The real question being ignored by the VERY FEW supporters of this proposal is: Why do we need it at all?
Thanks ... Jay
Printable View
The real question being ignored by the VERY FEW supporters of this proposal is: Why do we need it at all?
Thanks ... Jay
Correct me if I am wrong, Bob. Your series has already told Elan that if SCCA approves this engine, it will then be automatically approved for the F2000 series. Are you saying it would still require sealing by others?Quote:
Originally Posted by Bob Wright
Jon, if Elan cannot purchase the manifold from Quicksilver & they had decided to build their own manifold, why not simply REPRODUCE THE EXACT SAME MANIFOLD & build engines? The Quicksilver manifold is not patented or protected in any way. Copy the sucker & get it over with. But no, Elan decided to do a completely new & very different manifold. Ask yourself WHY?
Here is the answer for the WHY. There is no question that this is about gaining a competitive advantage on the track & in the marketplace. PERIOD. So quit the BS.
Thanks ... Jay Novak
Isn't the whole purpose behind the F2000 series using FC rules is the development of technology and finding the "unfair advantage"... Remember, that's the exciting part of racing, the engineering and manipulating of the rules. Why all the whining now?
Amazing how Elan suddenly thinks that building their own engines and intake manifold is a necessary part of their profit center! Gee, how did they manage to survive for the last 15 years without ever buying or building their own version?
Maybe it actually is necessary for them to survive - after all, the bottom has fallen out of the small-bore formula car market over the last few years, and they must be desperate to find new ways to justify their overhead. This is nothing more than a blatant attempt to manipulate the system so that they can expand their operations and stay afloat.
Maybe ICP, Elite, Williams, Ivey and Piper should ask for the same consideration!:D
Lest everyone has forgotten, QSRE has been the sole supplier of this intake system since day one, and with the blessings and explicit approval of characters like Baytos. Now, for some reason that only they can verify, having a single source is not good?
To try to blame "the engine biulders" for this is a total crock.:mad:
No, Doug - that has never been the purpose.Quote:
Originally Posted by Douglas Kniffin
The purpose behind a class's existance is to supply a platform to compete on. Part of that platform is a set of rules that define as best as possible the limits within which you are allowed to develop your vehicle. "Manipulating the rules" does not include a supplier getting a rule change solely for their financial benefit.
WOW - now thats nads....... I think Mr Pare has driven the proverbial nail into the coffin on this subject.Quote:
Originally Posted by R. Pare
I'm sure the "I'll sue you" email is on its way from Georgia to your mailbox though..... :skull:
This is all one big business. There is nothing wrong with bringing a new product to market.
Why do you need an alloy head if you have Zetec?why do you need Zetec if you have an alloy head? Sorry Jay I never said that any of this was ness.
Why would you produce the same thing,it has it's shortcomings after 7 years of use and the Elan piece has adressed them. I have moaned for a long time about the version that we have and it's problems and lack of tidy systems that work properly. Anyone that knows us understands our relationship with Elan. I would'nt care who builds it as long as it is better. Maybe ICP can put something together.Quite frankly the Elan piece is streets ahead of the current unit. But that would be exspected after 7 years.I'm sure that QS could do the same if they would spend some money on it.
I'm not saying that I support anything,I'm just pointing out that this mess has been created by some short term thinkers.A quick fix may in fact produce some headaches down the road.If your going into the future with the Zetec after 7 years of pissing and moaning you might as well bring it up to date.
Jon,
I'm curious as to who's pissing and moaning about the present product?
I'm sure you would agree that if there were a serious fault of any kind with the current Zetec package it would have been discussed on this forum ad nauseum.
Dennis you misunderstand,I was referring to all the fighting over the Zetec since it's arrival in a 2 Liter chassis.It is now an ovenight sensation but it is also 10 years old now.
Problems: Airbox all of it
Flywheel all of it
Alternator " "
Starter Motor
Throttle Linkage
TPS sensor
Butterfly stops
Harness and ECU
Studs going down the intake
Oil Filter
Cold start
Leaving the lane w-out 8000 rpm
No, there is nothing wrong with bringing out new product - we all try to do that as conditions and rules permit and warrant. There IS, however, something wrong when a manufacturer asks for a rules change that benefits only them. This is one of those times.
So now the excuse being used for Elans attempt to gain a new profit center is that the system could use improvement? Amazing! Why didn't I think of that! :D
Do I have everyones permission to use that as a basis to petition for my own, improved-over-the-Elan system?
Can Elite use that excuse to come up with one even better than mine?
Williams?
Butler?
Ivey?
An improved QSRE system?
Where does it stop?
Richard have you ever needed permission to do something stupid in the past?
OK I'm done, I just wanted to see how long it would take to get over 50 people veiwing at one time!! I really love the whole package and I thinkElan should build hot dog machines/QS should continue whatever it is they do and Richard Pare should be more important than he is. Thanks to all 50 that are veiwing it only took a few hours and I could have never done it without you.Heading to the Hut/ All the Best/ Jon
:ha: Ladies and Gentlemen, Mr Baytos has left the building.Quote:
Originally Posted by buudrow1
Jon, there are no major problems with the current manifold. It may not be pretty but it is certainly functional. You state that the Elan manifold is an improvement & is better & I have no doubt that that is true. The question is "why does the class need another intake manifold?", and again the answer is so that Elan can improve their competitive position in racing & the marketplace.
Please inform me of another reason why FC needs another intake manifold assembly & how it will improve FC?
When I stated that Elan could just copy the existing manifold I meant from a functional perspective. It could very easily have been internally the same but then still an "Elan" manifold. Then Elan could go about the business of building customer engines as the rules state only that the manifold must be the Quicksilver manifold. Doing that would have been VERY SIMPLE from an approval process & a no brainer as far as being competitive. However Elan took another path & that was to build a much different product that will most certainly improve the performance of the engine.
Again I ask you, how will this new manifold improve the FC class?
Thanks ... Jay Novak
I think Mr. Baytos has shown his true colors..........
Such a pity that we have to be subjected to such a display.:thumbsdown:
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This arguement we are all having is not over personalities or a single persons stature within the racing community, in spite of attempts by one individual to the contrary.
The arguement is over whether or not this manifold is really needed by the Club, and if so, why it is being limited to a single new source with absolutely no restrictions as to what is produced, at first and in the future.
If the members that will be affected by this rules change really want this, by all means go for it and ask for approval - it's your money, not mine. I have no dog in this hunt other than to try to help keep racers from getting screwed.
It's up to you guys now as to what direction your class will take for its future.
Well that was fun....
I'm not sure what's funnier Jon's ranting or his writing skills.
Don't be distracted, send your letters and emails to the CRB and BoD.
I just have to ask, Burke, are you lil_fatboy?
Small craft advisory, small craft advisory Rick Silver is coming ashore last seen heading for a race track near you.
??????????
is that lil_fatboy?Quote:
Originally Posted by HazelNut
deleted
no but she "digs" him!Quote:
Originally Posted by Chas Shaffer
All emotions aside this is all about gaining a competitive advantage. The fact that it is moving along at this late hour for the 2008 season and outside of previously established procedures is unfair for all who do not have the inside track at Elan. If the argument has merit run it through the normal channels without veiled (or overt)threats and let the members of the CLUB have the correct level of input specified in the rules.
Don,t care what the rules ar as long changes are fair.
BTW I don,t have a Zetec just my old 1991 pinto.
The bottom line
Quote:
In order to promote open commerce within the FC class the Board of Directors and Club Racing Board request immediate input to help accelerate the evaluation process for the following specification change. If approved the changes would become effective 3/1/08.
Open Commerce.........
The SCCA believes that Sandy will not sell to certain people, we know who "They Are"
Sandy says not so. Will we ever know for sure ?.....depends who you believe.
Regardless, the SCCA appears not to be following their own process.
Those who will profit are exploiting this scenario and pushing the SCCA into a rule change.
Has one FC driver who actually writes the checks petitioned FOR this?...... NO
Will all the letters written (including mine) asking not to approve this affect the decision?.....I hope so but I doubt it.
KEEP WRITING LETTERS, Its the only voice the membership has.
While many posed excellent reasons both technically and emotionally driven, according to the SCCA its still all based on the open commerce scenario.
Stop all the spin about problems with the current engine.. Like any other new engine wont reveal any weakness after its been is use for 7-10 years as well.please...
Will this be approved....
Unless The SCCA believes that the described scenario doesn't exist, probally
If so, it becomes plain that the overwhelming will of the membership takes a back seat to protect the perception of "open commerce".
gentlemen.... buy your engines
my 2 cents
Damn glad there's a Pinto behind my head...
I think the "open commerce' button is a residual from the Enterprises fiasco re fran am etc.
if the CLUB is right grow some balls and don't get bullied to the detriment of your members.
there used to be an unwritten rule if you sued your CLUB you were no longer welcome as a member.
If this goes through and the veiled threat to the F2000 series moves on perhaps a new sanctioning body for F2000 and a vote with our feet to the SCCA for the FC class.
I see comments from R. Pare and others about the BoD not following the rules process. So I looked it up in the GCR. It's laid out on Page 1,where it looks like the BoD can change the rules anytime they feel the need to. They do Normally use a lengthy comment period,that's true,but there doesn't appear to be a hard and fast 30 day requirement. That said,I've sent my letter in against the new manifold and encourage anyone else who shares my view to do so ASAP. :thumbsup:
Nothing has been said about the BoD not following the process - it hasn't even been involved in its offical capacity as yet - just that the published process has not been followed. The BoD is the just last line of defense we have against the process not being followed correctly. In fact, word is that they are a bit pissed off about this.
From the SCCA web site "The Rules Making Process: (http://sccalive.haymarketnetwork.com...spx?content=72)
STEP 1 - Member Input
A member, be they a competitor or an official, has a concern (e.g. "My car is not fast enough" or "his/her car is too fast" or "I can't possibly wave five flags at once" or "all I do is look at other people's underwear," etc.). Thus a letter is written, preferably to Club Racing at the National Office in Topeka, where the staff records its receipt and distributes it to each member of the appropriate advisory committee and each member of the Club Racing Board.
STEP 2 - Advisory Committees
The advisory committee members individually review each member's input and recommend a course of action to the chairman of that committee. The chairman then consolidates the responses and in turn makes a recommendation to the Club Racing Board liaison(s).
Where there is not an advisory committee appropriate to the subject, the Club Racing Board will consider the matter exclusively themselves.
STEP 3 - Conference Calls
............................................
Rule Changes — A rule change typically affects an entire class, a method of car construction, or the manner in which a competitive event is conducted. The Club Racing Board is not authorized to unilaterally implement rule changes; they can only recommend that the Board of Directors approves them. They are published in FasTrack as recommended items and 30 days should elapse to allow all affected parties to submit their comments, either directly to the National Office or to their Area director (or both).
So far as I can see, none of this published process has been followed as yet. You are right in that there is no official process in place in the GCR, but there is the above that is published on the Club web site, and as far as I am concerned, if the Club has published this as the process, that makes it official. The BoD needs to get the official process straightened out an in the GCR so that we can all count on a hard and fast method, not the helter-skelter, shatter-shot methods we've had to endure at times so far.
It is very important to write your letters to the comp board. This is the official channel of communication and creates an official record. The rules process is not perfect by any means, I did not make the rules process, but we have to operate within the structure to improve the class. I strongly believe the paying, racing membership should drive the rules making process. It needs to be a transparent process and the letters to the board are the members main vehicle for input.
I still believe allowing the Zetec in FC was the right thing to do. The FC class started dwindling about 5 or 6 years ago and the old pro series was flailing as well. The new pro series is flourishing and I don’t think this would have happened were it not for allowing the Zetec in FC. I strongly believe the F2000 pro series should stick with SCCA club rules since that is what got them where they are, 52 entries. If it aint broke, don’t fix it. Soon, I think we will start to see the cross over with club racing again as happened in the nineties when there was direct crossover between national racing and a strong pro series. The cross over is critical for car sales and for the drivers, those that don’t want to compete routinely at the pro level or who are new and on a budget.
I personally will do whatever I can to ensure the Zetec engine, which was introduced as a very limited spec engine, continues to be implemented with minimal modifications ensuring engine equality while limiting engine development and rebuild costs.
-Rick Silver
What is with this "open commerce" argument?? What is the size of the market for FC Zetec motors? We are all lucky that anyone wants to go to the trouble of developing parts for this program. Why does Elan want into this (in the big picture) miniscule market? There is certainly something else going on here.
I have had nothing but good luck dealing with Quicksilver. I have had nothing but bad luck attempting to deal with Elan post Brad Batos. Anyone who feels that they are going to get good service and a better product from Elan is, in my opinion, p!ss!ng in the wind. Certainly SCCA should be interested in making sure the companies that they allow to make a part specified in the GCR will be able to service those parts. In my opinion, Elan is not one of these companies.
In the interest of open commerce, I want to start building FSCCA and SRF suspension pieces. The geometry will be slightly different but I think everyone will be happy with the pieces. Please help me put the "open commerce" back into spec componants.
How can the above groups & people for that matter, read the proposal and even come to the conclusion that they need "member input" Seriously???
In reading the proposal the intake is so different that they also need to submit a new ECU MAP to make it work? Keep in mind this is the same CRB that acted like we were pulling Christ himself of the cross to get the current map in the Zetec. And now Elan shows up w/ a new map & intake and they want member input? What a joke, This is exactly how /way members lose all Faith in the people and the process they voted for.
Who on earth as a suppler /builder has a parts supply problem, and the part in question is a key performance item on a very heavily restricted motor, and says to themselves, "well we can solve our supply problem by just making our own parts, but let's go ahead and make them completely different then the already approved ones. "That way our parts will surely be approved"..........
After reading the proposal the CRB / BOD should have just sent it back and said look folks we will be the laughing stock of the club if we send that out, you need to go back and work on that some more.
I guess now we just need to see who gets the last laugh.........
Rob NIcholas
Originally Posted by Bob Wright http://www.apexspeed.com/forums/imag...s/viewpost.gif
Mmm...let me clarify things a bit as to how all this pertains to the F2000 Championship Series.
We are closely aligned to SCCA FC club rules and presently require a Zetec (or Pinto) motor to first be SCCA club legal. We then go one step further and require an engine to be sealed by either QSRE or Elite Engines.
Correct me if I am wrong, Bob. Your series has already told Elan that if SCCA approves this engine, it will then be automatically approved for the F2000 series. Are you saying it would still require sealing by others? Dan Anderson,
************************************************** **********
I guess Bob is taking the 5th on this one, Can't say I blame him.....
Reading Bob's post I would say that Yes the engine have to be sealed by QS or Elite. After all that is the current rule and has been the rule from the 1st year.
OTOH, If the part was to be approved and it proves to be better what would keep Elan from having the motor sealed by Elite and or Elite just buying the parts and using them.
Rob Nicholas
so after writing muliple letters to the BoD the answers I get back all revolve around " Its a complicated situation"
Yeah I guess it is when Elan supplies the parts to Enterprises for the FSCCA car. I guess thats the commerce being referenced.
Checked out NASA lately? What once was a small club on the west coast now holds races across the county. Hell they even have a FC on their home page, a new competition director that raced formula cars and a national championship race at Mid-Ohio! I think all we might need is an invitation. www.nasaproracing.com
Im sure Mr. Cohn is watching!
In the interest of "Open Commerce" once this change is rammed through(or is that up) how many of these parts are available?
at what cost?
to who?
and with what other equipment ties for purchase?
Stan? Care to enlighten the members?
If there was ever an excuse for a national referendum to re-write all the club operating rules and bylaws, this is it. Sems to me though, that nobody has the authority to do so, and if it were done, what the process would be to adopt them. :(
If the Prez and chairman of the BOD had any balls they would put a stop to this and start fixing the organization now, because stuff like this is starting to become a yearly thing.
Who has a GCR handy?
If this proposal goes through do we as members have the right to appeal the decission?
If we do, what is the required process?
Richard, I agree that what you refer to is the Normal process for routine rule changes. I was only pointing out that when the BoD deems it necessary, the GCR lets them change the rules on short notice. For whatever reason, the Board thinks this is one of those occasions.