118 replies to this topic

[Mike Collins]

Not to get to far off topic but, but some of you know Mike Collins and some of you know MEATHEAD. Until we change the President and the BoD members from winners of a popularity contest to members who can execute a plan, make decisions and improve the club we will continue to have a problem. Lots of people don't like me or my tactics, but excuse me for holding people accountable for what they said, or making them follow through on a plan or for exposing the dirt swept under the rug. I have no problem doing that, we need more members to do the same. The problem is we've become a customer based audience and not participatory club members. Thats fine except we don't have a business model thats lets us conduct "business" that way, so the squeaky wheel will ALWAYS get the grease in the current system, with one exception... none of the current or past regime wants anything to do with SM.  Its more of a hassle to them and they don't understand our culture or value we bring to the club even when you can clearly demonstrate it.

[Danica Davison]

I'm not disagreeing with you Jim, or mike.  It is not an easy problem to fix, but as Mr. Donald Trump would say, "fix the complex problem with simple solutions," and he reminds us every day how high he is in the polls with that mindset .  True, nobody wants to be the one affected by change, but I wonder what those small class guys are thinking.  Do they want to only be out there with only four cars? Or would they rather mix groups, consolidate based on rules, etc?  I don't think anyone truly knows how all different classes think because I don't see the drivers being asked by SCCA with polls or votes or in any form really. I am sure the CRB and others get involved with those decisions, but Jim, when you were trying to make those decisions, were you getting a lot of driver feedback?  I'm asking because I am not involved in the club in that way but maybe others want to know besides just me, so I figured I would ask.

 

 I agree with Mike that there needs to be more of an effort at the top to improve SCCA, and I know they are trying, but as a member, I do not feel as involved in decision making.  I believe there is always room for improvement, just like in registration.  I believe national office is working on something right now to get the registration process more centralized and streamlined so maybe that will work? 

 

#MakeSCCAgreatAgain  ?

[FTodaro]

I am an outsider looking in but someone needs to take the bull by the horns. A simple rule that setting a minimum number or cars for a runoffs class is the simple fix. In the effort to make everyone happy they are making no one happy.

 

If they do not get the Runoffs schedule under control. i see this event dying off. They tried to pump life into it by moving it around, but I for one can not take off 10 days every year to do the Runoffs. Just not going to happen.

[chris haldeman]

There is no need too change the schedule or amount of classes for spec Miata too be able too have 2 quals, 2 qual races and a championship race. It would be the same amount of track time currently used

[wheel]

I know Mike Collins and I know Meathead, and I agree with a lot of what he has said and done.  However, I must disagree with this statement:  none of the current or past regime wants anything to do with SM.  Its more of a hassle to them and they don't understand our culture or value we bring to the club even when you can clearly demonstrate it.

 

The current CRB considers SM to be one of the two or three most important classes in SCCA Club Racing.  I, personally, think it is the most important class.  We spend considerable time trying to keep it viable and not screw it up.  To this end, we meet (concall) with Mazda, NASA and SCCA staff on a monthly basis, with SM as the major topic.  We read every letter and will discuss any issue, both by emails and by phone, with anyone who is an SM racer, crew person or supplier or SM prospect.  A lot of time was spent trying to clarify the rules to fix what went wrong at Laguna, and even more time and money has been spent on insuring that, if you get beat, you can be assured it was not by a cheater car.  

 

wheel

[Danica Davison]

Well isn't there also a rule that you need more than 10 cars in your class to be crowned national champion with contingency monies?  Someone fact check me on that.  That is a lot of cheddar to throw down for truly nothing if you win 

[wheel]

Yes.  For instance, there were 5 T3 cars, so no National Championship was awarded.

[Jamz14]

I'm not disagreeing with you Jim, or mike.  It is not an easy problem to fix, but as Mr. Donald Trump would say, "fix the complex problem with simple solutions," and he reminds us every day how high he is in the polls with that mindset . 

 

#MakeSCCAgreatAgain  ?

I threw up a little bit in my mouth reading this.

[Caveman-kwebb99]

I think I am going to go race the nasa west champs since only 5 cars are going there, good chances to be had there!

[Jamz14]

I think I am going to go race the nasa west champs since only 5 cars are going there, good chances to be had there!

You are going to love Buttonwillow. Buttonwillow in Oct. 108 degrees.

[Brandon]

So much for my idea of trying to prove the NA1.8 needs something!

Looks as though I'm well in-line for a podium at Mid-O!

 

[Jamz14]

So much for my idea of trying to prove the NA1.8 needs something!

Looks as though I'm well in-line for a podium at Mid-O!

 

Everybody has an "idea" that their car needs something. But what is your evidence that it does?

[Mike Collins]

Everybody has an "idea" that their car needs something. But what is your evidence that it does?

 

Everybody has an "idea" that their car needs something. But what is your evidence that it does?

In the SCCA you don't need no stinking evidence, you just need 11 other friends to write a similar letter asking for the same thing... and if that doesn't work ask your 5 other GTL friends to each write two letters.  they get what they want with no regard to the rules

[Ron Alan]

I know Mike Collins and I know Meathead, and I agree with a lot of what he has said and done.  However, I must disagree with this statement:  none of the current or past regime wants anything to do with SM.  Its more of a hassle to them and they don't understand our culture or value we bring to the club even when you can clearly demonstrate it.

 

The current CRB considers SM to be one of the two or three most important classes in SCCA Club Racing.  I, personally, think it is the most important class.  We spend considerable time trying to keep it viable and not screw it up.  To this end, we meet (concall) with Mazda, NASA and SCCA staff on a monthly basis, with SM as the major topic.  We read every letter and will discuss any issue, both by emails and by phone, with anyone who is an SM racer, crew person or supplier or SM prospect.  A lot of time was spent trying to clarify the rules to fix what went wrong at Laguna, and even more time and money has been spent on insuring that, if you get beat, you can be assured it was not by a cheater car.  

 

wheel

Respectfully Wheel, what you said doesnt seem to change what Mike said. They do what needs to be done...but their desire to do so may not match that of something they care about...

[Brandon]

In the SCCA you don't need no stinking evidence, you just need 11 other friends to write a similar letter asking for the same thing... and if that doesn't work ask your 5 other GTL friends to each write two letters.  they get what they want with no regard to the rules

 

*cough* bullshit *cough*

I wish we had transcripts of the SMAC calls for the past 3-4 months...

 

Though what you imply is we should go ahead and cheat in a non-techable way that then gets us the allowance in the rules to negate the advantage to those with the knowledge ("take" it from the few letting the "many" use it if they want - aka fuel pressure, 99+ timing adjustment, bent spindles).

[Brandon]

Everybody has an "idea" that their car needs something. But what is your evidence that it does?

 

The evidence is the absolute dearth of anyone even ENTERING a 94-97 model car in Majors let alone being equivalently competitive.

The evidence is my builder only getting within 2-3HP of his best '99.

The evidence is the known disadvantage of the NA suspension relative to the NB.

The evidence is the known shorter fuel cutoff of the 94-97 ECUs.

 

I'm not the best driver in the nation, I'm not he worst driver in the conference, but I'm racing the platform that has received the least substantive analysis over the past 5 years so I'm putting my money where my mouth is in an effort to prove a point regarding support for anything.

 

I've contemplated doing the underhanded thing and moving to a modified ECU (replacement crystal soldered), getting an NB front subframe, running with a 99-00 head (at 2415 & the restrictor) solely in an effort to give folks the opportunity to state "It doesn't need anything; your results prove that." 

 

But that wouldn't be fair to myself nor those who've helped me within the club over the past 6 years and it would jeopardize my standing within this club I enjoy giving back to (driver's school instructor, RE, SMAC member) so it's not something I will be pursuing.  Yet this is approximately what I perceive is needed to absolutely put to bed the parity discussion for all 1.8s.

 

Sorry for turning this into a parity thread (yet again) - hey, at least it's not a 1.6 parity thread!

[Jim Drago]

The evidence is my builder only getting within 2-3HP of his best '99.

In your opinion, what should it make while weighing 50 lbs less?

It was proposed in the past.. still feel it what needs to happen on that car is put a plate(up to no plate) that gets the 94/7 to 99/00 like HP and match the weights.. Perhaps 10-15 lbs less to help with suspension disadvantage..

[CarbonRacer]

I have to agree with Brandon on the 94 - 97 comparison to the 99/00.

[Tom Sager]

In your opinion, what should it make while weighing 50 lbs less?

It was proposed in the past.. still feel it what needs to happen on that car is put a plate(up to no plate) that gets the 94/7 to 99/00 like HP and match the weights.. Perhaps 10-15 lbs less to help with suspension disadvantage..

If we held a meeting with all of the 2015 Runoffs competitors in NB cars and offered each of them a future and permanent 15 pound weight reduction if they installed NA subframes and suspension, how many would opt to do that?  Let's throw in free parts and labor also.  How many do it?  I'd say near zero.  So what is the number where half of the NB field decides to do it?  What is the number where all want to do it? I'd say we have to get to near a 50 pound reduction before the NB majority are willing to do it.  

[TommyB]

Just kinda curious where or how you take 50 lbs off an SM.

 

If you've got the car built to max compliance, including wheel weights, interior gutting, minimum roll cage specs , smallest battery,alluminum hood etc , etc  where is the weight reduction coming from.. the driver.?

 

For most of us anything near a 50# personal weight loss is pretty unrealistic .

 

I would think massive weight reduction in any spec class is very difficult to achieve.

 

Tom B.