Legal Reference

[problemchild]

If anyone can refer me to a lawyer with experience in matters against SCCA, please PM me. Either or both to the US legal system or to the FIA. Thank you.

[stonebridge20]

And the plot thickens!

[DaveW]

If anyone can refer me to a lawyer with experience in matters against SCCA, please PM me. Either or both to the US legal system or to the FIA. Thank you.

I'm not trying to be sarcastic or adversarial, but assuming this is about the FF rule thing...
IMO, lawyers should be the absolute last resort after all available bridges have been crossed. Burning them before that by lawyering up is (again, IMO) not the best way to go.

[DD16]

Before one begins litigation versus the SCCA they should be aware of the following language in the GCR.

Section 1 Controlling Competition

Paragraph 1.2.3

The interpretation and application of the GCR by SCCA officials is final and binding. To promote the sport of automobile competition; to achieve prompt finality in competition results; and to recognize the numerous benefits to them, all members expressly agree that: 1. SCCA officials’ determinations are non-litigable; 2. They will not initiate or maintain litigation of any kind against SCCA or anyone acting on behalf of SCCA to reverse or modify such determinations, or seek to recover damages or other relief allegedly incurred or required as a result of such determination; and 3. Any member who initiates or maintains litigation violating this provision agrees to reimburse SCCA for all costs of litigation, including travel expenses and attorneys’ fees.

I am not associated in any way with the SCCA other than being a member.

[BeerBudgetRacing]

Thats related to on track events and such.

Rule making is not covered there.

[Wren]

Before one begins litigation versus the SCCA they should be aware of the following language in the GCR.

They can write whatever they want in the GCR, it doesn’t mean anything.

The reality is that the legal process has successfully been used to get rules implemented that were not otherwise going to be implemented. If you have sufficient resources, it will likely be effective. My understanding is that the SCCA cannot get insurance coverage for something like this after the Fran-Am mess. In the past the SCCA leadership has shown an unwillingness to spend what it would take to defend one of these lawsuits.

That said, it’s way too early to be calling lawyers. The rules haven’t even been voted in yet.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[R. Pare]

Would be interesting to see how this would be interpreted:

4.2.
SUBMITTING TO THE GCR
Anyone who applies for an SCCA license expressly agrees, and will acknowledge the following in writing if
requested:

A. Familiarity with the GCR;\

B. Agreement without reservations to any consequences of not complying with the GCR;

C. Renunciation of any right to recourse, except with the written consent of the SCCA, to any arbitrator
or tribunal not provided for in the GCR.

[Steve Bamford]

Would be interesting to see how this would be interpreted:

4.2.
SUBMITTING TO THE GCR
Anyone who applies for an SCCA license expressly agrees, and will acknowledge the following in writing if
requested:

A. Familiarity with the GCR;\

B. Agreement without reservations to any consequences of not complying with the GCR;

C. Renunciation of any right to recourse, except with the written consent of the SCCA, to any arbitrator
or tribunal not provided for in the GCR.

A manufacture doesn’t have to be a member. So for that it wouldn’t cover SCCA from something like this.

[R. Pare]

It isn't a manufacturer inquiring.

[Steve Bamford]

It isn't a manufacturer inquiring.

You don’t know that for fact. Just because Greg asked for legal advice doesn’t mean it would be him starting it.

My point really is that it doesn’t cover all. A parent may also own a car their son races & not be a member & create a law suit.

[BorkRacing]

Wow, it's for a $2 Plastic Trophy.
I left the SCCA when I was President of my region. I asked an autocrosser not to fuel his car while in line waiting to run and while smoking a cigarette. He offered to beat my skull in with a crescent wrench.
Seems it hasn't changed. Good luck with the law suit. You may have better results with a crescent wrench

[marshall9]

Wow, it's for a $2 Plastic Trophy.

Sort of. The $2.00 trophy may be the prize for a win. However, for a car owner that has made a mid to upper five figure investment in a car that will now need a five figure investment to remain in a current class that it was approved for is different. Especially a prep shop that is running rentals. Who does he rent to now without changing the cars? Loss of income, etc. I can see it.

Judging from the past, this may prove difficult, as SCCA has changed classes and eliminated them always. Also, think SRF3 and FE2. Haven't they required significant upgrades to remain in their Majors class?

If I bought a FE a week before the upgrade rule change, do I have a cause of action because I now have to spend 20K to remain in a Runoffs class in a couple years? Doubtful, but maybe.

That being said, I agree with Dave W, that it should be the last resort. I wouldn't want to be the guy that caused huge consequences for my club and my car class without exhausting all other options first. Without crossing into the political side of things, this running to attorneys every time something doesn't go your way has gotten out of hand. The courts shouldn't be your nanny. A lot of racers have significant incomes and assets. I would hate to see people afraid to participate for fear of litigation, it could kill SCCA.

Lastly, like the mile long FC thread, things like this, IMO, only serve to further the migration away from SCCA to Vintage and other sanctioning bodies.

[Charles Warner]

Lastly, like the mile long FC thread, things like this, IMO, only serve to further the migration away from SCCA to Vintage and other sanctioning bodies.

hear, hear!

I have not followed the discussion on the FF rules/rules changes because these things always become convoluted, with everyone's personal oxen being gored, that it is virtually impossible to follow the logic (illogic?) streams. And, we are often trying to deal with intangibles, or unforeseen issues, such as the Club maintaining a specific set of rules for a specific time period to mitigate the attendant costs on various participants. (This was a major factor when I was on the SRFAC regarding any proposed changes.)

I certainly hope those affected are able to come to an agreement (acceptance) with the changes. As with most legal actions, the only ones who win are the lawyers. No good can come out of litigation.

[LenFC11]

As with most legal actions, the only ones who win are the lawyers. No good can come out of litigation.

Unfortunately this is very accurate statement

[hdsporty1988]

hear, hear!

I have not followed the discussion on the FF rules/rules changes because these things always become convoluted, with everyone's personal oxen being gored, that it is virtually impossible to follow the logic (illogic?) streams. And, we are often trying to deal with intangibles, or unforeseen issues, such as the Club maintaining a specific set of rules for a specific time period to mitigate the attendant costs on various participants. (This was a major factor when I was on the SRFAC regarding any proposed changes.)

I certainly hope those affected are able to come to an agreement (acceptance) with the changes. As with most legal actions, the only ones who win are the lawyers. No good can come out of litigation.

Charles, you are sooo right!

One thing that came to mind is that everyone (myself included) assumed it has to do with the rules for FF. It came to me that it might be a more serious issue. It could be that the Club took action regarding comments made in anger early in FF rule thread that Doug had to address. I hope not as the statement made was one that I dare say many of us have made and not meant it literally.

[problemchild]

Wow, it's for a $2 Plastic Trophy.

If referencing the FIA safety pod situation, that will cost me $15K personally. If you factor in the dozen or so others owning cars with FIA safety pods.... and others who were preparing to import/distribute cars with FIA safety pods, you are talking $50-100K of financial impact.

If referencing the FIA safety pod situation, if you factor in the liability of SCCA banning world recognized industry safety features, that they previously accepted, and are adopted by the FIA, then you are talking about millions of dollars. There are also criminal liability implications.

[problemchild]

Lastly, like the mile long FC thread, things like this, IMO, only serve to further the migration away from SCCA to Vintage and other sanctioning bodies.

If referencing the FIA safety pod situation, one could also say that when the SCCA leadership gives a hearty F-you to a group of customers (racers and team-owners) who have invested a half-million plus dollars in supporting a SCCA class, that action is only serving to further the migration away from SCCA. The FIA safety pod situation has become about power and control, and not about safety or competition.

Nobody wins a pissing match either .......

[problemchild]

I have received some direction to my initial question. Thank you to those who replied directly..
No additional comments required. Thank you.

[stonebridge20]

Effective 7/1/18 FF minimum weight 1085lbs under 95cm wide. FF minimum weight 1110lbs over 95cm wide.

[problemchild]

I wonder what you guys think is last resort time .....
Easy to say when its not you.

If referencing the FIA safety pod issue, "they" slipped in the most ludicrous rule (without member input) that effects a dozen cars that exceed half million dollars in value, As this was happening, 4 of the cars were in the process of changing hands. So I, for example, have $100K invested in cars that are the target of a witch hunt. Once caught, "they" refused to rescind the rule, while opening discussion. Instead they have proposed another rule which is even more oppressive. Or are they proposing the rule Mike posted above ..... which would never pass as it would penalize a few hundred cars who don't have 25 lbs of ballast to remove. So, while all this gamesmanship is going on, the original sneaky oppressive rule remains in effect. I will be out of business by the time this gets resolved. Or in my grave.

And just as in the other thread, people are attacking the victims. The sneaky SCCA people that slid this through, and keep stepping up the pissing match ..... blame them. The FIA safety pods are potentially safer. The FIA safety pods are slower. I can guarantee that each of us would much rather have well-developed skinny side pods on our cars from a performance perspective. Unfortunately, there is very significant cost involved.

Perhaps the manufacturers and their customers, the victims, consider this "last resort time". Or perhaps they have so much money that this is a victimless act. Perhaps it serves them right!

I expect the persecution against FIA safety pods will never stick, as the liability to SCCA, and SCCA management, is so extreme, but how long will it take to resolve itself? Who has that much time? And what will be the collateral damage?

I would much rather be promoting the best class in SCCA and my own business interests. Witchhunts suck.

[Charles Warner]

I wonder what you guys think is last resort time .....
Easy to say when its not you.

.

Yes, it is easy to say when you are not personally/financially involved.

It's also easier to maintain a reasonable perspective when you are not so involved. You are obviously quite frustrated and feel you have no other recourse. Whether that is true, or not, I can't say. I can say that going down the road of using invectives and clearly derogatory language can do nothing to further any cause you might have. Airing this in the Court of Public Opinion will do no good either, except allow you to vent.

Have you reached the point where reasonable and cogent arguments, with attendant data, put forth in a professional and respectful manner, are truly falling on deaf ears? Have you tried all other appropriate courses of action? (Don't decide this for yourself - you are too close. Ask respected friends and colleagues for their advice. And, listen to them.) Above all, consider the likelihood of anyone benefiting from litigation (other than the lawyers) and consider the costs involved.

I know you will not agree, but I would hope that in any organization, cooler heads would prevail if approached properly. However, when attacked, they will defend. When publically insulted, they will back away and consider all of one's arguments in the same vein as the insults.

If you really are at this point, might I suggest a professional negotiator instead of a lawyer? You might get some insight as to your case and the chances of effecting the desired changes. A negotiator may be able to intercede with the Club and even get them to listen. A lawyer certainly will not, at least not without implied threat.

My two cents . . . . . .

[DaveW]

...My two cents . . . . . .

This advice is worth, IMO, a heck of a lot more than that. It is worth following, and the likelyhood of a reasonable outcome would be vastly increased by doing so.

[problemchild]

The reasonable outcome would be to rescind the rule, and have some process to consider alternatives.

Regardless of any rule or handicap, any of us having this discussion would choose well-engineered skinny pods over FIA safety pods.

This is just the "old boys club" doing whatever they want without good reason. Once challenged, rather than back down and follow reason, they are bullying the victims by stepping up the oppression. Not unlike issues going on in the real world right now.

"write a letter ......" Yeah right!

We all know what the end result will be. The old boys will win. Victims will spend money to conform or quit. People watching will not by cars, Others will be scared off. Net result is that fixing a non-issue will result in fewer FF cars and fewer SCCA participants. Well done SCCA!

[Charles Warner]

Well, I see my advice was well-taken. If you really believe your statement "We all know what the end result will be." then why are you beating your head against the wall? Because it feels so good when you stop? Obsessing over something you can not change is one of the definitions of insanity.

I wish you well in your endeavor,

[problemchild]

Yup. Criticize the victims. That will help.
Why can victims not suffer quietly? How annoying.
Thanks

[Bob Wright]

I re-read things again and I think there is a rationale in the CRB's decision. It doesn't mean its necessarily the best choice, but I think I see where they are trying to go.

I believe it is the issue of dealing with spec lines and BOP vs a "formula" with a set of rules inside which one can develop design and technology. In the world of SCCA club rules, the FF/FC section is a 'formula', the FA section is a set of spec lines and some form of BOP. I think the CRB is trying to be consistent with that concept, and in this case trying to correct a creep towards spec line rules in the class.

If one were to open up the conversation a bit, the CRB is going to have to deal with a number of new OW cars coming at amateur racing in the near future: F3, USF17, PM18, to name a few, not to mention the current VD MZR, and F4 that were dumped into FA. These are all spec cars; how do they get dealt with in the long run?

[DaveW]

Not that I'm an expert on communication, but...

Back in the early days of my FF career, I had to work with a very thin-skinned provider who thought almost any suggestion of change was serious criticism of his approach, and he got very defensive. So I learned to frame any conversation such that he thought what I suggested was originally his idea. After that we got along pretty well.

The basis of this method is trying to see things from the other's viewpoint. If you truly understand how and what he is thinking, it is much easier to hold a productive conversation.

This type of approach (the antithesis of aggressive arguing) can work well in a situation where there seems to be a non-resolvable conflict.

And it works much better in person or over the phone than it does by email, etc.

[stonebridge20]

I believe it is the issue of dealing with spec lines and BOP vs a "formula" with a set of rules inside which one can develop design and technology.

Ding,...ding,..........ding !

[Pi_guy]

Since there seems to be no form of resolution possible do what guys have done for years when your unhappy with the rules.
Start your own series, make your own rules been done by many who where unhappy or other reasons.

[John Nesbitt]

I wonder what you guys think is last resort time .....
Easy to say when its not you.

If referencing the FIA safety pod issue, "they" slipped in the most ludicrous rule (without member input) that effects a dozen cars that exceed half million dollars in value, As this was happening, 4 of the cars were in the process of changing hands. So I, for example, have $100K invested in cars that are the target of a witch hunt. Once caught, "they" refused to rescind the rule, while opening discussion. Instead they have proposed another rule which is even more oppressive. Or are they proposing the rule Mike posted above ..... which would never pass as it would penalize a few hundred cars who don't have 25 lbs of ballast to remove. So, while all this gamesmanship is going on, the original sneaky oppressive rule remains in effect. I will be out of business by the time this gets resolved. Or in my grave.

And just as in the other thread, people are attacking the victims. The sneaky SCCA people that slid this through, and keep stepping up the pissing match ..... blame them. The FIA safety pods are potentially safer. The FIA safety pods are slower. I can guarantee that each of us would much rather have well-developed skinny side pods on our cars from a performance perspective. Unfortunately, there is very significant cost involved.

Perhaps the manufacturers and their customers, the victims, consider this "last resort time". Or perhaps they have so much money that this is a victimless act. Perhaps it serves them right!

I expect the persecution against FIA safety pods will never stick, as the liability to SCCA, and SCCA management, is so extreme, but how long will it take to resolve itself? Who has that much time? And what will be the collateral damage?

I would much rather be promoting the best class in SCCA and my own business interests. Witchhunts suck.

I take no position in this, and I share others' concerns about resorting to law. However, if you are, indeed, set on pursuing your legal options, I suspect that Lionel Hutz ain't gonna cut it. You would need somebody industrial-strength.

One starting place might be the lawyers representing Fran Am (see: https://www.plainsite.org/dockets/11...ub-amer-et-al/). That was an anti-trust suit, which does not appear to be in play here. (What law, exactly, has SCCA broken here?) They might be able to point you toward someone.

[problemchild]

To all those people that want dialog and amicable discussion ..... is that not what the Formula-Sports Racing Committee is supposed to do with the CRB? Where were they 10 months ago? Where are they now?

It appears that they just pick and choose when to follow the process, but expect others to use it.

[Charles Warner]

To all those people that want dialog and amicable discussion ..... is that not what the Formula-Sports Racing Committee is supposed to do with the CRB? Where were they 10 months ago? Where are they now?

It appears that they just pick and choose when to follow the process, but expect others to use it.

As I have not been a member of the committee for several years, I feel I can answer this. You have omitted a very important word. This omission is critical to your argument. It is the Formula Sports Racing Advisory Committee. That's what they do. They advise. The members are given proposals made by either the CRB or the membership at large. They research and discuss. Then they make recommendations to their fearless leader, who, in turn, passes on the findings and/or recommendations to the CRB. The CRB may accept, reject, or modify those findings/recommendations. Most often the choice is made to do nothing. And, there is nothing that says they have to divulge their research and/or logic to anyone other than the members and the CRB. Nor is there anything that says the CRB must refer any proposed changes to the FSRAC.

To your points, it is possible the CRB made some unilateral changes that should have been put out for public comment prior to enactment. I don't know enough about the situation. However, if a (perceived) impropriety occurred, the only possible course of action is to address that professionally. Whining doesn't do anyone, or anyone's reputation, any good.

I just noticed your open letter to the SCCA. That is a good start. Now, be open to their responses and possible differences of opinion. (I.e. they seem to feel there is an aero advantage to the wide sidepods as shown by empirical data.)

[problemchild]

Writing the letter was a waste of time for the process, which I knew. But the letter informed people on the peripheral what was going on so they could get off their high horses, stop lecturing the victims, and focus on fixing the problem. As would be expected, SCCA people responded by throwing out red herrings and other irrelevant information, so as to confuse those trying to understand. The pissing match continues.