2013 Rules

[Hardline]

Originally Posted by Tgreer

Guys, I'm ok with not wanting to change the wheel rule to 2.8, that's fine! My problem now is how incredibly close minded and finger pointed some of you guys are! I went on here with a simple question that needed a simple and respectable response. I was immediately attacked. This is not how it should be, anyone should be able to ask something or request something in here and receive a dignified and respectable response, not a response that basicly says piss off and go away. I hope in the future people on the committee and others can have a little more respect for everyone that's a part of this forum.

Yes you have a real grievance. EVERYONE has treated you shabbily and there's nothing you could have done better to avoid the unpleasantness. I'm shocked at what "finger-pointers" they are.

[Tgreer]

Originally Posted by Hardline

Yes you have a real grievance. EVERYONE has treated you shabbily and there's nothing you could have done better to avoid the unpleasantness. I'm shocked at what "finger-pointers" they are.

That's my point, right away after posting my question I was intercepted with two sarcastic responses! So, when people get responses like that, they will get pissed and leave, or come back with guns blazing. I chose guns blazing! If you guys don't want a battle, then don't post a trash response to a resonable question, when you know it's not the right way to go about it!

[ROWDY RACING]

I am sorry you feel this way.

[Calderwood]

I'm at a loss for words. I don't understand how me saying "just build a super" was an attack.

[Tgreer]

I'm out! You guys are like talking to a brick wall! You guys are going to piss away good people with your sarcastic responses!

[ROWDY RACING]

Peace Brah!

[The Violator]

Originally Posted by Tgreer

That's my point, right away after posting my question I was intercepted with two sarcastic responses! So, when people get responses like that, they will get pissed and leave, or come back with guns blazing. I chose guns blazing! If you guys don't want a battle, then don't post a trash response to a resonable question, when you know it's not the right way to go about it!

Originally Posted by Tgreer

I'm out! You guys are like talking to a brick wall! You guys are going to piss away good people with your sarcastic responses!

8:53 your guns a blazing. 9:08 your out.

You asked " why should we have to run 2.2 wheels in the 2.2 class?" and received the answer in not so many words " because it is the 2.2 class"

When you did not get what you wanted you took your toys and left.

I say good riddance.

[HARDKNOCKZ]

As Chris said...cool down. I dont see how you feel that you were dismissed by me but be clear...that wasn't my intention. I was being straight with you. As of this very minute, I don not see a 2.8 wheel being allowed. Does that mean that it NEVER will be? Nope. Never said that.

Again...I said write up a decent proposal explaining why we as A WHOLE would benefit from a wheel change & I would happily put it to a vote. How did you interpret that as anything more than what it was? I didnt belittle you. I didnt call names. I didnt curse. I didnt use 77 exclamation points. I was blunt & to the point & if you took that as being "shoved away"...my apologies because that was not my intent.

I agree that we need constant change & evolution to keep the sport alive...forget about growing it at this point. I just wanna keep it going. But said changes need to make sense for the betterment of the sport as a WHOLE. So far I only see you fighting for this so it tells me that the majority doesn't agree with you at this point. Maybe that'll change down the road, maybe it wont. But today...I can almost guarantee that the rules committee will vote this idea down. Its nothing personal. Doesn't mean you have a terrible idea...it just means that right now, it doesnt make sense to turn things on their head to increase the amount of knuckle weight you can run.

For the most part, courses are built AROUND our rigs...not the other way around...& I personally enjoy the challenges we have as they are.

Again...Im sincere when I say write up a solid proposal & I will present it to the entire RC & we will discuss it.

J.D.

[Wicked Monkey]

Originally Posted by Tgreer

I'm out! You guys are like talking to a brick wall! You guys are going to piss away good people with your sarcastic responses!

Jesus christ! How many different ways can they put it to you that it doesn't make sense to run a 2.8 wheel in a 2.2 class. None of the responses you got warranted you ranting and raving about being attacked. Something is wrong with your thought process mate. Maybe it is best if you do take your ball and go home.

[slowride1]

how come I never get to win any comps

I think ill just take my shit an leave lol lol

[Calderwood]

Originally Posted by slowride1

how come I never get to win any comps

I think ill just take my shit an leave lol lol

Because you don't run 3.2s... Duh!

[ittybitty]

Can we get a little clarification between BONUS and ALTERNATE gates and how they are scored/used in course design? The only difference between the description of each is are the words EXTRA (bonus) and SECONDARY (alternate).

4.9 - Bonus (Optional): Bonuses are extra gates placed anywhere on the course by course designers for bonus credit.
▪ 4.9.1 - All penalties apply during the bonus attempt to the regular score even if the bonus is not completed or
aborted.
▪ 4.9.2 - Course must be completed in order for bonus to be awarded.
▪ 4.9.3 - Bonus may consist of more than one gate.
▪ 4.9.4 - Bonus Gates are ran in the intended sequence set by the course designer.

4.10 - Alternate (Optional): Alternate gates are secondary gates placed anywhere on the course by course designers for bonus credit.
▪ 4.10.1 - All penalties apply during the alternate attempt to the regular score even if the alternate is not
completed or aborted.
▪ 4.10.2 - Course must be completed in order for alternate to be awarded.
▪ 4.10.3 - Alternate may consist of more than one gate.
▪ 4.10.4 - Alternate Gates are ran in the intended sequence set by the course designer.

[Harvo]

This ties into Itty's post above. His questions are about the below idea.

Some of you may have seen the video in the video section called "New Pro Course Design". One of the ETRC members was trying to create a course that eliminates the need for bonuses, spreads out scores, creates in course decision making, and is more friendly to new people. He seems to have succeeded.

We tried out the format and it worked very well. Everyone in attendance really enjoyed the course and it rendered some interesting scores that shook things up.

Number of gates can vary
For each gate there is an A and B option
A (easier)= -2 Progress
B (harder)= -4 Progress unless you don't finish the course
Pointing or timing out = -2 per gate progressed regardless of A or B
All gates are live
Driver can choose A or B option for each gate.

Do the Rules Committee guys see anything here that violates the rules?

If so, would you consider tweaks to the rules to allow local and major comps to use such a design? I know there is a process, I'm just not familiar with it.

I suggest checking out the video, trying it out at a local comp and seeing for yourself how it changes the game a little without turning it inside out.

[Curcal]

This course design looks cool, but does it require you ti set up alternate gates for the entire course? In essence setting a 20 hate course. Or can the course builder set less alternative gates?

[Fishmaxx]

Harvo and Curcal, 4.9 and 4.10 allow you to do ALL of types of course designs you described.

Parker some similar designs back in the day, so we attempted to give course designers the ability to be creative. The biggest issues I see is some scoring (math) mistakes. If the judges are strong and terrain allows it I say go for it.

[Hardline]

Harvo, do you think you might be violating 4.10.2 by awarding any progress points for alternate gates made on an uncompleted course? I would read that as maybe zero progress points for made alternate gates on an uncompleted course.

[Grandmasboy]

Originally Posted by Hardline

Harvo, do you think you might be violating 4.10.2 by awarding any progress points for alternate gates made on an uncompleted course? I would read that as maybe zero progress points for made alternate gates on an uncompleted course.

That's where the grey area is that we were concerned about. We were still giving -2 progress on an uncompleted course, just not the "alternate" point value (-4).

Reading Fish's post, it seems the rules were written with enough leniency to allow us to do just so.

[Fishmaxx]

Originally Posted by Grandmasboy

We were still giving -2 progress on an uncompleted course, just not the "alternate" point value (-4).

Thats my thinking as well

[Waiting Dragon]

Originally Posted by Grandmasboy

That's where the grey area is that we were concerned about. We were still giving -2 progress on an uncompleted course, just not the "alternate" point value (-4).

So for example:

A driver chooses to drive all of the alternate (-4) gates on the course, but either times out or points out after gate 9, then the final score would be a +22. Correct me if I'm wrong!

[Curcal]

In this format yes