ATTN: PRO Drivers

[raceright]

I think anyone would get defensive and severe when they are accused of being juvenile. As for the Valium, I think you work in that field and you should have plenty to take. As for the energy, I have plenty and use it for my day job very well and will continue to try to get the facts out there for everyone when something like this radio rule comes about.

As I stated earlier, I don't really care if you like or dislike radios, I like them and a lot of other people like them for safety reasons. I am for safety first in everything that I make and feel strongly about and that includes the use of radios, the use of composite cockpit side in open cockpit boats, rounded pickle tips and safety cells. I definitely do not have to justify my severeness to you or anyone else when it comes to my feelings on these subjects.

Now you take a valium and chill!

Well thats great mark would like to know that when I make a motion at the
July commissioners meeting to have all radios monitored by a race offical
can I count on you and anyone you know for support. If membership that
views this request would support monitoring it might be easier to have radios
stay in the Pro's

Pat

[Composite Specialties]

Pat, all you have to do is create a special area for the spotters and have a scanner with all of the radio codes logged in the scanner and anyone can hear the entire conversations of all radio traffic. I had one of these scanners back in 1996 at Depue and I heard every single radio conversation from every person that had a radio during testing and during the races. that way anyone could have a radio if they wanted one, their spotter is standing in a predetermined place with all of the other spotters and their conversations are all being monitored by an official.

As for the capsule start date, I was not aware that you worked with Jim Apel, he always told me that he built those first capsule boats himself with a cell from target marine. I stand corrected.

[Dave M]

I will

Well thats great mark would like to know that when I make a motion at the
July commissioners meeting to have all radios monitored by a race offical
can I count on you and anyone you know for support. If membership that
views this request would support monitoring it might be easier to have radios
stay in the Pro's

Pat

I would be willing to vote on that issue.

[Al Peffley]

Revote and Add Monitoring Rules Stipulation

Like Mike J. or S., I am not afraid to express my ideas or challenges on this website, whether the pro class leadership likes my non-conforming views, or not.

I personally cannot afford to attend every annual APBA meeting due to the extensive travel costs, but I would attend a Region 10 meeting on new rules that are proposed at national meetings (on major issues that we know are "hot" topics in the class communities.) This process would require an opportunity for a "grass roots" input from the Regional Commissioners before the final vote is taken at the annual meeting. That way no two individuals at the national meeting can get a major rule passed or put up for vote before it can reviewed with the Regional members back home. Like most other competition organizations, the current rules change process in APBA is the "Golden Rule" -- those who have the gold to travel and spend big money on gear get special recognition have rules passed by a minority at national meetings. Enough of that... The rule-making process is flawed, not the Commissioners. If it had not been for several nasty lawsuits against APBA several years ago by some Unlimited and other non-pro class racers, we would not be where we are today with our flawed rule-making processes, now mostly done by proxy.

I think monitoring and allowing a specific frequency band of radios, so that they can be monitored randomly by race OFFICIALS or their QUALIFIED sanction designee(sp?), is in order here. The rules for specific radio mis-use infractions (intentional blocking/cutting help, unsafe driving assistance, unauthorized use of owner/driver radios in offical turn judge or tow turn boats, etc.) should be very clear - i.e., driver/owner disqualification for the day, weekend, or year should be clearly spelled out (maybe in a matrix table?) We just need race officials with the intestinal fortitude to enforce infractions against the legal radio assistance GUIDELINES in the rule. You just need a pair of paragraphs addressing appropriate and illegal use of radios during a race. Just don't pick some radio band frequency and hardware that only the "elite" in racing can afford.

I would vote for monitoring radios if that is what's needed to keep them allowed in all boat racing classes for added race course knowledge safety reasons and appropriate crew/driver boat setup coordination (how does the boat's operation look from the beach?, etc.). Like anything else in motorcraft racing, the radios can be used to direct someone who is driving unsafely into a worse situation for everyone else on the course (I heard two stories of extreme radio misuse during Depue races by the same crew; a crew that should have been tossed for the weekend by the presiding race officials.)

Race safe; I need to have TRUST in each of you when you are racing next to me (or blow past me at near a buck two) around the 250ccH course.

Al Peffley

[Lights]

Guy's let it be for now. If I read the effective date of this new rule right. It will not take effect untill November 2007. Buy that time most of are racing will be done and we can work on changing it back at the National meeting next year.

Mark

[scorer]

From the Scorer

As a current scorer who has worked at over 95% of the USTS races, I was not aware of any issues regarding radios at DePue Races. If all you have are stories, consider them rumors. If they are fact, they should have been brought to our attention. We can not see or hear spotters from the barge at DePue. The protest period is 1 hour after the last heat and must be accompanied by $100.00. After that your are just whining.

The Pro Commission did the right thing this year and sent it to the drivers because people had asked them to bring it up. The drivers voted. They voted no.

Bring the commissioners data that will allow them to revisit the issue at the next meeting. Bring them specific examples of how radio's impact safety. By that, I mean show them in writing incidences (with dates, places and classes) that could have been different had there been a radio. (Believe Bill Van could have some of that data since he launched the successfull reversal of the prior safety ruling).

As to the fortitude of the racing officials, been there done that, jobs open if you want it. Bev Krier

[bill van steenwyk]

Facts For Pat On My Fact # 4

Pat:

First off, it is not my intention to get into a pissing contest with you or anyone else at this time on this issue. I had my say a couple of years ago and merely answered some questions that Mark was asking. That being said, I would like to make the point that the information I put forward on the number of voters that actually voted on this issue was off by a few but basically correct, AND CAME FROM AN OFFICIAL SOURCE.

My source at the time I first learned of the results of the election and this afternoon earlier when I rechecked was and is the official APBA web site. Under PRO Category election results they show the following:

TOTAL BALLOTS MAILED 471
TOTAL RECIEVED BACK 164
VOICED FOR LATE POSTMARK 2

RESULTS OF PROPOSAL # 6 (USE OF RADIOS) 83 APPROVE 62 DISAPPROVE

The total number of ballots returned on all PRO issues was approximately 30
per cent of the total sent out if my mathmatic ability has not failed me. Also by subtracting 62 from 83 gives you 21 margin for banning radios, or a margin of victory for banning of approximately 5-8% of membership of the PRO Category eligable to vote. I would not in any sense call this an overwhelming victory.

Regards your comment about the people that wanted radios bringing up the monitor situation. You are forgetting that radios were LEGAL in PRO until the Commission took the action they did to ban them, resulting in the Commissions action being reversed as it was ruled they had no right to make the rule banning them. Taking that one step further, if the Commission had handled the matter correctly to start with (in my opinion and many others) by not arbitrarily banning them as a "safety issue" resulting in much controversy and the banning rule being overturned, and had instead used some comon sense by seeing that they were used properly (i.e. the monitors that we suggested in our appeal) we might not be where we are now with all the hard feelings and bruised egos this has caused. The racing membership WAS NOT the cause of all these problems. If you care at all, you have my full support as to having monitors or whatever it might take to make the use of radios availiable to those who want to use them for safety purposes, and still have a safe racing environment for the drivers. As I have said many times over the last several years since this issue first came up, that is my whole interest in this matter. I had to run over someone and injure them to have this brought home to me. I don't want that to happen to anyone else, if it can be avoided.

I would like to call your, and all other commissioners attention to General Safety Rule #1, Part B, covering "participants". The following is verbatim:

All participants are obligated to inspect the racing facilities, including the pit area, and race cours, including all the conditions that would affect their participation in, before, and after the event. Participants are solely and directly responsible for the safety of their race craft and racing equipment, and are obligated to perform their duties whether as an owner, driver, or crew member, in a manner designed to minimize, to the degree possible, the risk of injury to themselves and others. NEITHER APBA NOR THE PROMOTER/CONDUCTING CLUB CAN OR WILL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR THE ADEQUACY OF A PARTICIPANTS RACE CRAFT, RACING EQUIPMENT, OR RACING ACTIVITY TO ACCOMPANY THIS PURPOSE.

As the saying goes, I am not an attorney, but it would seem to me that this makes it very plain that a driver is supposed to use every device and make every effort to conduct his racing in as safe a manner as possible, but yet a device that has been proven to help do that, and is in fact required in other categories, has been banned in PRO. I bet a lawyer could have a field day with that one if an accident ever happened that could have been prevented, or even the suggestion made that it could have, and someone was injured or worse. Before the subject of releases is brought up, they are signed every day and lawsuits still occur. APBA also tells you in another section of the rule book that if injured or worse, you have no financial or other recourse, and then you have equipment that can be used for safety, denied. Oh I forgot, if you are protected in a capsule, they are OK for use. It doesn't make a lot of sense for radios to be reccommended by APBA's own safety officials and committees, and then the opportunity to have that same equipment banned,given by other offficials to their membership.

ONE MORE FACT:

Among the members of the PRO commission when this subject first came up, the person most pushing the ban made the following statement, and I quote from the minutes of that meeting: RADIO'S ARE ONLY GOOD FOR BLOCKING That type of thinking is why you are where you are today as a category. Follow that comment to it's logical conclusion, we should simply ban all boat racing, and that would eliminate blocking, because racing causes injuries and occasionaly a fatality. That kind of thinking simply can't be reasoned with and should not be tolerated on a rule making body that makes and reccommends rules you all have to race under. Just because someone spends time and money to formulate rules you race under, does not make them right all the time, and their decisions that affect others correct.

[raceright]

Pat:

First off, it is not my intention to get into a pissing contest with you or anyone else at this time on this issue. I had my say a couple of years ago and merely answered some questions that Mark was asking. That being said, I would like to make the point that the information I put forward on the number of voters that actually voted on this issue was off by a few but basically correct, AND CAME FROM AN OFFICIAL SOURCE.

My source at the time I first learned of the results of the election and this afternoon earlier when I rechecked was and is the official APBA web site. Under PRO Category election results they show the following:

TOTAL BALLOTS MAILED 471
TOTAL RECIEVED BACK 164
VOICED FOR LATE POSTMARK 2

RESULTS OF PROPOSAL # 6 (USE OF RADIOS) 83 APPROVE 62 DISAPPROVE

The total number of ballots returned on all PRO issues was approximately 30
per cent of the total sent out if my mathmatic ability has not failed me. Also by subtracting 62 from 83 gives you 21 margin for banning radios, or a margin of victory for banning of approximately 5-8% of membership of the PRO Category eligable to vote. I would not in any sense call this an overwhelming victory.

Regards your comment about the people that wanted radios bringing up the monitor situation. You are forgetting that radios were LEGAL in PRO until the Commission took the action they did to ban them, resulting in the Commissions action being reversed as it was ruled they had no right to make the rule banning them. Taking that one step further, if the Commission had handled the matter correctly to start with (in my opinion and many others) by not arbitrarily banning them as a "safety issue" resulting in much controversy and the banning rule being overturned, and had instead used some comon sense by seeing that they were used properly (i.e. the monitors that we suggested in our appeal) we might not be where we are now with all the hard feelings and bruised egos this has caused. The racing membership WAS NOT the cause of all these problems. If you care at all, you have my full support as to having monitors or whatever it might take to make the use of radios availiable to those who want to use them for safety purposes, and still have a safe racing environment for the drivers. As I have said many times over the last several years since this issue first came up, that is my whole interest in this matter. I had to run over someone and injure them to have this brought home to me. I don't want that to happen to anyone else, if it can be avoided.

I would like to call your, and all other commissioners attention to General Safety Rule #1, Part B, covering "participants". The following is verbatim:

All participants are obligated to inspect the racing facilities, including the pit area, and race cours, including all the conditions that would affect their participation in, before, and after the event. Participants are solely and directly responsible for the safety of their race craft and racing equipment, and are obligated to perform their duties whether as an owner, driver, or crew member, in a manner designed to minimize, to the degree possible, the risk of injury to themselves and others. NEITHER APBA NOR THE PROMOTER/CONDUCTING CLUB CAN OR WILL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR THE ADEQUACY OF A PARTICIPANTS RACE CRAFT, RACING EQUIPMENT, OR RACING ACTIVITY TO ACCOMPANY THIS PURPOSE.

As the saying goes, I am not an attorney, but it would seem to me that this makes it very plain that a driver is supposed to use every device and make every effort to conduct his racing in as safe a manner as possible, but yet a device that has been proven to help do that, and is in fact required in other categories, has been banned in PRO. I bet a lawyer could have a field day with that one if an accident ever happened that could have been prevented, or even the suggestion made that it could have, and someone was injured or worse. Before the subject of releases is brought up, they are signed every day and lawsuits still occur. APBA also tells you in another section of the rule book that if injured or worse, you have no financial or other recourse, and then you have equipment that can be used for safety, denied. Oh I forgot, if you are protected in a capsule, they are OK for use. It doesn't make a lot of sense for radios to be reccommended by APBA's own safety officials and committees, and then the opportunity to have that same equipment banned,given by other offficials to their membership.

ONE MORE FACT:

Among the members of the PRO commission when this subject first came up, the person most pushing the ban made the following statement, and I quote from the minutes of that meeting: RADIO'S ARE ONLY GOOD FOR BLOCKING That type of thinking is why you are where you are today as a category. Follow that comment to it's logical conclusion, we should simply ban all boat racing, and that would eliminate blocking, because racing causes injuries and occasionaly a fatality. That kind of thinking simply can't be reasoned with and should not be tolerated on a rule making body that makes and reccommends rules you all have to race under. Just because someone spends time and money to formulate rules you race under, does not make them right all the time, and their decisions that affect others correct.

Billy for someone who doesn't want to get in a pissing contest ya sure had a full bladder. At my age I can't piss as far as you. But we will disagree as to the vote count as I said already I believe (and I'm not alone) just about everyone who would use radios in the pros voted. (bore stroke)
Its nice to see ya have such great knowlwdge of history but how this issue resurfaced at the L.A. meeting had nothing to do with lets say old guard.
As fact when the radios were first a issue a few years ago I was not active in APBAs policy.. REASON truly always believed in the following and recommend this to all If ya not putting up shut up when ya putting up ya don't have ta shut up. For years when I would only get whats called s##t
house lawyer info I realized this was only part of the truth so I shut up and dealt with the rules and regs. The past few years God has been good to me so I now put up and have been active and tried to improve the sport I love.
I'm currently a Pro Commissioner,Serve on several committees chair one,Spending time and money..Helping others get in the sport with both money and time and will continue to do so for as long as God is good to me.
And when the time comes that I can not put up I will again shut up. And let the people who can put up run the show because as I now know the Pro Commission more than any other Commission in boat racing really really cares and tries to do what they think is best for the Pro drivers.
Pat Wright

[raceright]

Bladder is now empty

[Al Peffley]

Pat,

So I take it you helped pen the words for the reason and membership vote rule description for the Pro ballot? Bad John Wayne conversational answer imitation, Pat; it does not in my view give you any more credibility than Bill, no matter what meeting you ran during the National Meeting.

Actually, I thought Bill's "stream" was quite impressive, very well informed, and well written -- his statements contained no personal slams and were very thoughtful. On the other hand, your "stream" seemed quite bitter, very caustic, with complaints about the "have-nots" (in time and MONEY resources for attending the meeting in LA.) Your response lacked logical facts to support a justified on-line debate. I applaud Bill's convictions and tenacity in this thread because for the most part he has followed the "rules" of politeness, rule protesting (paid the money), and seems truly concerned about MY safety during a pro class boat race.

Thank you for donating your time to boat racing, Pat. Just because the Lord gave you the money to go to LA does not negate the right of others to speak their peace about occasional inconsistent rule-making and rule changes. I too have run over a good friend in an Olympia, WA, APBA race in the OSY class (not my 250ccH.) Thank God he was not hurt seriously, and I wish I too had invested in a radio before that accident (even in a slower pro boat.)

I have been VERY close to being T-boned at Depue while I was running near 95 mph in an open testing session in my 250ccH by a fully-certified, pro capsule boat entering the course equipped with a radio (when the hydro's radio was not being used during testing.) I have also witnessed, at Depue, certified pro capsule boats running full bore during a race at least one heat after the black flag was hoisted in both turns and at the starting barge (and even a red flare was released) even though they had a radio and still could'nt see sh*t out of one of those dinky, slot-style windscreens on the early 1990's capsule designs that were "certified" by APBA. APBA and USTS should be able get a local short wave club member to monitor the airwaves if the scorers don't want to perform the monitoring duty at the Pro Divisionals and Nationals.

Give it a rest. Thanks Dan for providing this forum where the "little people" in boat racing and some wise, experienced racers (Bill, not me) can have their say without having to travel to LA to be heard by boat racing leadership.

Al

[raceright]

Pat,

So I take it you helped pen the words for the reason and membership vote rule description for the Pro ballot? Bad John Wayne conversational answer imitation, Pat; it does not in my view give you any more credibility than Bill, no matter what meeting you ran during the National Meeting.

Actually, I thought Bill's "stream" was quite impressive, very well informed, and well written -- his statements contained no personal slams and were very thoughtful. On the other hand, your "stream" seemed quite bitter, very caustic, with complaints about the "have-nots" (in time and MONEY resources for attending the meeting in LA.) Your response lacked logical facts to support a justified on-line debate. I applaud Bill's convictions and tenacity in this thread because for the most part he has followed the "rules" of politeness, rule protesting (paid the money), and seems truly concerned about MY safety during a pro class boat race.

, Pat. Just because the Lord gave you the money to go to LA does not negate the right of others to speak their peace about occasional inconsistent rule-making and rule changes. I too have run over a good friend in an Olympia, WA, APBA race in the OSY class (not my 250ccH.) Thank God he was not hurt seriously, and I wish I too had invested in a radio before that accident (even in a slower pro boat.)

I have been VERY close to being T-boned at Depue while I was running near 95 mph in an open testing session in my 250ccH by a fully-certified, pro capsule boat entering the course equipped with a radio (when the hydro's radio was not being used during testing.) I have also witnessed, at Depue, certified pro capsule boats running full bore during a race at least one heat after the black flag was hoisted in both turns and at the starting barge (and even a red flare was released) even though they had a radio and still could'nt see sh*t out of one of those dinky, slot-style windscreens on the early 1990's capsule designs that were "certified" by APBA. APBA and USTS should be able get a local short wave club member to monitor the airwaves if the scorers don't want to perform the monitoring duty at the Pro Divisionals and Nationals.

Give it a rest. Thanks Dan for providing this forum where the "little people" in boat racing and some wise, experienced racers (Bill, not me) can have their say without having to travel to LA to be heard by boat racing leadership.

Al

Al
Ya would be suprised how many people never heard of John Wayne.
Rambo maybe but even he is fading.
I believe ya just didn't get it. Oh well. Brian gets it he always does,like I said at least half the commission never reads hydo racer so if ya want to change something in the rule book ya have to do more than just type.

Pat

[Dr. Thunder]

<snip> ...like I said at least half the commission never reads hydo racer so if ya want to change something in the rule book ya have to do more than just type.

Pat

Remember Pat, only the lunatic fringe read Hydroracer (welcome to the club) which in this day and age is unfortunate. I really don't understand why more of the APBA Commission members don't read the content of what is posted on this site (although I am a bit skeptical whenever I hear that claim)

Contrary to popular opinion I believe that HydrorRacer.Net does, in fact, provide a reasonable alternative to the APBA, AOF, NBRA et al websites and/or Propeller Magazine and should be viewed as a valuable resource for the membership of all these various groups. I see no reason why this site should not serve, at least, as the "unofficial" source for all that pertains to kneeldown/sitdown/laydown outboard racing. But that is just my opinion ...

PS: You are right Pat ... if you want to change rules you do need to do more than type ... thinking before you type also helps.

[raceright]

Remember Pat, only the lunatic fringe read Hydroracer (welcome to the club) which in this day and age is unfortunate. I really don't understand why more of the APBA Commission members don't read the content of what is posted on this site (although I am a bit skeptical whenever I hear that claim)

Contrary to popular opinion I believe that HydrorRacer.Net does, in fact, provide a reasonable alternative to the APBA, AOF, NBRA et al websites and/or Propeller Magazine and should be viewed as a valuable resource for the membership of all these various groups. I see no reason why this site should not serve, at least, as the "unofficial" source for all that pertains to kneeldown/sitdown/laydown outboard racing. But that is just my opinion ...

PS: You are right Pat ... if you want to change rules you do need to do more than type ... thinking before you type also helps.

Naaa thought about this