Shot Across The Bow??

[Matt Satchell]

Bad move. This board is struggling to establish credibility as a successor to the FFU, and the FranAM/SCCA issue is deemed irrelevant??

[Keith Carter]

Please, that is not what was said or meant. People are arguing over who is going to jail and other ideas and NOTHING has been given up as evidence.

I said that if someone can find something of fact, the post can resume. I feel it was going in the wrong direction and stayed from its original path.

I agree that it is important, but that discussion was not.

[USF2000]

I think I'm 2 for 2 now in having threads originated by myself, shutdown here on ff1600.com.

Some of my biggest critics on the FFU of freedom of speech are now Moderators on this board, this is not a slam but, I am glad they are understanding and dealing with the same issues of what I went through there.We should thank them for volunteering their time here on the new site. Being in the "hot" seat running a board isn't always easy.

It was and is not my intent to "slam" the SCCA/Officials etc etc, by posting the AP story (which by the way, was printed all around the country in Newspapers and on websites)about the pending lawsuit.

We all pay our dues to the SCCA every year,IMHO we do have the right to ask questions of what BOD and the Club Managment how it goes about running our club. Blind faith in anything, is not a good idea.

Last Friday, I asked a person involved in the Club, how serious is the Fran-Am lawsuit? They couldn't comment on it (I wouldn't want too either if I was in their place), all issues and questions about the lawsuit should be directed to Pete Lyons (Risk Mgr) or Patc Henry (out-going club racing Mgr).

Also in the midst of this lawsuit, the club offices are currently moving to Topeka next week and new people are moving into new positions in the club so we have those issues going on too.

Dave
"sick of politics"

[size="1"][ November 06, 2002, 09:12 AM: Message edited by: Dave Hopple ][/size]

[ennis bragg]

Dave,
I for one appreciate that the issues are brought up here and made public....

I understand that some people don't like what other people have to say, but that is America.

Freedom of Speech is an interesting proposition. I once heard it described as being willing to fight for the right of a person to say something that you would spend a lifetime speaking against.

I don't agree with deleting posts, but I do think that people need to "evaluate" what they say before they say it. The written word doesn't always come off the way people think it will.

I don't want this to be the complaining backstabbing board, and suprisingly, it seems this same discussion can sustain itself on the F2000 board without much controversy....ask yourself why?

[USF2000]

[quote]Dave,
I for one appreciate that the issues are brought up here and made public....

I understand that some people don't like what other people have to say, but that is America.

Freedom of Speech is an interesting proposition. I once heard it described as being willing to fight for the right of a person to say something that you would spend a lifetime speaking against.

I don't agree with deleting posts, but I do think that people need to "evaluate" what they say before they say it. The written word doesn't always come off the way people think it will.

I don't want this to be the complaining backstabbing board, and suprisingly, it seems this same discussion can sustain itself on the F2000 board without much controversy....ask yourself why? [/quote]Dave, I agree totally and yeah, I was asking myself that same question.

Dave

[cdona]

It appears that two subjects seem to bring the most agression out of the participants of this board.SCCA's spec cars and the Fran Am lawsuit which are probably the same ultimate issue.Does that make anyone think of asking questions?I think it does. Dave I don't understand it either.

[dc]

First of all, this board is not "struggling to establish credibility." This board had credibility the day it opened up. If it didn't, there would be only a handful of visitors with posts that don't contain any information. You can find dull and unsupported FF forums elsewhere if you look for them hard enough. If you don't like the way these forums are run, you are more than welcome to start up and manage your own FF site.

The forums are an open community of individuals, most racers and racing market contributors, who bring their [b]opinions[/b] to the table in their own ways. Some do it more carefully tactful and diplomatic than others. The "credibility" of the topics discussed here is not brought forward by the board itself, but rather the members who contribute with their ideas and opinions.

This same discussion has been civil, articulate and intelligent for weeks on F2000.com, which is where we have also mentioned that non-Formula Ford discussions have a home in a specific forum created for this type of discussion. There is nothing wrong with the posting of the news, as it does a great affect on this class for the future. However, the topic of the conflict between the SCCA and FranAm jumped grossly off target into the physics and chemistry of the degradation of carbon fiber tubs versus brazed space-frame chassis. It also seems to be the same few individuals running amok starting rumors with speculation and hearsay, for no reason than to start up trouble. [b][i]Again.[/i][/b]

For the few people that don't want to see the slime-encrusted underbelly and political distaste currently in the SCCA... ignore the thread, it is that simple. There are plenty of other helpful discussions taking place right now in this forum and at F2000.com. For those few individuals hell-bent on seceding from the union, do whatever you feel is on your and your fellow racer's best interest, but shouting "fire" in this crowded movie theater will not get you very much support from us.

The original thread is based on the simple AP news release of a lawsuit between the two previously mentioned parties. Other than what we all read in this article, everything else is speculation. However, in many instances not based on technology and factual information, speculation is healthy for the group, as it prompts thought and discussion on a topic that directly influences all SCCA paid members.

I will open this thread up again, but if it so much as strays one bit from the topic, I will not hesitate to lock it down for good with no reason given. Before you hit that "Post" button, think to yourself, "does this have ANYTHING to do with this discussion?" If it does not, don't post it in that thread.

-doug

[USF2000]

Thanks Doug/Dave/Joe etc. Might it be time to have another open topic area like over at F2.com?

As far as getting the facts, did any of you Mid-Div types go to your Mini Convention last weekend? I heard there might be a open Q & A with Mr. Johnson who was to be in attendance, I wonder if any of these topics came up.

Finally, (again not trying to start trouble and the release is only one side of the issue)in regards to "Shooting across the Bow" the Star Mazda people are doing a little of their own with a press release, [url="http://www.starmazda.com/y2k/PressReleases/2002/102502comp146.htm"]PressReleases/2002/102502comp146.htm[/url] read the last four paragraphs and then, make up your own mind on what it means.

Background info, apparently another builder for the current FM car (the one we all know and love ;) ) has been approved by the SCCA to compete with the original builder, what's this got to do with FF, nothing, but I hope it's not another lawsuit :(

Dave
P.S. I promise no more political stuff and get back to talking about racing stuff. ;)

[size="1"][ November 06, 2002, 12:41 PM: Message edited by: Dave Hopple ][/size]

[Curtis Boggs]

Interesting that Rodrigues would say that the Club "demanded the blueprints so that they could build it themselves", considering that that condition was part and parcel of the original agreement - prints were to be made available after 3 years to all interested parties.

I'll leave it up to you to judge who is doing what to whom!

[size="1"][ November 06, 2002, 01:07 PM: Message edited by: Richard Pare ][/size]

[DKRock]

Well I doubt that anyone is telling the whole truth about anything. Remember, however, that the MSR (Mazda Sport Racer) was denied status in either C or DSR because its sealed 13B rotary did not fit into the existing engine rules. How exactly does the Enterprises offering fit into these same rules? It doesn't. Period. Now, having said that, CSR can use all the help it can get. The car counts need to come up to retain national status. But the Mazda cars might have helped too...