New F600 rules proposal

[Jnovak]

Thanks a lot Daryl, this is just what they need to hear.

Jay Novak

[Slow Blue]

I sent in a letter to the SCCA. Although I am not involved in F500, I am interested in getting involved in racing something like you have proposed for F600. I have experience with track days in cars and motorcycles, but want real racing. F500 first sounded like the ticket, but as I learned about the engines and CVT I was a bit turned off. Toss in a modern 600cc engine with gears and I am ready to sign up!

[Jnovak]

I sent in a letter to the SCCA. Although I am not involved in F500, I am interested in getting involved in racing something like you have proposed for F600. I have experience with track days in cars and motorcycles, but want real racing. F500 first sounded like the ticket, but as I learned about the engines and CVT I was a bit turned off. Toss in a modern 600cc engine with gears and I am ready to sign up!

Great news Eric, thanks.

Now the rest of you ... Thanksgiving is now over so back to work. Get those letters out to the CRB. Even if you are not a member you can still send them a letter, just make sure that you mention that you would consider joining if you could race in F600.

So far since the rules were published a week ago there have been nearly 7000 views of the discussion on ApexSpeed and the F600 forum on Eformulacarnews. I think this is an amazing amount of interest for a new class proposal for the SCCA.

So send your letters supporting the proposed F600 class.

Send your letters here: www.crbscca.com

See the rules proposal here: http://www.scca.com/assets/11-fastrack-dec-club.pdf

Thanks ... Jay Novak
SCCA member for 44 years

[Jnovak]

bump ... send your letters to the CRB to approve the F600 class. See above for links.

Thanks ... Jay Novak

[Jnovak]

Obviously there is a lot of interest in the F600 proposal. So far we have had over 9000 hits between ApexSpeed and Eformulacarnews on the F600 proposal.

I know this class will take off and bring in new members to the club racing scene. This class has the potential to be a top 5 class in numbers if the proposal is approved.

Please send your letters of support for the new F600 rules proposal to the CRB at the link below. Spend 5 or 10 minutes and make a real difference in SCCA Club Racing.

www.crbscca.com

Thanks ... Jay Novak

[captaineddie1975]

[FONT=Arial][SIZE=1][FONT=Arial][SIZE=1]

MEMBER ADVISORIES

[/FONT][/SIZE][/FONT][FONT=Arial]

[SIZE=1]

[/SIZE]

[/FONT]

[FONT=Arial][SIZE=1][FONT=Arial]F600[/FONT][/SIZE]
[SIZE=1][/SIZE]


[SIZE=1][FONT=Arial][/SIZE][/FONT][/SIZE][/FONT][FONT=Arial][SIZE=1][FONT=Arial][SIZE=1]

The BoD did not approve a re-write of the rules for the regional F600 class. The new rule set would have changed the class

[/FONT][/SIZE]

[SIZE=1]

[/SIZE]


[SIZE=1][FONT=Arial]from its original structure, which was seen as an alternative power train for the F500 class. The BoD feels that there is not[/FONT][/SIZE]

[SIZE=1][FONT=Arial]enough differentiation between existing classes and the proposed new class.[/FONT][/SIZE]
[SIZE=1][FONT=Arial]The BoD did recognize that the F600 power train may be a viable alternative for F500 sometime in the future. If F600s are built[/FONT][/SIZE]
[SIZE=1][FONT=Arial]and raced in sufficient numbers, with F500 style chassis only modified with a longer wheelbase to accept the F600 drive train,[/FONT][/SIZE]
[SIZE=1][FONT=Arial]and it is demonstrated that their performance can be adjusted on a par with the F500 cars, a future merger of the classes may[/FONT][/SIZE]

[SIZE=1][FONT=Arial]be possible. The CRB plans to submit to a rule set to the BoD for an F600 regional class that is close to the existing F500 rule[/FONT]

[/SIZE]

[SIZE=1][/SIZE]
[SIZE=1][FONT=Arial]set.[/FONT][/SIZE]
[SIZE=1][/SIZE]

[FONT=Arial]If I'm reading this correctly the proposal was not approved by the BOD and the F600 group appears to be back to square one.[/FONT][/FONT]

[JerryH]

One of the things stated was that the BOD feels there is not enough difference between the proposed F600 class and the existing F500 class.

So.....if the proposed F600 was way different.....say like an non-winged version of F1000.....it would have stood a better chance? Weird.

[F five hunj]

What exactly is the difference between FV and FST again?

The BOD needs to get out of the way on this one. What is the harm in letting things start as a regional class and building from there?

[Phil Creighton]

The BOD sees this as another dilution of a reasonably popular (F500) class. What it did not intend was a whole new rules set other than that necessary to accommodate the 600 engines.
No matter what, the same members will be splitting between F5 and F600 diluting both - even at regional level. This way we can eventually combine the two once the equivalency issues are sorted.

In the numerous calls I got this morning the subject of longer wheelbase came up from both factions - both for larger drivers and 600 engine fitment. I also was asked about 2" pucks to make the cars easier to drive. If these are important issues then deal with them seperately from the lightning rod of the engine question. I hope the current F5 guys will realise that atttracting more competitors will be better than just protecting the short term interest - not talking about the bike motors in this case.

FV and FST should not have happened either - another case of dilution of the same customer base.

Phil Creighton.

[Mark_Silverberg]

Class dilution? Really Phil - is that all the better you can do? With FE and FB as well as I do not know how many Touring and Super Touring classes in the past decade isn't the dilution horse out of the barn? Thank you for taking the time to post your reasons - but don't expect your response to stand the test of reason.

I guess the key is we need to have some Pro Series to make it attractive to SCCA so they can justify it as "the old cars need a place to go".

Thats OK - I am sure Waterford Hills will be willing to take my entry if I go the F600 route.

[Marshall Mauney]

The BOD sees this as another dilution of a reasonably popular (F500) class. What it did not intend was a whole new rules set other than that necessary to accommodate the 600 engines.
No matter what, the same members will be splitting between F5 and F600 diluting both - even at regional level. This way we can eventually combine the two once the equivalency issues are sorted.

I'm not sure I understand this, particularly in light of the recent decision to suspend the minimum participation rules for classes that have fewer active participants than there are F500 cars in existence.

If it is truly the intent of the board to figure out how to use the 600cc bike mills solely as a supplement to / option for F500 (in the manner of FF), then why was the original proposal to do exactly that shot down?

With all due respect, I don't think the explanations for this series of actions are coherent.

With FE and FB as well as I do not know how many Touring and Super Touring classes in the past decade isn't the dilution horse out of the barn?

Touring and Super Touring - I agree 100%.

FE shouldn't be part of this discussion - the class made their numbers at the regional level (racing as FAs) before they were given national status.

FB was the direct result of a rules-change fiasco that outlawed the fastest FC in the country right before the Runoffs a few years ago.

[Phil Creighton]

We have actually tasked the CRB with re aligning SS Touring and look at the ST mix as STO is going nowhere. By suspending the 2.5 rule we actually have flexibility to do that rather than just deal with the underperformiong class. People didn't read the whole statement about "actively managing" classes - we believe that we will end up with fewer classes in these categories. I voted against STL for just the reasons you express but others see it as a way of capturing the younger 'conversion' crowd that probably is running elsewhere at the moment - it has certainly taken off in some areas.

On the 600 bike engines - the CRB felt that the 600 proposal wasn't ready for F5 inclusion. They felt that running it at regionals was a good way to get the equivalency sorted out. Somewhere along the way some wires were crossed and some felt that F600 was to be treated as its own rules set. At the first BOD meeting we had after the proposal we corrected that - hence the bulletin. I would have said "shot down" was a little harsh in that light.

I didn't think FE actually did make the numbers - it was elevated when we had a previous BOD that made everything a National class and decided to let only the top 24 go to the Runoffs.

Having been around FC as a competitor at the time of the Hill FC incident - he wasn't outlawed just before the Runoffs - the CRB put a late season weight penalty on him and the BOD rescinded it during Runoffs week. The bike engine was removed from FC (as I had tried tom do on the CRB 5 years earlier) alondg with air cooled super vees for the following year. It was vetoed by a director that had a lola SV running once a year in his area the guy finally retired otherwise it would probably still be there.

I am not sure that that had much to do with the varios F1000 projects and subsequent FB class from my recollection - does not really matter.

I'm not used to be being accused of being incoherent but I suppose its all opinion anyway.

[lancer360]

This is such complete bulls$#@! Screw the BOD and the CRB. I'll take my car and go run track days until they can learn to listen to the membership. First letter vote was over 3 to 1 for it and this time it was 10:1 for it. By turning this down the BOD looked us all square in the eye and said screw you. I'll probably drop my SCCA membership completely and go run autocross with a neighboring non-SCCA club.

[Marshall Mauney]

I didn't think FE actually did make the numbers - it was elevated when we had a previous BOD that made everything a National class and decided to let only the top 24 go to the Runoffs.

Phil, FE was 13th in national participation in 2007 - their first year as a national class. That was before I bought one, so I didn't have a vested interest at that time - but it's pretty clear that they had the participation to justify being a national class, and far ahead of those classes that are still running around well below the stated limits.

Having been around FC as a competitor at the time of the Treadway FC incident - he wasn't outlawed just before the Runoffs - the CRB put a late season weight penalty on him and the BOD rescinded it during Runoffs week. The bike engine was removed from FC (as I had tried tom do on the CRB 5 years earlier)[...]
I am not sure that that had much to do with the varios F1000 projects and subsequent FB class from my recollection - does not really matter.

Sorry, but a 150-lb weight penalty right before the Runoffs is effectively eliminating the car from competition; rescinding it right before the last Qual session doesn't exactly undo the damage. Add to that the rules change eliminating that engine option immediately subsequent to the Runoffs - I think the message was sent loud and clear.

I also think that if you look at this board's history you'll see exactly where the impetus for F1000/FB came from - and I would disagree STRONGLY that it doesn't matter. What is happening here is that the membership - drivers/owners/constructors - want these cars, and the club management is not listening. In both cases, a reasonable proposal existed to roll them into existing classes as an alternative engine package, and in both cases the board said "no", resulting in requests for a separate class. I don't see how it can be any clearer, and I don't see how it jives with a supposed attempt to avoid dilution. In fact, it looks as if we're going in the wrong direction with both of these decisions. What am I missing?

[Wren]

I'm still not clear on what is going on.

My understanding is that the CRB killed the 600cc bike motor in F500, not the BOD. Someone correct me if I am wrong about that.

On the latest fastrack, I can't tell if F600 is dead completely or if the proposed rules are dead and the BOD wants a proposal that is just F500 with 600cc bike motors: no messing with the shock rules and no messing with anything that does not directly relate to getting a bike motor in an F5.

Phil,

Could you clarify if F600 is completely dead or if just this proposal was killed because the BOD wants something else?

[GT1Vette]

Phil can certainly speak for himself, but my understanding after talking to him Monday evening is the BoD wants a better proposal to incorporate 600cc motorcycle engines into F500. i.e. - a version of the original proposal (supported by more testing) that won't piss off all the 2-stroke owners.

Atlanta Region will continue to recognize F600 as a separate class at all our events while the rules continue to develop, but I believe the goal is eventually have alternate drivetrains for F500 in the GCR.

[jim murphy]

We were told that a group of top running 2 stroke F500 drivers threatened to quit the class when they saw that the MC proposal had garnered a 3:1 vote in favor of the MC drivetrain. One of the two "boards" (CRB or BOD?) then responded with a separate class for F600 with a future recombining of the classes once the equivalency was worked out. Then, miscommunication happened - big time - and now we are back to just the following:
1. longer wheelbase for better chain drive arrangement and secondly for larger drivers; and,
2. 2"x2" rubber puck for better wheel travel - more compliant suspension.

So let's move forward with these instructions and get more F600's on the track
and have some fun - this is what it is all about.

Jim
Member - F600 Committee

[GBugg]

So... who's re-writing the re-written rules to the newest "requirements"? And how long will the "requiremenets" be in place this time?

[jim murphy]

So... who's re-writing the re-written rules to the newest "requirements"? And how long will the "requiremenets" be in place this time?

Jay Novak and Chris Huskamp are leading the charge with the rest of the F600 committee. It should not take long as there is only a few items of change. It will be written in such a way as to NOT make any existing F600 illegal - just a bigger allowance, in effect.
Later, we can start clarifying the wording that was pointed out in the earlier discussion.

Jim

[Wren]

We were told that a group of top running 2 stroke F500 drivers threatened to quit the class when they saw that the MC proposal had garnered a 3:1 vote in favor of the MC drivetrain. One of the two "boards" (CRB or BOD?) then responded with a separate class for F600 with a future recombining of the classes once the equivalency was worked out. Then, miscommunication happened - big time - and now we are back to just the following:
1. longer wheelbase for better chain drive arrangement and secondly for larger drivers; and,
2. 2"x2" rubber puck for better wheel travel - more compliant suspension.

So let's move forward with these instructions and get more F600's on the track
and have some fun - this is what it is all about.

Jim
Member - F600 Committee

I'm pretty sure it was the CRB that killed it, not the BOD.

If I read Phil's post above correctly, one of the problems with the current proposal is that it is trying to fix other things like the 2" rubber puck thing. You might want to verify whether or not the BOD wants that in the proposed rule set.

I can't tell that this is worth freaking out over yet. I consider myself a bit of an expert on the subject and I find it better for people to make sure they know what they are freaking out about before they start (that is not aimed at you Jim). I don't really care one way or another about the whole thing but it looks to me like a lot of people don't understand what is going on, including me.

[Phil Creighton]

First I'm not speaking for the other members of the BOD but I took away from our last meeting that they want one strong class to emerge out of the F5 and F600 cars - they don't want half the guys going one way and half sticking with two strokes in different classes. THe inclusion of 600 was never brought to the BOD by the CRB and there was a serious lobby from the 2T guys to make it not happen - hence the 600 as a regional class. After talking to Jay Novak and other members of the 600 adhoc its apparent that the F5 2T guys have some serious reservations about this bike proposal (putting it mildly) and once again these guys went to the CRB rather than get beaten up here on the site. As one of the better contested classes how do you balance that - we thought that letting F600 get the bugs out at Regional level was a good idea to balance the two configs.

The new proposed rules package would have made combination down the road impossible. Wren is correct in that F600 as a regional class will be F500 with 600 bike motors.

While writing this I saw Jims posts and really would encourage the two items (wheelbase and puck thickness) to be dealt with seperately from the 600 motor as the F5 would benefit as much from the changes.

Phil

[GBugg]

Wren is correct in that F600 as a regional class will be F500 with 600 bike motors.

Phil - Please forgive my frustration, but this proposal has already been submitted. Has it not? What next? Submit it again and ask for more member input? How many members do think will submit letters this time? Why would we?

I remain in strong favor of the 600 motor option. And I appreciate Butch making a place for me to run next year. But this process is broken. If the CRB and/or BOD are going to ignore member input, don't ask for it. Openly publish the direction that is deemed appropriate for the club and go that way. All it has acomplished to date is anger and frustration on the part of the 2-stroke F500 camp, the F600 folks, and a large number of foks that believe a modern, entry level formula class is a great idea for brining in new members to the club.

[Brandon Dixon]

... THe inclusion of 600 was never brought to the BOD by the CRB ...
Phil

The BOD can't approve something that they have not been given a chance to vote on.

It sounds like the BOD want's to see something very much like the original proposal before them and they are trying to make that happen. The message may not have been spelled out in all the fasttrack minutes...

[Phil Creighton]

The BOD wanted to see a set of rules for 600 engines in F5 chassis that could run together in future. Thats what I believe the regional class will be.

The wish list of 'enhancements to F5/6 chassis is a seperate issue that should apply to both configurations - wheelbase, puck thickness, ?. I'm told its very difficult to fit a big guy legally in a F5 chassis at the current wheelbase.

Thats what I took away from the meeting and conversations this week.

Phil

[GBugg]

The BOD wanted to see a set of rules for 600 engines in F5 chassis that could run together in future. Thats what I believe the regional class will be.

The CRB has it. Maybe one of them will forward it to you.

[Phil Creighton]

George
I've seen it - it just wasn't presented to us in that form and its not a BOD function to go into technical detail so we asked the CRB to look at it again
Phil

[lancer360]

I have to 2nd George Bugg's frustration. It seems like to me the blind talking to the deaf when it comes to CRB/BOD communication. We put together a proposal for inclusion of the 600 in F500. It has 3:1 favor, but the CRB rejects it. My sources tell me that the CRB was given direction by someone(s) on the BOD to rewrite the F600 rules into a separate class with emphasis to still be low costs similar to F500, but more mainstream (i.e. shocks, larger wheel base and width) to attract are wide audience. So the F600 committee works with the CRB and does this. It then gets submitted for approval and now the BOD rejects it because it isn't inline with F500. What the hell! Who told the CRB and the F600 that this new class should be much more mainstream. The F600 committee was under a very clear expectation of what the goals were for this class and being a clone of F500 wasn't even on table. Sounds like there is major internal discord in the BOD and one or more BOD members are feeding this info to the CRB and the F600 committee yet the BOD majority are against this. The F600 committee has spent huge amounts of personal time doing these rewrites and now you want us to do it again because the BOD and the CRB can't seem to communicate. This process is broken. This started as a simple alternative engine proposal and we clearly had the majority support. If you aren't going to listen to what the members want, why do you bother asking for it?

[Phil Creighton]

OK - I give you that there was a communication issue and I have apologised to those advisory committee members I have spoken with. I have no idea how the freeform version of F600 got started as , if anyone had asked me or most of the BOD, that that was not a direction to pursue. It didn't sound that way in the CRB meeting at the Runoffs that I attended and other than making F600 a regional class it was a few weeks before details emerged and we corrected the direction. Nothing came to the BOD before our December Meeting.

Beyond the apology to those who wasted time on the rules writing, nothing has changed. F600 as a re-engined F5 will be a regional class that we hope to combine with F5 in the future.

We can go on indefinitely about who said what and when but we are aware of the communication issue - the BOD does not (contrary to opinions here) directly know what the CRB is doing except thru our liasions at our regular meetings, unless we have an interest in a class or a member(s) brings us his concerns.

I've tried to explain to you guys but I am not going to keep repeating the same thing over and over. Its dione - move on!

Phil

[Northwind]

I just want some rules to get hammered out soon so I can fire up Solidworks and see what fits. It would be great to start cutting metal next winter.

[Jnovak]

Relax guys I think this will work out in the end. We are going to wind up with a great toy IMHO

Thanks ... Jay Novak

[Wren]

It looks like the BOD did the right thing to make sure that F600 won't be stuck as a regional class forever. Phil comes on here and explains what they did and why they did it and he is getting beat up for it. The board is the good guys, throwing stones at them won't help anything.

This can be your lesson on trusting or listening to the CRB. Just because someone on the CRB says that a director told them how they wanted something, I would not believe it until I heard it straight from the director. It's a shame that no one has been on here pointing out the incompetence/lack of integrity on the CRB.

[tedsimmons2]

Based on what I've read here, F500.US and EFCN F600 looks like a done deal regardless of what F500 competitor's might want! The only thing left to nail down is chassis length and suspension springing.

The CRB and the BOD appear to want this to happen and I don't think we can blame them as their mandate is to the Club as a whole and not just a segment. Those are the hard facts. People in responsible positions make unpopular decisions all the time. I would like to think my input is listened to as it’s hard to make an informed decision if you don’t have all the different points of view (sometimes called facts but really just opinions). In other words I don't think we should be second guessing the CRB/BOD. They are all good people and make the best decisions they can based on the information available at the time.

According to at least two (2) sources the last request for input was 3 to 1 in favor of adopting the MC engine as an alternative power choice. The only question now is can F500 members influence what the F600 rule set will look like at this late date? Do we have a voice in engine parity, chassis parity, and springing parity? Since we (F5 and F6) WILL be combined at some point in the future, F500 racers should have a say. I just don't see what the mechanism will be to influence the rule set. Will there be another request for input or will it just default to the previous rule set and include whatever is decided about chassis and suspension? Regional class approval - when?

I know I'll catch heat from my two-stroke friends but I would welcome additional competitors in the class. I personally find the close-quarters racing to be what brings me back to the track race after race. It’s certainly not the thrill of riding around by myself! I'm not thrilled by the idea of trying to lengthen my chassis, nor with the added expense of 2"x2" rubber springs. And please don't put out the platitude of "you don't have to do it right away". If you have any competitive juices in your veins you'll have to make these changes - even if it's just because you have a perception problem.

[DD16]

SUCH BS. Phil you say "that's what I came away with". You were there and can't coerently tell what was decided. What are you still on the 70s recreational drugs?about further development to meld it into FR500. What happend is the CRB and BVOD saw the overwhelming support for the new rules and sais oops (any of teh board named Rick perry). What an unadulterated pile of sh**. tell me, did Honda do more testing on track than the 600 continegnt did? How come the 600s couldn't have been restricted. IT MAKES NO SENSE.

[GBugg]

Phil comes on here and explains what they did and why they did it and he is getting beat up for it.

I have the utmost respect for Phil. He is indeed one of the "good guys" and continues to excell in a thankless job. My frustration is with the "system". It is broken and needs to be fixed.

My appologies to you, Phil, if my comments were construed as a personal attack.

[Mark_Silverberg]

Phil, I think we were all a bit confused with what transpired. Please do not take our emotion as directed at you - regardless of what me may have written.

If Jay Novak is still confident and happy with what is transpiring that is all I need to know.

[Wren]

SUCH BS. Phil you say "that's what I came away with". You were there and can't coerently tell what was decided. What are you still on the 70s recreational drugs?about further development to meld it into FR500. What happend is the CRB and BVOD saw the overwhelming support for the new rules and sais oops (any of teh board named Rick perry). What an unadulterated pile of sh**. tell me, did Honda do more testing on track than the 600 continegnt did? How come the 600s couldn't have been restricted. IT MAKES NO SENSE.

I couldn't understand wtf was going on until Phil came in here and made it coherent. But, if you want to talk about incoherent, your post is sorely lacking in sentence structure, grammar, spaces, and complete thoughts. What you say is what happened is clearly not what happened.

Trying to make the addition of the Honda in FF equivalent to changing the entire drivetrain in F5 is disingenuous at best. The Honda could do their testing on the dyno and a lot of it was done.

I have the utmost respect for Phil. He is indeed one of the "good guys" and continues to excell in a thankless job. My frustration is with the "system". It is broken and needs to be fixed.

My appologies to you, Phil, if my comments were construed as a personal attack.

You will get no argument from me that the system is broken. I think it is a shame that the BOD has to spend so much time un****ing what the CRB ****s up. I think you will see some positive change next year. From my discussions with directors, they are aware of the problem and are working on it.

[Phil Creighton]

Guys
I'm a little confused myself as to the direction things went after the Runoffs meeting - must have been the 70's stuff. The CRB had one direction and it didn't fit the overall picture the BOD is striving for - bigger more populated classes. The first meeting to correct it was December and we had no issues with the engine other than making it fair to the 2T guys - thats why we thought F600 at regional level (especially with the advent of Rationals and the cars potentially running together) would alleviate much of the issues we had with the Fit in FF. What we (the BOD) didn't expect when we left the Runoffs was a whole new chassis rules set.

Guys, I've been around this class since inception in the SE with the original Chaparral motors. Even owned a couple over the years. We've had 4-5 engine changes over that time - it shouldn't be that difficult to get the equivalency right. My next door neighbour that owned a F5 in the 80's wants a 600 now he's stopped moto xing - it'll put some excitment back into the class and hopefully new people like him. I know people that are put off by the CVT and the mystique that has grown up around its black art setups.
Maybe 600 will fix that. All I know is that all the latest and greatest ideas are steadily diluting the same pool of drivers - rarely do we see a net increase.

Phil
'

[DD16]

Geez Wren oh sooo sorry my grammar and punctuation didn't reach your lofty expectations. As to the Fit v F600, the 600 was also on the dyno PLUS on track testing. It is a valid comment vis a vis the CRB's inability to articuklate a plan and communicate the vision. By the way I bought a Swift Honda. The F600 was to be for my son. Now the rubber puck issue has returned and interest has waned on the whole F500/F600. The response to the Novak F600 rules was positive. Phil's comments about the cannibal classes seems to ring hollow when asked about the myriad tin top classes. Ciao

[SEComposites]

inability to articuklate

Do what now?

[Wren]

Geez Wren oh sooo sorry my grammar and punctuation didn't reach your lofty expectations. As to the Fit v F600, the 600 was also on the dyno PLUS on track testing. It is a valid comment vis a vis the CRB's inability to articuklate a plan and communicate the vision. By the way I bought a Swift Honda. The F600 was to be for my son. Now the rubber puck issue has returned and interest has waned on the whole F500/F600. The response to the Novak F600 rules was positive. Phil's comments about the cannibal classes seems to ring hollow when asked about the myriad tin top classes. Ciao

Coherency is not that lofty of an expectation. I still can't tell what you are talking about or what your problem is. Is your problem that the CRB killed the 600cc bike motor in F5? Is your problem that the BOD kicked back the proposal to make sure that the F600 class can be incorporated into F5 as soon as possible?

The rubber puck issue has returned? What does that even mean? The BOD is keeping the rubber puck issue separate from the 600c bike motor issue. What is your problem with that? So your son loses interest because he couldn't run a 2" puck instead of a 1" puck?

Look above, Jay Novak has already said to relax and that everything will work out in the end. Bitching at the BOD members who are keeping this from turning into a disaster and are then willing to come on here and explain things is not helping anything.