|
|
Post by joker9377 on Jan 21, 2014 8:28:44 GMT 12
Hi Tim, We have talked a few times on the phone when I was trying to get the NZF2 class started in Wanganui. I was just wondering when is the opportune time to introduce a new class? There seems to be a decline over the past decade in streetstock numbers except for a few pockets where they are still strong and entertaining and the introduction of Six Shooters hasn't really built into much save for the south where theres good numbers at a couple of tracks. Is it time for a more home grown approach to another class I wonder. Self built basic chassis built off a plan and based on the super successful ministock theory. Nearly 60 thousand views on Macgors on the NZF2 thread shows theres a huge interest, although your thread will surpass that number very soon I think lol
Cheers, John Barker
|
|
|
|
Post by BarryB on Jan 21, 2014 12:15:08 GMT 12
Barry asked:
That communication between the referee and the commentary team - especially at major meetings - is something I would like to see made compulsary. Can SNZ put forward a remit at the next Remit Conference to that effect, for the members to vote on?Hi Barry Why wait until 2015? This is something that every track could have in place by this weekend, if they really wanted to. Ultimately though, anyone can now submit a rule change, as anyone can become a member of Speedway NZ (its $40 per year and you get discounts on Bluebridge ferries and at Steel & Tube). Look forward to receiving your membership application….and remit! Membership application lodged. You might live to regret your suggestion - they'll now be a literal FLOOD of remits from my computer  However!!! I am extremely interested in what your response will be to TonyT's questions, as many of my questions are the same (including, in addition, I'm assuming that one will be able to lodge a remit, but not be able to speak to such a remit?); Tim, you state several times earlier in this thread that anyone can become a member of SNZ, and we encourage you to do so, or words to that effect. I also note that throughout the thread the over riding response you give to most of the "why not do this" type of questions is that changes can only come from voting on remits at conference. Therefore, I would ask how would fans, who become members of SNZ, be able to submit and vote on remits? My understanding (and I may well be wrong) is that at present, only member clubs can vote at conference through their two allocated representatives (drivers and promoters). Will the admission of non-drivers and non-promoters (and also likely non-club members) to SNZ membership require a change in the way conference voting is carried out? Could fans potentially force this change to occur via weight of numbers? |
|
|
|
Post by sonic33 on Jan 21, 2014 19:52:16 GMT 12
Hi Tim, Thanx for the thread. You have answered most questions I have, and have given me an in sight to how SNZ operates, and more so as to the limitations you operate under. A few questions though, Do you think the track criteria, for hosting a NZ title, has had the desired effect? Was it not to ensure those allocated the titles were up to the job. Does the criteria need tweaking? At the end of a championship you suggest there is a de-brief. What happens with the outcomes? I carry out these at work (after gas emergencies)and out of them came action points. What is the end result of SNZ de-briefs? Do you think the scheduling of the NZ stockcars, NZ stockcar teams and NZ superstock champs were ideal? Lastly, if everyone wanted a change from the seemingly archaic constitution (or whatever it is called) under which SNZ is run, how would this be achieved. Total dispantion or something not so extreme? It seems the voting system at conference is far from transparent, or fair for that matter. Under the the current rules that govern the sport is there anyway to change this? There are some major players (promoters) etc that seem to be able to block some initiatives for the betterment of themselves. Surely each individual licence holder having a vote on each remit would be favourable? Thanx for your time. Keep up the good work. Sheldon Blair. Hi Tim, One you may have missed about the time of the monthly board meeting. Cheers, |
|
|
|
Post by tank11 on Jan 22, 2014 12:46:40 GMT 12
Hi Tim, Thanx for the thread. You have answered most questions I have, and have given me an in sight to how SNZ operates, and more so as to the limitations you operate under. A few questions though, Do you think the track criteria, for hosting a NZ title, has had the desired effect? Was it not to ensure those allocated the titles were up to the job. Does the criteria need tweaking? At the end of a championship you suggest there is a de-brief. What happens with the outcomes? I carry out these at work (after gas emergencies)and out of them came action points. What is the end result of SNZ de-briefs? Do you think the scheduling of the NZ stockcars, NZ stockcar teams and NZ superstock champs were ideal? Lastly, if everyone wanted a change from the seemingly archaic constitution (or whatever it is called) under which SNZ is run, how would this be achieved. Total dispantion or something not so extreme? It seems the voting system at conference is far from transparent, or fair for that matter. Under the the current rules that govern the sport is there anyway to change this? There are some major players (promoters) etc that seem to be able to block some initiatives for the betterment of themselves. Surely each individual licence holder having a vote on each remit would be favourable? Thanx for your time. Keep up the good work. Sheldon Blair. Hi Tim, One you may have missed about the time of the monthly board meeting. Cheers, Stop being impatient Sonic.................  |
|
|
|
Post by BarryB on Jan 22, 2014 13:26:11 GMT 12
Tim had a Board meeting last week and is on leave this week, so please be patient.
Let's do it on the terracotta,
Barry B
|
|
|
|
Post by sonic33 on Jan 22, 2014 15:36:04 GMT 12
Hi Tim, One you may have missed about the time of the monthly board meeting. Cheers, Stop being impatient Sonic................. Sorry. no probs. Just saw he had replied to others after mine, so thought he may have missed it. Not sure how I am meant to know he was on leave this week. |
|
|
|
Post by BarryB on Jan 22, 2014 15:41:40 GMT 12
You weren't......I just added that in so people would know not to expect answers this week. It was a general comment, not in response to your post.
Let's do it on the terracotta,
Barry B
|
|
|
|
Post by sonic33 on Jan 22, 2014 19:37:27 GMT 12
You weren't......I just added that in so people would know not to expect answers this week. It was a general comment, not in response to your post. Let's do it on the terracotta, Barry B Ooookkkeeeyyy Dookkeeyy. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 23, 2014 18:32:58 GMT 12
Mr CEO, ( lets keep it real impersonal)
you have stated that speedway is the largest motor sport in NZ.
However, the major "on line" gathering point is a web site created and run by a private individual with nothing to do with SNZ
There is one newspaper for our sport, also run by a private individual,
there is one speedway show on tv ( that only caters for a few classes) and is run by a private promoter...
Is it then fair to say that SNZ have in the past and are continuing presently to be particularly poor at bringing our product to the NZ market place and then isnt it also fair to say that SNZ does not attract the type of people who have the skill sets to lead speedway in to the light.
Speedway is a product that needs to be sold, SNZ have 24 branches nation wide...but no unified advertising strategy...basically when will SNZ start leading the sport instead of reacting to it?
cheers Z
|
|
|
|
Post by custaxie50 on Jan 26, 2014 20:04:24 GMT 12
Whats up with this wheelie bar that was fitted to one of the sidecars at palmy last night,is that in the rule book that you can fit one.
|
|
|
|
Post by kevtherev on Jan 31, 2014 12:53:04 GMT 12
Hi Tim.Heres a couple of questions.As a spectator i find it frustrating and uninteresting often
watching the fastest cars starting off the front.Surely everybody would rather see the
better drivers passing as many cars as possible.Is this ever likely to change?A fair way
would be marble draw then reverse finishing order from previous races after that.Also some
of us are a bit wary about pre booking tickets for major events in case of "god forbid"
rainouts.Is there any way to get a refund?Especially for travellers who have ferries or
planes to catch.Thanks.
|
|
|
|
Post by hoov51m on Jan 31, 2014 21:21:58 GMT 12
to Kevtherev you pay $20 to get in the gate to watch racing
But you forget is this is a by-product of racing, the primary reason if racing is one driver to race others and see if he can beat them, so why if a driver does well in the heats {which is usually marble draw then reverse grid } ends up with the highest point should he then be penalised and made to start from rear.
after he has gone through $100 in race gas, worn out a set of tires and maybe had some damage not to mention the hours in the shed to get it ready and the cost of the car.
this makes no sence to me to why a driver is to spend THOUSANDS OF DOLLORS so you can spend $20 and make YOU happy, Or are you going to pay more at the gate so there is more prize money { I can hear the MOANING starting already }
Most drivers like to put on a show but for the spectators this is a BY-PRODUCT
|
|
|
|
Post by TimSOZ on Feb 1, 2014 13:56:11 GMT 12
Hi everyone
Sorry for the break over the last couple of weeks, had a moderately serious health issue to deal with. Thankfully I’m now on the mend and almost caught up at work, so we can get back into answering your queries. My doctor assures me this thread had nothing to do with me going down in a heap......
Oh, and If I’ve missed your question out, please just repost it. Here's a few replies to kick things off again.
|
|
|
|
Post by TimSOZ on Feb 1, 2014 13:59:10 GMT 12
Baz2407 asked:-
Tim
Do you not think as SNZ is trying to become more like a business and be run more efficently that a lot of changes are due, Lindsays comment has a lot of merit SNZ should appoint officials to tracks not the promoters etc then there is no problems over decisions that are made they answer to the governing body just like answering to any CEO in a business.
I’m going to be blunt here – change comes at a financial cost. Any initiative either requires an increase in funding, or cost savings elsewhere in the organisation. Speedway NZ will not change radically without a radical increase in funding. 95% of its income comes from members (3/4 of that from competitors and ¼ from tracks), so more initiatives will equal higher fees (which always goes down really well at the AGM…..). In terms of efficiency, I can assure everyone we run as close to the bone as we can. A couple of years ago we undertook a really successful stakeholder survey and one of the comments that resonated with me was the statement that “it appears that Speedway NZ is run on the cheap”. I was like “yes, someone finally noticed!”
Regarding officials, as mentioned a couple of times already tracks have the right to nominate who they wish as Stewards, Referees and Scrutineers. A Board remit to change this was not successful at the 2013 rulemaking AGM. End of story.
Rightnut 37 enquired:-
however now that it is out there i also would like to know, It has been past by more than one source , one of which is more than in the know that the car in question had an illegaly placed left to right brake bias valve, and was ruled out of the meeting! the real question would more so be, how after being told you cant race did he come to be out there? If it was protested , how can you possibly protest a blatent disregaurd of the rules ? Does this not make a complete shambles of the rules that us as the drivers make?
The next issue of Speedway NZ ‘s Update is out on Monday and addresses this issue.
Barry Brown asked:-
The 8 spot relegation to Terry Corin in Ht 2 of the NZ Super Saloon Champs at WP last weekend, relegated to behind the car he allegedly made contact with; is that something we're going to see more of? I ask, because I don't think I've seen somebody relegated that many positions before....
M7-2-4 A Senior Referee has the authority to penalise a competitor as follows:-
(a) Reprimand which can be private or public.
(b) Relegate finishing positions.
(c) Exclude from the results of the race.
(d) Fine up to $200.
(e) Suspend for up to 22 days, starting from the date of the offence.
(f) Penalise as per Teams Racing Code of Ethics Section R12-4.
Referees have wide powers to impose the penalties above. I don’t think there’s anything in there at all that suggests there is going to be consistency from week to week. The rules encourage Officials to use whatever penalty they think fits the particular offence.
A weight infringement = 30 day stand-down. Easy.
Contact in Super Saloons = reprimand or relegation of anywhere from 1-19 places or exclusion or fine from $1 to $200 or suspension from 1-22 days. Easy??
|
|
|
|
Post by TimSOZ on Feb 1, 2014 14:02:11 GMT 12
James Hadley mentioned:-
In regards to rule changes, the rule around the "wording of event names" with the international, world title etc, is this a rule that can be changed during the season or only every two years? If so, how do we post a remit for this? More the criteria for the ruling/fee then the actual rule itself.
The relevant rule can be changed by remit at the 2015 AGM. It currently reads:-
M4-33-2 Before a promoter may conduct or advertise any event which has the following words or their equivalents as part of the title, they must obtain permission from SNZ:-
(i) Championship
(ii) New Zealand
(iii) Nationals
(iv) Grand Prix
(v) World
(vi) International
A fee may apply.
Any member can submit a rule change, however to be discussed and voted on at the AGM it needs to be moved by one of the 48 delegates, and seconded by another from another track.
mrbean said:-
Hi Tim - my question is : when tracks host title events is it there discretion on how much to may for prizemoney or is the prizemoney pool allocated at SNZ level.
Just asking as I've heard many gripes about how little competitors are paid vs the amount of gate takings the promoter receives.
Think someone else answered ,but just for confirmation. The NZ titles have a minimum prizemoney pool eg NZ Superstocks = $25,000, NZ Solos = $2000. The Grand Prix and Island titles have no minimums, but tracks must state what they will pay when they apply to host, and presumably the other tracks consider it (and other factors) when they cast their votes. Full details can be found in Rule M4-2-5.
410cowboy asked:-
How ever my question is how come a minisprint that gets pushed out the gate to start his mot
what or gets put to the infield but yet a car that stops on the track and cant start gets a push and is allowed to race???
Lunchbox answered this but again for confirmation - There are two relevant rules, both of which confirm that what you saw is as per the rules. Stop on the track and you can get a push (if the Clerk of the Course allows it as the venue will be under their control at the time, not the Referee).
T10-4-21(c) Self Starter: Must be fitted and operational. All cars must leave pits under own power.
R10-5-5 Vehicles must be running within one lap of receiving the push off signal.
R10-5-6 Minisprints and Modified Sprints: The above rule does not apply and vehicles must leave the pits under their own power.
|
|
|
|
Post by TimSOZ on Feb 1, 2014 14:04:18 GMT 12
Sonic33’s questions:-
Do you think the track criteria, for hosting a NZ title, has had the desired effect? Was it not to ensure those allocated the titles were up to the job. Does the criteria need tweaking?
The criteria were originally instituted by SPANZ (separate organisation), so don’t quote me on what the “desired effect” was, but I believe it was to institute minimum standards. All 23 Division 1 tracks meet those standards and are eligible to apply for a title, other than the minimum numbers of meetings and cars for each class. The criteria is always up for review, but that is a role for the 24 tracks who vote on the criteria.
At the end of a championship you suggest there is a de-brief. What happens with the outcomes? I carry out these at work (after gas emergencies)and out of them came action points. What is the end result of SNZ de-briefs?
The outcomes are many. Sometimes we have to work with tracks and officials to avoid issues from reoccurring. On other occasions there are suggested rule changes that come out of a debrief. Often, we send emails of congratulations to the tracks and officials on a job well done. Let’s be honest though, most titles run just fine. We’ve had 23 to date this season (27 after tonight) and those with major issues to date can be counted on one hand.
Do you think the scheduling of the NZ stockcars, NZ stockcar teams and NZ superstock champs were ideal?
Weather is always going to impact on speedway from time to time, and there will always be issues when the weather doesn’t play ball. The scheduling of the events was in accordance with Speedway NZ’s rules.
Lastly, if everyone wanted a change from the seemingly archaic constitution (or whatever it is called) under which SNZ is run, how would this be achieved. Total dispantion or something not so extreme?
Changes to the Speedway NZ constitution require a 2/3rds majority vote (basically 16 tracks to agree). Clearly therefore, the simple answer if you want change is to get as many people on board as possible who support your position. It’s why the threshold for change is so high – essentially it keeps the sport stable and ticking over until there is a great deal of support for a new initiative. Some view that as a negative, but over time I’ve realised this is one of Speedway NZ’s strengths. It stops divisions within the sport from forming.
It seems the voting system at conference is far from transparent, or fair for that matter. Under the the current rules that govern the sport is there anyway to change this? There are some major players (promoters) etc that seem to be able to block some initiatives for the betterment of themselves. Surely each individual licence holder having a vote on each remit would be favourable?
The voting system is exceptionally transparent, to those who take the time to attend the AGM (as it’s done by show of hands). Last year we gave the opportunity to anyone to attend the AGM, provided they came to the awards. A few people took up that option and came along – and well done to them. No-one else has the right to say they didn’t get the opportunity, so it’s not accurate to say the voting system is not transparent.
|
|
|
|
Post by TimSOZ on Feb 1, 2014 14:07:04 GMT 12
gregobro asked:-
A lot of people believe there are too many classes in speedway at present. Does SNZ have the power to disestablish a class or force mergers etc, or can they only sanction and guide new classes?
This is all covered in Section M1 of the Rulebook. There have been attempts by previous boards to look at dis-establishing or merging classes, both of which were met with fierce negative responses by delegates at the relevant AGM’s (Adult Ministocks in 2003, Saloons/Super Saloons in 2009). New classes must first be approved by the Board before they can race at a Speedway NZ track. In my time Six Shooters have been successful, F2 Stockcars were not.
Boner 87:-
Here a question where I would like Tims personal opinion aswell as an SNZ answer. Do you think that the entry level(ministocks etc) and mid range level racing (stockcars, minisprints) are getting to be a little expensive to "run". I say this keeping in mind that I do know that money can buy speed but talent can also buy speed. I understand the costs of superstocks, sprintcars, super saloons but could some of the other classes be made more "affordable"
My personal opinion is that it’s going to be far easier to find parts for a 1983 Datsun in 1995 than it is in 2014.......Could classes be made more “affordable”? Of course they could, but this would often require rule changes. Are those people who have sunk costs into existing machinery going to vote for change that may disadvantage themselves? Try asking a few of them and see what response you get.
rusty:-
Can a class rep sign an imfringement notice on behalf of a competitor?
The infringement notice has a space for the competitor, rep and issuing official to sign. However to be valid, it only needs to be signed by the SNZ Official (Referee, Steward etc):-
M7-1-4 Any Infringement Notice need only have the issuing Officials signature to be valid.
|
|
|
|
Post by TimSOZ on Feb 1, 2014 14:14:28 GMT 12
Peter Bennett:-
Hi Tim Thanks for the open Book ,With regards to the last Question Are you able to say what some off the reasons why they dont go down these paths ??
I can’t really put words in the mouths of those who don’t vote for remits. We usually have anywhere from 150-300 remits at an AGM, so there are hundreds of decisions to be made by each of the 48 delegates.
I interesting to look at the Q&A and see a lot off what people are putting forward is going to the AGM but are being knocked back,and yet they seem simple and dear i say Good ways forward ,I wonder weather the delegates go to the AGM with only there tracks and whats in there interest in the voting
Seriously, that’s exactly why they should be at the AGM – to represent their track. And if a change benefits a majority of tracks, then presumably that’s why they vote for it. If a majority of tracks will benefit, then the sport as a whole will too. Like it or not, that’s the system by which speedway is operated in this country. Change does not happen on Macgors, well not at the moment lol.
|
|
|
|
Post by tank11 on Feb 1, 2014 17:38:08 GMT 12
Tim, any data on injuries where neck restraints are used. IE neck restraint/seat combo/injury incurred. Just thinking after M. Auldings accident. bump |
|
|
|
Post by TimSOZ on Feb 2, 2014 12:59:08 GMT 12
Brettgrace enquired:-
With regards to instant changes of the rulebook, does this cover solely the technical rules or does it extend into other areas such as racing rules, track specifications, definitions/wording and changing the policies of how SNZ is administrated?
At this stage its used for Technical rules only, although the option is there if required. It should be noted that the “instant” process still takes a number of months, as the checks and balances are worked through. The proposal goes to the Technical Committee for a recommendation, and the Board decides whether it should go out for consultation with members. The member feedback is considered by the Tech Committee and Board, and then a decision is made and advised.
- Is there a consultation process ala the one used with the technical committees when drafting rules for these other areas?
As mentioned, its only used for tech rules at this stage. Other proposals would go through the same process, including seeking input from the relevant tech committee, member tracks, and competitors.
- I noticed in the results of a few votes than a seconder was not needed, is this the result of a unanimous vote or is this an example of the board's right to alter the rules following consultation?
When the Technical rules for Stockcars, Superstocks, Saloons and Streetstocks are voted on there is no requirement for a seconder. Just another constitutional quirk but it does speed up the process at the AGM.
If the board can remove/alter/insert rules at any time for the common good of the sport, do you feel personally that it might be time for a look at using these powers for an alteration of the way remits are voted in?
This has been tried before, and ended in an acrimonious mess in the late 1990’s. The remit process changed so that the voting at the AGM was a recommendation, with the Board to have the final say. Major problem is that if you have 200 remits then you are never going to get your way on everything, and it ended up with the Board making their best judgements as they saw fit, but ending up getting offside with everyone. For example, Track A didn’t like the decision on remit 89 and 120, Track B didn’t like the decision on remit 13 and 180, Track C didn’t like the decision on remit 52 and 58 etc etc. SPANZ got involved, lawyers got involved and the outcome was the constitution we have now.
- I noticed as a result of the last meeting that HAN restraints were mandated in a few more open wheel classes (mini sprints, tqs, sprintcars etc) and while a vote for the mandate of these devices in contact classes was cast, it was ultimately defeated. There was another proposed remit for shortening the usable life of seatbelts in the contact classes from 5 to 2 years, it was also defeated. Morally, do you feel that in instances directly concerning the safety of the members of your organisation that the board could step in and do more to see that rules designed to protect us from ourselves are at the least, phased in over time?
This is the reality of the situation we are in. If a remit is unanimously defeated at an AGM and the Board decide to implement it anyway, they are committing political suicide.
Under our current system, the moral responsibility to make decisions lies with the 48 track AGM delegates who make decisions on HANS devices, seatlbelt life etc. It does not lie with the Board, who have no input into that process, other than via speaking rights at the AGM. This is a really important point , which I’m pretty sure only a handful of people involved in the sport actually understand.
The Board can only intervene if a safety issue has been identified which requires a prompt resolution to ensure the ongoing safety of the sport.
- Finally, if the current voting system was to go what would you personally like to see replace it?
As mentioned, a remit to investigate alternative voting processes was not successful at the 2009 AGM. So we have no mandate to even look at different structures, and therefore I haven’t done any research on what else might be suitable for speedway. If change came, we’d make it happen though. Online licensing was up and running 5 weeks after Sport NZ told us our ongoing funding would be cut if we didn’t make it available!
|
|
