SNZ Board out of line? (Read 8,323 times)

[percy]

The following excerpt is from the latest newsletter (June) available on the SNZ website and relates to the Ministock class

"Racing in Both Directions:
The aim of this proposal was to stop those who are building offset chassis and utilising non-compliant suspension componentry to assist with performance. After receiving substantial feedback on this topic (most vehemently opposed) the Board are still determined to ensure a level playing field, and have made the following decisions.

1) Competitors found with non-compliant chassis or suspension will be dealt with severely, and all of those involved in the Ministock class are reminded of this rule:- T15-1(j) The Board may suspend any driver whose car is modified or oversize from the class ALTOGETHER.

2) If any Ministock is found to have an illegally offset chassis or non-compliant springs and shocks next season then the Board has the discretion to implement racing in both directions. The onus is now on stakeholders within the class to ensure all cars are compliant. To assist with this a list of compliant shock absorbers is being worked on, and a new set of easy to understand Ministock rollcage plans is set to be introduced."

I can appreciate that Ministock compliance is a challenging issue but I really question if this is best way to deal with it. Under part #2 a 12 year-old rookie competitor in Westport could buy an illegal car and if they get caught the board might decide to implement racing in both directions for the Youth Ministock class across New Zealand? Such a move would clearly be against competitor feedback in what is supposedly a sport where competitors make the rules.

I find the language unnecessary threatening and intimidating rather than being an effective way of dealing with the problem. It's a bit like a primary school teacher giving a detention to an entire class because one student is talking during lessons. Like anything in life 99% of competitors will be compliant and 1% wont be, either intentionally or not. I don't see why the 99% should suffer for the indiscretions of the 1%.

What do you think?

[Rossco]

So Percy do you think they should just make the guilty driver go the opposite way ?

[brendanlucas]

Jun 27, 2015 0:50:37 GMT 12 percy said:

The following excerpt is from the latest newsletter (June) available on the SNZ website and relates to the Ministock class

"Racing in Both Directions:
The aim of this proposal was to stop those who are building offset chassis and utilising non-compliant suspension componentry to assist with performance. After receiving substantial feedback on this topic (most vehemently opposed) the Board are still determined to ensure a level playing field, and have made the following decisions.

1) Competitors found with non-compliant chassis or suspension will be dealt with severely, and all of those involved in the Ministock class are reminded of this rule:- T15-1(j) The Board may suspend any driver whose car is modified or oversize from the class ALTOGETHER.

2) If any Ministock is found to have an illegally offset chassis or non-compliant springs and shocks next season then the Board has the discretion to implement racing in both directions. The onus is now on stakeholders within the class to ensure all cars are compliant. To assist with this a list of compliant shock absorbers is being worked on, and a new set of easy to understand Ministock rollcage plans is set to be introduced."

I can appreciate that Ministock compliance is a challenging issue but I really question if this is best way to deal with it. Under part #2 a 12 year-old rookie competitor in Westport could buy an illegal car and if they get caught the board might decide to implement racing in both directions for the Youth Ministock class across New Zealand? Such a move would clearly be against competitor feedback in what is supposedly a sport where competitors make the rules.

I find the language unnecessary threatening and intimidating rather than being an effective way of dealing with the problem. It's a bit like a primary school teacher giving a detention to an entire class because one student is talking during lessons. Like anything in life 99% of competitors will be compliant and 1% wont be, either intentionally or not. I don't see why the 99% should suffer for the indiscretions of the 1%.

What do you think?

If its going to reduce cheating, no problem at all. Another rule they could have added - if a parent argues on there child's behalf in a raised voice manner, then that parent shall have an arm removed and have the soggy end of that arm placed in there mouth. Of course it would need to be worded so as not to offend anyone.

[Murray Guy (Grandad)]

The issue of non compliance impacts EVERY CLASS, yet youth mini stocks are the ONLY class which in all likelihood those who are penalised are least responsible.
So, in the absence of SNZ officials being able to do their job they propose penalising every competitor and destroying a critical aspect of the class. This same arrogance accompanies much of what they say and do - doesn't exactly encourage warm fuzzies. They have refused to apply any common-sense, do their job, to 6-pin wheel concerns and it appears this is no different. Everyone has to pay for their failure.

2) If any Ministock is found to have an illegally offset chassis or non-compliant springs and shocks next season then the Board has the discretion to implement racing in both directions. The onus is now on stakeholders within the class to ensure all cars are compliant.

So SNZ now expect the ministock class to snoop on each other? Really helpful for the sport, NOT!
Anyone want 10 (near) perfectly good 6  pin rims and hubs?

[Pazza]

I personaly have been involved with building & setting up some ministocks sinse they 1st ran @ stratford in 1997 when I built my 1st car.When u look around the pits @ tracks around the country if u no what u are looking @ some parts & changes of some ministocks around stand out that they are illegal.Yes people with coin do get expensive as engines etc but its not all about the engine.A top setup & a smooth driver is more important in this class to be consistently be @ pointy end of the field...I think that SNZ should have training days for scruinineers so all track are on the same page & knowlege of what to look for & what parts are OM etc,then the cheaters wouldn't evan make the track as some cars shouldn't evan pass greensheeting.Iv helped the scruitineers out @ stratfords big meetings ova the years & Errol & his team are strict & find see basic things wrong with cars from all over the country.If Green sheeted to SNZ specs this should not be the case..Iv evan seen a Toyota ministock from another track with a coil rear end..Fix GreenSheeting & Fix A Lot Of The Problem I think anyway.

[spdwayorthehway]

Do these things not get scrutineered and green sheeted?
How come these cars are getting away with not complying?
Is it possible some drivers or parents might want racing in both directions, and just put something on so this happens?

[Speedway Central (David)]

So whats wrong with racing both direction in Ministocks?

[tank11]

Jun 27, 2015 11:35:57 GMT 12 Speedway Central (David) said:

So whats wrong with racing both direction in Ministocks?

Only one class runs both ways.

[TimSOZ]

Obviously this is all part of a larger strategy to tidy up compliance in the class, including working down the line of publishing lists of OE shock absorbers and a new set of chassis plans. The message that came through loud and clear from the record amount of consultation feedback is that stakeholders would prefer to see existing rules policed harder, rather than making the cars run in the other direction. Now the Board advise of that, they are seen as being threatening and intimidating? Or arrogant, not applying common sense and not doing their job?

The usual excuse when there is an increase in compliance testing is that the car has "been like this for years". In this day and age, if you are going to police rules harder you must advise of this, which has what has occurred in this instance. Kinda like banning 6 pin hubs, which as we talk to more and more experts has become an increasing logical thing to do. There have clearly been far more failures of wheels on 6 pins than we had been made aware of, which are now coming to light.

From my observations, the major issue with officials is not the identification of a non-compliant part, but rather the reluctance to enforce the rule, sometimes as a result of pressure from the affected competitor or other stakeholders at a race meeting. You can train all you want, but if the non-compliance isn't logged it won't be fixed. Hence the strong message that things will be different next season, and no a 12 year old from Westport isn't likely to lead to racing in both directions.....but detecting a large portion of the field at Ministocks in Paradise with Holden shocks possibly would.

For the record, the delegates at the AGM gave the Board a round of applause for their achievements in recent times, so it appears that the views of Percy and Murray are an extremely vocal minority. Most are saying "keep up the good work".

[mudman]

Running both directions is a brilliant idea and one that shouldve been in place from the start. slows them down as they cant set their cars up for one way. and when the ministocks are going slower it is safer for our kids and its the first step in slowing down stockcars which in course will make them safer and more affordable like they used to be.
The only people that will feel put out by being told half way through the season they need to change directions are the cheaters. If the car is legal then all they need to do is take the stagger out and go. stagger tyres can be used on the front so no wasted investment.
It might even bring down the cost in ministocks, after a quick search on trademe one is car only 14,000 and another on trailer for 6,000 where does the extra 8,000 go? a parent can buy a ministock and stockcar for themself for 14,000
The class has got out of hand and its nice to see snz taking steps to reign it in.

[Admin]

I thought part of the package with youth Ministocks aside from learning how to race was also learning how to set up a race car. Me thinks it's best to enforce the rules properly rather than take an important aspect away.

[tank11]

One on trade me at @20k.

[cookster]

We tend to forget that it is not the kids setting the cars up but the adults that run them. By standing the driver down(the kids) all we are doing is punishing the kid. Maybe a harsher financial penalty would be more appropriate and the car pulled from racing until it is made legal and complies with everyone else.

[stikshift87]

I totally agree with Percy and Murray. Tim you can stop patting yourself on the back as SNZ have been offered so much assistance by some really knowledgeable and passionate people about this subject but have refused it and followed the "thanks but we know best path". Hence the "arrogant" label to which I'll add "Ignorant".
To those who don't understand much about suspension (which includes a lot of really nice guys who have been racing and building Stockcars and Ministocks for many years" the principal factor in this debate is SAFETY. The good handling cars are much easier (more fun) to drive, stop way better, and handle most adverse track conditions allowing the 'young apprentice' drivers to build confidence and improve their skills. If they don't have to worry about whether the car is going to spin out, or fire them into the wall, infield, or other competitors, then they can get on with learning lines and racecraft. The Holden shocks "control the springs" for this purpose and could be bought for a whopping $46 incl. The stresses placed on a speedway racecar are enormous compared to a road vehicle i.e. a right rear wheel bearing can start to fail after 2 seasons racing whereas in the donor road vehicle it could do 500,000Ks plus and last way more than ten years. At one Ministocks special meeting last year which had around 80 competitors I was on the infield. In the first round of racing one particular corner posed some problems, which is quite normal. All of the well setup cars got through with little difficulty. Most of the rest found the wall, the infield, or each other. On some of those that came onto the infield I took the liberty of bouncing on their bumpers. In not one case were the shocks having any effect and on some cars I'm sure the spring from a ball point pen would have been stiffer. SNZ have been given all of my information relating to suspension setup including part numbers for springs and shocks for nissan equipped cars. This package is not expensive and is readily available off the shelf. Why can't it or something similar be standardised which would level the playing field considerably, significantly reduce race incidents, and also make the cars more like "one make" racers which they should be. Would also make it really easy to scrutineer if it's a "this and nothing else" policy.

[midway]

Jun 27, 2015 12:44:20 GMT 12 TimSOZ said:

Obviously

For the record, the delegates at the AGM gave the Board a round of applause for their achievements in recent times, so it appears that the views of Percy and Murray are an extremely vocal minority. Most are saying "keep up the good work".

[Murray Guy (Grandad)]

Jun 27, 2015 18:05:18 GMT 12 midway said:

Jun 27, 2015 12:44:20 GMT 12 TimSOZ said:

Obviously

For the record, the delegates at the AGM gave the Board a round of applause for their achievements in recent times, so it appears that the views of Percy and Murray are an extremely vocal minority. Most are saying "keep up the good work".

Well, not that vocal actually Tim, just seems that way I guess when I don't just cower and slink away, a little player in a big player's game.

 


In matters of significance where SNZ or others choose NOT to respond to simple questions, or just plain pig headed, and they are costing me, but usually others, I choose NOT to roll over, to go to bat for them.
I'm not in the sport to get a SNZ award, to be your buddy or make a dollar - just to enjoy what I do, share it with my family, travel the country as able, promote the sport I love, and where I sense the sport is at risk or being abused, I'll speak out.

I don't deny that it is generally a minority that are prepared to express concerns, share thoughts contrary to the powers that be, and this is no different in the kiwi workplace as in it is at play - kiwis by nature generally just roll with the punches, not helped by the environments in which we operate, the attempts at bulling, intimidation.

Take a step back and look at my posts and you'll find the vast majority are promoting our sport and celebrating the various individuals in it, from competitors to volunteers, to officials and spectators, crew members and racers!

Tim, I'm also saying keep up the 'good work', BUT for gods sake get rid of the BS as soon as it becomes obvious, it's a strength NOT a weakness to acknowledge when things aren't got quite right first time around. 
Work harder at putting in place consultation processes that meaningfully give competitors relevant to a class a direct say in the class.
Is there a problem seeking direct feedback, for example, from saloon competitors matters relevant to them and the class? Does the constitution not allow this?

[brettgrace]

@timsnz just curious, has it ever been mooted within SNZ to make all car OWNERS become SNZ members? Most of the time these are the people calling the shots that the drivers are ultimately responsible for, and with more and more cars being owned by one party and driven by another is it really right, fair and true that the sole onus on technical conformity, rule making and wearing punishment lies just with the driver? I'm sure that most youth ministock drivers (to use an example, it goes for other classes too) aren't really the right people to be penalising for technical infringement in the same way that asking (as another example) midget drivers to give feedback on proposed rule changes when the majority of them don't own their own cars and aren't involved with the building or designing of them.

[Deleted]

Jun 27, 2015 7:38:19 GMT 12 Rossco said:

So Percy do you think they should just make the guilty driver go the opposite way ?

should do that in the stock car and superstock classes - there used to be a guy that drove against the traffic if the racing wasnt exciting enough in the previous race, sometimes i wish he was still around!.

[percy]

Jun 27, 2015 12:44:20 GMT 12 TimSOZ said:

The message that came through loud and clear from the record amount of consultation feedback is that stakeholders would prefer to see existing rules policed harder, rather than making the cars run in the other direction. Now the Board advise of that, they are seen as being threatening and intimidating? Or arrogant, not applying common sense and not doing their job?

I would be supportive if this were the case but that's not what the board release states.

The message that came through loud and clear from consultation is that the Ministock class doesn't want to go both ways around the track. Yet in point #2 the board unequivocally states that they might make the class do exactly that if ANY Ministock is found to have an illegally offset chassis or non-compliant springs and shocks next season.

That is not the board policing rules harder as requested, that's the board punishing the entire class for the misdemeanours of as few as 1 competitor.

I will also point out that this is not a general statement on my feelings regarding the performance of the current SNZ board. Overall I think the board are doing a good job but in this instance I feel they have approached this issue in a sub-optimal manner.

[HRC]

Jun 27, 2015 7:38:19 GMT 12 Rossco said:

So Percy do you think they should just make the guilty driver go the opposite way ?

How many ministocks have seats that are for left turning only ie most speedway seats aren,t built to go right they are built to protect the driver in a collision with the wall turning left ..look at most full containment seats on the market the rib and helmet supports are longer on the right side of the seat then the left for this reason.. are the board prepared to put our young drivers at risk ? enforce the rules that's all you have to do simple as that