Off road 1/10th Nationals
 

And so it came to pass that the WISE old men of rc racing in the RCCAOI have decided not to allow the 1st round of the National Championship to go ahead at the only dry indoor astro track in their jurisdiction ( Naul )( run by the only offroad 1/10th club ) as the track is too narrow to overtake on:thumbdown: :confused: .Correct me if im wrong but i thought the idea was to make the best of your qualifying and start from the front and if you mess up in that ,you make the most of whatever skill you have to do your best and try to get to the front.
I still havent heard a F1 driver whinge about Monaco , they all love it even though it does not conform to the norm!!!

Surely this is just silly, Passing up on the only indoor venue in the south because of 0.4M. I could see there point it they had a massive entry and lots of venue's to choose from but in this country we don't so we need to stop being silly and make the best of what we have.

I am assuming the RCCAOI run this rule throughout 1/10th Ie: on/off road and I don't think anyone from the RCCAOI checked the first round on the Touring car nationals. but then again our On Road Rep did'nt turn up to the national.

Strange alright. My car is roughly 20cm wide. The track is 10 times that. If you go around a corner do you actually need that extra 40cm to overtake??
But instead, the navan track which is perfect for 1:8 scale nitros, but woeful for 1:10 is said to be ok?

Can EGM be called and the rule changed? Assuming no one has any objection to the track? Just get the minimium number of people needed for an EGM for 5 minutes, change the rule to 2m wide and bobs your uncle?
The track width was 2m and changed only last year! Any idea why?
Must start attending meetings :wtf:

Don't think we need an AGM as if the date for the 1st round is anything like yesterday , where we had a great days "relaxed" racing where the quickest 1/10th off road racer in Ireland was being chased at times by two of the youngest drivers at the moment.
No rush between heats etc. and still guys practicing at 6 pm after the racing had finished at 4pm. Doors open and even the sun shone in!

It saddens me to see this situation unfold as it has.

I was at the RCCAOI AGM when a member proposed the change, I and others enquired if these were written in stone or just guidelines, from memory we were told they were guidelines, aspirational rather than dictates.

It seems now they are being regarded as dictates, this was not my understanding at the AGM.:thumbdown:

As has been said, we are a VERY small community, at a guess I'd say 90% of the 1/10th offroad racers in S.Ireland race with the DMCC and their track has been deemed unsuitable due to a change to the rules that makes no sense in such a small country.:(

I feel one of the main functions of the RCCAOI is to promote the sport of RC racing, I can't see how this decision fulfils this remit? If racers want change then you have to get involved and turn up to AGM's, make proposals and maybe get involved in the RCCAOI committee, history has shown me that this rarely happens but I'd like to be proven wrong:woot:

On a more positive note, I think the large body of racers who race at the Naul are really enjoying themselves and the relaxed atmosphere is encouraging more and more people to join, long may it last:thumbsup:

Anyone know how this changed from a guideline to a rule? Did whoever updates the 1:10th rules mishear it and think it was a track width was to be set in stone? :confused:
Because if whatever was said in the AGM was written down differently in the rulebook is surely void?

I don't know how these things work, but if we're not using the naul because someone wrote something down wrong at a meeting it's a bit over the top. This is remote control car racing, not the Lisbon treaty. It should be changed easily enough :woot:

With the greatest of respect don't misquote me, I said from memory, I was not stating it was a guideline, it was a rule change but some of us did question if it made sense and some asked if there was in fact any existing 1/10th tracks in Ireland that could fulfil the new specifications.

As I said above if you want YOUR sport to run as YOU would like then YOU need to get involved, no point complaining after the horse has bolted:woot: (not having a go at you just making a point:) )

If very few 1/10th offraod racers turn up to the RCCAOI AGM then changes can be pushed through by a show of hands, no objections equals the rule gets passed, simple. The RCCAOI is a democratic organisation, everybody has equal rights, unfortunately very few racers tend to exercise their rights:(

''You're either part of the problem or part of the solution,'' Cleaver 1960's

The rule change was not updated incorrectly, it was update as per the proposal submitted prior to the agm. You would need to be a right muppet to make a mistake in changing a 0 to a 4.

I dont have time to race, never mind going to meetings :(
I know you're not having a go, tone of voice doesn't come across well on messageboards.

TBH, it's not a big deal to me, would have been nice to have a nationals there, but as long as I can go along on a sunday and have a good days racing I'm happy, nationals don't mean anything to me. I still would have signed up if the naul was on the list.
As I said earlier, I don't know how these things work, but it's a shame that such a good track is to be used because of a technicality. Are these things set in stone? Why not just use the track anyway? The first line on the RCCAOI page says "The RCCAOI is an organization which exists to promote RC car racing in Ireland."
We'll promote it by not using the best track in RoI, the only club with a 1:10th track, and closest one to the biggest population :woot:

Fair enough.

Just to be clear my point was not about if it was a rule change, it was obvious it was a rule change, but I do remember questions being asked and at the end of the discussion I remember it being said the new rules would be aspirational guidelines rather then written in stone specs. As I said this is from memory and I could be mistaken:blush:

From my point of view the horse has already bolted, lets get on with enjoying the summer season and we can sort this stuff out at the next RCCAOI AGM:thumbsup: (that's if guys are willing to put the effort in?)

I totally agree with everything you have said:thumbsup:

Unfortunately we are dealing with a situation that the RCCAOI are saying 'rules are rules' and very little common sense is being applied (I make these comments in the full knowledge that everybody on the RCCAOI committee do this work in their own time and are not paid and I'm aware its a thankless task!!) but that's the past, lets all look forward to enjoying ourselves in the future:thumbsup:

I'll go to the next meeting anyway Kev.
So, is this what normally happens:

• Someone wants a rule change.
• Stick it on the agenda/proposal
• Word it differently in the meeting, so it's passed without any fuss
• Turns out the rule change is rubbish.
• Have to wait till next year to change it back, in the meantime the nationals suffer!

Brilliant!

Anyway, as you said, not going to change now.
What's the calender going to be then?
http://www.rccaoi.com/index.php/cal
Still says DMCC there. Just 3 rounds?

I actualy passed Mark Penny on Sunday,no problem,Ok yes his car was stopped,but come on RCCAOI...ITS MODEL CAR RACING..Leave the politics and attitudes at home and race cars,surley these guys who take the Nationls seriously and who are top drivers,should have the ability to pass other cars..I think there is more to this issue then just half a meter..:thumbdown:where has common sense gone..Anyhow with or without the Nationals the racing is great at the Naul..

The Naul has it All.. :thumbsup:
Adios T.

Hi all

FYI

Unfortunately due to our current venue size, it does not lend to a track wider than 2m.
If the track was to change to the revised 2.4m minimum, we feel that the track will not be challenging enough at the level the nationals should be, even though it can be at 2m.

We had the option of Griffeen valley, but that venue is currently not suitable in its curent state due weather conditions and why risk outdoors when we have a great indoor venue with all facilities required.

ALL meetings with the RCCAOI were very favorable, positive, constructive and friendly. However, their hands are tied and the rules are the rules, because rules are there to govern.

All we can do is MOVE ON and at the next AGM if enough people feel strongly about it THEN GET OUT AND VOTE for change.

What track width do you have to have for the new 1/16th class or is it covered by the rccaoi ???
Who is our 1/16th rep??:rolleyes:

What are u on. If u want i can post the proposal from the agm if you want it made clearer. The rule had one change to It 2.0 to 2.4 for all areas off the main straight.
It's not a rubbish change it was done for a reason it just happens now that the track the club have proposed to run with doesn't suit the guidelines. Some people made a complaint to the rccaoi committee and from what I can see the club committee choose not to make an attempt to alter the track to bring it more in line with the track specs. The rccaoi are stuck in a difficult position because what is voted in by the driver present at the agm is the guideline they are are asking to run with as it's not the committee who make up the rules. If there is a issue as clearly some drivers had then what do they do forget the handbook altogether. Why have a rule book then.

No rep. No rules no national class. Propose it at next agm if you want. Along with any rules you want.

who proposed and seconded the proposal.?

Will proposed I don't have the seconder for it.

Why does it matter who proposed it.? there where 8 buggy drivers at the agm and they all voted it in if I am not mistaken.

I wasn't there so I just want to know..why is there a problem?

No problem

The only problem I have is my poor memory:thumbdown::)

I still maintain there was some discussion about this rule change, again as I keep saying, from memory, I thought it was agreed that the 2.4m would be applied where possible and/or it would be an aspirational width if the location allowed.

I think we should all just move on, it's water under the bridge:thumbsup:

We have a good thing going in the Naul, long may it last:thumbsup::thumbsup:

Think we will have to get a film crew in and tape next agm Kev. So we can back track on what was said.

Anyone remember what the reasons for the change were?

Tomorrow evening went I am on the pc and not the tablet. I will post a link to the proposal if you want.?

I remember it like you do Kev.

The new rule was proposed. It was then discussed by those who were there, as there was a worry that it may be a dictate rather than an aspiration. It was then agreed that it would go into the rule book in a slightly amended form to show this.
Its how I remember it, and also what I wrote down on my copy of the rule proposals on the day.

The proposal was:
12.4.3 The Minimum track width is 2.4 meters. The start straight for finals is a minimum of 3 meters. The straight is a minimum of 20 meters in length.

The reason for the proposal was:
The 2m minimum track lane width rule is not being used sensibly. 2.4m allows for a more appropriate width for sections of the track far from the rostrum.




As you say though, lets move on. The racing is good at the naul, and its also dry :thumbsup:

Yeah, that would be interesting, cheers.
Edit: no need, just saw lees post

:thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup::lol::lol::lol:

apology to mugenxtreme..i read my post back and sounded a bit harsh when i asked if there was a problem..wasnt meant that way and hope it wasnt taken that way..
I don't know the ins and outs of the situation between all involved but sounds wrong to me..I'm not laying blame at anyone's door.i have my opinions about the situation but I'm keeping them to myself.
the rccaoi ran a couple of rounds last year .one in particular at ballymena where the turn out was very poor..there was a discussion about if there was enough people to even run the meeting..don't think there was enough people to even marshall all posts if I remember correctly ..but we had a talk between the racers and decided to go ahead and run it the best we could..I don't know the rule book but I got the impression that the meeting wasn't fully up to what it takes to run an rccaoi event.i understood finals had to have a full compliment of marshals.. please correct me if I'm wrong but that's the impression I got ..so the drivers decided at the race briefing although it was far from ideal,we had a small turnout of hardcore racers that wanted to race..so it went ahead..
so I suggest why can't something similar happen at the first round at naul..?
let it be put to the racers on the morning what the problems are and find out their views and come to a decision...
And if its still decided unsuitable we are all still there and can race ourselves anyway..
I think the rccaoi need the members more than the club members need the rccaoi going by the very poor attendance at last years series.
if there's not enough entries therefore not enough people to run the meeting safely does that mean no rccaoi series?..
due to my brca commitment I cannot compete in the complete series..but I wish to in the future that's why I'm so concerned..

Id just like to point out that this is incorrect. The club committee did not choose to not make an attempt to alter the track, the club MEMBERS choose to keep our track as it is.
The track was designed by members, and voted on by members. It is not for the committee to dictate how things should be, its always up to ALL the members.

I think your comments are full of common sense, the problem is common sense is not being applied in this situation.

Of course we need rules so that we all know how to play the game BUT if a particular rule is being applied unfairly or just does not make sense then this is where common sense should apply.

Some racers might say 'it states in the rule book 2.4m and that is that' at one level they are correct but in context of a small country with a VERY small community of RC racers AND limited options when it comes to places to race they are SO wrong, in my opinion.

So True
 

Some racers might say 'it states in the rule book 2.4m and that is that' at one level they are correct but in context of a small country with a VERY small community of RC racers AND limited options when it comes to places to race they are SO wrong, in my opinion.[/QUOTE]

:thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup: :thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup: :thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup: :thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup: :thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup: :thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup: :thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup: :thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup: :thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup: :thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup:

Yeah Mark thats how I remember it...I think there was a vote on the day in Ballymena about the various options we had. Ended up combining clubman and Mod for the qualifiers as not enough marshalls.... it just made sense as the people who did turn up just wanted to race. Common sense obviously only applies to years that end in an even number.

Is it possible to scrap the 2.4m rule change and revert back to the old one as there seemed to be a mix up between what was agreed at the meeting and what was written down on the rule book? I know people are saying "if you want your say, go to the meetings", but there doesnt seem much point if we vote on one thing, and another is written down into the rule book!
And just to make the whole "rule change" more ridiculous is:
That doesn't even apply to the naul, the high rosterum and smaller track area means the entire track is clear!

Hi Colin what complaints were made???

Mick , it maybe that i assumed it but since the thread started with Rccaoi cancelled the round due to the track being to narrow and then question about rules regarding track width throughout the thread. For the Rccaoi to have even gotten involved and make a ruling on something like this there would have to have been a complaint or a concern about the track made from somebody. Why else would they have gotten involved?

I go with that Colin... but it baffles me that someone would make a complaint about round one venue when it was announced as being griffeen valley... it was only due to weather conditions that the venue had to be changed and this infomation was only between the two committees and was not made public...

Mick there was no set venue for round 1 Griffen or Naul according to the rccaoi site. In saying that if someone had a concern about the specs of the Naul, whether or not it was to be the host venue or not something could have been sent in prior to any announcement with the assumption it would be the host venue. Regardless of the factors involved in choosing it over griffeen. If weather is a factor why not work with the rep or committee and choose a more suitable date where there maybe a better chance of good weather and use griffeen where a track suitable to cover all angle can be ran at.

Main reason for that is that there is a perfectly good track at the Naul that is raced on every week and could easily be used if common sense were to prevail.
The second reason is that the members want to race every Sunday and not waste time ripping up a track at the Naul to lay one in Lucan as I believe the fire-hose at Lucan is not suitable!! And the pipe is screwed to the floor in Naul.
These are my observations as I am not on any committee a just want to have some RC fun with like minded others.:thumbsup: