153 replies to this topic

[Tom Hampton]

Letter #15566. Also emailed a copy to:


BOD@scca.com, JohnMueller@DriveNASA.com, support@mazdamotorsports.com

[Dave Metz]

Signed. #300

[FTodaro]

Signed. #300

Nice Dave ding,ding, ding you get a wonderful door prize. a new head gasket in case this falls on its face.

[Dave Metz]

Nice Dave ding,ding, ding you get a wonderful door prize. a new head gasket in case this falls on its face.

Will remember that. I have witnesses!

[john mueller]

Nice Dave ding,ding, ding you get a wonderful door prize. a new head gasket in case this falls on its face.

 

HAHAHAHA. 

[dfuser]

I signed, however I think Mazda will force everyone to go to un-modified stock heads.

[Tom Sager]

.

[Steve Scheifler]

I don't know how many of the 301 and counting are actual SM racers, but if a majority have also sent a letter even saying simply "I support the core ideas expressed in the (link) petition to ...", it should set some kind of record. Already double what I expected, and I'd be impressed even if I disagreed.

[Tom Hampton]

The real question is what action will people take if the scca/nasa reject the proposal outright and continue down the stock head path?

I've declared in my letter that I will not participate in any event by either org if that happens. Switching classes does nothing---they still get my money.

[jthuney]

Does this petition support the continued use of the cheater heads in question at the runoffs? Just want to be clear on what I signed.

[Steve Scheifler]

Does this petition support the continued use of the cheater heads in question at the runoffs? Just want to be clear on what I signed.

That struck me as funny and I was about to post something snide, but that would have been unfair. I'm guessing that not returning to "stock" is your priority and the rest collateral, or not. Reasonable enough.

Certainly some heads found to be non-compliant would be covered by the proposed rule, while some of the more aggressively manicured ones likely not. Some plunge cuts were said to be a few thou below the max and those might clean up if taken to the limit.

But it's still pretty funny.

[jthuney]

Happy to entertain you Steve. Glad you weren't snide because I do not believe that the 1.6 crowd has a chance either way. We can't run with the newer cars as it is with the existing heads and the same holds true if we go all stock heads. That is not reasonable to me because in order to compete I am going to have to upgrade to a 99 or newer car and eat a good portion of the money I paid for my 1990 boat anchor 16 months ago.

 

So the answer to my question is yes. Thank you

[dstevens]

I signed, however I think Mazda will force everyone to go to un-modified stock heads.

They aren't forcing you to do anything.  You would be choosing to race or not just as Mazda chooses to support the class or not.  Failing a change you can get your region to run a class with rules that are more palatable.   Mazda has stated what they want to see in the class and I don't know that a letter writing campaign will change that but it may be able to convince the sanction not to approve the change. Which may cause Mazda to reconsider some of the support for the class, contingency, tow fund, paddock space.  I don't think they'd axe MSM memberships for SM as they allow them for pretty much any SCCA or NASA class or TT, solo, etc but they may decide it's not worth the drama and focus on SM5, B-Spec and MX5 Cup.  To my knowledge and recollection (from about 2003 on) Mazda getting involved like this, at least publicly is unprecedented.  

 

I think it's an ill informed opinion to think Mazda decided they wish the see the class return to its roots without thinking about it in detail.  Not the technical details so much as the business case and marketing details and how the current situation impacts Mazda's efforts to use the class as a marketing platform.  They are looking at it first from a perspective of how it works for them. They don't need the grief though at this point the class could continue without their support.  This is a marketing program for them, not a technology program and if the direction isn't to their liking i wouldn't expect the level of support to remain as it is now. 

 

How many of you would really walk away from the thousands of dollars in cars and race equipment over what is basically a couple of grand over a few seasons?  I think the bulk of the anger isn't the money, some of these guys spend two to three times that in tires a season, let alone over three years or the fuel bill for towing to the Runoffs.  I think being left out of the decision making process was a bigger issue for some folks.

[Johnny D]

IMO,

Mazda is at the table but has no comment but is willing to support the clubs as best they can.

 

The clubs are acting as one, with SCCA not trusting the foxes that guarded the hen house, getting us in the mess were in, even though they have the most knowledge for what's best for the class moving forward. So they look at NASA for guidance which is where we are now.

 

The stock head ruling is the most expensive for anyone/everyone who has a plunge cut in the last 5 years and is bad for parity which we have worked so hard to get, most effecting of for the 1.6's.

 

Then you have the petition created by those that have cheated up head, wishing to keep their heads, keeping parity poor and keeping 1.6's in the hole at most tracks.

Those that were legal will have to pay to get the mod's to their heads, which I don't think is fair for those following the rules

 

I'm for keeping the 2014 rules, enforcing the rules, I guess a weight penalty for the cheaters, tweaking the rules in favor of the 1.6's/1.8's,

(even if parity is very close in my region), it's for the benefit of the class.

 

My seat, belts and HANs are expired this year, I have better use of my money than to get a new head.

I'm out.

Looking forward to running NCRC without out all the BS.

Maybe do some fun tracks back east.

J~

[FTodaro]

 

 

I think it's an ill informed opinion to think Mazda decided they wish the see the class return to its roots without thinking about it in detail.  Not the technical details so much as the business case and marketing details and how the current situation impacts Mazda's efforts to use the class as a marketing platform.  They are looking at it first from a perspective of how it works for them. They don't need the grief though at this point the class could continue without their support.  This is a marketing program for them, not a technology program and if the direction isn't to their liking i wouldn't expect the level of support to remain as it is now. 

 

 

Dave you questioned my comments a few days ago about not really knowing what the class wanted, While I still cannot say that definitively, It is starting to become clearer. I would caution not to speak for Mazda, from what i know, only second hand, Mazda is not interested in their pocket book IMO i think they have the best of intentions for the class. 

[Andy Mitchell]

Been watching all this with interest. A lot of it seems to be driven by a desire not to mess with existing engine set-ups, and uncertainty about who might actually be affected. Has anybody suggested maybe just letting stock heads run lighter than everyone else, instead of adding weight penalties to the existing fleet? That might still provide the kind of incentive that Mazda seems to want to go back to stock heads without upsetting the existing apple cart too much.

 

If the 'weight penalty' being proposed is only 20 - 30 pounds, I can't see it having much affect on anyone except at the absolute cutting edge anyway.

 

Anyway, just a thought. Since I race in Canada, I don't have a say in SCCA/NASA policy. But our org up here will probably follow whatever you folks down there eventually decide on, so I still have some skin in the game.

[Qik Nip]

Here's my letter (and acknowledgement) sent this AM.

Rick

 

Thank you for submitting a request/input to the Club Racing Board. The details of your request can be found below.

 

Letter ID Number: #15647

 

Title: Opposition to proposed stock head rule

 

Class: SM

 

Request: I wish to express my strong support for a rule that will permit the continued use of existing 1.6 and 1.8 Spec Miata heads which were modified under the existing rule and I support the recent petition sent to the SCCA in that regard.
While a sweeping unmodified stock only rule is the easy solution for enforcement, it is not in the broad interest of the class.
Rick Deerwester 

[Zauskycop]

Petition signed, and CRB notified, along with SCCA.  Letter #15651

 

Tracy Ramsey

[Neil O]

In racing any change can be very expensive,

 

Will going to stock heads do all of the 3:

 

1 Make racing cheaper

2 Make racing closer

3 Be able to be enforced

 

The biggest problem I see is with #2.  I think this just starts the development game again.  Fast forward 6 months and a couple racers have heads that appear stock but make 3 more hp then your average head.  Fast forward another year and 10% more have them and on and on.  Finally the problem is exposed 3-4 years later.  Then maybe we decide to write very specific specs for a head that are enforceable because everyone is complaining about $5K heads.      

[Caveman-kwebb99]

This it to john Mueller... You want people to write to you about what is in their individual engines???

They cannot possibly know other then what their engine builder tells them unless the dissembled and measured as Mr. Powers did.

Nobody is doing that until possibly the whatever time this is finally decided. And even then I have serious doubt most have the technical or mechanical ability to do what your asking.

To me your asking for us to straight lie to you about what is in there.

Sorry to post this here but other thread is locked.