posted
Why is saying that shops sold 16v or 8v batteries whether they are interstates, exides or turbostarts justifed for using them when shops sell quads and thats not near enough of a reason to keep them from being banned. Im quite sure I can sell a hell of a lot more quads than I will ever be remotely asked about 16v batts. Yes both are readily available at retailers but one is supposedly an item that is not "off the shelf" and the other is. I think the two items pretty go hand in hand, either keep em both or ban them both. I myself, hope that they both stay.
Not let those who run DVC and 16v batts step in and say quads still need to go since it betters their situation.
posted
i don't know if that is happening scott, although it sure seems the rf boys do not mind, yes i do know why. i know it started with manufacturers, they don't like where this sport is heading, really it is up to them and they are the real reason many of us are where we are at. although i think it could have been handled better, i guess it really is not our decision. equipment changes like quad and 16v should not be in our hands voting wise, we all have our own agendas, i think the powers to be(wayne/cert judges) should make these decisions, with a little insight from all of us the competitors maybe?
discussion like this is good, there hasn't been many posts like this, i do think this post alone is bringing up alot of publicity in the car audio realm, whether it be good or bad...
one thing i read a lil about and was an issue last year was competitors reconing their own subs
thats like tellin NASCAR or any other motorsports organization that they cant work on their cars if they break or a part wears out....
the quads.....take them out of SS and leave them in extreme....extreme is extreme....isnt it supposed to be "extreme"
as for street classes....there should be allowed i think 1 amp per 2 subs....there are more and more "every day joes" that are havin 1 amp per 2 subs.....
16v.....again....get rid of them in SS and leave them in extreme.....cause dont u need to have a lil money to compete in extreme....just ask how much money they have in thier windsheilds....cause if u get rid of quads and 16v in extreme cause "people dont have the money for them" then u might as well do away with the 2 inch thick windshields too
posted
why is everyone gettn upset over some changes ,quads they can be made in duals easily, 16 volts batteries if your into racing can get them ,i dont see anything yet to get upset over at this point at time ,i may myself be intering db drags next season as a competitor and i may enter the extreme class myself , but iamnot worried about rules over the quads and 16 volts batteries and moddified amps ,i mean come on i seen guys at finals with off the shelf equipement .... lets chill out awhile and let wayne and his group finalize about the rules they have come up with . i mean changes are gonna happen no matter what all we can do is give our two cents but not in a aurgumentive way ,we gonna be headed back to basics sooner than we think , thanks for lettn me place my 2 cents
-------------------- ear drums are very over rated
r.i.p. greg welch
2005 dbdrags bassrace world finalist 120-129.9 3rd place finish Posts: 978 | From: somewere in time | Registered: Nov 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by audiobuffru1: quads they can be made in duals easily
hmmm....there is one big problem with this....
if the gap in your sub is designed to fit a quad nice and tight and u stick a dual in there its gonna be all swimmin around....u will loose SPL not just from goin to duals but from "ruining" the original design of the sub
so if they do ban quads...all these people that have 10 subs or so have to get them reconed....on average a recone can be about $100 or more....soooo u are sayin they have to spend $1000 or more and trash some perfectly good subs....yeah i know....."what if" they could trade whith someone with duals or "what if" they could sell them and get duals....
all in all....if they ban quads then its gonna be a hassle
just my 2 cents....im not biased either way on what happens....
quote:Originally posted by Wayne Harris: This post is not about any specific rules changes that will take place in 2004.
Please note that I'll stay equally general.
quote:Originally posted by Wayne Harris: First, you may recall that dB Drag Racing is an Industry Support Organization. Our charter is to stimulate interest and participation in auto sound and auto sound competition. We hope to generate interest in auto sound by hosting sound off competitions. These events provide a place for auto sound enthusiasts to get together and compete against one another. This, in turn, stimulates the sale of auto sound products and it also exposes auto sound to spectators, who we hope will eventually get involved.
...Competitors purchase auto sound products. This is the motivating factor that drives the Retailers and Manufacturers to invest their time and money in support of dB Drag Racing.
Put another way... Making competitions more enjoyable for competitors benefits both the industry and the sport. Making competitons more enjoyable for spectators benefits both the industry and the sport. Manufacturers (and shops) have a vested interest in appealing to both of these groups, as they represent both their core customers and potential future customers.
quote:Originally posted by Wayne Harris: I am convinced that we are heading down a path that will ultimately result in failure if we don't make some decisive changes to the rules for dB Drag Racing. Many believe that the sport has become so elitist, and the cost to remain competitive has become so high, that many competitors and retailers have simply given up because they feel that participation is pointless.
This is the statement of a problem. Potentially multifaceted, but let's spell it out: 1) Elitist:ie. You believe a small number of people have reached such high achievement that other competitors feel they can't ever catch them... so why try? 2) High cost:ie. You believe that the other possible interpretation is that the cost to be competitive with these elite competitors is so high as to be fundamentally discouraging.. so why spend any money trying? 3) Retailer participation:ie. You believe that the number of competitors and potential competitors [including the shop's own sponsorees] who are discouraged have reached the level of being the majority of enthusiasts, and it is in the retailer's best financial interest to side with the majority of their customers, rather than the minority [and risk isolating the majority].
I don't think many enthusiasts on these forums would dispute that competition currently seems structured to reward those who have more money/connections more than it rewards those who have more talent/knowledge.
This is the core of the problem you are trying to state.
Bear with me...
quote:Originally posted by Wayne Harris: The following list is what I believe must take place before that can happen.
First, we MUST insure that normal, everyday enthusiasts with everyday run-of-the-mill sound systems have a place to play. This is the only way we can grow. Our success requires new participation each and every year. The only way this will happen is if we offer classes that give these "real-world" systems a fair shake.
Secondly, we MUST insure that the products being used for competition are legitimate retail products.
Third, we MUST eliminate the remaining few loopholes in the rules so that ALL competitors have a fair chance.
The third point... (along with the threads about proposed rule changes involving "bans" of certain things) are primarily what bother me... And they only bother me because both are avoidable, if the approach were to come from a different angle.
The different angle would appeal to enthusiasts, would appeal to both manufacturers and retailers, and would even appeal to the spectators and the impression that they take away of the sport and how it is organized. All of which are your stated concerns.
How do we do that?
We state honest goals directly, in the form of rules. Nearly as simple as putting the words "Thou shalt" before each of the goals.
This contrasts sharply with the current approach, of trying to classify using segmentation that is [simply] not directly related to the desired goals of the rule-makers, attempting to ban this, and ban that, hoping all potential outcomes but the desired outcome are prohibited. Loopholes are inherent with this approach. And the elimination of loopholes is one of your main goals.
Consider this: If you were going to give a friend directions on how to get somewhere...
You'd tell him: "OK, to get there... Go this way, then that way, then this way, and you'll get where we want you to get".
You wouldn't tell him: "OK, to get there... don't go this way, don't go that way, don't go this other way, don't go that direction, don't go that way, definitely don't go that weird way, don't try it that way, and don't try it this way... And hopefully I've only left you one option so that you'll actually get where we want you to get, without inadvertantly discovering some loophole in my instructions and ending up somewhere else."
I don't think the analogy is too bad, actually.
In keeping with it, I think rules should be established that are both clear and to the point. And more importantly, directly address the stated goals!
So let's revisit the goals again: (please allow me the liberty of rewording them slightly) 1) To ensure that everyday enthusiasts with everyday budgets are able to compete, that this enthusiast's impression of what the "minimum entry investment" to be competitive isn't prohibitively out of reach.
If this is a goal of yours... Make a rule that divides classes based on money spent, not on something artificial. The artificial approach crosses fingers and hopes that a side effect is that the money spent will be lower in the lower classes. The direct approach creates classes based on something like... Segmenting based on the total MSRP of the products in the signal chain back to the subwoofers, something along those lines. (MSRP rather than 'price paid' to equalize the field again... (and remove cheating) a desire of the yours. )
A nice side effect of this would be that competitors would no longer be rewarded for "money is no object" installs over clever ones... But rather would be rewarded for being cost-conscious, for being the one to find the most "bang for the buck".
And manufacturers would be incented to develop and manufacture products that offer the most "bang for the buck" - to competitors and to regular retail customers. And if the products offered more "bang for the buck", there would be more customers.
Good for enthusiasts, good for competitors, good for the industry.
2) We MUST insure that the products being used for competition are legitimate retail products.
Corporate managers know "you receive the behavior you incent". (and my last point above touched on that...) If the competition classes are structured in such a way that makes one-off or non-standard product more competitive than the standard retail products - they'll appear.
Witness this with the IASCA power classes of the 90's... the rules stated classes would be divided not by the actual power the amplifiers made.. but of the 4 ohm rating for the amps. Before this, the car audio industry was largely a "4 ohm" place. But because of this rule, and decision to use the 4 ohm ratings, two detrimental (in the scope of your goals stated here) things happened: 1 - amp manufacturers produced more expensive, non-standard amplifiers with small 4 ohm ratings that would double their power all the way down to a very powerful 1/4 ohm power level. 2 - amp manufacturers produced more expensive very powerful amplifiers, and often simply lied about their 4 ohm power.. the "rated" number was ignorable, there simply for competition.
If the rules were actually the statement of the goal - to separate competitors by the power their amps were making - the rule would have directly addressed that... Possibly dividing classes by the main underhood fuse rating, dividing classes essentially by how much current was drawn - which is directly proportional to how much power is actually being made (without respect for whatever power rating an amp manufacturer wants to put on the amp).
A nice side benefit of this, for both competitors and the industry, would have been a very direct encouragement of more efficient amplifiers... because more efficient amplifiers will make more power while drawing less current. That's a good thing both for competitors, and for everyday customers... an improvement in both competition and standard retail products. And, there would be no incentive for those two products to be any different... Because "you receive the behavior you incent", it makes sense for the manufacturer to only make one type of amp.. or rather, that they would be one in the same.
3) There should be no loopholes that incent a competitor to partake in behavior (or develop/demand products) that counter the first two goals.
In stating the goals in such a way where you are saying "Competitors should DO this", basically "anything else" is inherently disallowed. Loopholes are inherently avoided, and the desired behavior is clearly spelled out.
Contrast this to the current laundry list of "Competitors should NOT do this.. or this... or this...", where it's not only impossible to account for every possible action, but doesn't even clearly communicate what the goals of the rules are.
quote:Originally posted by Wayne Harris: I hope that you will assist me in this endeavor.
Please believe me when I say my heart is with you - as so much as your heart is with these stated issues.
My apologies for the length of this, thanks for your time and consideration.
YES! Wayne: Please listen to what this guy posted! This post directly concerns the actual problem: The money spent on the equipment. The rules up to now only are treating the symtoms(like the 4KW Zapco, etc.) The problem is that you, Wayne(no disrespect intended) are telling the folks via the rules (behavior shaping)that to win all you need is a huge investment. For street a money cap on the amps is a workable system. How many entry level amps? Too many to count. How many "elite" amps? Just a few and easy to list. But what about a mystery amp? Hey if the shipping cost is the only problem then put me in for the shipping cost to have it tested. And have the money cap also address the internet issue.,I.E.: 350 dollar cap on amp cost if retail. 175 dollars if internet purchase. Example: A guy shows up at an event with a Memphis 1100 D amp. Internet cost is 450 and retail is 850 or so,result is competitor is not permited to play in entry area. And make a banned amp list for entry and have the ability to update the list(in a day or so,not at years end) in case of a mystery amp. Thank you.
-------------------- You are what you read. Un happy with your life? Change what you read. Change what you are. Posts: 206 | From: Nobodys damn business but mine | Registered: Jun 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Did anyone else notice this was written after USACi world finals? I think he saw something there he liked (maybe over 200 SPL entries and another 200+ SQ cars) But don't get me wrong DB Drag is still the best of the best! DB Drag is like the NASCAR of car soundoffs.
I would also like to say I met Wayne briefly at USACi finals and he is a lot different than I anticipated. He was a very well spoken intelligent individual. <B> I will say he is very much unlike another man in his position. </B> Organizations reflect their leadership.
I will leave it at that.
--------------------
Sound Mekanix SPL Design Team Held A World Record Street B 154.3 back in 2005.
Team "Soon to be forgotten HasBeen" Member #0001 Posts: 982 | From: Fond du Lac, WI | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I guess we will be heading back to the stone ages!!!!
-------------------- AUDIO X TEAM KINETIK TEAM MAXXSONICS TEAM OHIO GENERATOR T3 AUDIO TEAM BUDWIESER Posts: 3655 | From: Florence, al | Registered: Oct 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by TRENDSETTER: I guess we will be heading back to the stone ages!!!!
Nope! Time to show the "money is no object" install the back door in favor of the real street installs where if you win it is due to being the better install instead of the deeper pockets.
Time to say bye,bye to the 20 to 80 hertz rule in favor of a sixty hertz cap for extreme and a 50 hertz cap for super street and a 40 or 45 hertz cap for regular street.
Time to have a real entry category with a frequency cap of 40 hertz.
Time to say bye,bye to 16 volts and quads.
Time to change for the better.
-------------------- You are what you read. Un happy with your life? Change what you read. Change what you are. Posts: 206 | From: Nobodys damn business but mine | Registered: Jun 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
OK first the quads go bye bye, I can live with that. but now you want to take $4400.00 worth of batts away from me to and limit me vehicle to play 50 hz? you are geting alittle carried away!!so now my truck as a whole is useless and I will no longer be able to compete with it! I thought we were changing for the better as a whole for dB drag? I can't tell! you are now trying to target the veteran competitors and make all our years of hard work become a waisted effort!! I mean some of us do not start a new vehicle every year we get what we have louder by hard work! do you know what is going to happen? you will force ALOT of veterans into the street classes that have never been there before and you will have the same problems in those classes that you have in SS & EXTREME now the same people will win becuase they work harder! so go on BAN every thing and see what happens I mean street is starting to look GOOD to me sell big trailer buy smaller one use extra $ to buy badder amps and the baddest 12 volt batts on the planet then infulltrait the street division!!!
oh wait EVERY OTHER VETERAN will do this too NOW SUPER STREET & EXTREME ARE OBSOLETE CLASSES!!
BE VEREY VERY CAREFUL WHAT YOU WISH FOR! BECAUSE YOU WILL GET WHAT YOU WISH FOR! THEN WHAT?
-------------------- AUDIO X TEAM KINETIK TEAM MAXXSONICS TEAM OHIO GENERATOR T3 AUDIO TEAM BUDWIESER Posts: 3655 | From: Florence, al | Registered: Oct 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by TRENDSETTER: I guess we will be heading back to the stone ages!!!!
Nope! Time to show the "money is no object" install the back door in favor of the real street installs where if you win it is due to being the better install instead of the deeper pockets.
Time to say bye,bye to the 20 to 80 hertz rule in favor of a sixty hertz cap for extreme and a 50 hertz cap for super street and a 40 or 45 hertz cap for regular street.
Time to have a real entry category with a frequency cap of 40 hertz.
Time to say bye,bye to 16 volts and quads.
Time to change for the better.
This is just my opinion, but I really do not think YOU are in any position to determine what is the best for dB Drag.
I am definately siding with Danny on this one. If all these proposed rule changes come into effect, you will see less competitors, especially in the upper divisions. Street will become saturated with veterans.
Take a look at street now... it is VERY fair. The people who are on the top of the street game are not there because they have more amps, more batteries, higher voltage, etc. They are there because they have put in the effort to get there. Anyone who thinks they will have a chance because you are limiting other peoples equipment should seriously go check yourselves. Those with the desire will still be on top with less equipment, then you'll have to go through all the effort of trying to ban more and more equipment and vehicle mods to the point where everyone will have the same vehicle with the same amps, same subs, and same setup.
I'm sure that Da Vinci is rolling over in his grave right now. You are trying to eliminate all aspects of creativity from this sport.
And as far as anyone saying they could have stood a chance had they been running 16 volts instead of 12, should give it a shot and find out first hand. Don't know where to get some equipment, or how to set it up? Why not ask the competitor with the equipment already.
You'd be very surprised how much nicer we are when you ask polite questions as opposed to trying to shove our own equipment down our throats.
-------------------- Team Riprock 2 Posts: 188 | From: Calgary, Alta, CANADA | Registered: Feb 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by TRENDSETTER: I guess we will be heading back to the stone ages!!!!
Nope! Time to show the "money is no object" install the back door in favor of the real street installs where if you win it is due to being the better install instead of the deeper pockets.
Time to say bye,bye to the 20 to 80 hertz rule in favor of a sixty hertz cap for extreme and a 50 hertz cap for super street and a 40 or 45 hertz cap for regular street.
Time to have a real entry category with a frequency cap of 40 hertz.
Time to say bye,bye to 16 volts and quads.
Time to change for the better.
This is just my opinion, but I really do not think YOU are in any position to determine what is the best for dB Drag.
I am definately siding with Danny on this one. If all these proposed rule changes come into effect, you will see less competitors, especially in the upper divisions. Street will become saturated with veterans.
Take a look at street now... it is VERY fair. The people who are on the top of the street game are not there because they have more amps, more batteries, higher voltage, etc. They are there because they have put in the effort to get there. Anyone who thinks they will have a chance because you are limiting other peoples equipment should seriously go check yourselves. Those with the desire will still be on top with less equipment, then you'll have to go through all the effort of trying to ban more and more equipment and vehicle mods to the point where everyone will have the same vehicle with the same amps, same subs, and same setup.
I'm sure that Da Vinci is rolling over in his grave right now. You are trying to eliminate all aspects of creativity from this sport.
And as far as anyone saying they could have stood a chance had they been running 16 volts instead of 12, should give it a shot and find out first hand. Don't know where to get some equipment, or how to set it up? Why not ask the competitor with the equipment already.
You'd be very surprised how much nicer we are when you ask polite questions as opposed to trying to shove our own equipment down our throats.
Same problem as always: The money is no object camp. I had a chat with a few street joes that came to our laptop store today and were asking about the planned future DB DRAG event. And the talk came down to the cost of equipment. And how why bother going to compete if there is no real entry level and no one uses a real music tuning of 30 to 40 hertz and the monster amp issues. With all due respect: I think that you forget a simple thing: When it comes time to decide,Wayne decides. For sure not me. We get to post "requests". The simple thing is that if no one says,ok,that is the limit then there is always somebody trying to go past it. I feel bad that you spent money on 16 volt batts. and quad coils. But: Change is required for the sport to grow and it is the majority that make an event not the minority. The simple issue is that more competitors are required. Attendance at events must grow. Yet,the majority have basic systems that do not have 16 volt systems,or quads, or monster amps. Yes,Extreme vehicles are cool,but the money at an event comes from the majority of street entry. And more Extreme and SS competitors are required. So,less equipment cost equals more competitors considering going to events. So far it is always the money issue. Take that away and boy do you get creative. Necessity is the Mother of invention,period Want more Extreme and SS competitors? Cut down on the equipment permited. Less cost. And it sounds real impressive to get a 170 DB reading at 60 hertz versus a 170 DB at 79 hertz. And the simple fact is that if someone is willing to work towards a goal then it becomes available and yes something has to be done to limit the rule benders. And it gives you a new target to strive for. Remember that this is just my penney tossed in. Thank you. Please wait a sec. as I check to see if my flame retardant suit is operational,as I am quite sure that a lot of flame is now inbound.
-------------------- You are what you read. Un happy with your life? Change what you read. Change what you are. Posts: 206 | From: Nobodys damn business but mine | Registered: Jun 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
dB Drag racing is considered a high standard of competition, and has a resputation of being "best of the best". To take away from what has gained dB Drags this reputation, could lead to a reconsideration of the entire audio arena. Sure, there may be a need to introduce new contestants, but not at the expense of those who have helped dB Drag racing obtain its reputation. If we (dB Drag members) allow the standards to be lowered, will we not be anything more than just a "parkinglot competition". I believe it would be in the best interest of everyone, if there would be a way to keep the high level of recognition AND create a introduction for new competitors. With many sound off competitions being formed at a rapid pace, we (dB Drag members) must create a way to increase participation. But, at the same time, the veterans of dB Drag Racing are the structure that has supported dB Drag Racing for many years. We do not need to turn our backs on these veteran competitors. If they (the veteran competitors) feel the desire to stop supporting dB Drag Racing, then everyone loses. Unless the goal is to deteriate the reputation that dB Drags has gained over the years, we must all work together to support the overall organization. While everyone may not agree of every single subject, we must not lose sight of the primary objective.
Then again, I could be wrong. Since I live in a town that is very limited of stereo competitions (of any sanctioning body), my views may not appeal to the liking of everyone. If so, then please simply overlook this post.
![[Cool]](cool.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
![[Mad]](mad.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
