Cost cutting part supply... Your action requested

[SteveG]

https://www.scca.com/pages/fastrack-news

It's the first time I've read the whole Fastrack in a while but i think it's totally great that they explained the details of their decision and called out each letter by number and name referring them back to the details.

Maybe they do know how to read and listen.

Steve

P.S. Where's the when you need them?

[tstrong]

We see a lot of “slamming” of SCCA on this forum and I think we owe it to them to applaud this transparent and well defined rationale for their decision. Whether you agree with the result or not they have clearly communicated their decision and the rationale for it. Kudos, FSRAC/ CRB. Todd

[problemchild]

Every process appears to be functioning better when you agree with the result.

There was a long list of people who did not post here, and actually race in SCCA, who wrote letters in favor who probably are not so impressed. Dimensionally identical parts are approved all the time without dyno-testing.

I don't write letters and was not excited either way, but am always apprehensive when a lynch mob gets their way.
This supposed technical discussion seemed much more about trust, loyalty, motives, emotion, spite, hatred, etc, as Daryl pointed out several times, ironically being interpreted as support by both sides.

[SteveG]

Every process appears to be functioning better when you agree with the result.

There was a long list of people who wrote letters in favor who probably are not so impressed.
I don't write letters and was not excited either way, but am always apprehensive when a lynch mob gets their way.
This supposed technical discussion seemed much more about trust, loyalty, motives, emotion, spite, etc, as Daryl pointed out several times, ironically being interpreted as support by both sides.

Did you read and understand the reasoning for rejecting the proposal?

I personally have no interest in the result, I was only commenting on what appears to be full disclosure on how/why the decision was made as well as enumerating the letters received. Did you notice that quite a few of the enumerated letter responses included for/against wording?


Steve

[problemchild]

Did you read and understand the reasoning for rejecting the proposal?

I personally have no interest in the result, I was only commenting on what appears to be full disclosure on how/why the decision was made as well as enumerating the letters received. Did you notice that quite a few of the enumerated letter responses included for/against wording?


Steve

Yes, I did read it. I don't know how many proposals you have submitted, but when they reject your proposal, whoever writes the summary, dismisses all opposing arguments as trivial, and presents the end result as a no-brainer. There was a lot of personal and political baggage involved in this matter that had significant impact. Would the result have been the same if Arnie Loyning had made the proposal?

[John Nesbitt]

Yes, I did read it. I don't know how many proposals you have submitted, but when they reject your proposal, whoever writes the summary, dismisses all opposing arguments as trivial, and presents the end result as a no-brainer. There was a lot of personal and political baggage involved in this matter that had significant impact. Would the result have been the same if Arnie Loyning had made the proposal?

Maybe if Greg Rice made the proposal.

[Roland V. Johnson]

if people are going to cheat, what would be the purpose in going through all the trouble to change rules?

I don't know.ask them

[Roland V. Johnson]

Every process appears to be functioning better when you agree with the result.

There was a long list of people who did not post here, and actually race in SCCA, who wrote letters in favor who probably are not so impressed. Dimensionally identical parts are approved all the time without dyno-testing.

I don't write letters and was not excited either way, but am always apprehensive when a lynch mob gets their way.
This supposed technical discussion seemed much more about trust, loyalty, motives, emotion, spite, hatred, etc, as Daryl pointed out several times, ironically being interpreted as support by both sides.

I assume you are including me as part of a lynch Mob. That is deeply offensive B. S.

[problemchild]

Maybe if Greg Rice made the proposal.

I made many proposals, none of which were accepted at the time, but most of which were accepted 5-10-20 years later when presented by political types, and it was essentially too late to matter. But thank you for agreeing that the "who" is often much more important than the "merit". Spite is right!

FWIW, I think that if Arnie had submitted the proposal, the dimensionally identical pistons would have been approved and the valves rejected/delayed until testing proved to be not performance inhancing.

[Daryl DeArman]

I made many proposals, none of which were accepted at the time, but most of which were accepted 5-10-20 years later when presented by political types, and it was essentially too late to matter. But thank you for agreeing that the "who" is often much more important than the "merit". Spite is right!

FWIW, I think that if Arnie had submitted the proposal, the dimensionally identical pistons would have been approved and the valves rejected/delayed until testing proved to be not performance enhancing.

More letters written in favor, and still failing, than anything I recall in recent memory. Clearly, the logic/validity utilized in the argument should carry more weight than the number of letters. But how much should the "who" matter? What message does the rejection send to all those who supported it and bothered to take the time to write a letter?

That wording of that summary rejection sure sounds familiar

[Rick Kirchner]

More letters written in favor, and still failing, than anything I recall in recent memory. Clearly, the logic/validity utilized in the argument should carry more weight than the number of letters. But how much should the "who" matter? What message does the rejection send to all those who supported it and bothered to take the time to write a letter?

That wording of that summary rejection sure sounds familiar

I'm not sure you can go off the letter title to infer support. A coupon people that PM'd me that were adamantly NOT is support would show up in the supporting group. Unless that title is the SCCA's paraphrase of the letter's intent.

We all talk about the need for transparency and the need to grow numbers and then you see stuff like this.

Also - if the club requires submitted parts and a dyno comparison test then it's damn time that they publish something with the requirements for the testing. To have those unstated requirements, and then no specs for those requirements, is total BS.

[SteveG]

FWIW, I think that if Arnie had submitted the proposal, the dimensionally identical pistons would have been approved and the valves rejected/delayed until testing proved to be not performance inhancing.

FWIW, I think that if Arnie had submitted the proposal, he would have included extensive dyno data as well as samples of actual pistons not just a dimensionally identical drawing of a piston. I also seriously doubt he would have submitted a request for the valve approval without testing them.

In all walks of life there are professional, conscientious players and there others that are less so.

Steve

[problemchild]

In all walks of life there are professional, conscientious players and there others that are less so.

Steve

And there was a long list of good, honest, legal racers from across the country who wrote letters of support for the proposal because they wanted increased access to affordable parts. They may or may not care about a spat between west coast vintage racers. The lynch mob mentality of the discussion, makes it difficult for unencumbered viewers to understand whether the result was good or bad for the whole of North American FF club racers. Remember that these rules effect virtually every FF vintage/club/pro racer and engine builder in the US and Canada ..... far beyond the Ivey Engines (or Pegasus) customer list.

[Ian Lenhart]

And there was a long list of good, honest, legal racers from across the country who wrote letters of support for the proposal because they wanted increased access to affordable parts. They may or may not care about a spat between west coast vintage racers. The lynch mob mentality of the discussion, makes it difficult for unencumbered viewers to understand whether the result was good or bad for the whole of North American FF club racers. Remember that these rules effect virtually every FF vintage/club/pro racer and engine builder in the US and Canada ..... far beyond the Ivey Engines (or Pegasus) customer list.

I agree with Greg, the idea of a lower cost option is probably the main reason why most of those letters were submitted supporting the proposal. The response from SCCA was all about part shortages and a brief history lesson that wasn’t correct. If the Kent was on the mend in the early 2000’s, then why do we have a Honda? Speaking of Honda, did they provide the dyno testing and data sheets when introducing their oversized piston? I’m not sure. What about the perceived performance advantage SCCA is worried about with an alternate piston? As far as I know, there wasn’t a shortage of Honda pistons, it was all about cost savings. Honda was involved so people listen. I’m still blown away by all this back and forth and drama with the Kent, the Honda is faster and I don’t see anyone wanting to protest someone for finishing 12th place at the runoffs racing a Kent. The 2.0 Pinto has 5 piston options, and nobody cares since you need the Zetec to be competitive. Why any different with the Kent? For those vintage guys, all I hear from race officials as well as competitors “racing too hard and cars are being bent up, we can’t have that”. So why are you so concerned about that extra half horsepower or what SCCA approves if you are told to race at 7/10th. If this west coast drama is happening in a series that does not allow the Honda, then spec a piston and pull heads after each race. I personally believe SCCA should either make the Kent as affordable as possible by allowing more non performance enhancing/oem replacement parts or give the Kent a slight performance adjustment to compete with the Honda. Who knows, maybe the illegal pistons gave the Kent a better power curve to compete with the Honda?

[Daryl DeArman]

The lynch mob mentality of the discussion, makes it difficult for unencumbered viewers to understand whether the result was good or bad for the whole of North American FF club racers.

Time will tell.

[Bernard Bradpiece]

I agree with Greg, the idea of a lower cost option is probably the main reason why most of those letters were submitted supporting the proposal. The response from SCCA was all about part shortages and a brief history lesson that wasn’t correct. If the Kent was on the mend in the early 2000’s, then why do we have a Honda? Speaking of Honda, did they provide the dyno testing and data sheets when introducing their oversized piston? I’m not sure. What about the perceived performance advantage SCCA is worried about with an alternate piston? As far as I know, there wasn’t a shortage of Honda pistons, it was all about cost savings. Honda was involved so people listen. I’m still blown away by all this back and forth and drama with the Kent, the Honda is faster and I don’t see anyone wanting to protest someone for finishing 12th place at the runoffs racing a Kent. The 2.0 Pinto has 5 piston options, and nobody cares since you need the Zetec to be competitive. Why any different with the Kent? For those vintage guys, all I hear from race officials as well as competitors “racing too hard and cars are being bent up, we can’t have that”. So why are you so concerned about that extra half horsepower or what SCCA approves if you are told to race at 7/10th. If this west coast drama is happening in a series that does not allow the Honda, then spec a piston and pull heads after each race. I personally believe SCCA should either make the Kent as affordable as possible by allowing more non performance enhancing/oem replacement parts or give the Kent a slight performance adjustment to compete with the Honda. Who knows, maybe the illegal pistons gave the Kent a better power curve to compete with the Honda?

Oh Ian, Ian.

The beauty about deadlock in Washington DC is they can do no harm. That's how we like it, if they do get to act, we the mere mortals, suffer the unintended consequences. So it is with SCCA, we like deadlock and inaction.

Let's not re litigate Ford V Honda, that horse left the barn a while back and we achieved the consequence many of us warned about - it fell on deaf ears. Now Formula Ford operates largely out of SCCA's purview and is very successful with full grids. A lot of people have had a hand in making that happen. Personally I do not care how may Ferrari's, mega yachts or 24 bedroom houses Jay Ivey and his sons own, I prefer status quo. Long life, relatively trouble free, close parity, reasonable cost Formula Ford Kent engines (Like they have in the rest of the world!). "If it 'aint broke, don't fix it". Thank you Jay. SCCA has Honda which it has now given over to FRP.

But I must pull you up over your assertions about vintage racing which indicates your very limited understanding of the difference. If you are going to make assertions, and all views are worthy of consideration, please deal with the facts, not alternative facts, which do not work so well from an engineering perspective.

The issue is nothing to do with speed, its to do with driver behavior and red mist. Stonebridge referred to Treadway who is a wonderful driver, but still had his hands full with some of the top vintage guys. In fact Roland tends a Titan Mk6 which is among the fastest club Fords in the country, even though it is actually a vintage Ford. The vintage ethos is about not running into each other, giving each other room and driving defensively if attacked by an idiot. Lap times are very healthy, speed is not an issue thank you. Driver stupidity is. We find a number of SCCA drivers switching to vintage have to work extra hard to learn to race fast and clean. Most get it after they have been black flagged and sent home a few times and been verbally pummeled by their peers. At the front, with such strong driving talent, the extra horsepower or two can be the difference as it was back in the day. Please get your facts right, there are a number of people working hard running large successful vintage Formula Ford groups across the US where many of the disaffected SCCA Fords now reside, and its unhelpful to have non-fact based opinion on the premier open wheel website as we look to continue attracting new talent.

Lets not screw up what many have created from the ashes. We like the status quo - it works.

Fortunately the season is upon us so all the armchair arguments can wait till next winter.

BB

[Daryl DeArman]

The beauty about deadlock in Washington DC is they can do no harm. That's how we like it, if they do get to act, we the mere mortals, suffer the unintended consequences. So it is with SCCA, we like deadlock and inaction.

Unless, you actually want something done/changed/passed/enacted, then there's a strong argument for inaction being harmful.

Lets not screw up what many have created from the ashes. We like the status quo - it works.

While there is much credit due for the work that went into what's been created from the ashes. . . if as a group the status quo was accepted, ahem, embraced. You would still have crappy pistons, cranks, no blocks and no aluminum head. If the status quo worked you wouldn't have a splintered vintage group on the west coast. If the status quo worked you wouldn't have more than a dozen Majors events in 2019 without enough FF to fill a podium.

Not saying this 'solution' would have helped grids. Not saying action is better than inaction just for the sake of action. Just saying that too much protection of one's sandbox and sooner or later you're the only one in your sandbox with nobody to play with.

[Bernard Bradpiece]

Unless, you actually want something done/changed/passed/enacted, then there's a strong argument for inaction being harmful.



While there is much credit due for the work that went into what's been created from the ashes. . . if as a group the status quo was accepted, ahem, embraced. You would still have crappy pistons, cranks, no blocks and no aluminum head. If the status quo worked you wouldn't have a splintered vintage group on the west coast. If the status quo worked you wouldn't have more than a dozen Majors events in 2019 without enough FF to fill a podium.

Not saying this 'solution' would have helped grids. Not saying action is better than inaction just for the sake of action. Just saying that too much protection of one's sandbox and sooner or later you're the only one in your sandbox with nobody to play with.

Daryl,

Note I wrote, "If it aint broke, don't fix it". When it was broke it got fixed. Now it aint broke. The engine issues got fixed - thank you Jay, the tire issues got fixed - thank you Hoosier, the grids grew like Topsy. Not the time to go messing. When its broke again, then we fix it.

BB

[Daryl DeArman]

Daryl,

Note I wrote, "If it aint broke, don't fix it". When it was broke it got fixed. Now it aint broke. The engine issues got fixed - thank you Jay, the tire issues got fixed - thank you Hoosier, the grids grew like Topsy. Not the time to go messing. When its broke again, then we fix it.

BB

Fair enough. I did miss that part in your prior post.

[stonebridge20]

Daryl,

Note I wrote, "If it aint broke, don't fix it". When it was broke it got fixed. Now it aint broke. The engine issues got fixed - thank you Jay, the tire issues got fixed - thank you Hoosier, the grids grew like Topsy. Not the time to go messing. When its broke again, then we fix it.

BB

I have to echo Bernard's statement.

" if it ain't broke, don't fix it"

This is what initially made me dig my heels in on this proposal. I was well against the proposal way before the cheater piston and valve poop hit the fan. Once that info was uncovered, maybe that should have been taken to another thread. I'm sorry for getting as fired up as I did but facts and hard evidence that was shared with me off line was really pretty shocking. That information really had no bearing on my stance of the initial proposal. I didn't like it from the get go but it shouldn't have gotten mixed up with the proposal itself.
I still stand solid that FF Kent engines do not have a problem with engine parts availability or engine operating cost per mile thanks to Jay, Cameron and Colin Ivey, who stepped up and did the leg work to provide us with an incredible product.
Anything that could possibly upset the balance we have right now is just not worth possibly saving a couple hundred bucks on an engine rebuild now, but could possibly cost a lot more money and heart ache down the road. For the amount of possible savings, it just wasn't worth the gamble to me. Sometimes the old saying of "better to be safe than sorry" holds true.

Peace !

[problemchild]

Once we got through the few cheap shots at me, this page of this thread became a healthy discussion about the merits of the proposal ....... but without the venom and hatred of the earlier pages. Very refreshing

[John Nesbitt]

if people are going to cheat, what would be the purpose in going through all the trouble to change rules?

Every process appears to be functioning better when you agree with the result.
...

I don't write letters and was not excited either way, but am always apprehensive when a lynch mob gets their way.
This supposed technical discussion seemed much more about trust, loyalty, motives, emotion, spite, hatred, etc, as Daryl pointed out several times, ironically being interpreted as support by both sides.

... There was a lot of personal and political baggage involved in this matter that had significant impact. Would the result have been the same if Arnie Loyning had made the proposal?

... the "who" is often much more important than the "merit". Spite is right!

FWIW, I think that if Arnie had submitted the proposal, the dimensionally identical pistons would have been approved and the valves rejected/delayed until testing proved to be not performance inhancing.

... The lynch mob mentality of the discussion, makes it difficult for unencumbered viewers to understand whether the result was good or bad for the whole of North American FF club racers. ...

Once we got through the few cheap shots at me, this page of this thread became a healthy discussion about the merits of the proposal ....... but without the venom and hatred of the earlier pages. Very refreshing

So it's OK for you to take shots, but not for others? Got it.

What's that expression? " .. something something .. dish it out .. something something .. take it."

[Daryl DeArman]

Greg and I don't often agree. He may even wince from time to time when I "like" one of his posts due to the association.

However, those aren't shots he was taking.

I see plenty of questions, observations and astute points.