296 replies to this topic

[Tom OPM]

I suggest we do one or both of the following...  

 

1. Create a letter and petition to send to both NASA and SCCA (there are online services for this and I will set it up if there is support for it)  explaining the racers position on maintaining the plunge cut rule.  This way we can sign it quickly and easily.

 

2. Request a meeting with both NASA and SCCA to present the position and talk through it.  Someone should be designated to do this.  I have an abundance of air miles and will donate 1 plane ticket the designee or volunteer to go myself.  My wife will give me some grief on the air miles because she really likes those but it's worth it.  

 

Racers weren't invited to the table for the initial discussion, so we need to ask for the opportunity to be heard face to face.  

Its a start and a good idea, I'm behind it.

[chris haldeman]

Tom, create the petition!! I will spread the word down here. Once signatures are in place we can request a meeting. Needs too be soon

[Tom Sager]

Tom, create the petition!! I will spread the word down here. Once signatures are in place we can request a meeting. Needs too be soon

OK, will get it teed up tonight.  

[Chris Ashcraft]

OK, will get it teed up tonight.  

Not that my vote means a ton as i have only been doing this 2 years but i am on board!! 

[FTodaro]

I will commit a 100.00 to the costs of the cause to get the word across that the CLASS is not on board, air fair hotel or what ever. Who is collecting?

[dstevens]

If Paul's statement above is correct, then, in my opinion, the SCCA has left themselves wide open for legal action.  They disqualified people at the runoffs for a violation they say is nearly impossible to verify.  If we had gone to the runoffs and had been disqualified, I would now be contacting my lawyer to file suit against the SCCA for defamation of character (I am now a cheater).  They can't have it both ways.  Either they can verify that the plunge cut was illegal or they can't. 

 

Pat

You gotta be shittin' me...

 

We're supposed to be mature, reasonable adults here.  Reasonable being spending into five figures to race for a ten buck trophy.  Threatening a suit is preposterous.  I see much bluster, fist pounding and several downright tantrums. I see very little, in fact almost no constructive effort to have your issues addressed.  Pretty much like Congress.  There is a lot of "there should be" or "there could be" couched with "but I'm no expert on engines".  If you don't know about engines, how would you know what was possible or repeatable?    Paul and Craig seem to have approaches that at least have some thought and a reasonable approach.  If you guys want your input heard that's going to be the way forward instead of threats and temper tantrums.

 

At some point the benefits of Mazda's direct involvement could become more trouble than it's worth.  Sure, there's a bit of direct parts sales involved but it's basically an ad campaign directed to hobby racers and hobby race enthusists.  Compated to the size of the company they aren't making that much on the parts.  As you guys move forward, keep this in mind, would you be able to participate at your current level without the benefit of MSM discounted parts, tow fund and contengencies?  Obviously they've signed off on this so ask yourself if making a decision to eliminate Mazda's participation from the class is worth it.  This is a promotional vehicle for them and if it's more of a black eye or trouble than it's worth it's possible they'll focus on other efforts and stop supporting the class in the manner they do currently.

[dstevens]

I will commit a 100.00 to the costs of the cause to get the word across that the CLASS is not on board, air fair hotel or what ever. Who is collecting?

You don't know what the class as a whole thinks.  At this point a few dozen here have expressed discontent with the rules.  Many don't use the site and others that do are not likely to comment as the blowback from the torch and pitchfork crowd is something they don't wish to deal with.

 

Perhaps the majority of the class is against it, perhaps not.  What if the number of regional racers that were for the change outnumbered those that race Majors?  Would you consider that mandate to be more representitive of the class?  You can't gauge the wishes of the entire class from a single forum.  A better approach is what they are doing in Texas by meeting, crafting a coherent message and addressing the issues with their representitive from the board.  That may not get what you want but at least you'll get the opportunity to be heard.  I'd guarantee that if the responses are as emotionally charged as in some of these posts, including yours, the points of view won't be taken seriously.

[MPR22]

You gotta be shittin' me...
 
We're supposed to be mature, reasonable adults here.  Reasonable being spending into five figures to race for a ten buck trophy.  Threatening a suit is preposterous.  I see much bluster, fist pounding and several downright tantrums. I see very little, in fact almost no constructive effort to have your issues addressed.  Pretty much like Congress.  There is a lot of "there should be" or "there could be" couched with "but I'm no expert on engines".  If you don't know about engines, how would you know what was possible or repeatable?    Paul and Craig seem to have approaches that at least have some thought and a reasonable approach.  If you guys want your input heard that's going to be the way forward instead of threats and temper tantrums.
 
At some point the benefits of Mazda's direct involvement could become more trouble than it's worth.  Sure, there's a bit of direct parts sales involved but it's basically an ad campaign directed to hobby racers and hobby race enthusists.  Compated to the size of the company they aren't making that much on the parts.  As you guys move forward, keep this in mind, would you be able to participate at your current level without the benefit of MSM discounted parts, tow fund and contengencies?  Obviously they've signed off on this so ask yourself if making a decision to eliminate Mazda's participation from the class is worth it.  This is a promotional vehicle for them and if it's more of a black eye or trouble than it's worth it's possible they'll focus on other efforts and stop supporting the class in the manner they do currently.

Oops this is gonna smart.

[FTodaro]

You don't know what the class as a whole thinks.  At this point a few dozen here have expressed discontent with the rules.  Many don't use the site and others that do are not likely to comment as the blowback from the torch and pitchfork crowd is something they don't wish to deal with.

 

Perhaps the majority of the class is against it, perhaps not.  What if the number of regional racers that were for the change outnumbered those that race Majors?  Would you consider that mandate to be more representitive of the class?  You can't gauge the wishes of the entire class from a single forum.  A better approach is what they are doing in Texas by meeting, crafting a coherent message and addressing the issues with their representitive from the board.  That may not get what you want but at least you'll get the opportunity to be heard.  I'd guarantee that if the responses are as emotionally charged as in some of these posts, including yours, the points of view won't be taken seriously.

I plan on attacking this his issue on more that one front. Yes i am a bit worked up but my approach will be reasoned.

 

I am on the rule committee for the GLD Divisional we are meeting this weekend. i will explore those resources,

 

Agreed I do not know what the entire class thinks, and i think we can work on discovering this in detail.

 

If people have a contrary opinion, and do not express if for fear of blow-back then that is their problem. i have never criticized anyone for their opinion, and have challenged those who make personal attacks. I disagree with people for a living and know how to maintain professional prospective,

 

All your points well taken.

[dstevens]

 

 

If people have a contrary opinion, and do not express if for fear of blow-back then that is their problem. i have never criticized anyone for their opinion, and have challenged those who make personal attacks. I disagree with people for a living and know how to maintain professional prospective,

 

All your points well taken.

Thanks.  I think a lot of those people voice an opinion, just not here.  John posted there were many letters of support.  Those that are supportive are likely working behind the scenes.

[Craig Berry]

I am with Sager.

[Cnj]

I want to reiterate how the SCCA system works before we get lost in an unproductive path.

 

Letters go to the CRB.  One letter at a time, one subject at a time.  Submit them on the web site so they are date and time stamped.  Consider these as your votes.  Don't get caught up in the "thank you for your input response" as that is not what matters here.   The votes will be counted if they are as clear as a yea/nay for a given subject and then this information will be passed on to the BOD for their vote for the rules ratification.  The BOD is VERY unlikely to vote against a massive letter campaign (unless there is malfeasance or financial impact on the club).

 

So... we can do a petition and thats fine (i'm on board by the way), but be sure that each and every one of us also then writes a separate letter to the CRB so that it GOES THROUGH THE SYSTEM.   Now, meeting with your region BOD member is a separate thing.  This is also a good thing as it allows you to get a handle on the back story and to present to him/her the level of concern that our community may have.   

 

As it relates to presenting a solution - this is a good idea.  The bottom line is this - we need to find a technical method for volunteer inspectors to accurately measure compliance of the heads on site.  We cant ask them to send the heads away to Mazda or to Topeka for compliance checks.   If we can come up with this solution (which the working group has said is not viable) then we have solved the puzzle and we can argue cogently for the current rule to stand.  If we cannot come up with this solution, then we need to quit and all go buy new heads (or add weight) and accept the fallout that I think will follow.  Of course some of you might actually have a mythical stock head in your car - which is parked next to your unicorn. 

 

Note that our strongest argument against the "stock head" rule is simply variance of heads and the requirement to test compliance (ie. ensure some are not cheating them).  If we don't have a method of testing now, then we wont have a method of testing then - so its a moot point and we might as well stay with a visual inspection method (which appeared to have worked to the satisfaction of some at the Runnoffs). 

 

Remember, if you dont like the rule as proposed write a letter!!  If you do nothing then the rule will pass for sure.

For the TWS guys, i suggest we meet and talk before you send your letters (for or against) as I think that we will learn a  lot and if we develop unity (likely I suspect) then we can all submit letters after saturday.  

 

cnj

[TommyB]

Please help me understand this a little better.

 

As I read it,are the rules makers  saying.in essence?

 

Race all season if you want with a "illegal head". All you need to do is add some weight which is YTBD. Yes, you can win races, earn trophies , even win your regional or divisional championship and perhaps even earn an invitation to the Runoffs.

Heck, you might even win contingency prizes and get your picture taken while on the podium.....but don't you dare show up at the Runoffs with this 'illegal head" because you will not be welcome.

 

Sounds like one set of rules for the regular season and another for the Runoffs or am I missing something.

 

I think we use to call this "management by exception".

[Cnj]

Tommy, what you are missing is that there is a penalty weight being proposed that not only will equalize the cars for the "gain" of the heads, but further penalize use of these heads.  So yes, come with your head based on the old rule, but your car will be slow.

 

By the way, it wont be illegal if the BOD votes this rule in.  Language matters...

 

Cnj

[Alberto]

^I have a stock unmolested head in my 1.6.

[tferranti]

Tommy, what you are missing is that there is a penalty weight being proposed that not only will equalize the cars for the "gain" of the heads, but further penalize use of these heads.  So yes, come with your head based on the old rule, but your car will be slow.

 

By the way, it wont be illegal if the BOD votes this rule in.  Language matters...

 

Cnj

 

Who will tech this during the season?  Please don't say the honor system.  I guess we could hire the TSA to scan engines?

[Parity]

 

Here are some pics of a $150 bore scope. It comes with a little mirror attachment at the end to get a perpendicular view of the wall. We can make an attachment to install in the head port with the stop at the desired length. Install the probe and view the port. Any marks below the waterline in rejected. Period. The scope can even record images which can be instantly sent for further review in needed.

[chris haldeman]

If there is no measurement or tool like there already is now. There is nothing too tech. This is one very large problem with proposed "stock" part

[chris haldeman]

Scope will work good for str work checking.

[chris haldeman]

The plunge will never be inspect able even off and disassembled with out a number and a tool. Funny part is we already have that and no car has ever been over the limit since the new quality tool