Best way to pare down the number of classes is to drive racers away.
Hope this East Coast Pro Series happens.
I haven't been involved in SCCA racing that long (mostly autocross until the last 3 years) I really don't understand the purpose of trying to destroy a class that is just getting started and seemed to be doing well. At least until all this crap started last year.
Unfortunate.
Who on the CRB drives an FB? Anyone?
Most of the newer Liter Bike motors have Slipper Clutches
FYI, Most of the newer liter bike motors already have OEM Slipper Clutches.Originally Posted by Fred2
Suzuki calls their slipper clutch " Back-Torque Limiting "
Hey Don, what do you mean "hope"?
The Series is strong with 4 of the 5 events secure. I only wish the 5th event would hurry up and make their decision. But, we have a back up event either way.
What is going to make the Series a great success is the number of cars! We've had a great response from drivers outside the FB ranks who are excited about entering the Series. But we need all you FB guys to come as well. Where else can you run at high-profile events in front of thousands of fans, win good prize money, have your friends watch you on TV (internet) and all for about the same cost as doing an SCCA double club event? Maybe you can only do one or two events. That's great! If you only did one event and you only came in 5th place in both races, you'd still go home with $1,000 plus the tow money. Not a bad weekend. If you came in 9th you'd go home with a minimum of $600 (with tow fund), still better than a 'thank you' for coming. Of course if you win, you'd go home with over $9,000 in cash and prizes plus the tow money. Kind of makes it all worth while doesn't it?
We've put in place a lower single event registration fee for those racers that can't make a commitment to doing the entire series, that will save money over the full Annual registration fee.
Sorry, just a shameless plug....LOL
Honestly though, SCCA needs to leave FB alone. Let it evolve and let the participants determine the outcome. What FB needs is stability, not change. There isn't another class in SCCA that has the potential of growth that FB has.
What SCCA needs to do is look within themselves. The problem isn't the rules, it's the enforcement of them. The current rules are fine. Yes, some need to be clarified, but not changed. What needs to be done is to have better enforcement of the rules as they are. Only with strict enforcement can any class succeed.
I'll admit, that until this year I've never been involved with SCCA club racing. It's always been IMSA, IndyCar, etc. We took our car to two SCCA club races. Only once did they check the car's weight and never the dimensions of the wings, fuel, etc. The only thing that was consistent was the checking of the logbook, safety belts and fire bottle. It's no wonder why someone might cheat, if they really wanted to. I for one want to race where I know that if I cheat (or anyone else cheats) that we're going to get caught and the penalties will be stiff. That's the only way I know that I can be assured that I'm participating on an even playing field. Rules shouldn't have to be enforced by other competitors. They need to be enforced by the organizing body.
Leave FB alone and let it grow!!!
Last edited by F1000champ; 09.17.11 at 9:52 AM.
Well said Jon.
There will also be a West Coast F1000 Pro Series as well.
It's format and structure will be much different than it has been the previous two years as we will be able to devote more time to organizing and operating it than we have in the past. It will also operate under SCCA Pro Racing sanctioning under essentially the same rules as the East Coast series (we will share the same rule book); Stock engines, aftermarket (open) ECU's, and no weight penalties for electronic shifters.
Regardless, I'm still hopeful that cooler and saner heads will prevail and they will stop this before it's too late. These sort of arbritary rulings can do nothing but damage the class as a whole in the long run.
Those whom are opposed to this proposal, e-mail every BoD member and tell them to vote against its passage - it ain't a done deal until the BoD gets their say-so.
Thank you Thomas.
I think you mispelled one thing though. Aftermarket ECU's will not be allowed. Only manufacturer factory racing ECUs and add ons like Bizazz, power comander, etc.
Oops. You're right.
Cheers.
so who is this POS? I think everyone would like to know who this person is so they can tell him to F off next time they see him
Does it really matter who this person might be? The fact is the class just needs to be left alone and the BOD needs to recognize it. Enough of all the politics.
Focus attention on enforcing the rules as they are. And by that, I mean have tech people in place who have the ability and authority to adequately and throughly check every car, right down to the dimensions, fuel, weight, engines, etc.
Then, and only then may all this bickering stop once and for all, and outsiders might seriously look at the FB class as a place to participate.
Yes
What matters
is at this point, is the membership better come up with a pretty convincing argument to the BoD in order for them to overturn a recommendation by the CRB. That's going to be tough, and they meet next month.
Brett
What are you going to do John Paul....Pants the guy? Forget about the other people and concentrate on what YOU can do. You're not going to change someone's mind that has a clear direction of what they want. All you can do is write an intelligent and convincing letter to the BOD describing your argument as to why their should not be additional weight added to these cars for assisted shifting systems. That is what I did, and if the BOD receives a significant number of letters from FB owners that through the majority feel the same way, they have to take that into consideration when making their final vote.
This is the way that democracy is supposed to work and SCCA is a club set up to act like a democratic system that should listen to its members...unlike our Pro Series and most other Pro series, where its a dictatorship and the rules are the rules. None of this protest hearings and board of directors and court of appeals hulabaloo.
So, if you want to work within the system, write a clear, precise letter to the BOD without emotion, stating facts as to why there should not be a weight penalty.
Get over the "he said, she said" tell the guy to F off crap. Act intelligent and use your head.
maybe I'll pants you, lol. I just want to make sure that if it's a vendor I don't spend money with them and support them. very simple. BTW: the letter has already been written but I don't have faith in "democracies" so I'm not expecting much.
We went down to the formula and sports racer meeting with the CRB and the 40 lb penalty was discussed. The CRB was very honest and up front about these things:
-they have absolutely no data to support the 40 pound penalty
-the member input was against it and the CRB doesn't care
-although there are other restricted classes with similar shifter rules, the CRB is specifically targeting FB because of an agenda that they have.
The members of the CRB were terribly misinformed about how the shifters work and the members actualy didn't know what the rule they are sending to the BOD says. Several members were surprised to find out that they were proposing a rule that put the 40 pound penalty on anything that had a wire.
It was all pretty disappointing to me. My impression was that they weren't interested in listening to the members and they were one small step away from putting their fingers in their ears and saying, "La La La, I can't hear you."
Very disappointing to hear. Hopefully the BOD has a clearer head.
Reasoning with the CRB about rules changes is like reasoning with a monkey about why he is throwing feces at you.
Well put!
Now, when the CRB delivers its recommendation, the BOD just has to know when to duck!
Write the BOD.
A person who was at the meeting just told me on the phone that Bob Dowie, Chairman of the CRB, told the members at the end of the long and somewhat heated discussion that the CRB would revisit the issue.
That means you should write them again to voice your position: CRB Letter Submission Form. A quick note will suffice, but the sooner you do it the better.
Stan Clayton
Stohr Cars
Josh I owe you a few beer's for that one!!!!!!!!!!!
Insulting the decision makers is probably not the best way to gain support. Just sayin.
Sean O'Connell
1996 RF96 FC
1996 RF96 FB
2004 Mygale SJ04 Zetec
If they were reasonable and made logical decisions in good faith based on facts and member input, I would agree. However, I would liken making a negative comment about the CRB to drilling a #30 hole in the hull of the Titanic. It's not going to make the ship sink any faster.
Of course not, sheesh! I mean, we all know that the iceberg had an agenda, and that's why the Titanic sank so fast.
Cheers,
Rennie
Oh, you've lobbed one over the plate, but I'm not swinging. Too easy.
Truly sir, you are the very model of restraint.
Cheers,
Rennie
Only thing FB can do is get Wren and Josh on the CRB, like the FB welcoming committee. Winning hearts and minds........(damn I'd love to be at one of those meetings)
Seconded! Time to enlist Wren and Josh to the CRB and push through some solutions.
Cheers,
Rennie
I'm picking up a hint of sarcasm. It's too faint to be sure, though.
Wren isn't nearly as hateful and acidic in person as he is online, and everyone knows better than to take me seriously. But I'd do it if I could have a projector and a big screen to periodically interrupt the serious discussions with Google images and Youtube videos.
What is the B.Dowie CRB's FB Agenda?
I didn't make it to the Runoffs, and would like to know what the BD CRB FB Agenda is.
Also, (1) is the CRB appointed by the BOD? & (2) Do Club Members have any involvement in the CRB membership selection process?
Thanks, Rick
I heard bob say that they would take some things under advisement. They were pretty adamant about their being a penalty though. I honestly think they only said that to get a very hostile room to be quiet.
I am pretty hesitant to continue to write letters to a group that said out loud that they know what is best for the class and it is not what the participants in the class want so they don't care about the input.
I actually have a very serious solution. It's too long overall to write from my phone at the race track, but the idea is to leave the CRB over gcr stuff that us not class specific and let the advisory commitees take over the responsibilities for the classes.
Incorrect.
Look, we've disagreed many times, Wren, but I am here to tell you that this approach is wrong. If the members don't scream bloody murder to the CRB and BoD over this, you are just setting yourselves up to fall into their trap. Bob will go to his December face-to-face with the BoD and say, "Yeah, some folks complained about it at the Tent Meeting, but they never wrote to voice their objections formally.", and that will be it.
Folks, while you're at the Runoffs, you need to collar every BoD and CRB member personally to make this point. For you personally, Wren, leave your sarcastic side in the hotel while talking to your betters...
Stan Clayton
Stohr Cars
How would you describe the current state of FA engine table rules, and are you aware of how it happened?
Cheers,
Rennie
I don't know the current state of the FA engine tables, but let me take a guess. Certain people with their own agenda concerning the .016 writing the CRB? I just don't know enough about it to make any more then that.
I agree with Stan, but I also agree with Wren's position. I've written the CRB twice on this subject. I guess writing them once more can't hurt. BUT, I also feel that once they've made their decision and am recommending it in writing to the BOD, it's pretty much a done deal. That is why I believe the membership should focus on the BOD by writing them. Maybe they can be convinced that the CRB is making a very bad decision here, and they are not really listening to the membership's input. That is the way it sounds if Wren's description of this meeting is accurate.
Brett
There is a big problem with writing letters to the CRB. They are under no obligation to divulge to the BOD what the letters say. In other words, if the CRB gets 100 letters opposing the weight penalty and 1 in favor, there is no guarantee that the BOD will be aware of that. When the CRB proposed the rule change that would have completely banned the shifters, the plurality of letters was against the change, yet the BOD did not know that was the case until several people called BOD members to tell them that.
In addition to submitting letters to the CRB, the BOD needs to hear directly what everyone wants without it being filtered through the CRB, and the BOD needs to keep hearing that the CRB has no earthly idea what is best for this or any class.
Why do we even bother with the CRB when they are disingenuous, not forthright, and do not represent us?
Send your letters to the BOD at:
BOD@scca.com
This goes to ALL members of the board.
Make your letter clear, precise, sensible and without emotion. State your reasonings why there should be no weight assessment for assisted shifting systems.
[FONT=Verdana]There should be an FB owners club/group established that can represent the group's interest as a whole and present issues to the BOD directly without dealing with the CRB. If the group represents the vast majority of (whatever the # is) FB owners, they will have to listen. The CRB obviously has no interest in dealing with actual FB owners and therefore should be circumvented completely. Either that or FB members need to be represented by someone in the CRB. What is the process of becoming a CRB board member? are they elected? what’s the deal. [/FONT]
Nope. The current FA engine table originated from one particular member of the Advisory Committee and was pushed through on an expedited basis, without the usual and customary review period by membership, based largely on unsubstantiated data and guessing. Agenda, much? So, my point is that under the current structure, making the respective Advisory Committees (also appointed positions) responsible for class-level rule making is just punting on the problem, and achieves no particular solution in the end. Good solutions are welcome, and should be discussed on their merits, but political naivety doesn't benefit us here. Perhaps each class should nominate its own Advisory Committee from within the ranks of competitors as class ambassadors of some nature, but then we run the risk of the class becoming extraordinarily insular to the point of stagnation, and we drive the political infighting to an even lower level.
If only there were a way for the BOD to be aware of these rumblings within the membership... something electronic, since we're all on the internet already... and something like mail service, where we could send them such messages... hmmm...
The CRB is appointed by, and serves at the pleasure of, the BOD. You do the math.
Right, so send the letter to the CRB so they can't say they never received any input through the "official" channel, but also send it separately to the BOD to make sure they see it.
Yup - every letter I've ever sent to the CRB has been CC'd to the BOD. In the end, the BOD has to make a decision to ratify CRB recommendations anyway - appealing and communicating to leadership directly in my experience is ever so much more effective than appealing to intermediary appointed management whose sole purpose in life seems to be insulating said leadership from direct contact with the technical masses.
Or, as the good and righteous Saint Reagan (peace be upon him) was fond of uttering fortnightly, when he remembered to do so: Trust, but verify.
Cheers,
Rennie
Clearly state your Position re:CRB Reco's in email Subj.Head
Use easily recognized terms, like FOR or Against CRB RFC #, Date.
CC to BOD
Rick Kean
FYI:
As expected, today the 10/2011 Fasttrack/Club Racing/No Action Required section states:
FORMULA
FB
1. (Multiple) 40lb penalty for assisted shifters
Thank you for your letters. The CRB will request the BoD approve the 40 lb penalty for electronically assisted shift systems.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
