PDA

View Full Version : Dual compound tyres Approval yes--no



yinkymoka
26-10-2009, 01:44 PM
Did the Dual compound tyres get approved at the meeting on Sunday. Just been in too my LHS and was told he didnt think they were sanctioned at the meeting. He indicated there was to be a postal vote.
Is this correct ,if so why werent they sanctioned.

exint2
26-10-2009, 02:07 PM
Yes they were "approved" - I think they had to get an official rubber stamp yesterday.

Phil C
26-10-2009, 02:55 PM
I'm pretty sure they didn't go through at the AGM...

jeff clifton
26-10-2009, 03:01 PM
not approved didnt get the 2/3rd majority required

jason
26-10-2009, 03:42 PM
Following the ballot taken on Sunday 18th October at the Crewe national in favour of allowing conventional dual compound rear tyres the committee took this to the 12th Section AGM yesterday.
Unfortunately the committee were unable to secure the 2/3rds majority of members present necessary to pass the change.
Therefore dual compound rear tyres will not be legal for use at Newbury

Jason Butterfield
12th Section Eligability officer

Viking
26-10-2009, 06:12 PM
Well what was the point of the vote at Crewe then?

As we have our AGM in another time zone - why cant our committee go with the majority of racers? ie. those that were at Crewe and voted?

If I recall correctly it was fairly heavy in favour of these tyres.

And, again if I am correct, the decision will benefit all 12th racers by enabling them to use a tyre that does not self destruct during its first run.....surely this is a win-win scenario????

I bet there were hardly any 12th RACERS at this AGM.....purely because we all get together at a different time!

Am I wrong?

yinkymoka
26-10-2009, 06:21 PM
Think you have voiced the opinion of all the 53 who voted YES.

acurry
26-10-2009, 06:23 PM
Well what was the point of the vote at Crewe then?

As we have our AGM in another time zone - why cant our committee go with the majority of racers? ie. those that were at Crewe and voted?

If I recall correctly it was fairly heavy in favour of these tyres.

And, again if I am correct, the decision will benefit all 12th racers by enabling them to use a tyre that does not self destruct during its first run.....surely this is a win-win scenario????

I bet there were hardly any 12th RACERS at this AGM.....purely because we all get together at a different time!

Am I wrong?

Well said Viking, I was unable to attend Crewe but would have voted for these to be allowed I could have been using these for about one and half years since CRC released them.

And as Viking has said some compound are good for one run due to them self distructing and these compounds would help this not saying it would stop this happening.

I am totally with Viking on this 100%

acurry
26-10-2009, 06:24 PM
54 sorry was not there

Jim Spencer
26-10-2009, 07:03 PM
Well what was the point of the vote at Crewe then?

As we have our AGM in another time zone - why cant our committee go with the majority of racers? ie. those that were at Crewe and voted?

If I recall correctly it was fairly heavy in favour of these tyres.

And, again if I am correct, the decision will benefit all 12th racers by enabling them to use a tyre that does not self destruct during its first run.....surely this is a win-win scenario????

I bet there were hardly any 12th RACERS at this AGM.....purely because we all get together at a different time!

Am I wrong?


Nope, not in the slightest

That was the suggestion, we would hold the normal section AGM, where the EGM rule changes get 'rubber stamped' but uniquely add in the rule changed as requested by the drivers at Crewe.

Unfortunatly a group of people - mostly folk who race 1/12 and almost all section officials from another section - decided that wasn't Ok with them.
Despite it being clarified that the correct procedure had been followed for the section EGM etc.
So turned up en masse and saw to it being killed off.

Why? Not got a clue - but you'll be able to ask them at Newbury.

The committee itself don't have the authority to just change a rule we have to use the process as it's been voted in by us, the members, over the years.


The section Committee are:-
a) Investigating an alternative process.
b) Will be proposing a constitutional change to ensure this doesn't happen again.

nobby
26-10-2009, 07:12 PM
so what your saying jim is it doesn't matter what the people that race 12th scale vote for it's up to other section officials to tell us what we can and can't use:confused:

if i'm wrong sorry but thats the way it comes across.

Mark Stiles
26-10-2009, 07:15 PM
Hmmm, well the folk you mention Jim are being pretty short sighted with regard to the whole thing, as it was clear to me at Crewe what the majority of racers wanted.

Added to the 54 disgruntled racers is also at least one major distributor who has now potentially got to try and sort out the issue of having ordered a load of dual compound rears!:eek:

So the pro-active attitude and efforts of a racer towards one of his major sponsors in trying to ensure they are prepared and have stock available has been undermined by a handful of people who seem to think they know what everyone else wants... great.:rolleyes:

For the record, the fact that the dual compound rears aren't allowed is of little consequence to me. However, I have acted in the best interests of the section and it's racers, and now it has backfired. Thanks!

Jim Spencer
26-10-2009, 07:21 PM
so what your saying jim is it doesn't matter what the people that race 12th scale vote for it's up to other section officials to tell us what we can and can't use:confused:

if i'm wrong sorry but thats the way it comes across.

Nope, you've got that about right, just re-word it to:-

If a group of folk, who do race 1/12, but are section officials in another section decide they want to make some sort of weird point then they can mess us all about.

Jim Spencer
26-10-2009, 07:22 PM
Hmmm, well the folk you mention Jim are being pretty short sighted with regard to the whole thing, as it was clear to me at Crewe what the majority of racers wanted.

Added to the 54 disgruntled racers is also at least one major distributor who has now potentially got to try and sort out the issue of having ordered a load of dual compound rears!:eek:

So the pro-active attitude and efforts of a racer towards one of his major sponsors in trying to ensure they are prepared and have stock available has been undermined by a handful of people who seem to think they know what everyone else wants... great.:rolleyes:

Don't panic just yet

see my post about about
a) Investigating an alternative process.

Mark Stiles
26-10-2009, 07:25 PM
Invoke force majeur as the decision is in the best interests of the section and its racers?:confused:

ccoomes
26-10-2009, 08:44 PM
All,

I think the best solution at the moment is to let the comittee follow the 'Investigating an alternative process' and put our trust in the people we voted in.

I am 100% for the dual compound rears, mainly as it will save a lot or racers and lot of money (me included:D) due to more durable rear tyres (I can chuck rears with the best of them!!!:'().

May the force be with the comittee...:D

Clive.

spongebob....
26-10-2009, 09:11 PM
Dont think "commitee members" who you speak about should have a final vote,the people who travel hundreds of miles week in week out to race and support the 12th section should have the final say,they are the people who matter as without these there would be no section,no nationals,no 12th. just my view.

Steve Cann
26-10-2009, 09:29 PM
IF I've read this thread correctly and interpreted whats being said by the 'key' posters... Then this makes it the second time this year the constitution has got in the way of 'racers' desires :(... So, hopefully whatever the sticking point is can be addressed at next years AGM...

Jim Spencer
26-10-2009, 09:45 PM
IF I've read this thread correctly and interpreted whats being said by the 'key' posters... Then this makes it the second time this year the constitution has got in the way of 'racers' desires :(... So, hopefully whatever the sticking point is can be addressed at next years AGM...

No most definatly not.

The constitution in this case was quite clear - the 1/12 section had followed exactly the correct procedure and made it work fine.

The 'sticking point' was the deliberate upset of normally a 'rubber stamping' exercise by a group of people.

Jim Spencer
26-10-2009, 09:47 PM
Dont think "commitee members" who you speak about should have a final vote,the people who travel hundreds of miles week in week out to race and support the 12th section should have the final say,they are the people who matter as without these there would be no section,no nationals,no 12th. just my view.

They haven't - the racers have, try reading what's been written, starting with the last bit of the first post..

The method used will be exactly in accordance with the constitution - of that you can be 100% certain.

PDW
26-10-2009, 09:51 PM
Calm down everyone, this is firmly in the cock-up theory of life, not the conspiracy theory...

As Jim has pointed out, this came about because the Rules of the Association are quite clear, and we stuck with them. We didn't think that, a majority of racers having expressed an opinion, we would have anything to worry about. We were wrong.

What it boils down to is this... The Constitution does not allow Rule changes without a vote at a properly constituted AGM. Section Committees are not allowed to change Rules on a whim unless mandated by members of the BRCA voting at such a meeting. Any member of the BRCA is entitled to a vote at any such meeting, whether or not they are members of that Section. I am sure we can all agree that is sensible and reasonable. (Note that we (12th Section) do this work at an EGM, but that every year we meet at the AGM and confirm the decisions of the EGM)

What happened was this. There were BRCA members in the room who were not involved in our Section. They decided to exercise their right to vote, and did so. Had those who felt they were doing the right thing by abstaining (as they were not part of our Section) not done so, we would have had a 2/3 majority. One vote would have swung it. Resist your obvious temptation to blame them and start a war between Sections. Shit happens, and this time to us.

Chris H, me and Gareth are on the case under the direction of our Chairman to find a way to get what our racers want, and this we will do. We need your help. It will be essential that when given the opportunity, you vote again. It would significantly help the cause if you encouraged everyone who gets this chance to do likewise. We still need a 2/3 majority of those voting to vote 'yes' if this desire of the racers is to be delivered.

Please don't put any more crap or hearsay in this thread, instead focus your effort on ensuring that the action we take is followed through, and we can deliver the desire of our racers to be able to reduce costs by using tyres that chunk less. Get out the voters!!

Thanks in advance for your help.

Peter Winton
12th Section Safety Officer.

PS - as Jim says, we will ensure that, as far as possible, this does not happen again. We now know what to do!

spongebob....
26-10-2009, 09:55 PM
I hear what your saying jim,its coming across as the racers wanted it and the commitee said no?

PDW
26-10-2009, 09:57 PM
Darren, you'll have missed the post above. Please read it and resist the temptation etc....

And no, the 12th Committee wanted it - why else would we go to the renewed effort of getting it? ;)

spongebob....
26-10-2009, 10:04 PM
Ok back to the footy;)

Jim Spencer
26-10-2009, 10:06 PM
I hear what your saying jim,its coming across as the racers wanted it and the commitee said no?

No - it must be me it really must..

Try reading what's been written - please & you have PM.

Viking
26-10-2009, 11:27 PM
Thanks for the pm Jim...and for the clarity from PDW and Jim.

Sounds to me like some poeple decided that they didnt want it. 14 voted "no" at Crewe if I recall....but I may be wrong.... so clearly this is not a total no-brainer rule change.

These 14 must have a good reason to vote the way they did.

As for the activity at the AGM - I am shocked and stunned and wholeheatedly disappointed that a "minority" can spoil the action for the "majority". By this I do NOT mean the committee, sounds like they did all they could to uphold the deisres of the said majority - I am more concerned/interested in the motives of those that black-balled the operation.

Maybe someone could come on here and tell us all:

Why a more robust tyre for 12th is unnacceptable?
Why a tyre that will save us ALL money is unnacceptable?
Why an investment by manufacturers and distributors for the better good is being thrown back in their faces?
Why a fair and proper vote was ambushed and abused?
Why go to spoil it for it for the majority?

Fran
26-10-2009, 11:34 PM
Nope, you've got that about right, just re-word it to:-

If a group of folk, who do race 1/12, but are section officials in another section decide they want to make some sort of weird point then they can mess us all about.

Jim, I am sorry you feel this way, pehaps you would prefer me as a voting member - abstained through lack of clarity - and yes I have a right to vote as a BRCA member to pass the organising of the 12h party to some one else?
I would hate there to be any bad feeling in the section to Mark as a racer and 'official' of another section

yinkymoka
26-10-2009, 11:38 PM
Think the vote went on Sunday

1.53 yes
2.5 no
3.14 abstained

Minnie should have the exact number as she collacted the sunday vote.

Viking
26-10-2009, 11:45 PM
I would hate there to be any bad feeling in the section to Mark as a racer and 'official' of another section

There will not be any bad feeling....

Sounds like Mark voted against? The clue is in the quote?

Why? Can he tell us why?

Are we all missing something? Am I missing something?

MattW
26-10-2009, 11:56 PM
I've watched this one progress throughout the evening, and to be honest, i'm not convinced about some of what has been posted - and as someone who was there, i'm happy to talk about it.

I think what actually happened was that a very small number of people voted no - i'm happy to post what that number was if no one else wants to (let's just say it was less that the number that voted no at the national). Clearly they had their reasons - what ever those might be. I'm not going to speculate.

What you also had in the room was a proportion (1/3 I believe - and this is the problem potentially) that didn't wish to vote either way. Now, with hindsight (wonderful thing isn't it) it would have been better for all of those to leave the room when the vote was actually taken.

Now I can only speak personally - when I was asked at the National for my vote, I said i wasn't bothered either way - and hence, it didn't feel right to change that view for the sake of an agm - especially based on a comment Jim made just before the vote was taken. So, I happily abstained from the vote. What I had actually done, was turn up to the 12th AGM, during the lunch break of the section that I had gone to as a member. I went along to understand what was happening, and to understand what the procedure/rule would be for the rest of the season. I still believe that I was perfectly within my right to do this.

I am also confident that there was at least one other (and I suspect more) who were in the same category.

So, What I would say was that if anything is going to change as a result of this, I would suggest that it is either the procedure in which the vote is taken - i.e anyone without a definite voting direction leaves the room. Or, some other method where by abstentions are not considered as part of the voting numbers.

rc_jammer
27-10-2009, 12:11 AM
Well said Matt.

I wasn't at the AGM but I love all the crap that flies about on the forums about this that and the other when some wern't even there. Obviously there was a slight downfall in making sure the rule passed for the benefit of the majority, yes its a ball ache, but I'm 100% sure the comittee will do their best for the majority so lets get on with what we have to do at Newbury and race these little pocket rockets with the rule as it is until told or asked otherwise when we should all be happier.

Viking
27-10-2009, 12:56 AM
I didnt attend the AGM neither Russ... Our AGM, EGM, whatever you call it, I did attend.

There was no talk about tyres at that meeting (as far as I can remember).

Now we have them - they look like they are an improvement - lets use them!

Or the scrutineers may have to check each and every car for them.... Now that aint gonna be easy!

If I glue the outer edge of my tyre - does that add another type of "rubber" to the construction? Therefore making it dual compound?

Theres a thought....watch all the grip rollers with no glue on the sidewalls!

Chris Kerswell
27-10-2009, 02:04 AM
This is an interesting topic...

There are a few issues at stake here, the main one for me being that I strongly believe that once a championship has started there should be no rule changes. This is the whole point of having the EGM when we do, outside of the season.

Had this been proposed at the main EGM then I would have voted for it. Now that we have started the season I believe we should stick with the rules as they are and change them for the next season.

If people feel strongly enough about it they should either have attended the AGM or should read the constitution and use it to call an EGM to address the situation.

Luke Hobson
27-10-2009, 02:50 AM
If people feel strongly enough about it they should either have attended the AGM or should read the constitution and use it to call an EGM to address the situation.

I wasn't there and am not really involved with 12th that much, but the quote from chris sums it up I feel.

Can anybody give the numbers that were involved in the vote?

Were people just assuming that what they had "voted" for at the national (or where it was taken) naturally would pass?

@ Viking- glue isn't rubber, rubber isn't glue, relax and count to 10

PDW
27-10-2009, 07:39 AM
This is an interesting topic...

There are a few issues at stake here, the main one for me being that I strongly believe that once a championship has started there should be no rule changes. This is the whole point of having the EGM when we do, outside of the season.

Had this been proposed at the main EGM then I would have voted for it. Now that we have started the season I believe we should stick with the rules as they are and change them for the next season.

If people feel strongly enough about it they should either have attended the AGM or should read the constitution and use it to call an EGM to address the situation.The Chairman asked us to vote to support the drivers who wanted the Rule changed, and you didn't. That's a very selfish action.

The 12th Section is not about what one person believes, and never has been. The Rules were followed to the letter, and you did not propose any Rule change to keep Rules fixed for a season at the last EGM.

This isn't about you, or Mark, or anyone else. It's about a Section that has taken what it's racers want as their voting guide, and a Committee that has tried to deliver that. If that's not the way people think and act, they may often find themselves in a minority, and on the wrong end of the views of the majority.

Jim Spencer
27-10-2009, 08:31 AM
And I think this has run its course, for now.

We'll let due process happen - once underway we'll re-open it.

Though if anybody has a really good reason why they feel it prudent to post something PM me and i'll think about it.