# What would you change in the 2014 MECA rulebook.



## Navy Chief (Jun 14, 2010)

As the season is coming to an end, many of us have found things we dislike about the current 2013 rulebook. Also based on some of the comments from the 2013 rules thread, many of us are unhappy here with the current rules. Here is our chance to get in our input now before the changes to the 2014 rulebook get written. So just as the title states what would you want to change. Here is mine:

I think the rulebook does not flow, there is too much back and forth in the rulebook. 

The rules in each class overlap too much and there is too much room for misinterpretation.

And my big one, I think there are too many classes. I never had more than one other competitor in my class all season. The whole point of this organization is competition, its not really competing when we all get first in our class against our self.

Also, I would love to see an "old school" class (no DSPs and class A/B amps only, something like that), what do you guys think.


----------



## Neil_J (Mar 2, 2011)

For starters, I think most if not all of the criticism posted in the MECA 2013 Rules thread is still very relevant. I've summarized some of that below, and some other stuff that I feel needs attention (some factual, some completely biased and opinionated)

Take everything below for what it is. I'm basically done with MECA at this point but still really wish it didn't have to be this way. I'm trying to be constructive but I'm not going to be silent about the elephant(s) in the room like some around here will. I'm not nearly as politically connected around these parts as some, so I can get away saying some of this while others around here can't or won't. I do feel that MECA has turned into NASCAR where the winners are picked before the race starts. Obviously that's not true but that's what it feels like sometimes. As someone put it:


> Which also leads to something that has been done in the past, competitor A has been stomping competitor B, competitor B can't figure out how to improve their car, so competitor B complains that competitor A is cheating or some other BS, organization comes down hard on competitor A, and competitor B starts to win without actually working on improving their vehicle.


Is that true? Who knows?? Who can really say?

*Define Ambiguities*
#1 in my opinion: If you do something that isn't CLEARLY defined in the rules, then you should not be penalized for it (losing all points for that season, not being able to compete at finals, etc). They should be able to compete for the rest of the season, and the rules for next year should be amended to state whatever is in question, clearly. I see no reason why the competitor, who is paying entry fees, gas, hotels, etc is the one to be penalized for the rules not being clear enough. There's a lot of "Tribal Knowledge" that the judges and R&E committee know, but have not yet put into the rulebook (they call it the "spirit of the rules", I call it tribal knowledge, and unless it's communicated, it will lead to more people being frustrated and possibly leaving MECA). Rules that aren't in the rulebook shouldn't be enforced mid-season, as they have in the recent past. This causes a lot of frustration and misunderstanding, and it's wrong to take it out on the competitors.

Better define the difference between a midbass and a subwoofer.

Better define the term "factory location". There has been some ambiguity about installing/upgrading speakers/subs/etc where the item may be available from the manufacturer or dealership but not installed at time of purchase. Does stock location mean the physical area in which the enclosure goes? Or does it mean the enclosure/baffle itself? Example #1: The front-mount sub box for the Smart Car. Example #2: An old Toyota truck that didn't even come with a radio or speakers. Example #3: Bret added a subwoofer enclosure and amp under the seat that was a factory option but not part of the car when built at the factory, but added at the dealer. Example #4: Dodge Neon ACR that comes with no stereo, speakers, etc. Example #4: Other cars that might have options for dash speakers (baffles, grills, electrical harnesses, etc). The R&E committee could add a note, which was clarified by Matt R, but currently not in the rules: "the subwoofer (speaker) is installed in the factory location if it's mounted to the original baffle or enclosure. [...] You are allowed to modify the mounting area to accomodate a larger flange for the same size speaker. You can NOT replace the enclosure all together."

*Conflicts of Interest*
Maybe it's just me, but I do not believe that anyone on the R&E committee should be allowed to compete. It's a conflict of interest. I know a handful of people that agree with me but choose not to bring it up for political reasons.

Likewise, if a judge or R&E member builds a car for another competitor... that should be a no-no. Again, I see it as a conflict of interest. 

*Creation of a "Rookie" / "Novice" class*
In my first year competing, I was bumped to Mod Street over the rule: "Factory speaker locations may be trimmed to fit same size replacement speaker (cone area). In no case can more than 1/2” of total diameter be removed." I couldn't buy "same size speakers", as it comes with weird metric-sized speakers that are 150mm. If I had gone smaller (5-1/4"), I'd have gaps and would have need an adapter plate, and I'd be at a disadvantage to everyone else in Street class that have 6.5" and 8" stock drivers. If I step up to 6.5" (even though I cut less than 1/2" total of diameter), I get bumped to Mod Street where it starts to get very competitive. So what I'm getting at is, why can't there be a Novice / Rookie class for people just cutting their teeth into car audio? Why am I instantly up against people that are on factory teams that have been competing for the better part of a decade? We (the rookies) and them (the veterans) are not on an even playing field, and it's unfair, plain and simple. Who would it benefit? All of the newbies to car audio. Who would it hurt? Maybe the pro's who need some fodder for ass-whoopin?? I don't really know.

*Confirmation Bias from Judges That Are Supposed to UNBIASED*
I've been told point-blank by several competetors that there is a judge that does not judge a car on how it sounds at face value. 


> ... if it is new to him, or he does not understand it - he judges accordingly. he also judges based on the class you are in - so if you are in modified - you can ONLY get a score between 7X and 8X because he reserves that classes above you should automatically sound better, and classes below should be worse. and IMO that is a load of horse ****. this he has said or posted somewhere - when i heard or read it i was like wow 0_o ...


And another diyma member about the same judge:


> Don't waste any of your time on him. He's all over the place. Did I ever tell you about him judging me "from memory?" He's a really nice guy and as a person he's cool, but when you get into SQ with him he has his one Holy way and there's no ifs and or buts about it and that's how he always scores. Trust me, you are far from the only one who takes issue with his methods. The more he judges you though the more he warms up to you and his scores will display that.


And a third:


> I was going to tell you that you are not alone in your experiences with [...]. I had him judge my car a few years ago, give me good remarks, then an hour later talk about how Class D amps sound bad and he would never use them (he didn't know I was running them)....


*Transition to a Points-Based System Instead of Classes*
So that a small car with tiny midbass speakers and bad acoustic doesn't have to go up against a larger luxury car with better acoustics and speaker locations/sizes in the Stock class. Things like up front subwoofers, pillar pods, would come with a point cost. It evens things up and would simplify the rules down a few charts. This would keep people from buying a car specifically because it's got a better chance at competing in a lower class.

(Deleted this section as I got some facts wrong, my apologies to chefhow and all others that might have been offended by it)


Hope that didn't go too far off topic. I think the stuff above could certainly be transformed from a rant to serious rulebook changes.

P.S. I love the idea of an oldschool class. What's the preferred age limit there? No earlier than 20 years? 15?


----------



## Mindcrime (Jul 18, 2012)

I like the old school idea. I also agree, there are too many classes.


----------



## Mindcrime (Jul 18, 2012)

I will go through the rules in the next day or two and make some notes.


----------



## Mic10is (Aug 20, 2007)

Neil_J said:


> *Last But Not Least... If You've Somehow Made it to Finals...... It Should NOT BE POSSIBLE TO BE DISQUALIFIED AT THAT POINT. You've Been Through Countless Judging and Equipment Checkouts So Why Is It All Of The Sudden Being Caught? Where's The Consistency?*
> 
> Mic wasn't naming names above.. But it was Req's vehicle (Andy); Vinny disqualified him; and* Howard and and Steve Stern that let it happen*. I wasn't there obviously, but I've been told the story so vividly by so many, that I felt like I was. It is a tragedy that this sort of stuff is allowed to happen at all.
> 
> ...


Just to Clarify--in no way did Howard LET it happen. Howard actually got in an extremely heated argument with Steve Stern and Vinny over the decision and it is a minor contributing reason why Howard did not do any MECA shows this year. Howard as well as all his teammates supported and defended Andy.

I do agree that under the circumstances that Andy should have just been allowed to finish the event without having to make major changes. He had already been verified by a judge who's sole job at Finals was to verify that everyone was in their correct class. He had already been judged by 2 Finals judges. SQ judges' should be focused on judging sound, thats it. There were other people in place to do other jobs.
Others failed to do their job and Andy was penalized for it. 
It was not fair to him or the people who had supported and helped him throughout the season and the show.


----------



## Neil_J (Mar 2, 2011)

Mic10is said:


> Just to Clarify--in no way did Howard LET it happen. Howard actually got in an extremely heated argument with Steve Stern and Vinny over the decision and it is a minor contributing reason why Howard did not do any MECA shows this year. Howard as well as all his teammates supported and defended Andy.
> 
> I do agree that under the circumstances that Andy should have just been allowed to finish the event without having to make major changes. He had already been verified by a judge who's sole job at Finals was to verify that everyone was in their correct class. He had already been judged by 2 Finals judges. SQ judges' should be focused on judging sound, thats it. There were other people in place to do other jobs.
> Others failed to do their job and Andy was penalized for it.
> It was not fair to him or the people who had supported and helped him throughout the season and the show.


Ah, that makes a lot more sense now that I think about it  Sorry for mixing that up, I think I got Howard confused with someone else... That's what I get for telling a story like that second-hand.


----------



## Mic10is (Aug 20, 2007)

Perhaps some of the newbies need a quick history lesson as well since many do not know competition History.

One of the 1st Car Audio competitions was Car Audio Nationals, It was later renamed IASCA. IASCA was the 1st real competition organization. It was largely funded by major manufacturers like Audio Control, MB Quarts, PPI etc...we are talking these companies budgeted several thousands of dollars every year--IASCA was a major source of advertisement for their products.
This was very late 80s and early 90s.

fast Forward a few years and USAC was formed, primarily based out of the midwest.

MECA was formed in approx 1999. Steve Stern and many of the early MECA founders were USAC Competitors and judges.
MECA was formed as a "CLUB" not a competition organization. The idea behind it was to provide more of a community feel to people and get rid of some of the politics that plagued competition organizations. It was in a sense, the anti-organization organization.

MECA pioneered the idea of classifying vehicles by Modifications for SQ. Everyone else was doing power classes.
power classes were reasonable to a point but you could have someone with Kick panels or Horns competing against someone running all stock locations etc...with advantages clearly going to the vehicle with better speaker locations.

MECA's classes started to somewhat level the playing field bc you competed against more similar systems. (They also pioneered some SPL ideas too, but thats for another post)
That had never happened before.

MECA gained a very small following of people that liked the more relaxed atmosphere. But they had a very hard time attracting the more "serious" competitors. The Big names in IASCA and USACi pretty much never even considered competing in MECA.

fast Forward to 2008. Nopi folded overnight. IASCA had a huge tie in with Nopi. IASCA finals was held at Nopi Nationals from 2006 to 2008. Literally thousands of people showed up for Nopi events in like mid July, only to show up to empty or closed fairgrounds.
IASCA was basically forced to hold Finals and Spring Break Nationals at the same time and lost a huge part of the market and cancel an entire season of events
USACi lost alot of competitors as well.

where the others fell to the wayside---MECA stepped in and basically kept rolling and thrived. people who wanted to compete still, basically had one choice--MECA.
MECA started to expand and grow even more.
to accommodate the growth they had to expand their classes.

So we are now at present time. MECA is still around and still has one of the largest base of competitors in comparison to other organizations. 
both IASCA and USACi have changed their classifications to mirror MECA classifications based on modifications.

If you want a rookie class--IASCA and USACi have one. If you want to go to shows with guaranteed that you'll have more than 1 in your class--Travel more to shows and compete in different organizations, I am sure that you'll find a show somewhere that someone else is competing in your class or step up into the higher classes if competition is important.

Every Organizations has their pluses and minuses. Some more than others. But each is their own organization with their own system. If you want to compete, pick one that has the amount of ******** that you can tolerate and go with it.


----------



## chefhow (Apr 29, 2007)

Neil_J said:


> Mic wasn't naming names above.. But it was Req's vehicle (Andy); Vinny disqualified him; and Howard and and Steve Stern that let it happen. I wasn't there obviously, but I've been told the story so vividly by so many, that I felt like I was. It is a tragedy that this sort of stuff is allowed to happen at all.


Since I am on my phone and no where near my computer lll keep this short sweet and to the point.

1. Last time I checked you weren't at the table with Andy, Steve, Vinny or me, so shut your ****in mouth.

2. Since you weren't at the table or outside the hall when the **** hit the fan while I was defending Andy and trying to have his DQ overturned I would suggest you stop while you're ahead since you don't know what happened.

3. The people who were directly involved have moved on, If you don't like the way the orgs do things don't play. 

4. If you want to make some suggestions feel free but if you don't have first hand knowledge of a situation stay out of it.
Have a good day, I'm done again.


----------



## Neil_J (Mar 2, 2011)

Mic10is said:


> If you want a rookie class--IASCA and USACi have one. If you want to go to shows with guaranteed that you'll have more than 1 in your class--Travel more to shows and compete in different organizations, I am sure that you'll find a show somewhere that someone else is competing in your class or step up into the higher classes if competition is important.


Very interesting and informative post 

IASCA flat out refused to let me compete in Rookie when i showed up at my first event. But that's another story  even though i met all the qualifications. It was a judge's shoot-from-the-hip decision. I don't compete in IASCA any more either because of the BS there (namely the fact that you're only judged by a single person instead of three). 

I do really like a lot of things about MECA, that's why I've been so critical of it. IASCA isn't even in the same ballpark, ethically. 

At the end if the day, the Diyma G2G's are the closest thing to BS-free and I plan to attend as many of them as my budget can afford in the coming months/years ahead. I'd even like to hold a few myself if people would show up. Who needs MECA or IASCA when you have Diyma


----------



## Neil_J (Mar 2, 2011)

chefhow said:


> Since I am on my phone and no where near my computer lll keep this short sweet and to the point.
> 
> 1. Last time I checked you weren't at the table with Andy, Steve, Vinny or me, so shut your ****in mouth.
> 
> ...


My sincerest apologies, I got my facts wrong, I deleted it and sorry for stirring **** up.


----------



## Mic10is (Aug 20, 2007)

Neil_J said:


> Very interesting and informative post
> 
> IASCA flat out refused to let me compete in Rookie when i showed up at my first event. But that's another story  even though i met all the qualifications. It was a judge's shoot-from-the-hip decision. I don't compete in IASCA any more either because of the BS there (namely the fact that you're only judged by a single person instead of three).
> 
> ...



you are entitled to your opinion--but IMO IASCA is a much more comprehensive evaluation of a system and follows a much more objective process for judging than any organization. IASCA judges are typically much more professional as well.
I'm on the IASCA rules Advisory Board, am a judge, have judged World Finals etc...so I speak pretty confidently that IASCA is as ethical if not more than any other organization.

I was not there but based on your install log--you would not be able to compete in rookie bc your install skills far exceed that of a true novice or rookie. Instead of thinking of it as them as prohibiting you from competing in Rookie--think of it as a huge compliment that your install is THAT nice, that IASCA thinks that it would intimidate other potential rookie competitors that are DIY'ers.


----------



## quality_sound (Dec 25, 2005)

So someone with fantastic fabrication skills but no tuning ability (making an argument here, not saying Neil can't tune) can't be a "rookie" but someone that doesn't have advanced install skills but can tune his ass off can? Yeah, that sounds all kinds of fair...


----------



## Neil_J (Mar 2, 2011)

quality_sound said:


> So someone with fantastic fabrication skills but no tuning ability (making an argument here, not saying Neil can't tune) can't be a "rookie" but someone that doesn't have advanced install skills but can tune his ass off can? Yeah, that sounds all kinds of fair...


Lol, I take no offense to that, I gotta agree with you there. Except about the part where I have fabrication skills. My fiberglass work sucks.


----------



## Mic10is (Aug 20, 2007)

quality_sound said:


> So someone with fantastic fabrication skills but no tuning ability (making an argument here, not saying Neil can't tune) can't be a "rookie" but someone that doesn't have advanced install skills but can tune his ass off can? Yeah, that sounds all kinds of fair...


This is badass and not something your typical Novice/Rookie competitor would ever show up with at a show
http://www.diymobileaudio.com/forum/1919612-post719.html

so lets flip this around the other way---you are a true DIY novice competitor. You and your friends or family helped you buy and install speakers and a system. You have a custom made MDF box that you just learned to carpet. MDF spacers for your new speakers. Minimal dynamat on your doors and maybe the floor. Mid level Head Alpine Head unit with an Imprint processor and some Alpine PDX amps drywall screwed down to your new custom made box or even your backseat so you have more trunk space.--you show up to your 1st event and see Neil's car and he is in your class. CNC machined amp rack, custom made molex plugs for connections. spotless attention to detail etc...
How likely will you want to compete again? It works both ways.


Also---I have no idea which version of the install tried to enter Rookie class, but the rules are pretty specific. 
Cannot have competed previously in any Organization.
Speaker must be mounted in OEM locations with the exception of one additional pair of Tweeters.
Install must maintain OEM/Factory appearance.


----------



## BigRed (Aug 12, 2007)

Things I would have changed:

1) be more specific about what is allowed in classifications. the whole 4" rule for modified and modex has been a difficult one to swallow for many. It also does'nt separate installs that much between those classes. The entire smart car issue had to do with vague descriptions about an up front sub. The competitors read the rules, and had been classified as ok on several occasions by seasoned MECA judges. Again the spirit of the rules trumped all reasoning.

2) Organize the sections with a flow. In other words, have a general rules section, protest section, classifications section, etc. it seems like other important things are placed in sections they don't belong. just my opinion.

3) FOLLOW THE RULES AS WRITTEN. Again, the smart car was asked to move to another class even though many agreed that the rules did not eliminate the car from being in that class based on poorly written rules. If it is vague enough, the ruling should be to allow the competitor to compete for the year as is, and CHANGE THE RULE FOR NEXT YEAR

4) Points for state and national championship eligibility. The rules for national championship qualifications are pretty straight forward, but state is not written clearly. Example: I won Master Class for California at the state finals. I was denied state championship because according to Stern, I need 20 points. NOWHERE in the rulebook does it state that in the sq rules. I kindly asked Stern to point me to the rules where it states that. He said it has always been like that, and apologized for the confusion in it not being in the sq section, and would add it next year.

5) Once the rules are posted, DO NOT MAKE AMENDMENTS TO THE RULES AND MAKE COMPETITORS MOVE THIER POINTS. If MECA does want to change something after the rules are finalized, too bad!! Put it in next year.

thats all I can think of for now


----------



## Justin Zazzi (May 28, 2012)

I would like to see:

-Any thread with MECA in the title not instantly devolving into a shouting match about somebody's ruling or protest or dispute (see above).

-Absolutely no more use of the term "spirit of the rule". Write the rules so they do not need to be interpreted later.

-Absolutely no changes to the rules, classes, or anything else significant after a season has begun.

-Less classes, a lot less. A first place trophy should mean something a lot more than being the only guy that showed up in that class.

-More _clarity_ in the allowed modifications, but not more _specifications_. Stop trying to identify and define every single little tiny detail of an install that is allowed and not allowed. 

-You should be able to layout the rules for every class onto a single page in a grid where each class allows everything in the previous class _plus this additional stuff_, instead of having every class completely redefined one at a time. Right now it is not very easy to find the differences between the classes because so much of the text defining each class is identical to the other classes.

-Some kind of recognition for a competitor who does _all_ of his or her own work _and_ tuning, vs someone who pays other people to build and tune their car for them because pay-to-win is currently acceptable.

-A LOT more clarity in the rulebook about stage depth. Is it related to the closest element audible? Is it related to how far away the furthest element is? Is it related to the separation between the closest and furthest? How do these relate to the windshield, and what is the scoring rubric? "Depth" can be interpreted so many ways.

-A LOT more clarity in the rulebook about speaker pods on the dash and on the a-pillar. Stop trying to classify them into two different things. Have one distance the speaker pod can protrude from any factory surface (excluding depth to/from the windshield) and call it a day. If someone can put a 8" driver in their a-pillars and not occupy any space beyond 3" from a factory surface, let them. Be less specific, but more clear by having some easy to reproduce metric (such as a ruler) be the deciding factor.

-If the rulebook specifies a particular listening volume level in such as "85-90dB", put a reference level tone on the competition disc and supply the judges with an SPL meter to establish that level.

-Add a zero noise track to the competition disc to make listening for system noise and engine noise easier.


----------



## [email protected] (Nov 7, 2010)

I like all of your points Justin, but this "-Some kind of recognition for a competitor who does all of his or her own work and tuning, vs someone who pays other people to build and tune their car for them because pay-to-win is currently acceptable." would be VERY difficult as I see it. How would it be proved what was or wasn't done by a person or a shop. 
I do see your point and think that it is a great idea, a true DIY person should deserve some recognition, but where is the line drawn? I am a professional and we talked briefly at the show about how to do something in your car, could someone protest that because it was professional help? (a stretch, but hopefully it illustrates my point)

I think the reward for a DIY person is more intrinsic. Knowing that any accolades they get they EARNED themselves with their own sweat and blood and hands. I think you could agree that in the end, knowing that is its own reward?


----------



## secretsquirl (Dec 3, 2012)

Ok posting this late on DIYMA must mean something. 

First there are lots of little things that can be changed in the rule book.....but before anything can be changed lets try this, instead of trying to find the Grey area lets try competing as everyone knows what the rules mean! Richard is a nice guy and has a great family but even looking at his early post he knew that would be questioned. The wording if you take that on its own no one would ever argue that its legal but when you look a little more closely its obviously more to the up front woofer and how it was. No big deal its reclassified and we get on with it. No one saw it as him trying to cheat but at the same time no one should see it as meca or anyone else trying to shaft him.

Jim you did a great job at finals and squeaked out a win with neither one of our vehicles at 100 percent. I congratulate you because a win is a win! We talked during the day that the state championship takes 20 points but i didnt complain when you tried to get it I dont take it personally it was a good try! Needless to say it has always been 20 points thats the only reason i showed up with a car that wasn't done.

Now to the rest where do i begin: To many classes ok but wouldn't adding an old school class just make another class? 

Wouldn't sliming down the rules for a class make it more gray areas that would bring "unhappiness" to competitors? More defining of the class and rules seems like a better choice! There is no sport that I know of that doesn't change or update the rules as they become tested or uncertain. 

There are plenty of things in the rulebook that maybe i would like to see changed, taken out or that I just plain hate but i don't have to compete I can stay home. I understand that alot of people have put time into trying to make this as fair as possible! It doesnt always go my way but it doesn't always go against me. There are a few things brought up that would be great to get more direction on like the pod size rules so lets just deal with defining or fixing whats we have instead of complaining. 

Brian Mitchell


----------



## Justin Zazzi (May 28, 2012)

[email protected] said:


> I like all of your points Justin, but this "-Some kind of recognition for a competitor who does all of his or her own work and tuning, vs someone who pays other people to build and tune their car for them because pay-to-win is currently acceptable." would be VERY difficult as I see it. How would it be proved what was or wasn't done by a person or a shop.
> I do see your point and think that it is a great idea, a true DIY person should deserve some recognition, but where is the line drawn? I am a professional and we talked briefly at the show about how to do something in your car, could someone protest that because it was professional help? (a stretch, but hopefully it illustrates my point)
> 
> I think the reward for a DIY person is more intrinsic. Knowing that any accolades they get they EARNED themselves with their own sweat and blood and hands. I think you could agree that in the end, knowing that is its own reward?


All good points, totally valid. Further illustrates that no one set of rules can truly make everyone happy and also be easy to enforce at the same time. Most of the other stuff I would like to see would be easier to rule upon, I hope.



ps. I used your suggestion and finished that last detail for my floor, thank you again for the tip! And yes, I also believe the diy'ers value their achievements more than usual


----------



## Neil_J (Mar 2, 2011)

Mic10is said:


> This is badass and not something your typical Novice/Rookie competitor would ever show up with at a show
> http://www.diymobileaudio.com/forum/1919612-post719.html
> 
> so lets flip this around the other way---you are a true DIY novice competitor. You and your friends or family helped you buy and install speakers and a system. You have a custom made MDF box that you just learned to carpet. MDF spacers for your new speakers. Minimal dynamat on your doors and maybe the floor. Mid level Head Alpine Head unit with an Imprint processor and some Alpine PDX amps drywall screwed down to your new custom made box or even your backseat so you have more trunk space.--you show up to your 1st event and see Neil's car and he is in your class. CNC machined amp rack, custom made molex plugs for connections. spotless attention to detail etc...
> ...


The VPC mass interconnect was like 2 years later, it wasn't present when I attempted to compete in IASCA Rookie at SBN. For the record I met all of the things you list above. I didnt compete in install, only SQ. My amp rack was not finished, the MDF box not even carpeted. Wires everywhere. I was running a JBL MS8 with an iPod source. I ended up getting second to last place or something like that. Clearly I put some thought I to it but its still my first year, I didn't think of everything (let alone the most important things) so I was still rookie material and should have competed there. Theres not much correlation between having some electronics background and car audio, as ive clearly demonstrated. 2 years into my build and its only now starting to sound remotely listenable. And again, most importantly, bumping me up two classes on the spot wasn't in the rules. It was a shoot from the hip decision, and was never amended to the rules, so it will likely happen again to another competitor. It has nothing to do with MECA but I still feel its relevant to the discussion.


----------



## quality_sound (Dec 25, 2005)

Mic10is said:


> This is badass and not something your typical Novice/Rookie competitor would ever show up with at a show
> http://www.diymobileaudio.com/forum/1919612-post719.html
> 
> so lets flip this around the other way---you are a true DIY novice competitor. You and your friends or family helped you buy and install speakers and a system. You have a custom made MDF box that you just learned to carpet. MDF spacers for your new speakers. Minimal dynamat on your doors and maybe the floor. Mid level Head Alpine Head unit with an Imprint processor and some Alpine PDX amps drywall screwed down to your new custom made box or even your backseat so you have more trunk space.--you show up to your 1st event and see Neil's car and he is in your class. CNC machined amp rack, custom made molex plugs for connections. spotless attention to detail etc...
> ...



I'll tell you something I've learned through years of playing sports at very high levels - If you don't want to lose, suck less. Basically, there is ALWAYS going to be someone better than you. You can't fault someone for having skills that someone else doesn't and why is install ability the sole factor? How about the rookies that listen to other cars in their class that absolutely destroy theirs? Why don't these guys get bumped up as well? If you're going to have a rule about moving people up it needs to be applied across the entire spectrum. I'd even say that if that rule is going to be there it should be skewed more heavily towards above average sounding cars since that's kind of the reason we even have these competitions in the first place. 

Your line of thinking is the same reason we have participation trophies.


----------



## Neil_J (Mar 2, 2011)

quality_sound said:


> I'll tell you something I've learned through years of playing sports at very high levels - If you don't want to lose, suck less. Basically, there is ALWAYS going to be someone better than you. You can't fault someone for having skills that someone else doesn't and why is install ability the sole factor? How about the rookies that listen to other cars in their class that absolutely destroy theirs? Why don't these guys get bumped up as well? If you're going to have a rule about moving people up it needs to be applied across the entire spectrum. I'd even say that if that rule is going to be there it should be skewed more heavily towards above average sounding cars since that's kind of the reason we even have these competitions in the first place.
> 
> Your line of thinking is the same reason we have participation trophies.


In every pro sport that I can think of, you start in the minor leagues against other minor-league players. Then move up once you've proven yourself. It might be a month or ten years but its merit-based. You don't start playing against 400 pound linebackers right out of high school.


----------



## pionkej (Feb 29, 2008)

I think it's pretty simple really. 

-All rules will be finalized before the first 3x show that takes place anywhere in the country (I say first 3x show because it's typically in January or February where there are some seasons where the first 1x show is just a few weeks after Finals is held).
-Validation at your first show is considered official and will lock your class for the season (You are required to disclose any grey area portions of the build or mods you make during the season that may bump you a class--failure to do so can result in reclassification and forfeiture of points earned to date).
-Questions about classification will be responded to within 72 hours by R&E and will be FINAL. Additional information can be requested R&E which would extend the decision process by another 48 hours if needed.
-If a classification question cannot be answered during validation of a competitors first show, they will be placed in the class they best fit into. They will be scored and awarded (trophies) that day based on that class. If R&E determines they should have been placed in a higher class, they will be moved and their score will determine their rank for points towards Finals. Any other competitors whose points awarded were affected by this change will be notified via email.

I agree that MECA isn't perfect, and there are probably some other areas that improvements can be made. However, I believe that if those rules were put in placed and followed (by both competitor and org) 90% of the issues would be resolved.

Now, I think it's truly funny some of the "problems" other people are complaining about. 

The common complaint of "I'm tired of nobody being in my class at shows, so we should combine classes" sounds beyond stupid to me. Would I like to have more people in my class at every show? Sure, but the solution isn't to REDUCE classes but INCREASE competitors. MECA needs to not shoot themselves in the foot with boneheaded moves that drive away members, but the majority of increasing competitors is on us...the competitors. Our cars we drive every day (most of us) and the information we convey to other potential competitors will ALWAYS carry much further than any number of fliers or such advertising MECA can put out. Nobody at the show in your class...you own a little piece of that as much as MECA does in my opinion.

What about "adding a Rookie Class"? Is that REALLY required so you can win a few shows against other newbs and feel good about yourself? Is it more motivating to beat another beginner or see the gap close between yourself and a seasoned competitor? I'd trade the few extra tropies I might win in a Rookie Class for the invaluable "yardstick" I'd have for measuring my progress throughout the season. Right now, something like Stock or Street does a lot to help keep the playing field pretty level, so a beginner could come into that with a much better chance of doing well. If that person chose to complete mods that moved them up a class (I personally did and was in MODEX my first year), well, THEY MADE THAT CHOICE. It wouldn't bother me a bit if MECA added a Rookie Class mind you, but to me it just feels like it's done so the whiners can feel good about winning.


----------



## pionkej (Feb 29, 2008)

Neil_J said:


> In every pro sport that I can think of, you start in the minor leagues against other minor-league players. Then move up once you've proven yourself. It might be a month or ten years but its merit-based. You don't start playing against 400 pound linebackers right out of high school.


You need to keep in mind that this isn't a "pro sport", but a "rec sport" (if anything). When I played softball with the last company I was at (bunch of overweight construction workers) we managed to beat most of the other teams, but we always got our a$$ handed to us by the group of former baseball buddies who decided to form a team. We ultimately lost to them in the Championship and I don't remember complaining after and asking if there was Rookie group we could be in just so we could win a trophy with ease.


----------



## Neil_J (Mar 2, 2011)

pionkej said:


> You need to keep in mind that this isn't a "pro sport", but a "rec sport" (if anything). When I played softball with the last company I was at (bunch of overweight construction workers) we managed to beat most of the other teams, but we always got our a$$ handed to us by the group of former baseball buddies who decided to form a team. We ultimately lost to them in the Championship and I don't remember complaining after and asking if there was Rookie group we could be in just so we could win a trophy with ease.


I never wanted to win a trophy with ease, I could care less about winning really. I've always done it for the fun, never to win. My actual scores were very fair and I've never questioned those. Don't take my criticism of the rules as me being butthurt for not winning. My suggestion was more about the fact that if you're going to have classes at all, try to level them out and make a sandbox for people doing starting out that haven't learned the ropes yet.


----------



## pionkej (Feb 29, 2008)

When you are the one to "speak for the people"...I'm likely going to reply to you. My view is that asking to reduce classes but also add a rookie class sounds asinine to me. My view is that rookie class would be less beneficial to those who actually CARE about improving since they have zero reference for improvment (which I think a consistent scoring veteren provides). So what does a rookie class provide...a better chance at winning. This is all my opinion of course so you can logic away at the benefit of a rookie class any other way you'd like.


----------



## BigRed (Aug 12, 2007)

secretsquirl said:


> Ok posting this late on DIYMA must mean something.
> 
> First there are lots of little things that can be changed in the rule book.....but before anything can be changed lets try this, instead of trying to find the Grey area lets try competing as everyone knows what the rules mean! Richard is a nice guy and has a great family but even looking at his early post he knew that would be questioned. The wording if you take that on its own no one would ever argue that its legal but when you look a little more closely its obviously more to the up front woofer and how it was. No big deal its reclassified and we get on with it. No one saw it as him trying to cheat but at the same time no one should see it as meca or anyone else trying to shaft him.
> 
> ...


I hear ya Brian!! I had a great time at state finals, and I tip my hat off to you for attempting an entire rebuild right before  crazy muh fugga!

I don't really care about the title as you notice I mention none of them in my sig. However, I pushed for it this year based on the circumstances to illustrate that it should be in the rules...period. This "that's how its always been" sounds like some good ol boys stuff  If we are going by "its always been that way" why is the nationals points mentioned so clearly? I mean "its always been that way" get my point?

If a competitor is competing and following the rules, ALL the rules should be in the rulebook. Did I just write that? Sounds pretty friggin easy to understand.

Also, Master class. Why if you enter Master Class you cannot enter another class EVER? this seems counter-intuitive in that Meca has classes based on install and fairness. This is another "it's always been that way" rule that is not in the rulebook.

Finally, changing the rules during the "season" is flat out unfair to me. How can guys who want to compete build a car only to be re-classified when the rules change. Meca, don't do it!!

I think thats it  lol


----------



## Mic10is (Aug 20, 2007)

Jim, I know at one time it was in the rules. It may have been omitted in the 2013 revision bc they tried to do an overhaul, but previously I do remember reading specifically that in order to be declared State champion you need at least 20 points. Points from the event would count toward that total.
I had to help get clarification for Todd on this one last year I think, so he went to a single point even so he would get 5 points prior to competing at State Finals.


----------



## quality_sound (Dec 25, 2005)

pionkej said:


> You need to keep in mind that this isn't a "pro sport", but a "rec sport" (if anything). When I played softball with the last company I was at (bunch of overweight construction workers) we managed to beat most of the other teams, but we always got our a$$ handed to us by the group of former baseball buddies who decided to form a team. We ultimately lost to them in the Championship and I don't remember complaining after and asking if there was Rookie group we could be in just so we could win a trophy with ease.


Even in rec league softball there are classes. I typically play C and D-level. But never, have I EVER seen a team that's obviously sandbagging in E get bumped up to D or C. I am stationed with a guy that had never played ball in his life but decided to play on the SQ intramural team. He's build like a brick ****house. If we apply Mic's rules he should have been playing on the base team or downtown on a higher level team because he's in better shape than 99% of the other intramural players (install ability). Nevermind the fact that he has absolutely no idea about the intricacies of the game (tuning) nor can he swing a bat with anything resembling coordination. Does he get lucky once in a while? Of course. The sun shines on a dog's ass some days, but his build doesn't make him a good enough player to be bumped up a couple of classes.

Same thing that happened to Neil. Some people can build, some can tune. Even if you're good at both, if you meet the requirements to be a Rookie, you're a Rookie, period.


----------



## Mic10is (Aug 20, 2007)

Jazzi said:


> I would like to see:
> 
> -Any thread with MECA in the title not instantly devolving into a shouting match about somebody's ruling or protest or dispute (see above).
> 
> ...



Responses In red above


----------



## Mic10is (Aug 20, 2007)

quality_sound said:


> Even in rec league softball there are classes. I typically play C and D-level. But never, have I EVER seen a team that's obviously sandbagging in E get bumped up to D or C. I am stationed with a guy that had never played ball in his life but decided to play on the SQ intramural team. He's build like a brick ****house. If we apply Mic's rules he should have been playing on the base team or downtown on a higher level team because he's in better shape than 99% of the other intramural players (install ability). Nevermind the fact that he has absolutely no idea about the intricacies of the game (tuning) nor can he swing a bat with anything resembling coordination. Does he get lucky once in a while? Of course. The sun shines on a dog's ass some days, but his build doesn't make him a good enough player to be bumped up a couple of classes.
> 
> Same thing that happened to Neil. Some people can build, some can tune. Even if you're good at both, if you meet the requirements to be a Rookie, you're a Rookie, period.


Again--Neil hasnt ever posted details about what happened in any situation. IASCA doesnt just make "shoot from the hip" decisions. So I am sure there is much more to the story then its being told. It was the same with Richard and the Smart Car...We got alot of his side and the drama of the whole things with alot of details left out--but when Matt R clarified everything from the R&E committee stand point and why the judgement was made, all the sudden things REALlY didnt add up when u go back and read the original accounts of the story.


Here is the background on why Rookie is set up the way it is---Rookie/formerly Novice used to be plagued with Shop built cars. my 1st year competing, when I was building in my driveway I competed against 30 and 40k installs. thats install prices alone, not factoring in the cost of the actual vehicle. People would just drop a ton of money at a shop, pay to have someone install, pay to have someone tune it and show up and compete in Novice bc the owner of the car had never competed before.
This basically killed the novice class after about 10+ years of this occurring.

Its the same reason people who want to compete and do compete regularly build for specific classes and for why we are even having this conversation. People at least want to feel like they are on a level playing field.
They at least want the perception that they could have a chance.

There are VERY few new people coming to competitions. One of the biggest reasons is " I cant compete with that" and theyll reference Mark Elderidges Nascar or Scott Buwalda's car. 

It is very hard for people to get past the perception of how something looks. Someone sees a really nice install, that automatically assume it must be really good. It works the other way too.
Ive know people who invest a ton of time and money on their install, both DIY and shop built that get very upset when they lose to some guy who shows up with a bare MDF box, steelies and wires hanging everywhere.


----------



## pionkej (Feb 29, 2008)

quality_sound said:


> Even in rec league softball there are classes. I typically play C and D-level. But never, have I EVER seen a team that's obviously sandbagging in E get bumped up to D or C. I am stationed with a guy that had never played ball in his life but decided to play on the SQ intramural team. He's build like a brick ****house. If we apply Mic's rules he should have been playing on the base team or downtown on a higher level team because he's in better shape than 99% of the other intramural players (install ability). Nevermind the fact that he has absolutely no idea about the intricacies of the game (tuning) nor can he swing a bat with anything resembling coordination. Does he get lucky once in a while? Of course. The sun shines on a dog's ass some days, but his build doesn't make him a good enough player to be bumped up a couple of classes.
> 
> Same thing that happened to Neil. Some people can build, some can tune. Even if you're good at both, if you meet the requirements to be a Rookie, you're a Rookie, period.


I understand your point. Unfortunately, I didn't know there were classes in softball when I tried to make mine. I honestly don't know if the logic for not allowing him to be a rookie was sound or not. My personal opinion is that if there is a rookie class, you are eligible to compete in it for your first year of competition only. First year competitors can opt for "rookie status". None of this matters much though since MECA (which is the org the thread is about) doesn't have a rookie class. 

Which brings me back to my point, I don't understand the logic in requesting "fewer classes" AND to "add a rookie class". Those two things just don't jive. On top of that, I think there is very little value to adding a rookie class. Maybe I'm just different in that I'm driven by trying to be the best and having a good idea of WHO the best is helps me strive for that goal. I wasn't around competing in the 80's or 90's, but it seemed very closed door on how to tune. Now you can go to a show and get help from the guy you are going head to head with. This makes the ability to learn and make progress much more attainable. So that's exactly what I did. I competed and kept trying to learn and honing my "skills" (quotes just because I don't claim to ACTUALLY have skill). Having a rookie class to me is a crap-shoot on the quality of your competitors and likely would limit the benchmark you have for progress. You have a better chance of doing well against the competition in my opinion, but have less of a chance of really improving. I think it would simply serve to mindset of many in the world today that everybody should win. The truth is that winning is hollow when everbody gets to win (and I think we both agree there).


----------



## Mic10is (Aug 20, 2007)

It would be interesting to see, that if, MECA were to reduce the number of classes how many people would just quit or compete somewhere else and/or how many of these people who want less classes so they dont take 1st place by default, actually stick around when they arent getting 1st place at all anymore.


----------



## Neil_J (Mar 2, 2011)

Mic10is said:


> Again--Neil hasnt ever posted details about what happened in any situation. IASCA doesnt just make "shoot from the hip" decisions. So I am sure there is much more to the story then its being told. It was the same with Richard and the Smart Car...We got alot of his side and the drama of the whole things with alot of details left out--but when Matt R clarified everything from the R&E committee stand point and why the judgement was made, all the sudden things REALlY didnt add up when u go back and read the original accounts of the story.
> 
> 
> Here is the background on why Rookie is set up the way it is---Rookie/formerly Novice used to be plagued with Shop built cars. my 1st year competing, when I was building in my driveway I competed against 30 and 40k installs. thats install prices alone, not factoring in the cost of the actual vehicle. People would just drop a ton of money at a shop, pay to have someone install, pay to have someone tune it and show up and compete in Novice bc the owner of the car had never competed before.
> ...


Not sure why I'm even replying, I think I've annoyed most here enough already, so for that, my apologies. Rookie classes, if they were instituted or brought back, would be DIY only (no pro or shop builds whatsoever) and the burden of proof would be on the competitor to prove that he/she has in fact done all the work and hasn't competed in other orgs. To a previous reply, the benefit of this class should be this: a mandatory debriefing by the judges, after the competition is over (email within a week is fine if the judges are super busy day-of, I understand that), where the judge goes over all of the points accrued and examine what they heard and why they scored it that way. At my first MECA event, I left early and never even got my score sheet. My scores were bad enough that I wanted to replace my equipment and too ashamed to even contact the judges. The overall score was fair but what made that score up? I didn't even know who to ask for the judging sheets, I didn't even know the judge's names, or that the bearded dude in my car was the Matt R guy that I'd heard so much about beforehand. I do hear a lot of veterans here against the idea,. I'm certainly not speaking for the novices out there (or for anyone but myself, contrary to previous replies stating otherwise). But don't let their silence in this thread be their dissent.


----------



## quality_sound (Dec 25, 2005)

Mic10is said:


> Again--Neil hasnt ever posted details about what happened in any situation. IASCA doesnt just make "shoot from the hip" decisions. So I am sure there is much more to the story then its being told. It was the same with Richard and the Smart Car...We got alot of his side and the drama of the whole things with alot of details left out--but when Matt R clarified everything from the R&E committee stand point and why the judgement was made, all the sudden things REALlY didnt add up when u go back and read the original accounts of the story.
> 
> 
> Here is the background on why Rookie is set up the way it is---Rookie/formerly Novice used to be plagued with Shop built cars. my 1st year competing, when I was building in my driveway I competed against 30 and 40k installs. thats install prices alone, not factoring in the cost of the actual vehicle. People would just drop a ton of money at a shop, pay to have someone install, pay to have someone tune it and show up and compete in Novice bc the owner of the car had never competed before.
> ...


Oh I remember those days. We built a few "rookie" class cars for customers in the mid to late 90s as well. I also remember seeing "rookie" cars in all 3 of the mags of the time and almost all of them were built and tuned by a shop. 

However, if a person who is not in the industry and has no past ties to it, builds a car and just happens to have the skills to build a great car, he shouldn't be forced out of Rookie because of that. That's all I'm saying. I'm rebutting your assertation that people with above average fabrication skills should be bumped up. It's unfair. 

I used Neil as an example, based on the little info I've gotten from this thread, but it's an aside to the main point.


----------



## Mic10is (Aug 20, 2007)

quality_sound said:


> Oh I remember those days. We built a few "rookie" class cars for customers in the mid to late 90s as well. I also remember seeing "rookie" cars in all 3 of the mags of the time and almost all of them were built and tuned by a shop.
> 
> However, if a person who is not in the industry and has no past ties to it, builds a car and just happens to have the skills to build a great car, he shouldn't be forced out of Rookie because of that. That's all I'm saying. I'm rebutting your assertation that people with above average fabrication skills should be bumped up. It's unfair.
> 
> I used Neil as an example, based on the little info I've gotten from this thread, but it's an aside to the main point.


I DO understand your point and to an extent I agree. In Neil's case, he was bumped to Amateur, which is the class right above Rookie...it wasnt a multi class jump as being portrayed. The few people that Ive spoken with about the situation said from what they recall the reasoning behind it was logical and made sense at the time of the ruling.


Lets take another example--CaptainObvious's Mazda. I got clarification what class he had to compete a few weeks ago. He had never competed in IASCA, but his install skills are quite exceptional. Im sure youve seen his build log, with 8s that vent externally, the BG neos in Kick panels etc....
It was determined based on his Install Log that he would be Pro/Am.
He didnt complain at all. He accepted it and went with it.
Then won his class at PA state Finals beating shop built cars and other cars which much more competition and tuning experience.

It would be pretty asinine for a Judge to listen to a car and say, based on how ****ty this sounds you can be a rookie. OK, this sounds decent enough that you cannot be a rookie.


----------



## Neil_J (Mar 2, 2011)

Mic10is said:


> I DO understand your point and to an extent I agree. In Neil's case, he was bumped to Amateur, which is the class right above Rookie...it wasnt a multi class jump as being portrayed. The few people that Ive spoken with about the situation said from what they recall the reasoning behind it was logical and made sense at the time of the ruling


Once again in this thread, I stand corrected (Hope I can command at least a bit of respect for admitting it). I thought i got bumped to Pro Am but went back and looked at my score sheet and yea it was Amateur. I'm starting to question my sanity at this point.

Had I stayed in rookie, according to this link, I would have taken first place. Not that it matters at this point. Nor does it matter that other rookies were allowed to have their systems tuned by sponsored team members, I guess.


----------



## tintbox (Oct 25, 2008)

WOW!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


----------



## Navy Chief (Jun 14, 2010)

I think there is some great input in this thread so far, even if you have to read thru some of the negative discussions to find it. Based on how the 2013 rules thread went I suspected this one might get a little heated also. 

So since I was one of the people that recommended less classes, which has seem to stir mixed results, this is what I recommend. I think at large events like 3x and bigger there is usually plenty of competition to support the current number of classes, especially at finals. However at smaller events you frequently only get one competitor per class, that isn't competition that is participation regardless of the fact that it is not that competitors fault that nobody else showed up. The current rule book already groups classes for install, why not use those same groupings for 1x and 2x shows. It would look like this.

Stock - all events

Street (street and mod street) - 1x and 2x
Street - 3x
Modified Street - 3x

Modified (modified and MODEX)- 1x and 2x
Modified - 3x
MODEX - 3x

Extreme (extreme and master) - 1x and 2x
Extreme - 3x
Master - 3x

I realize that this forces lower classed competitors to compete with higher classed competitors, however it also forces competition. The other option for a system would be to pair the other direction, stock and street together, mod street and modified together, etc. 

I still think the old school class is a cool idea, however I pictured it as less of a class and more like a competition grouping with additional rules that define old school. The key difference between competing today and back in the early days is that today competing is a la cart, whereas in the beginning you had to do all parts of a competition not just one. In my opinion "old school" division should be similar to the current BOBOS rules minus park and pound, so SQL, SPL, RTA and install. If a competitor wanted to enter "old school" he would enter and pay for his normal SQL class, install class, SPL class and RTA, he would earn points in each of those respective competitions as well as the points from all 4 combined to generate an "old school" score. So it wouldn't be an actual class but more of a required competition style, this would hopefully boost more cross-competing at MECA shows. 

The catch to the "old school" class is that you would have to meet certain "old school" criteria to enter the class. In my opinion that would be no DSPs (only conventional EQs and xovers), class a or a/b and tube amps only, maybe no wideband drivers (these were not common back then). Now these limitations would not necessarily require old equipment, just equipment of old school limitations. Also you could put caveats in the install criteria that said maximum points could only be awarded if actually old equipment (refurbished would count) was used in the install. I personally would love to see guys having to setup a soundstage with no time alignment.

These are just my thoughts, what do you guys think.


----------



## Mic10is (Aug 20, 2007)

Navy Chief said:


> I think there is some great input in this thread so far, even if you have to read thru some of the negative discussions to find it. Based on how the 2013 rules thread went I suspected this one might get a little heated also.
> 
> So since I was one of the people that recommended less classes, which has seem to stir mixed results, this is what I recommend. I think at large events like 3x and bigger there is usually plenty of competition to support the current number of classes, especially at finals. However at smaller events you frequently only get one competitor per class, that isn't competition that is participation regardless of the fact that it is not that competitors fault that nobody else showed up. The current rule book already groups classes for install, why not use those same groupings for 1x and 2x shows. It would look like this.
> 
> ...


you proposal has some practical validity but my question is how would you do Finals Qualification points?
If someone is competing during the season to qualify for finals, and say they are in modified class and you lump them in with Modex for 1x and 2x, that could potentially make it much more difficult for them to qualify. Also, adds more travel and other expenses to qualify by having to go to more shows.

So for example--you look at the schedule and plan out 5 events to attend to qualify, you get the days off work approved, clear it with your wife and others. They are all 2x events. Figuring in at least a 2nd place finish at each show. doing that gets you the minimum 40 points.
All the sudden you are competing against Modex vehicles and your second quickly turns to 4ths and 5th.

So now, you have an additional 4-5 shows to try and find and make to qualify for finals.

If you go with the other option, of for the even the classes are lumped together but you still receive the amount of points youd normally get if they were separate, then what was the point for the separation to begin with?

So your idea has some merit and would reduce the trophy costs which is the single biggest cost involved with hosting an event, but for practical reasons it may not go over very well


----------



## Navy Chief (Jun 14, 2010)

Mic10is said:


> your proposal has some practical validity but my question is how would you do Finals Qualification points?
> If someone is competing during the season to qualify for finals, and say they are in modified class and you lump them in with Modex for 1x and 2x, that could potentially make it much more difficult for them to qualify. Also, adds more travel and other expenses to qualify by having to go to more shows.


My point was kind of to make it more difficult to qualify, I know that might sound negative but after all this is a competition organization. Your statement above kind of alludes to the fact that guys plan a set number of shows assuming they will be uncontested in their class (which they probably will be) so they can qualify for finals. So that makes MECA a participation organization, not a competition organization. Mic, please don't think I am ragging on you or anyone for doing what you stated, he'll I did it this year. It however does not make for "competition". Maybe we drop the required points to 30 points to make up for a more competitive enviroment, so the overall number of shows stays the same. I'm not saying this is a perfect idea, I just want to get back to the old days when every class had 5 people in every class (and with 5 people comes cash prizes last I checked, there's some incentive).


----------



## Mic10is (Aug 20, 2007)

Navy Chief said:


> My point was kind of to make it more difficult to qualify, I know that might sound negative but after all this is a competition organization. Your statement above kind of alludes to the fact that guys plan a set number of shows assuming they will be uncontested in their class (which they probably will be) so they can qualify for finals. So that makes MECA a participation organization, not a competition organization. Mic, please don't think I am ragging on you or anyone for doing what you stated, he'll I did it this year. It however does not make for "competition". Maybe we drop the required points to 30 points to make up for a more competitive enviroment, so the overall number of shows stays the same. I'm not saying this is a perfect idea, I just want to get back to the old days when every class had 5 people in every class (and with 5 people comes cash prizes last I checked, there's some incentive).


Just to clarify--MECA is not a Competition organization. It is a CLUB. 
Stern would normally be the 1st person to jump out and make that distinction right away.

The Old Days had many more than 5 per class, depending on how far you go back you can find classes with 20+...just typically not in MECA


----------



## Navy Chief (Jun 14, 2010)

Mic10is said:


> Just to clarify--MECA is not a Competition organization. It is a CLUB.
> Stern would normally be the 1st person to jump out and make that distinction right away.
> 
> The Old Days had many more than 5 per class, depending on how far you go back you can find classes with 20+...just typically not in MECA


Mmmmm, I was not aware of that distinction. Can I say a club that fosters competition, if it was just a club then we could all go to finals right. But that would just make it USACi then, maybe USACi is really a club, lol.

And yes I am referring to IASCA shows from the day, and I agree there was more than 5 but CA&E only posted the top 5 from each class.


----------



## quality_sound (Dec 25, 2005)

Mic10is said:


> It would be pretty asinine for a Judge to listen to a car and say, based on how ****ty this sounds you can be a rookie. OK, this sounds decent enough that you cannot be a rookie.


But that's exactly what you're doing by placing people into a class based on their install ability.


----------



## secretsquirl (Dec 3, 2012)

There actually used to be a lot more classes in the old school days in Iasca at one time there used to be just in sq. Novice amateur pro which all had power class 0-150 151-250 251-500 501-1000 1000 up expert was an open class and then they also had enhanced spl which was the same but with an unlimited amount of points for spl not capped at 30 for all those category's. 

Lumping everyone together for smaller shows in meca would do two things. Either make smaller shows get zero attendance or make every one build to what ever the top class is so not to lose at the smaller shows. I've been around along time and seen all of these things tried in one form or another. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk - now Free


----------



## Navy Chief (Jun 14, 2010)

secretsquirl said:


> There actually used to be a lot more classes in the old school days in Iasca at one time there used to be just in sq. Novice amateur pro which all had power class 0-150 151-250 251-500 501-1000 1000 up expert was an open class and then they also had enhanced spl which was the same but with an unlimited amount of points for spl not capped at 30 for all those category's.
> 
> Lumping everyone together for smaller shows in meca would do two things. Either make smaller shows get zero attendance or make every one build to what ever the top class is so not to lose at the smaller shows. I've been around along time and seen all of these things tried in one form or another.


I fondly remember the days of all those classes also, I also remember how many more competitors there were back then. I'm not sure if I agree with you on the outcome, but you may be right. I just want to see more "competition" at shows, I guess ultimately the best answer is to get more competitors.


----------



## chefhow (Apr 29, 2007)

It boils down to three very easy things(this is going to sound harsh but it's to the point and honest)
1. You compete in MECA, build according the rules or contact the r&e committee with questions and build according to the answers you receive.

2. You compete in IASCA, build and compete according to their rules and deal with it.

3. Go home and leave it alone.

Getting your feelings hurt because things didn't go your way is a BS excuse and a piss poor reason for wanting to see changes made. Step up and learn to tune a car and recognize what happens to this when you do that or just sit back and spectate. Constantly changing the rules to accommodate a few is counter productive. If you read the rules and have a question ask MattR, he is here and an advocate for the competitors as he has been one for so many years. Fighting with him is the wrong way to go about these things. Support the orgs rather than ***** about them, without an established background those of you complaining sound like bitches with the "I'm taking my ball and going home" mentality. Personally when I was hosting shows Id rather have not seen you before dealing with the attitude, ask Ray(evilling) he will tell ya.


----------



## Mic10is (Aug 20, 2007)

quality_sound said:


> But that's exactly what you're doing by placing people into a class based on their install ability.


Install ability or install modification. It makes zero difference how you define it. MECA does divisions and classifications based on Install modifications...ie what changes were made to accommodate the new system.
It takes some decent ability to do able to do more modifications and do it well.

IASCA and USACi's classes are loosely based to mirror MECA's classifications to allow easier crossover.


----------



## Mic10is (Aug 20, 2007)

secretsquirl said:


> Ok posting this late on DIYMA must mean something.
> 
> *First there are lots of little things that can be changed in the rule book.....but before anything can be changed lets try this, instead of trying to find the Grey area lets try competing as everyone knows what the rules mean! *Richard is a nice guy and has a great family but even looking at his early post he knew that would be questioned. The wording if you take that on its own no one would ever argue that its legal but when you look a little more closely its obviously more to the up front woofer and how it was. No big deal its reclassified and we get on with it. No one saw it as him trying to cheat but at the same time no one should see it as meca or anyone else trying to shaft him.
> 
> ...


^^^^THIS ^^^^^


----------



## quality_sound (Dec 25, 2005)

Mic10is said:


> Install ability or install modification. It makes zero difference how you define it. MECA does divisions and classifications based on Install modifications...ie what changes were made to accommodate the new system.
> It takes some decent ability to do able to do more modifications and do it well.
> 
> IASCA and USACi's classes are loosely based to mirror MECA's classifications to allow easier crossover.


I understand that. You talked about not wanting to alienate rookies by bumping people with better fab skills up a class. So someone, say me for instance, gets bumped a class and start hitting the shows where I get annihilated by guys that can not only install but tune as well. How is not going to alienate me? If I'm following all the rookie requirements why should I not be allowed to compete as a rookie just because I can make some pretty plexi panels?


----------



## Mic10is (Aug 20, 2007)

quality_sound said:


> I understand that. You talked about not wanting to alienate rookies by bumping people with better fab skills up a class. So someone, say me for instance, gets bumped a class and start hitting the shows where I get annihilated by guys that can not only install but tune as well. How is not going to alienate me? If I'm following all the rookie requirements why should I not be allowed to compete as a rookie just because I can make some pretty plexi panels?


It goes beyond that. Speaker locations must be factory provided locations, except one pr of additional tweeters. In front of Bpillars must have an OEM/Stock appearance.
NO venting speakers, no dash mat etc...

Follow the rules and you can compete in Rookie. Dont follow the rules and you get bumped out to another class.

Its pretty simple. Again, I wasnt there to hear why someone was not allowed to compete in Rookie. I am only guessing as to what the reasoning could have been.

Typically, someone who has the ability to fabricate and install well, is also smart enough to figure out how to tune and or ask someone who can tune for help.
But someone who can tune, doesnt necessarily mean they can fabricate well at all. I know people like this.


----------



## chefhow (Apr 29, 2007)

Mic10is said:


> But someone who can tune, doesnt necessarily mean they can fabricate well at all. I know people like this.


So do I... Circlesquares anyone


----------



## Mic10is (Aug 20, 2007)

chefhow said:


> So do I... Circlesquares anyone


I actually forgot about that, but very true as well.


----------



## quality_sound (Dec 25, 2005)

Mic10is said:


> It goes beyond that. Speaker locations must be factory provided locations, except one pr of additional tweeters. In front of Bpillars must have an OEM/Stock appearance.
> NO venting speakers, no dash mat etc...
> 
> Follow the rules and you can compete in Rookie. Dont follow the rules and you get bumped out to another class.
> ...


From what I remember of Neil's build log he followed all of the rookie rules so his bump doesn't make sense to me. 

I understand what you're saying in regards to new builds, but I'm talking Neil's case specifically because you mentioned him specifically. I agree that someone else that starts venting, etc should be bumped up from day 1.


----------



## Mic10is (Aug 20, 2007)

quality_sound said:


> From what I remember of Neil's build log he followed all of the rookie rules so his bump doesn't make sense to me.
> 
> I understand what you're saying in regards to new builds, but I'm talking Neil's case specifically because you mentioned him specifically. I agree that someone else that starts venting, etc should be bumped up from day 1.


Unless he provides a reason as to why he was bumped to the next class--it wasnt a multi class bump like he alluded to earlier. He was bumped to the next class up, Amatuer.
So without actually knowing the reasoning why it happened, I was just taking a guess.
The people I have talked to about it, who were there didnt recall the exact reasoning, just that it made logical sense and was completely within the rules, but he was still upset.


----------



## Neil_J (Mar 2, 2011)

Mic10is said:


> Unless he provides a reason as to why he was bumped to the next class--it wasnt a multi class bump like he alluded to earlier. He was bumped to the next class up, Amatuer.
> So without actually knowing the reasoning why it happened, I was just taking a guess.
> The people I have talked to about it, who were there didnt recall the exact reasoning, just that it made logical sense and was completely within the rules, but he was still upset.


From what I recall, it was about the L6SE's being mounted like this:


















The rules that I tried to follow were:


> The system installation must be performed by the competitor. Shop built installations cannot compete in the Rookie Class.
> The vehicle interior must remain a virtually OEM stock ―look‖ and maintain all standard seating positions. Custom made panels, consoles or baffles designed specifically for the purpose of improving the system‘s sound quality are not allowed within the boundaries of the vehicle‘s interior.
> Any aftermarket head unit and system speakers (if used) must be mounted in the vehicle‘s OEM factory locations. Exception: An additional pair of tweeters may be used and mounted in a non OEM location within the vehicle.
> Any other additional aftermarket equipment used in the vehicle‘s sound system (such as subwoofers, amplifiers, capacitors, processors, etc.) must be located in the OEM cargo area (or stowage area) or not be visible within the interior compartment of the vehicle.
> ...


So I have to interpret rules and regulations like this all day at work (FAA/RTCA stuff), not saying I'm perfect at it but I'm no stranger to it. Maybe I've got a different interpretation, that happens, sometimes it's wrong. Here's how I interpreted it, as a rookie, having never done this before, not having any of the tribal knowledge that others around here take for granted:

- Installation must be performed by the competitor? 100% check. I had no association with any shops other than the one down the street that did the MDF fabrication as I didn't have wood tools. But they did it to my specs, they weren't building me a rookie car.
- Must maintain virtually stock? Um, sure. Looks virtually stock to me. If I asked some random person they would probably agree that it looks virtually stock. This language is vague, and would NEVER, EVER be allowed in the sort of FAA and other requirements documents that we follow at work.
- Panels modified specifically for the purpose of improving sound quality? Not really. I hacked a bit of plastic out so that I could mount them. But by no means improved sound quality, quite the opposite. It was the only way that i could get the L6SE's into my doors. I didn't buy the L6SE's for sound quality! I bought them because they looked cool (admittedly a true story). They resonated like crazy and were by no means capable of of a decent score. Only now two years later do they sound decent after adding 25 pounds of deadening to the doors. And that part would be actually okay because it's allowed to add deadening.
- Speakers in the factory locations? Check. Maybe that's vague but that's the rule's fault not mine. They are mounted ~1/2" inboard of factory location but they're not mounted on the dash or anything crazy like that. I say I met that one just fine. I added tweeter pods to the A-pillars but those are OK according to the rules.
- Any other additional aftermarket equipment? Nothing there. check.
- All OEM functions maintain their functionality? Check, no questions or nitpicks there, everything works as OEM.
- Everything within the interior of the vehicle? check.
- Sound enhancing materials not visible and don't impede proper fit of any panel? check. No nitpicks there to speak of.
- All OEM safety and convenience features? All present and accounted for, check.
- No limits to the type and amount of audio equipment? check. 4 JL amps, an MS8 at the time, an iPod with crappy MP3 compression on the source material, and a Hybrid Audio 3-way set of speakers.

So what they actually said, and I do not remember the judge's name although I remember his face if I saw him again. He said that my system (namely my Hybrid SE 3-way set) was TOO EXPENSIVE and it WOULDN'T BE FAIR to allow me to compete against other rookies as that would take the fun out of it. That's what he said. And of course, the lady in Rookie who won was sponsored and had help tuning from her team that had been doing it for quite some time. So you tell me what's fair. If I'm breaking the rules, the judge was not able to give me a valid place in the rules where I was breaking them (and I prodded him for a better answer and he kept speaking in vague terms and euphemisms). It was more of a "spirit of the rules" thing or "shooting from the hip" and that's what I've been harping about. I've obviously got enough character to admit when I'm wrong as shown above and other places, but I still believe the iasca judges were wrong in this case for or unable to tell me what exactly I was doing wrong. And I'm not at all saying that I'm entitled to a participation trophy or anything lame like that. I'm just saying that if they make rules, they should have to stick to them, if they're vague that's their problem not mine.


----------



## quality_sound (Dec 25, 2005)

Wow... That's just...wow


----------



## Neil_J (Mar 2, 2011)

quality_sound said:


> Wow... That's just...wow


What?


----------



## Mic10is (Aug 20, 2007)

Neil_J said:


> From what I recall, it was about the L6SE's being mounted like this:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I could see an issue with how the speaker being mounted that way with no grill. While in an OEM location, It really does not look OEM with the copper phase plug etc...the fact that the door panel was cut to accommodate an aftermarket speaker is modifying a panel for the purpose of improving sound quality. You upgraded speakers to improve the sound over factory. to do this, you modified a panel which is listed under panels which cannot be modified.

But if a Judge makes a ruling based on what information you provided that the speaker "cost too much"--then I will fully agree that the judge was wrong.
You should have immediately appealed to Moe Sabourin who is head of IASCA.

That SBN was judged by the UK affiliate judges. Andrew Fleming is considered by many to one of, if not THE best install judge in the world. John Robinson and Nathan (I forget his last name) are extremely good SQ judges.

as far as Surina Rice, who won Rookie--she and her car went through a ton of scrutinizing from judges at every show they attended.She was not sponsored, provided receipt for everything, she was called and interviewed several times to confirm that the install was performed by she and her husband and not by a shop. She had no previous competition experience, outside of attending shows with her husband. She was also running an MS-8 so not exactly sure how much tuning you think they actually did on her vehicle.
There is also no rule against a rookie having tuning assistance.
In fact, if we go back and look at the post from that SBN--you were upset with Scott Buwalda bc he would not come help you tune and listen to your car bc he misunderstood the rule

I judged her at finals. She finished 3rd overall in rookie. She won IQC.


----------



## quality_sound (Dec 25, 2005)

Neil_J said:


> What?


Not you. The whole situation. I'm with you that the bump was uncalled for. The midbass mounting would be the ONLY think that might possibly have been an issue but that's nitpicking at best. Not being given a real answer is garbage.


----------



## Neil_J (Mar 2, 2011)

Mic10is said:


> I could see an issue with how the speaker being mounted that way with no grill. While in an OEM location, It really does not look OEM with the copper phase plug etc...
> 
> But if a Judge makes a ruling based on what information you provided that the speaker "cost too much"--then I will fully agree that the judge was wrong.
> You should have immediately appealed to Moe Sabourin who is head of IASCA.
> ...


That rule isn't just there for speakers. It also there for source units. If a rookie installs a Pioneer P99 with a Metra OEM kit then that doesn't technically look stock but that's ok, as its as stock as you can get without being.. You know.. Stock. If they wanted people to only use OEM receivers and DSPs with line out converters, and copper phase plugs are not stock looking, then put that in the rules (MECA is better in this regard than the 2011 IASCA rule book I quoted). 

Again, I keep going back to the vagueness because I've been reading and writing requirements documents for years, and have seen all the common pitfalls of writing vague requirements and the ramifications thereof. And maybe you guys wouldn't trust me on the witness stand at a murder trial because I get facts mixed up.. But I can read and write requirements and rules like noones business. And I can tell you that if I misinterpret something, 99 times out of 100 it could have been worded better. I do not misinterpret well-written rules and requirements. My analytical brain will not allow such a thing. A lot of other people here are ok with vague rules and some people will actually benefit from them. But in the philosophical sense, it's still wrong to do it that way.


----------



## quality_sound (Dec 25, 2005)

Mic10is said:


> I could see an issue with how the speaker being mounted that way with no grill. While in an OEM location, It really does not look OEM with the copper phase plug etc...the fact that the door panel was cut to accommodate an aftermarket speaker is modifying a panel for the purpose of improving sound quality. You upgraded speakers to improve the sound over factory. to do this, you modified a panel which is listed under panels which cannot be modified.
> 
> But if a Judge makes a ruling based on what information you provided that the speaker "cost too much"--then I will fully agree that the judge was wrong.
> You should have immediately appealed to Moe Sabourin who is head of IASCA.
> ...


There should absolutely be a rule against tuning help for rookies.


----------



## Mic10is (Aug 20, 2007)

quality_sound said:


> There should absolutely be a rule against tuning help for rookies.


How do you police it?


----------



## audiophile25 (Oct 5, 2008)

Mic10is said:


> How do you police it?


That's easy, you can't.


----------



## Neil_J (Mar 2, 2011)

Mic10is said:


> There is also no rule against a rookie having tuning assistance.
> In fact, if we go back and look at the post from that SBN--you were upset with Scott Buwalda bc he would not come help you tune and listen to your car bc he misunderstood the rule


Actually there was more to it than that. 
#1 He couldn't actually help me tune my car, I had an MS8. I was really just trying to get some yes/no advice because I showed up having never heard an SQ car in my life. I didn't know if my **** was good, bad, otherwise. No clue until I started listening to other cars and then it clicked.
#2 Scott said he saw my car and wanted to talk about sponsorship opportunity and I asked if he could at least listen to the car before he asked such a thing. It didn't work out but I did get a lot of help from the Diyma members who showed up and helped me tremendously. The help I got there from the diyma crowd was by far the coolest thing ever. Turbo supra, Notloudenuf, Grayson, Allie, Steve Head via Notloudenuf commandeering his truck for me, and so many others.


----------



## quality_sound (Dec 25, 2005)

Mic10is said:


> How do you police it?


How do you police installs for rookies? Obviously there would be some integrity involved.


----------



## audiophile25 (Oct 5, 2008)

There are already teams who have well respected judges that help its members with planning, build, and tuning their cars. I don't much like it, but I can find no rules that prohibit it.


----------



## Niebur3 (Jul 11, 2008)

Maybe I should look at the rules, but does MECA allow someone to compete at Finals if they hadn't attended a show all year? The reason I ask is because MECA competitions are nowhere around me. I have no opportunity to compete in my state or any state around my state but would love to go to a MECA finals at some point. 

Maybe a fee or something IF you can prove you don't have any sanctioned competition within X many miles?


----------



## quality_sound (Dec 25, 2005)

I don't think you can buy your way in.


----------



## Mic10is (Aug 20, 2007)

quality_sound said:


> How do you police installs for rookies? Obviously there would be some integrity involved.


its up to the judge or event promoter to actually talk with rookie competitors. when talking with a competitor it can be pretty easy to tell if they did their own work or not. Some will just flat out tell you. Some you can tell are talking to you from a script. So simply asking the right question about how things were installed, what process was used, why certain equiptment or methods were used...etc..
They can also be asked to provide receipts for equipment and purchases.
I know for a fact that Surina Rice and another Rookie competitor Diana Snapp had to go through several "interviews" even after events were over to insure that they did in fact meet the criteria of a rookie.

at the end of the day it comes down to the integrity of a competitor. If someone really wants to deceive others for the purpose of gaining an advantage it can be very hard to police.

There will always be a few who look for grey areas to exploit so gain every advantage as possible, but most people have enough integrity to follow rules.


----------



## Neil_J (Mar 2, 2011)

Mic10is said:


> its up to the judge or event promoter to actually talk with rookie competitors. when talking with a competitor it can be pretty easy to tell if they did their own work or not. Some will just flat out tell you. Some you can tell are talking to you from a script. So simply asking the right question about how things were installed, what process was used, why certain equiptment or methods were used...etc..
> They can also be asked to provide receipts for equipment and purchases.
> I know for a fact that Surina Rice and another Rookie competitor Diana Snapp had to go through several "interviews" even after events were over to insure that they did in fact meet the criteria of a rookie.
> 
> ...


^^^ This.


----------



## Mic10is (Aug 20, 2007)

Niebur3 said:


> Maybe I should look at the rules, but does MECA allow someone to compete at Finals if they hadn't attended a show all year? The reason I ask is because MECA competitions are nowhere around me. I have no opportunity to compete in my state or any state around my state but would love to go to a MECA finals at some point.
> 
> Maybe a fee or something IF you can prove you don't have any sanctioned competition within X many miles?


NO MECA is very specific that you need 40 points to earn an invitation to Finals. There is no compromise on this

IASCA has a provision to help people who may not have enough shows in your area. If you are a member in good standing and do not have a show within 250miles, you can email Moe Sabourin and ask for a waiver.

if you do have shows, you are expected to attend shows and support your local promoter.


----------



## Niebur3 (Jul 11, 2008)

quality_sound said:


> I don't think you can buy your way in.


You make it sound so terrible. I would have to travel hundreds of miles just to go to a single competition. Is it my fault they don't have competitions in my area? 

OK, how about a single competition where your car can be evaluated to be allowed into finals OR maybe if your car scores above X score, you automatically qualify? 

There are many competitors in my exact situation with cars they would probably do very well. If they want more people at finals, maybe they should think about trying to do something to help.


----------



## quality_sound (Dec 25, 2005)

Mic10is said:


> its up to the judge or event promoter to actually talk with rookie competitors. when talking with a competitor it can be pretty easy to tell if they did their own work or not. Some will just flat out tell you. Some you can tell are talking to you from a script. So simply asking the right question about how things were installed, what process was used, why certain equiptment or methods were used...etc..
> They can also be asked to provide receipts for equipment and purchases.
> I know for a fact that Surina Rice and another Rookie competitor Diana Snapp had to go through several "interviews" even after events were over to insure that they did in fact meet the criteria of a rookie.
> 
> ...


I agree 100%. I think the same criteria could be used to tell if someone did their own tune as well. We both know it's not hard to tell if someone tuned it or had it tuned. 

I just wish people weren't so focused on the winning, especially in rookie.


----------



## quality_sound (Dec 25, 2005)

Niebur3 said:


> You make it sound so terrible. I would have to travel hundreds of miles just to go to a single competition. Is it my fault they don't have competitions in my area?
> 
> OK, how about a single competition where your car can be evaluated to be allowed into finals OR maybe if your car scores above X score, you automatically qualify?
> 
> There are many competitors in my exact situation with cars they would probably do very well. If they want more people at finals, maybe they should think about trying to do something to help.


Not trying to make it sound shady, that was just the quickest way to write it. Lol


----------



## Niebur3 (Jul 11, 2008)

quality_sound said:


> Not trying to make it sound shady, that was just the quickest way to write it. Lol


Gotcha


----------



## pocket5s (Jan 6, 2012)

Not to derail the 'why Neil was bumped' thread-derail (  ), my thoughts from one season:

preface: I disagree about MECA being a 'club'. Most clubs, including car clubs are not for-profit organizations owned by an individual. They are orgs that have elected members. MECA is a club in name only...

- should judges be allowed to judge a vehicle where the vehicle owner built the judge's vehicle? Especially at 3x events where said judge could sway a win? Even more so at finals? Maybe a compromise could be that at 3x events (or just state/national finals), the most outlying score is discarded, be it higher or lower. I've seen and heard about this from different places. Two judges will be within say 5% of each other on pretty much ever car they judge, and a 3rd judge is 10%+ off from the others. This 3rd judge has the most impact when their scoring isn't at least consistent. In other words, always 10% higher or 10% lower, but varies from car to car.

- Closely related, I have no issue with judges or R&E members competing.

- I disagree with the term "rookie", "pro", etc. I've had this conversation many times with a few people. One thing MECA does right is NOT classify the competitor, but the vehicle. A couple examples were brought up, but basically there is no real way to enforce it and could be easily circumvented. 

- rule book. Holy cow is this a big one. everyone agrees with not modifying the book after the season starts. I would go one further and say the book released after this finals applies to 2015, not 2014. Why? Don't make people change stuff with only a couple months notice. Give them a year notice. 

- no more tribal knowledge as stated previously. Have the rule book qualify with either "if it doesn't say it, you can't do it" or "if it doesn't say it you can do it".

- this one is for promoters: don't force them to host portions they do not wish to. If I want to host a 2x SQ or SPL only, I should be allowed. Don't force me to host, and thus buy trophies for, events that I do not wish. This is particularly true for locations where you have to buy trophies for classes that no one shows up for. 

- There needs to be separation between master and extreme.

- Not sure about fewer classes. If anything maybe combine a couple of the street classes. Modified up seems fine. But, if you look at finals, there are a lot of people in those street classes...

- 2 seat should be separated between modified and modex, not mod-street and modified

- There is a bit too many dos and don'ts. IASCA is probably way too open while MECA is too strict. Even with IASCA lax rules, they still have trouble getting competitors and shows. The 4" driver rule comes to mind. same with venting. By the current rules, if I had a sub that was true IB (not the standard 'trunk' IB) I would be moved to extreme. Modex only allows two 4" vents outside the vehicle.


----------



## Mic10is (Aug 20, 2007)

as I said before--Pick something that has the least amount of ******** for you and go with it.

as Brian said---Read the rules and take them at face value and not look for grey areas.

The MECA rules were rewritten the way they are today with the ALLOWED and NOT ALLOWED lists bc it simplified very ambiguous and vague wording which required someone to read every single class to figure out where they fit in.

Realistically, If you do not have a List of things You can do, and a list of things you cant--people will find grey areas to exploit, whether intentional or not.

There is no way to write rules that encompass every vehicle and every situation, there has to be some leeway and flexibility.


----------



## chefhow (Apr 29, 2007)

Neil_J said:


> From what I recall, it was about the L6SE's being mounted like this:
> 
> - Must maintain virtually stock? Um, sure. Looks virtually stock to me. If I asked some random person they would probably agree that it looks virtually stock. This language is vague, and would NEVER, EVER be allowed in the sort of FAA and other requirements documents that we follow at work.
> - Panels modified specifically for the purpose of improving sound quality? Not really. I hacked a bit of plastic out so that I could mount them. But by no means improved sound quality, quite the opposite. It was the only way that i could get the L6SE's into my doors. I didn't buy the L6SE's for sound quality! I bought them because they looked cool (admittedly a true story). They resonated like crazy and were by no means capable of of a decent score. Only now two years later do they sound decent after adding 25 pounds of deadening to the doors. And that part would be actually okay because it's allowed to add deadening.
> - Speakers in the factory locations? Check. *Maybe that's vague but that's the rule's fault not mine*. THIS IS ANYTHING BUT VAGUE, FACTORY LOCATIONS MEANS FACTORY LOCATIONS, NOT A 1/2" INBOARD OF THE FACTORY LOCATION They are mounted ~1/2" inboard of factory location but they're not mounted on the dash or anything crazy like that. I say I met that one just fine.


In your own words you modified the mounting position/location/and opening of the OEM drivers(which IIRC are a 5 1/4" midbass mounted BEHIND the factory panel and attached to the panel via the grill that is attached to front of the panel.) to accomodate an aftermarket 6.5" driver. The key word in the sentence would be modify, no matter how small you were not allowed to make any mods to the OEM panel for improved SQ. If you would have left them BEHIND the door panel like the existing driver was you probably wouldnt have had any problems with staying in the rooking class even with a 6.5" driver improvement, but you chose to Modify the OEM panel and go with a larger driver which in every competitors eyes is done for improvement not for asthetics.


----------



## quality_sound (Dec 25, 2005)

Then that should also mean that you can't use a spacer AT ALL. How many people mount a speaker without using a spacer or adapter? Just because it's behind the door panel doesn't mean it's the OEM location and that violates the rules. 

Neil's MINI uses a 6.5" OEM midbass driver. I know, I had an R55 MINI. An aftermarket 6.5" will fit. I had Quart QSD-164 midbasses in mine. Will ALL aftermarket 6.5" drivers fit? Of course not. 

But saying he violated the rules because he moved them further in for aethetics is no more a violation than someone that uses a spacer or adapter behind the OEM panel. The only difference is if it's visible. 

This is where integrity comes into play.


----------



## pocket5s (Jan 6, 2012)

Not sure of the OP's opinion on this, but perhaps the specifics of Neil's install could be taken to a different thread? I'm not disputing the validity of the claim and I realize it relates to rules and all that, but debating the specifics wasn't what this thread was intended to be, IMO.


----------



## chefhow (Apr 29, 2007)

quality_sound said:


> Then that should also mean that you can't use a spacer AT ALL. How many people mount a speaker without using a spacer or adapter? Just because it's behind the door panel doesn't mean it's the OEM location and that violates the rules.
> 
> Neil's MINI uses a 6.5" OEM midbass driver. I know, I had an R55 MINI. An aftermarket 6.5" will fit. I had Quart QSD-164 midbasses in mine. Will ALL aftermarket 6.5" drivers fit? Of course not.
> 
> ...


But in Neils build thread he specifically states that it came from the factory with a 5.25" driver, not a 6.5" and that is where he moves out of Rookie and into Amateur


----------



## Navy Chief (Jun 14, 2010)

pocket5s said:


> Not sure of the OP's opinion on this, but perhaps the specifics of Neil's install could be taken to a different thread? I'm not disputing the validity of the claim and I realize it relates to rules and all that, but debating the specifics wasn't what this thread was intended to be, IMO.


You are correct, I did not intend to debate a particular install. The particular install isn't even the issue, it's more that we are now debating IASCA rules in this thread. Maybe a mod could start a new thread that debates the current IASCA rules and move that half of this thread over there.


----------



## pocket5s (Jan 6, 2012)

Navy Chief said:


> You are correct, I did not intend to debate a particular install. The particular install isn't even the issue, it's more that we are now debating IASCA rules in this thread. Maybe a mod could start a new thread that debates the current IASCA rules and move that half of this thread over there.


Very true.


----------



## Darth SQ (Sep 17, 2010)

[email protected] said:


> I like all of your points Justin, but this "-Some kind of recognition for a competitor who does all of his or her own work and tuning, vs someone who pays other people to build and tune their car for them because pay-to-win is currently acceptable." would be VERY difficult as I see it. How would it be proved what was or wasn't done by a person or a shop.
> I do see your point and think that it is a great idea, a true DIY person should deserve some recognition, but where is the line drawn? I am a professional and we talked briefly at the show about how to do something in your car, could someone protest that because it was professional help? (a stretch, but hopefully it illustrates my point)
> 
> I think the reward for a DIY person is more intrinsic. Knowing that any accolades they get they EARNED themselves with their own sweat and blood and hands. I think you could agree that in the end, knowing that is its own reward?


Did he pay for your service Joey?
No, so it doesn't apply.
$$$ exchanged for work performed should be the line.
Any advice given, whether it be a thread on DIYMA, or a pro such as yourself giving advice directly, should not apply.

Jazzi is onto something with this one.

(Addendum)
I would love to see an "Old School" class. :thumbsup:


Bret
PPI-ART COLLECTOR


----------



## pocket5s (Jan 6, 2012)

PPI-ART COLLECTOR said:


> Did he pay for your service Joey?
> No, so it doesn't apply.
> $$$ exchanged for work performed should be the line.
> Any advice given, whether it be a thread on DIYMA, or a pro such as yourself giving advice directly should not apply.
> ...


I have to agree with Joey. Besides, in MECA, there already are various "phat" awards one can win. If you want external recognition, post your build up on as many forums as is appropriate (or not appropriate) and relish in the glorious feedback received. Otherwise relish in the knowledge that you won X place all by yourself and didn't pay someone for a single thing. 

If you are truly heroic you would also never ask a single question, watch a single video, read a book, take a class or read a single piece of advice anywhere. You would learn it all on your own, completely from thin air. That way not a single professional would have any influence on your achievement.


----------



## Darth SQ (Sep 17, 2010)

Niebur3 said:


> You make it sound so terrible. I would have to travel hundreds of miles just to go to a single competition. Is it my fault they don't have competitions in my area?
> 
> OK, how about a single competition where your car can be evaluated to be allowed into finals OR maybe if your car scores above X score, you automatically qualify?
> 
> There are many competitors in my exact situation with cars they would probably do very well. If they want more people at finals, maybe they should think about trying to do something to help.


How about hosting one yourself Jerry?
With the right prior arrangements, I'm sure MECA could provide judging and whatever else is needed to sanction an event.
Just a thought.


Bret
PPI-ART COLLECTOR


----------



## pocket5s (Jan 6, 2012)

As Bret hinted, if you want them to do something, you have to contact them and get info about hosting a show. They don't magically know you want a show wherever you are. Nor do they travel around putting on shows. Local promoters put them on.

Quote from the meca site:


> If you would like to have MECA events closer to home, please contact the Commissioner with contact information on people who may be interested in helping to organize, promote, and fund the events. Or, have them get in touch at: 615-851-7428 or [email protected]
> When you see MECA events in new areas, it is because there are Members helping to recruit and organize people to do the work it takes to put on good events. Not having events in your area is the problem. You can be part of the solution (to quote Michael Earl). Help us help you have events. That's the way it works. Thanks


Or for IASCA, send Moe and email: moe @ iasca.com. He'll point you in the right direction.


----------



## Darth SQ (Sep 17, 2010)

Navy Chief said:


> You are correct, I did not intend to debate a particular install. The particular install isn't even the issue, it's more that we are now debating IASCA rules in this thread. Maybe a mod could start a new thread that debates the current IASCA rules and move that half of this thread over there.


Good idea except as I read through all four pages, there's no defining point on where to separate without screwing up the coherency of this thread.


Bret
PPI-ART COLLECTOR


----------



## Darth SQ (Sep 17, 2010)

pocket5s said:


> I have to agree with Joey. Besides, in MECA, there already are various "phat" awards one can win. If you want external recognition, post your build up on as many forums as is appropriate (or not appropriate) and relish in the glorious feedback received. Otherwise relish in the knowledge that you won X place all by yourself and didn't pay someone for a single thing.
> 
> *If you are truly heroic you would also never ask a single question, watch a single video, read a book, take a class or read a single piece of advice anywhere. You would learn it all on your own, completely from thin air. That way not a single professional would have any influence on your achievement*.



^^^^
Why stop there?
Just re-invent the speaker as well.
A straw man argument since we all build our systems with knowledge disseminated by others more brilliant than us.
When it comes to DIY, the clarification line to me is crystal clear; you either did ""fill in the blank" step yourself, or you paid someone to do it for you. 
Now, considering some of my limited skills with my 2+ year ongoing build as an example, bringing it to Joey is starting to look pretty damn good right now. 
The only reasons stopping me are $$$ and the desire to be able to say that I did it all myself which addresses your first point in which I am in complete agreement with.

I still believe Jazzi is onto something.
I will leave it to you all that create, define, and refine the MECA rules to validate his idea and see if it's plausible.


Bret
PPI-ART COLLECTOR


----------



## chefhow (Apr 29, 2007)

You are all just pissing into the wind if you think after what took them years to do they are going to undo


----------



## Justin Zazzi (May 28, 2012)

Please let this thread be devoted to the new rulebook and not a debate about any one particular protest or ruling.





PPI-ART COLLECTOR said:


> I still believe Jazzi is onto something.
> I will leave it to you all that create, define, and refine the MECA rules to validate his idea and see if it's plausible.
> 
> Bret
> PPI-ART COLLECTOR


When I wrote about that, I was forgetting the PHAT awards. It seems like the complexity of policing such a policy (competitor's work and tuning) would be tremendously challenging _and a magnet for controversy_ (which we are trying to avoid). The PHAT awards seem like the current best method for recognizing something intangible that is not in the formula of the rulebook, and I'm happy with that.

I just hope the awards themselves become more meaningful, either from increased participation or fewer classes or something else. And also that people would take this stuff less seriously at the local competitions and save the drama for state or regional championships.


----------



## captainobvious (Mar 11, 2006)

Mic10is said:


> Perhaps some of the newbies need a quick history lesson as well since many do not know competition History.
> 
> One of the 1st Car Audio competitions was Car Audio Nationals, It was later renamed IASCA. IASCA was the 1st real competition organization. It was largely funded by major manufacturers like Audio Control, MB Quarts, PPI etc...we are talking these companies budgeted several thousands of dollars every year--IASCA was a major source of advertisement for their products.
> This was very late 80s and early 90s.
> ...


Great post. Thanks Mic.


----------



## quality_sound (Dec 25, 2005)

chefhow said:


> But in Neils build thread he specifically states that it came from the factory with a 5.25" driver, not a 6.5" and that is where he moves out of Rookie and into Amateur


So we're going to base the decision on what the owner said was in the car? What if I said I had 10s in the doors?

The point it he could call it a 6x9 but that doesn't mean that's not what's in there from the factory.


----------



## Neil_J (Mar 2, 2011)

quality_sound said:


> So we're going to base the decision on what the owner said was in the car? What if I said I had 10s in the doors?
> 
> The point it he could call it a 6x9 but that doesn't mean that's not what's in there from the factory.


I'm done arguing it here and I think everyone else is too. The point is moot and should be left at that. You guys can argue in my build log or a separate thread if you really want to keep the drama going


----------



## captainobvious (Mar 11, 2006)

Neil_J said:


> Very interesting and informative post
> 
> IASCA flat out refused to let me compete in Rookie when i showed up at my first event. But that's another story  even though i met all the qualifications. It was a judge's shoot-from-the-hip decision. I don't compete in IASCA any more either because of the BS there (namely the fact that you're only judged by a single person instead of three).
> 
> ...



To be fair, I was also not permitted to compete in the Rookie class my first time out as well. But I thought the reasoning/explanation behind this ruling was more than fair and I had zero issue with it. In my case, I was told the level of the install and the locations and modifications done were not that of a rookie level class car and would probably not have been very fair to other guys starting out. I was placed in Pro/Am and was totally in agreement with the assessment. I want to compete with others in a fair manner and thought they made the right call to not put my car in the lower class despite it being my first IASCA competition.

I've heard from various competitors things negative about both IASCA and MECA and reasons for not wanting to compete in one or the other. I've personally had good experiences in both and enjoy the great feedback I get to help me better tune my system for my listening pleasure. Perhaps I don't take the competition aspect as seriously as some others (I try to have fun with it, win or lose and take some positive pointers from some experienced ears in my car), but I do see some guys get really animated about issues with particular judges or organizations.

Likes/Dislikes for each (only have limited experience with MECA/IASCA so keep that in mind):

MECA:
-multiple judges (on 2x and up) equals more feedback as well as an averaged score to avoid "bias".

-Format of classes I think is the best way to keep the competition as fair as possible between like vehicle systems.

-I know this is promoter/event dependent, but scoring results are inconsistent, often times inaccurate and take far too long to be updated to the MECA site.

IASCA:
-More detailed scoring sheet/system which helps to better pinpoint issues with the system

-EXCELLENT new digitally uploaded scoring system reports results quickly and accurately (auto-added!)

-Only negative might be fewer judges?


Personally, I've found the people running the events and the judges to be very nice people (thus far) who have mostly been open to giving feedback. Howard is a great guy as well. I've no doubt he did what he could on Andy's behalf. (Just an unfortunate situation for those involved).


----------



## Mic10is (Aug 20, 2007)

captainobvious said:


> To be fair, I was also not permitted to compete in the Rookie class my first time out as well. But I thought the reasoning/explanation behind this ruling was more than fair and I had zero issue with it. In my case, I was told the level of the install and the locations and modifications done were not that of a rookie level class car and would probably not have been very fair to other guys starting out. I was placed in Pro/Am and was totally in agreement with the assessment. I want to compete with others in a fair manner and thought they made the right call to not put my car in the lower class despite it being my first IASCA competition.
> 
> I've heard from various competitors things negative about both IASCA and MECA and reasons for not wanting to compete in one or the other. I've personally had good experiences in both and enjoy the great feedback I get to help me better tune my system for my listening pleasure. Perhaps I don't take the competition aspect as seriously as some others (I try to have fun with it, win or lose and take some positive pointers from some experienced ears in my car), but I do see some guys get really animated about issues with particular judges or organizations.
> 
> ...


MECA only permits using more than one judge at 3X events where there are SUPPOSE to use 3 judges. 1x and 2x events use 1 judge.
There have been instances, like several VA State Finals (3x) where only one judge was used


----------



## captainobvious (Mar 11, 2006)

Mic10is said:


> MECA only permits using more than one judge at 3X events where there are SUPPOSE to use 3 judges. 1x and 2x events use 1 judge.
> There have been instances, like several VA State Finals (3x) where only one judge was used


Thanks for the clarification.


----------



## quality_sound (Dec 25, 2005)

Neil_J said:


> I'm done arguing it here and I think everyone else is too. The point is moot and should be left at that. You guys can argue in my build log or a separate thread if you really want to keep the drama going


I'm not even talking about your car anymore. This would apply to ALL cars. Yes, yours was the catalyst, but it shows a point for potential issues.


----------



## captainobvious (Mar 11, 2006)

quality_sound said:


> I'm not even talking about your car anymore. This would apply to ALL cars. Yes, yours was the catalyst, but it shows a point for potential issues.


I thought it was pointed out that the modifications done were not consistent with what was acceptable in the Rookie class?

If a judge made a statement about something being "too expensive" to allow competing in a class, well then that's just plain wrong and should be addressed.


----------



## chefhow (Apr 29, 2007)

captainobvious said:


> I thought it was pointed out that the modifications done were not consistent with what was acceptable in the Rookie class?
> 
> If a judge made a statement about something being "too expensive" to allow competing in a class, well then that's just plain wrong and should be addressed.


This^^^^^


----------



## quality_sound (Dec 25, 2005)

Then no one saw my post right after that about how his rings were no different than the spacers EVERYONE uses because they ALL bring the speakers closer to the listening environment. The only difference is, you could see Neil's. In most cars it's behind the OEM panel. What is the difference? 

I agree with the part about the cost of the equipment 100%. Something like that will turn people off REAL quick.


----------



## Neil_J (Mar 2, 2011)

I was going to try and let it die but since it keeps getting brought up.



quality_sound said:


> I agree with the part about the cost of the equipment 100%. Something like that will turn people off REAL quick.


That's pretty much verbatim what the judge told me as well, as I pointed out earlier in the thread. "It wouldn't be fair to let you compete against other people in the novice class". Some may question my recollection there but I'm telling you that's what happened, period. Anyone that doubts me there can go to hell.

The interpretation of the midbass panels were pointed out later which is why I didn't contest it. The comment about being unfair to compete in novice came first. And the only reason I even brought it up was to point out how the rule is extremely vague and can be misinterpreted, especially to a someone in their first year of competing. 

Which again is a moot point. 

But yea, that's all I gotta say about that. I'm done.


----------



## djPerfectTrip (Aug 15, 2013)

Navy Chief said:


> And my big one, I think there are too many classes.
> 
> Also, I would love to see an "old school" class


lol, whut?


Mindcrime said:


> I like the old school idea. I also agree, there are too many classes.


lol, whut? (again)

Sorry, no constructive input since I'm not a competitor, just found these posts amusing


----------



## chefhow (Apr 29, 2007)

quality_sound said:


> Then no one saw my post right after that about how his rings were no different than the spacers EVERYONE uses because they ALL bring the speakers closer to the listening environment. The only difference is, you could see Neil's. In most cars it's behind the OEM panel. What is the difference?
> 
> I agree with the part about the cost of the equipment 100%. Something like that will turn people off REAL quick.


I read your comment and the rules stated that he couldn't upgrade or change his locations for SQ purposes. He went from a 5.25 to a 6.5 driver, that violates the rules of Rookie Class. That was my entire point.


----------



## Navy Chief (Jun 14, 2010)

djPerfectTrip said:


> lol, whut?
> 
> lol, whut? (again)
> 
> Sorry, no constructive input since I'm not a competitor, just found these posts amusing


I appreciate that you have no constructive criticism, however what are the what's about. Do you not understand the desire of an old school class or why doing things " old school" is more challenging. Here is my original post defining my ideas for an old school class, maybe this will answer your what's.



Navy Chief said:


> I still think the old school class is a cool idea, however I pictured it as less of a class and more like a competition grouping with additional rules that define old school. The key difference between competing today and back in the early days is that today competing is a la cart, whereas in the beginning you had to do all parts of a competition not just one. In my opinion "old school" division should be similar to the current BOBOS rules minus park and pound, so SQL, SPL, RTA and install. If a competitor wanted to enter "old school" he would enter and pay for his normal SQL class, install class, SPL class and RTA, he would earn points in each of those respective competitions as well as the points from all 4 combined to generate an "old school" score. So it wouldn't be an actual class but more of a required competition style, this would hopefully boost more cross-competing at MECA shows.
> 
> The catch to the "old school" class is that you would have to meet certain "old school" criteria to enter the class. In my opinion that would be no DSPs (only conventional EQs and xovers), class a or a/b and tube amps only, maybe no wideband drivers (these were not common back then). Now these limitations would not necessarily require old equipment, just equipment of old school limitations. Also you could put caveats in the install criteria that said maximum points could only be awarded if actually old equipment (refurbished would count) was used in the install. I personally would love to see guys having to setup a soundstage with no time alignment.
> 
> These are just my thoughts, what do you guys think.


----------



## Mic10is (Aug 20, 2007)

a Truly old school division would put limitations on manufacturing dates of equipment. Say nothing before 2000 or so.
Basically meaning that everything would be time period based installs in a way.

But with that caveat---there were Digital DSP available. Pioneer ODR, Sony XDP4000x, RFX EPX/Symmetry, Clarion ADCS, Orion DEQ30, Image Dynamics/Yahama YDG2040...

also to stay consistent--Old school class would need to be 2 seat judging. 1 seat judging really didnt come into effect until around 2002.


----------



## chefhow (Apr 29, 2007)

Mic10is said:


> also to stay consistent--Old school class would need to be 2 seat judging. 1 seat judging really didnt come into effect until around 2002.


Dont forget the mandatory Install, RTA and SPL judging that was part of SQ.


----------



## djPerfectTrip (Aug 15, 2013)

Navy Chief said:


> I appreciate that you have no constructive criticism, however what are the what's about. Do you not understand the desire of an old school class or why doing things " old school" is more challenging. Here is my original post defining my ideas for an old school class, maybe this will answer your what's.


It has more to do with the posts stating there are too many classes but they want to add a class.


----------



## captainobvious (Mar 11, 2006)

quality_sound said:


> Then no one saw my post right after that about how his rings were no different than the spacers EVERYONE uses because they ALL bring the speakers closer to the listening environment. The only difference is, you could see Neil's. In most cars it's behind the OEM panel. What is the difference?
> 
> I agree with the part about the cost of the equipment 100%. Something like that will turn people off REAL quick.



You just stated the difference. Behind the panel vs in front where the speaker is exposed. It does not appear "stock" because it's not behind the panel.


----------



## quality_sound (Dec 25, 2005)

You're missing the point. The point was that they both "create a sonic advantage by moving the speakers closer to the listening environment". How far in is kind of moot.


----------



## Darth SQ (Sep 17, 2010)

Mic10is said:


> a Truly old school division would put limitations on manufacturing dates of equipment. Say nothing before 2000 or so.
> Basically meaning that everything would be time period based installs in a way.
> 
> But with that caveat---there were Digital DSP available. Pioneer ODR, Sony XDP4000x, RFX EPX/Symmetry, Clarion ADCS, Orion DEQ30, Image Dynamics/Yahama YDG2040...
> ...


I'd pay the extra $15-20 per event for an OS class.
I'd even consider tailoring my equipment to accommodate the rules just to participate.


Bret
PPI-ART COLLECTOR


----------



## Mindcrime (Jul 18, 2012)

PPI-ART COLLECTOR said:


> I'd pay the extra $15-20 per event for an OS class.
> I'd even consider tailoring my equipment to accommodate the rules just to participate.
> 
> 
> ...


I would be all in for that as well


----------



## dietDrThunder (Nov 4, 2010)

I'm not going to re-hash my rules nightmare that drove me away from competing, but I do want to chime in.

There is one fundamental change that is needed, and that is for MECA to lose the idea that the rulebook is a general guideline, to be interpreted every time it is referred to. For any competition to be fair and robust, the rules must be set in stone, before the season starts, and adhered to with commitment and diligence.

The main reason there are arguments and disputes is that the rules are not specific or clear enough on many circumstances to remove doubt, and to not leave circumstances open to interpretation. Of course there are always going to be situations that are new or complex that require thought and insight, but the _vast_ majority of problems would not exist if the rules were clear, and those enforcing them did so with consistency and commitment.


----------



## Mindcrime (Jul 18, 2012)

dietDrThunder said:


> I'm not going to re-hash my rules nightmare that drove me away from competing, but I do want to chime in.
> 
> There is one fundamental change that is needed, and that is for MECA to lose the idea that the rulebook is a general guideline, to be interpreted every time it is referred to. For any competition to be fair and robust, the rules must be set in stone, before the season starts, and adhered to with commitment and diligence.
> 
> The main reason there are arguments and disputes is that the rules are not specific or clear enough on many circumstances to remove doubt, and to not leave circumstances open to interpretation. Of course there are always going to be situations that are new or complex that require thought and insight, but the _vast_ majority of problems would not exist if the rules were clear, and those enforcing them did so with consistency and commitment.


I agree with this 100% , I have heard some pretty messed up interpretations of rules lately.


----------



## pocket5s (Jan 6, 2012)

Many have said the same, on this thread and elsewhere. if they only did this, which honestly should NOT be that difficult, people would be far less apt to get upset.


----------



## Navy Chief (Jun 14, 2010)

Sounds like overall everyone is happy with the rules as intended and the class structure. Everyone just wants more clarification of the rules and concrete decisions made about how they are interpreted.


----------



## quality_sound (Dec 25, 2005)

I would agree with that. 

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I537 using Tapatalk now Free


----------



## Octave (Dec 12, 2010)

Navy Chief said:


> Sounds like overall everyone is happy with the rules as intended and the class structure. Everyone just wants more clarification of the rules and concrete decisions made about how they are interpreted.


I would have to agree with this. I think if there were more clarification the Neil situation wouldn't of have happened. The rule structure to me seems fair because like stated somewhere in this thread the actual set ups of the vehicle puts you into a class and that to me sounds fair because you're competing against like set ups. 

On adding an old school class I'm ALL FOR IT!! I'm a kid of the 90's and a competitor of the 90's. To be able to go back to that and relive that time would be awesome along with all the great equipment of that day.


----------



## pocket5s (Jan 6, 2012)

Clarification and not changing after the fact are the biggest. There are a few that don't seem to overly make any sense that could be changed/finessed IMO.

Old school sounds cool, but doubt it will ever happen for the simple fact of lack of support. IASCA offered that for SBN this year and I don't think it went anywhere. Half a dozen or even a dozen people across the country wanting a whole new old school class structure doesn't really make it viable. As it is there isn't enough competitors..


----------



## Octave (Dec 12, 2010)

pocket5s said:


> Clarification and not changing after the fact are the biggest. There are a few that don't seem to overly make any sense that could be changed/finessed IMO.
> 
> Old school sounds cool, but doubt it will ever happen for the simple fact of lack of support. IASCA offered that for SBN this year and I don't think it went anywhere. Half a dozen or even a dozen people across the country wanting a whole new old school class structure doesn't really make it viable. As it is there isn't enough competitors..


Not changing. Yes. That's the other point. I think a refinement of the rules is what's in order. 

Agreed on the old school format. I mean we are complaining about not enough competitors as it is. But it would still be cool to have if there was the support for it.


----------



## Navy Chief (Jun 14, 2010)

I am not proposing an old school class specifically, more of an old school competition format. Here is what I wrote previously.

"I still think the old school class is a cool idea, however I pictured it as less of a class and more like a competition grouping with additional rules that define old school. The key difference between competing today and back in the early days is that today competing is a la cart, whereas in the beginning you had to do all parts of a competition not just one. In my opinion "old school" division should be similar to the current BOBOS rules minus park and pound, so SQL, SPL, RTA and install. If a competitor wanted to enter "old school" he would enter and pay for his normal SQL class, install class, SPL class and RTA, he would earn points in each of those respective competitions as well as the points from all 4 combined to generate an "old school" score. So it wouldn't be an actual class but more of a required competition style, this would hopefully boost more cross-competing at MECA shows. 

The catch to the "old school" class is that you would have to meet certain "old school" criteria to enter the class. In my opinion that would be no DSPs (only conventional EQs and xovers), class a or a/b and tube amps only, maybe no wideband drivers (these were not common back then). Now these limitations would not necessarily require old equipment, just equipment of old school limitations. Also you could put caveats in the install criteria that said maximum points could only be awarded if actually old equipment (refurbished would count) was used in the install. I personally would love to see guys having to setup a soundstage with no time alignment."

I think the biggest advantage is getting guys to do more than just SQL at a show. Currently the average SQL competitor only spends his $30 on SQL only and that is usually it. Using the above idea you would spend say $100 on 4 competitions at a package price (i.e. you saved $20) for doing SQL, SPL, RTA and install. MECA show hosts make more revenue this way and you end up with more competitors overall, this is good for the sport overall in my opinion. Would also be nice to see guys building cars that can do it all like we used to.


----------



## Mindcrime (Jul 18, 2012)

Navy Chief said:


> I am not proposing an old school class specifically, more of an old school competition format. Here is what I wrote previously.
> 
> "I still think the old school class is a cool idea, however I pictured it as less of a class and more like a competition grouping with additional rules that define old school. The key difference between competing today and back in the early days is that today competing is a la cart, whereas in the beginning you had to do all parts of a competition not just one. In my opinion "old school" division should be similar to the current BOBOS rules minus park and pound, so SQL, SPL, RTA and install. If a competitor wanted to enter "old school" he would enter and pay for his normal SQL class, install class, SPL class and RTA, he would earn points in each of those respective competitions as well as the points from all 4 combined to generate an "old school" score. So it wouldn't be an actual class but more of a required competition style, this would hopefully boost more cross-competing at MECA shows.
> 
> ...


I like it! I was dicussing this at the Az state finals... I would love to see old school judging, you had to put some thought into your tuning, you might pick up a few points in RTA, but loose in SPL or SQ, it was kind of balancing act.


----------



## UNBROKEN (Sep 25, 2009)

I can't hardly figure out where I fit in the rules...I'm just gonna show up one day and let them decide where it fits.


----------



## Mic10is (Aug 20, 2007)

Mindcrime said:


> I like it! I was dicussing this at the Az state finals... *I would love to see old school judging, you had to put some thought into your tuning, you might pick up a few points in RTA, but loose in SPL or SQ, it was kind of balancing act.*


You would be one of the VERY few who would love to see this happen again. Majority of current competitors would never understand it and realistically it could never go back to being THAT old school that it had to be done with no changes.
People figured out ways to cheat back the when technology wasnt nearly as advanced as it is today....now changing a Preset is as easy and bluetooth


----------



## Mindcrime (Jul 18, 2012)

Mic10is said:


> You would be one of the VERY few who would love to see this happen again. Majority of current competitors would never understand it and realistically it could never go back to being THAT old school that it had to be done with no changes.
> People figured out ways to cheat back the when technology wasnt nearly as advanced as it is today....now changing a Preset is as easy and bluetooth


True enough.... But I think there are ways to mix old and new.... 

My issue is some of the systems I have seen for BOBOS... These guys have two complete systems in there cars, one for SQ and one for SPL... I mean right down to the decks... Seems crazy to me... I thought the point was to build 1 system that does everything well, at least that is the way I took it.


----------



## Mindcrime (Jul 18, 2012)

Mic10is said:


> You would be one of the VERY few who would love to see this happen again. Majority of current competitors would never understand it and realistically it could never go back to being THAT old school that it had to be done with no changes.
> People figured out ways to cheat back the when technology wasnt nearly as advanced as it is today....now changing a Preset is as easy and bluetooth


Btw, tuning between RTA and SQ was allowed back in the day... It wasnt until later that they changed the rules and took that away.


----------



## Mic10is (Aug 20, 2007)

Mindcrime said:


> Btw, tuning between RTA and SQ was allowed back in the day... It wasnt until later that they changed the rules and took that away.


The original rules were no adjustments between RTA/SQ and SPL. SPl was done full range using a track like L'Daddy-James Newton Howard.

Then they went to allowed to make adjustments Between RTA and SQ and people starting using a single 1/3octave EQ for RTA.

Then SPL became an almost separate entity on its own when people started using just subwoofers for SPL, and people started building exactly what you said--2 separate Systems in the same vehicle.

People will always want to try and beat the system instead of accepting the challenge of playing by the actual rules.


----------



## Mindcrime (Jul 18, 2012)

Mic10is said:


> The original rules were no adjustments between RTA/SQ and SPL. SPl was done full range using a track like L'Daddy-James Newton Howard.
> 
> Then they went to allowed to make adjustments Between RTA and SQ and people starting using a single 1/3octave EQ for RTA.
> 
> ...


The first IASCA finals at the ASU practice field, the rules allowed the change between RTA and SQ, we built my system with this in mind, the following season they changed that rule, then i had two EQ's for no real reason...lol. 

I agree, but to me this is one thing that should and can be addressed, sure there will always be a few that try to cheat... But I think people would think twice before spending stupid $ to build 2 systems in one vehicle.... Maybe i am just getting too old... But I would prefer to build one system that does everything well. I take it as one hell of a challenge


----------



## Navy Chief (Jun 14, 2010)

I think Mic is right that times have just changed too much. I am going to go with the theory that real men will do BOBOS and have a well rounded system. At PA state finals I did BOBOS (the only one of course), i took first in everything except Park and Pound. I got a 75 on SQL and then did a 135db at 33hz on SPL, all I did was increase attenuation on the subs and decrease on everything else just in case.

I guess I am just a dinosaur and remember "the good old days" too well.


----------



## Mindcrime (Jul 18, 2012)

Navy Chief said:


> I guess I am just a dinosaur and remember "the good old days" too well.


Lol, I hear ya.....


----------



## Mic10is (Aug 20, 2007)

I competed when SQ 2 seat, one seat wasnt even a thought yet, had to do Install with some of the most critical install judges ever, then RTA and SPL.
I also competed in USAC where SPL was unlimited.

Like Robert mentioned above--IASCA attempted to have an Old Skool showdown at SBN-they only needed a handful of entries. 
It resulted in more people volunteering to judge than those that could actually compete.


----------



## Mindcrime (Jul 18, 2012)

When I got back into this madness somebody asked me if i was going to do SQ 2.... I had no clue there was single seat judging! I want to enter SQ2, but nobody hear does it, in fact I think it would be hard to find 2 judges


----------



## Mic10is (Aug 20, 2007)

I actually talked to a "new" competitor this year who was interested in hosting an event at the shop that built his vehicle. He competed back in the 90s.
I asked him if he was interested in doing just sound quality or if he wanted to do SPL too.

he said " I want to do it all, install, RTA , SPL..everything"

I said well Ok, but pretty much noone competed in Install anymore or RTA and for SPl I have to bring someone else in bc I dont own a termlab.


and then there was silence...and some confusion and then more silence.

Then

"what do you mean noone does Install,RTA and SPL is separate???"

then I had to give a history lesson.....


----------



## Mindcrime (Jul 18, 2012)

Bwahahahaha. I would do bobos if it was one system.... It would be the closest to old school... We actually have a few install competitors here, almost no RTA, infact if you enter RTA you get a 35 because the EC doesnt have an RTA... We have a handfull of SQ guys, but they never show up at the same time...


----------



## Darth SQ (Sep 17, 2010)

Mindcrime said:


> The first IASCA finals at the ASU practice field, the rules allowed the change between RTA and SQ, we built my system with this in mind, the following season they changed that rule, then i had two EQ's for no real reason...lol.
> 
> I agree, but to me this is one thing that should and can be addressed, sure there will always be a few that try to cheat... But I think people would think twice before spending stupid $ to build 2 systems in one vehicle.... Maybe i am just getting too old... But I would prefer to build one system that does everything well. I take it as one hell of a challenge


I was at that show!!!
What an amazing event!
It was the seminal moment in car audio competition and manufacturer's demo vehicles. 


Bret
PPI-ART COLLECTOR


----------



## Darth SQ (Sep 17, 2010)

Mic10is said:


> I competed when SQ 2 seat, one seat wasnt even a thought yet, had to do Install with some of the most critical install judges ever, then RTA and SPL.
> I also competed in USAC where SPL was unlimited.
> 
> Like Robert mentioned above--*IASCA attempted to have an Old Skool showdown at SBN-they only needed a handful of entries.
> It resulted in more people volunteering to judge than those that could actually compete*.


Because only a handful of vehicles in all of the U.S. could meet the criteria.
Not a fair example.


Bret
PPI-ART COLLECTOR


----------



## Mindcrime (Jul 18, 2012)

PPI-ART COLLECTOR said:


> I was at that show!!!
> What an amazing event!
> It was the seminal moment in car audio competition and manufacturer's demo vehicles.
> 
> ...


It was one hell of an event... I was in 251-500 , there was some crazy number of cars in that class... 110 or somethng like that, I ended up 9th I think...


----------



## Darth SQ (Sep 17, 2010)

Mindcrime said:


> It was one hell of an event... I was in 251-500 , there was some crazy number of cars in that class... 110 or somethng like that, I ended up 9th I think...


Well done!
I was in 100-250 watts.
I don't even remember how I did and didn't really care because there was so much to see and hear that day.

Remember this truck? 




How's that for old school? 
Feels like a whole lifetime ago.
Hey, you wouldn't happen to have a copy of the Car Audio Nats cd from back then would you?


Bret
PPI-ART COLLECTOR


----------



## SQrules (May 25, 2007)

Mic10is said:


> People will always want to try and beat the system instead of accepting the challenge of playing by the actual rules.


This is true. Someone will design an App for their phone to control their DSP to change settings between SQ, RTA, SPL and probably for each track of SQ and noise testing. No way to police it. 
It was more of a challenge back in the day though. Good times!


----------



## SQrules (May 25, 2007)

PPI-ART COLLECTOR said:


> Hey, you wouldn't happen to have a copy of the Car Audio Nats cd from back then would you?
> 
> 
> Bret
> PPI-ART COLLECTOR


I have the original and will have it with at Finals. 

David Hogan


----------



## Mic10is (Aug 20, 2007)

SQrules said:


> This is true. Someone will design an App for their phone to control their DSP to change settings between SQ, RTA, SPL and probably for each track of SQ and noise testing. No way to police it.
> It was more of a challenge back in the day though. Good times!


I can already do that with my Mosconi 6to8 via bluetooth

and even back in the 2000s I know people who had PC sets up that could change eq settings based on track selection using ODR etc...


----------



## Darth SQ (Sep 17, 2010)

SQrules said:


> I have the original and will have it with at Finals.
> 
> David Hogan




OMG!
Pm sent. 


Bret
PPI-ART COLLECTOR


----------

