to do their job.
I can get a suitably qualified person to certify my hubs and rims as meeting appropriate safety standards for the application proposed which totally removes any SNZ liability BUT reality is I shouldn't have to, and even if I did, SNZ likely wouldn't recognise this.
Safety related issues which affect specific classes, as they impact directly on a competitor and his/her race vehicle, could be and should be addressed by those directly involved in the class and Speedway NZ. It is a very uncomplicated and simple process for SNZ to communicate directly with ALL competitors in each class, OR as needs require, all competitors if the issue is to apply across all classes. Encourage the sharing of thoughts, opinions, experiences. Provide expert commentary. Conduct a poll. Not hard!
A helliva lot less expensive, easier, fairer, logical and practical that trying to get folk to travel mid week (as in my case) a couple of hundred kilometres to discuss all manner of matters unrelated to their class.
The buck stops with SNZ. They know and recognise the impractical processes they apply, force on clubs and competitors and it is up to SNZ to ensure their processes are user friendly and secure maximum member participation.
By the way, I didn't think the 6-pin issue was discussed at club remit meetings?
Thought it was an after thought, subject to a 'special general meeting'?
No opportunity for affected party input?
yes they can put in rules with out the need for a conference vote for safety reasons, but this is not what happened here, this was put up as a remit, it was debated by the clubs at their remit meetings, and then by the club reps at the AGM, I understand you don't like the format, but I think its not too bad, and don't think having individual drivers vote on it would be any better on it, as most would not bother voting, as most dont bother turning up to remit meetings either, you say the buck stops with SNZ, they were given a directive by the democratic process they have in place, and enforce it, do you want them to override their own AGM because you don't agree with the decision?? as for having to drive to a remit meeting, I would be very surprised if the Kihikihi club would not have accepted your position by email, |
|
|
|
Post by Murray Guy (Grandad) on Jun 20, 2015 12:38:40 GMT 12
An update!
Firstly, had a message from a Macgorian asking for more info about 6 pins so I took a few pics a few minutes ago.
Second, had a call from SNZ Director Mel Hills.
Now Mel Hills has been around since the speedway first began, likely building his first machine out of his trike at the age of two.
I don't know what his qualifications are BUT I know he knows a bloody sight more than me and builds a serious race engine.
Point is, he's no mug and always had his 'feet on the ground'. Concern is with some folk (not confined to SNZ) who get elected into positions of influence, get in there and loose sight of who put them there and why. In Mel's case I'm expecting definite race car construction skills with an application of no bull and common sense.
Mel rings, "Grandad, I understand you've an issue with 6-pins and SNZ".
Mel explains where SNZ is at in regards 6-pins and how it got there.
There's been a few saloons (and other classes) that have spun the centre out of their 6 pin rims. I haven't experienced this or seen it BUT I accept that it's likely. I've seen many a wide five and others fly across a track - mostly I suspect omitting to tighten the centre retaining nut.
Mel confirms that the breaks have been adjacent the actual pin holes in the rim. Perhaps the steel gauge is too light or inferior?
Mel tells me I can get my rims certified by someone in CHCH and perhaps Hawkes Bay.
How about I just carry only getting them checked by the green sheet folk for wear, cracks and if okay, what's the problem?
How about where a wheel centre 'may' be suspect, I have a steel insert (not unlike a wheel spacer) welded in place to strengthen the centre?
Anyway, bottom line, Mel says to hold fire with the 'panic button' and give SNZ time to consider expert reports they have requested or on there way, to better define options at the same time as ensure safety.
So, I'm taking Mel at his word cause I think you can. He's not that tall and I think he's still breathing the same air as most of us!
I'll get the car down to Grant Hill at Clyde to work his magic (called making a silk purse out of a sows ear) and hopefully I can pay his bill and NOT find out as the new season arrives, that it's been to no avail as I'm still expected to ditch 10 perfectly good rims and two hubs!
Mel, appreciate the call!
     |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 20, 2015 16:09:06 GMT 12
HOLY CRAPOLA!! An SNZ official actually gave a relevant answer to your question? maybe theres hope after all...
|
|
|
|
Post by beachboy on Jun 20, 2015 21:52:40 GMT 12
How often do you or would you get the "green sheet folk" to check them and how often are you cleaning the centers to check them as per the photos?
|
|
|
|
Post by Murray Guy (Grandad) on Jun 21, 2015 0:06:48 GMT 12
How often do you or would you get the "green sheet folk" to check them and how often are you cleaning the centers to check them as per the photos?
Most seasons I have a minimum of 2 green sheet processes.
It's only been the first pre-season check that a I actually clean then right up.
Early in my use of 6 pins, 8 years back I did get caught out two or three times in that I would have the centre nut up tight not realising the wheel centre wasn't snug and flush with the hub. Result, as soon as you move off a loose wheel. Applies to any wheel fitting I guess?
Having so many rims which I do swap around a bit, although doing 30 plus meetings a season, I've yet to have a rim rejected for reasons of cracking.
Tossed a couple away being out of round!
If the rim is fitted correctly, flush and firm, no issues.
It's important to appreciate, these ARE approved rims just as those on your street car are.
There suitability doesn't cease just because a manufacturer stops producing and certifying them.
We continue to keep a watchful brief on our cars, just as we do a WOF.
Anyway. hopefully common sense will prevail, with a cost effective outcome, and I will continue to try and race at SNZ tracks,
and that my wheels will continue to go around, survive, just as they have done this past 8 years. 
|
|
