2004 Autocross Rules are now online!

[MNbiker]

The Metropolitan Council 2004 Autocross Rules are now available online for viewing & download. We have also included links to supporting reference materials.

There are some pretty dramatic changes this year in car classing & supplementary classes, so drivers will be well served by familiarizing themselves with the new rules.

http://www.mnautox.com/rules/rules.html

Feel welcome to post any questions you may have on this forum.

Steve Garnjobst
Met Council Rules Chair
mnbiker@comcast.net

[73GT]

Thanks Steve

Here's a link to see were your car falls in what class due to modifications that have been done. This is very good for the new person as well as a seasoned vet. It's not absolute but it will get you in the ballpark.

http://www.scca-milwaukee.org/solo/carmodandclassification.pdf


73 GT

[StevenMosley]

Lee,

I like the PDF. We should use that at our events.

[73GT]

That's the plan Jon K. will be putting it on our website and I'd like to have it on the side of the trailer with the classes for people Newbies and Vets to look at.

73 GT

[maddydaddy]

That link takes me to the 2003 rules, did that part just get missed and they really are the 2004 rules??

[MNbiker]

Originally posted by maddydaddy
That link takes me to the 2003 rules, did that part just get missed and they really are the 2004 rules??

Crud! They were at that link. It looks like Jon inadvertently copied the old page back to the website. I'll give him a heads-up.

-Steve

Jon upgraded the servers, and forgot to restore the latest website changes. All is well now.

[Dennis G.]

Whats the big problem in getting MOD cars mentioned in this "classification" thing??? It was not included 6 months ago and still isnt there. It says "SCCA removed this". Whether we like it or not, by deciding to go with their rules, lock, stock and barrel, we are an new appendage of SCCA.

[MNbiker]

Originally posted by Dennis G.
Whats the big problem in getting MOD cars mentioned in this "classification" thing??? It was not included 6 months ago and still isnt there. It says "SCCA removed this". Whether we like it or not, by deciding to go with their rules, lock, stock and barrel, we are an new appendage of SCCA.

Dennis,

I assume you're referring to the "Solo II Car Classifications" website maintained by Jerry Mouton? http://www.moutons.org/sccasolo/
I'm not exactly sure why the SCCA asked for Jerry's Mod information to be removed, but kee in mind this website IS NOT the official SCCA rules! It's a website created/maintained by a fellow autocrosser to help out his peers. Currently, the SCCA rulebook is NOT online. While I anticipate this will occur in the next year or two, the hardcopy rulebook/CD are the official sources for rules info.

We included Jerry's website as a convenience to MAC memebrs who may not have purchased a rulebook, or are looking for clarifications. However, this website should not be considered the offical rules, as Jerry has clearly stated. I suppose we could remove the link to this website, if it's too upsetting/confusing to MAC members......

-Steve

[Dennis G.]

Now I see where the link led me...to Moutons site-not SCCA...sorry. But you say the complete rules and classifications will be on... eventually. I bet they don't. SCCA would rather SELL you the rules than TELL you the rules. Did MAC have to buy a bunch of CD-ROMS and rule books? Is it prohibited, for example to let everyone look at the clubs copy (CD-ROM)? Is it prohibited to link to it (our copy) on our site somehow?

[washburn]

I'm guessing here, but SCCA rule book is the sole property of SCCA, and is most likely subject to restrictions normal to a copyrighted publication.

Since our rules are simply based on theirs, I would imagine that we can publish *our* rules. That fact that there are many similarities shouldn't matter if we publish our own rule book. That would of course mean that someone would have to type them all up. Any volunteers! :) :)

[phile]

Originally posted by washburn


I'm guessing here, but SCCA rule book is the sole property of SCCA, and is most likely subject to restrictions normal to a copyrighted publication.

Since our rules are simply based on theirs, I would imagine that we can publish *our* rules. That fact that there are many similarities shouldn't matter if we publish our own rule book. That would of course mean that someone would have to type them all up. Any volunteers! :) :)

That would be looking ahead to the past. We DID publish our own rules. All of them. All the car listings, even though they were mostly the same as Sports Car Club of America. The rules change referring to the SCCA book was an effort to eliminate that duplication.

If we want to have our own Met Council rules, lock, stock and barrel, fine. There are plenty of electronic copies around. But that's not exactly what we have now. We have Met Council rules for the CONDUCT of the event, and refer to SCCA rules for the PREP and CLASSIFICATION of cars.

SCCA could take us to court, and win, claiming we have no right to hijack their rules. There are several reasons they probably won't:

1: We are outside the radar of Topeka. They probably don't care much about this market. There certainly seems to be no push from Topeka to help LOL develop Solo2 in the Twin Cities.

2: Land 'O Lakes Region of SCCA is a member club of Met Council. Having relatively seamless rules between Met Council and SCCA is good for the Region, and therefore good for SCCA.

3: Met Council referring to the SCCA book should bolster sales of the Solo2 rule book/CD. One does not need to be a member to buy a book, as far as I know. Even if you did, there is no limit to how many books a member can buy. Steve is a member, and he bought a pile of them and re-sold them at no profit to Met Council folks. So Topeka got my money, even though I have not paid SCCA dues since 1996.

Widespread pirating of their rule book might cause Topeka to take more legal interest in Met Council. That, and my sense of fair-play, tends to make me think that making illegal copies of their copyrighted stuff is a bad idea.

Most of us don't pay the dues that allow SCCA to fund the outrageous salary of their president and the other ways they have to spend money that don't directly benefit local autocrossers. But if we are going to refer to their rules, the least we can do is have some of us pony up for their overpriced books. Besides, that CD is really neat for searching. :-)

[MNbiker]

Originally posted by Dennis G.
Now I see where the link led me...to Moutons site-not SCCA...sorry. But you say the complete rules and classifications will be on... eventually. I bet they don't. SCCA would rather SELL you the rules than TELL you the rules. Did MAC have to buy a bunch of CD-ROMS and rule books? Is it prohibited, for example to let everyone look at the clubs copy (CD-ROM)? Is it prohibited to link to it (our copy) on our site somehow?

Actually, I expect they will move the rules online, once they can work out the logistics. They already publish any changes made to the rules online:
http://www.scca.com/Garage/Index.asp

It would be very helpful to SCCA staff and competitors to have a single online version of the rules, which incorporates all approved FasTrack changes. The benefits far outweigh any MINOR loss of revenue that may result. And that revenue has to be minor - with a 332 page book and included CD priced at $15, the SCCA can't be clearing more than a buck or two per book at the (relatively) low print volumes they generate.

Sharing the electronic file (online or otherwise) would be a clear violation of copyright laws, unless the SCCA granted permission for the sharing.

-Steve

[DCM]

Uhhh, yes they are trying. They 'piggy backed' with us at Valley Fair. And they really want a presence here.
But ' We' are sorta' the club they would like to have. They could really use help with their rally, rally cross, and the roads racing events they would like to get re-started.
But what advantage could 'they' give us? Well, not much except higher annual dues, and very little local control.
I like it the way it is. But it wouldn't hurt to help them. And I think we have.

Coming up in August is an event at BIR. They will have the Viper club, NASCAR, and vintage. Plus a regional SCCA race. they need course workers, and will give free entry, and free camping.
And I did hear something about a 'tour' of the track.
DCM
Phil said;
"1: We are outside the radar of Topeka. They probably don't care much about this market. There certainly seems to be no push from Topeka to help LOL develop Solo2 in the Twin Cities.

2: Land 'O Lakes Region of SCCA is a member club of Met Council. Having relatively seamless rules between Met Council and SCCA is good for the Region, and therefore good for SCCA."

[Darryl]

Dwight,

Yep, MAC is great the way it is. But if we were a SCCA club would that help us secure better sites?

Darryl (Icanfeelthebeatingalready)

Phil, go easy!

[ITSrotary]

Darryl I would guess that would be a NO. They are no more successful in this area than MAC at securing new sites and you could argue that they have been less successful in recent years. Unfortunately site developement and retention is a serious problem for all organizations throughout the country.

As for LOL, they've done a good job of alienating most of the serious AX'ers that have supported their series the last 5 years. Most are now members of other regions. The program is dependent on smaller affiliate clubs to provide the manpower, cones, and timing equipment. It seems to exist primarily to provide these sub-clubs with insurance so they can play. As an SCCA/LOL member, and it pains me to say so, the bottom line is unless you are wanting to AX on a National level there is no good reason to join the SCCA. There are other reasons to join, but not to AX locally.

MAC is THE AX club in this region. I'm glad to see us extend a hand to LOL. I hope it helps, they could use it.

Rant mode off...

Steve

[DCM]

No beatings Daryl.
This club is a democracy.
We still have freedom of speech, and thought. [andreligionandrighttocarryuhboynowivestartedit!]:dancin:
DCM