Bring Back G (H) Production

Ron Bartell

Ron Bartell

Well-known member
This post is difficult for me because it sounds like sour grapes, but I think it is time to make a push to bring back G Production.

We all know that the reason it went away was bogus, and now with combined class races at the Runoffs and no 2.5 rule, they could easily bring back G and find a place for all of the disenfranchised cars that were left behind in the elimination of G.

Just think of the cars that were left in the wake of this bad decision: The Prather MGA, The Dennis' Datsun 510, The Mathis VW, The Woody and Suzuki Jon Swift. Not to mention the Alfa Toyota and Fiat

There were also a number of cars that found a comfortable home in H, but did so at the expense of the previous H inhabitants. Many of those cars would work nicely in G now that they have been developed closer to the max. These include the Meller/Moser Honda, the Gauper/Rogerson Honda, the Sargis 1147 Spit, the Brian Linn 1098 Spridget, maybe even the Feller/Crisenberry 1300 Spit.

I would definitely be in favor of reinstating G, and if H production couldn't stand on its own, then do away with it and fold it into G. We would then return the Production category to a hierarchy of class structure that makes sense, (E,F, and G), and if H was combined with G it would be obvious that H would have to be given something to make them competitive, instead of what happened where a number of G cars were introduced into H at an initial advantage, and over time some of that advantage has been taken back on some of the cars.

In the mean time not much has been given to the original H cars, and we simply wait around to see what former previously underdeveloped G car will win this year's H Runoffs race. Is there any wonder why every year there are less and less of the original H cars in H at the Runoffs? Where are the Webers, Collishaws, Trenerys, Salisburys, Canfields, Greg and Aaron Fellers? Where are the converts from F production to H where it is relatively easy to change from a full-prep to a LP 1275. They won't make that switch even though they are not competitive in F because the Spridget is presently even less competitive in H.

I have heard many people ask that the CRB give them back G production. I say give us back H production. I have given up worrying about what letter is on the side of my car. Just make it competitive.
 
I'd support that too. You can add all of the 1.6 LP VWs that no longer come out to play to your MIA list.
 
As I just said, the SEDiv is available as a starting place. Just put together the rules and I'll ask the SEDiv Regional race rules Committee to approve them. Then, get the cars out racing SARRC and when the BOD and CRB see the numbers, you will have a class in place ready to go back to National racing and the Runoffs.

And one advantage we have is that we can make adjustments based on what we see here in the Division. SARRC races are open to all drivers, all divisions. And once you've entered three races, you are eligible for the SIC, our Championship race. In addition, I'm sure Atlanta Region would include GP in the ARRC.
 
Ron,
I'm with you 100%. Don't see a need to point fingers or irritate CRB and BOD on this emotional issue. GP was a victim of the times. Good leaders often recognize the need to correct mistakes to move forward. I have made the following request in my letter # 6488 tonight. Would appreciate all the support we can muster. My preference is for full prep cars and GP offers place for many existing SCCA competitors who are on the sidelines because either their former GP car is not competitive now or their HP car isnt competitive with the new GPHP cars. As a business owner and father of 3 terrific young women I I've learned over the years that the way to move forward in changing times sometimes involves taking a small step backwards. Following is the text of my request. I'm sure there are smarter folks out there who can add supporting letters offering reasons I didn't point out. Jump in and help or object, just don't sit on the sidelines.

Our club is in trouble. We need every able bodied participant. Now is the time to be bold and proactive and not hide behind the sins of the past. Please reinstate G Prod as an active class for 2012. Look at the Runoffs qualifying stats. the top 10 EP cars are 4 seconds faster than the top ten FP cars. The top 10 HP cars are over 10 seconds slower than the top 10 FP cars. Something is missing in the middle. Reinstate GP and the Fiats, Alfa's Datsuns, Toyotas MG's VWs etc.will come back. If they don't you can easily combine G and H at the Runoffs until 2013. This is a no lose proposition for you. If the GP competitors fail to revive their participation numbers "THEY" fail, not you. If they are successful then you guys all look like a genius. In the intervening 2-3 years OUR club will benefit from increased participation, entry fees and dues. PLEASE DONT DISMISS THIS REQUEST WITHOUT SERIOUS DEBATE.
Thank you for your time.
Regards,
Keith Church 281381
5 time SARRC Champion
2 time SEDIV National Champ
 
FP Racer":2jrerdpe said:
As I just said, the SEDiv is available as a starting place. Just put together the rules and I'll ask the SEDiv Regional race rules Committee to approve them. Then, get the cars out racing SARRC and when the BOD and CRB see the numbers, you will have a class in place ready to go back to National racing and the Runoffs.

And one advantage we have is that we can make adjustments based on what we see here in the Division. SARRC races are open to all drivers, all divisions. And once you've entered three races, you are eligible for the SIC, our Championship race. In addition, I'm sure Atlanta Region would include GP in the ARRC.
Click to expand...
Jim - I saw your post and with all due respect I don't think that anything that goes on in one small part of the country is going to have much effect on getting G reinstated. First of all no one with runoffs aspirations is going to build or convert a car based on the possibility that it might be able to be raced in one or two years. And secondly, making adjustments to the class based on cars raced at the regional level would surely be a joke, since the level of tune required to make that assessment is simply not there.

This has to be a situation where the CRB admits that getting rid of G was a mistake (or is pressured into reversing their decision by member input) and then reinstates the class with a definite cut-in date at the runoffs of no more than a year or so out. G can run as a regional class now, I believe, so there is nothing special needed at the regional level. There can be some fine tuning of the weights and such, but there was a G production before so there can be one again.

The consequence of doing this of course is that we will make two weaker classes out of one strong one, but having watched a number of runoffs races this year with 10 or less cars in them, and with the 2.5 rule on hold, we could have a combined G and H race with a split start tomorrow if enough people wanted it.
 
Ron,

G-production does not exist at the regional level. It was completely removed from the PCS...

Hence Jim's offer to create it in the SEDIV via the SARRC series. Earlier this year I pursued this with Jim but go virtually 0% interest in the class for the SARRC series, so I simply let it wither on the vine.

Not sure where the demand for GP would come from, except to cannibalize HP and maybe get some defectors from FP with hopeless cars. There are still a FEW old GP cars languishing in garages I'm sure.... :wink:

Mark
 
I am also in agreement with Ron. We were in the process of building a GP car that ended with the removal of the class and have an HP car that has been garaged for the last three seasons. I suspect that there are a number of cars in both classes that have been parked primarily due to the rule changes.

Reinstating G should bring back some of the parked G & H cars and provide more parity in each class. The basic rules still exist, just need to be updated for the car classifications.

As to the Run Offs or other races G & H can still run together as is done in some of the other classes.

The idea here is to level the playing field and hopefully increase the numbers.

Rod Hahnemann
SPRIDGETECH, INC.
 
QUOTE :
" G-production does not exist at the regional level. It was completely removed from the PCS..."

This is the most telling fact from the time of the G prod debate and speaks volumes about the biased mindset of the CRB and BOD at the time, although I am not convinced or knowledgeable whereof the idea actually germinated.
Now that it has been suggested that we seem to have a more reasonable BOD [?], perhaps the ideas suggested above can be implemented, and NO real harm can come from implementing these changes.
Except maybe to the egos of a few who were involved at the time.
Jim's ideas for doing this in the SEDIV and the SARRC / ARRC have tremendous potential as a example to prove or disprove the interest, althouhg economic factors today may have a deleterious effect.
Kudos to him for trying.
The SCCA BOD should follow suit.
BC 60530
 
I have a GP 1098 Spridget pretty much ready to go but it will need to go on a big diet. I have my old G stuff in an old 1500 chassis with no serious cutting so it weighs right at 1740.
 
There was a time when I was sniffing the G production class. Today I have no dog in the hunt.

I read this thread with a racers interest. If those with interest in doing something with a G prod class used their network/re-generated the network across the country and generated an actual list of folks that say yes (No offense intended, instead of there's a but load of G car sitting in garages somewhere) we'll race again in G production upon reinstatement then there is some meat in the stew.

An action plan has several steps.
 
Mark Coffin":30gta8ha said:
Ron,

G-production does not exist at the regional level. It was completely removed from the PCS...

Hence Jim's offer to create it in the SEDIV via the SARRC series. Earlier this year I pursued this with Jim but go virtually 0% interest in the class for the SARRC series, so I simply let it wither on the vine.
Click to expand...
OK, so I stand corrected and G does not exist at the regional level. That surprises me, but I still say that trying to bring a national class back at the regional level would be a mistake, and the zero interest in the SARRC series bears that out. People that want to win the Runoffs typically don't have much interest in running regionals.

I am glad to see some agreement in my thinly veiled attempt to return H to what it was before. But for this to work the CRB/BOD has to reinstate G and give competitors a place to race at the National level with the guarantee that there will be a race at the runoffs. IIRC, the class was killed by NOT allowing G to have a runoffs race first, and THEN G went under the following year. National racing these days is all about the Runoffs. That is the only thing that makes this foolishness credible, so there has to be a runoffs race first.

Clearly the new G would cannibalize H, but if some of the cars that were parked come out and play there would be a net increase in runoffs participation, which is a good thing. We would need a commitment from a number of G cars in order for this to make sense.
 
Thanks for bringing this up Ron. When the limited prep rules were instituted I was enthused enough to buy back my old H/P Sprite which was gone for 20+ years and began a complete restoration. When I felt like the rug was pulled out from under me I reacted by converting the car to vintage specs, and the car will be ready for vintage events next spring. If the club was serious about this change, and coddled H while participation builds as they do for T3, I would support it. Dust off the logbook and set my sights on the great small engine class that was H/P.
John Caffrey
Member # 51198
Fogelsville, PA
 
We do need to get every possible car on the track, I don't know exact numbers but seems like we had small numbers at every event I went to this year. If we don't get more cars on the track, what will happen to entry fees, I think they are high enough now.

To really make this change work, G would have to come back as both Reginal and National.

Some of the cars parked are National level drivers, and they my not bother to enter a reginal race. So one year of reginal level might not show the full interest in the class.

Some of the traditional H cars are to small bore to really fit with the new current class, so having another class might make all the cars a better fit, either in G or H. This is club racing, should have a place for everyone to enter and have a chance of actually racing, potentially winning.

My car could fit in either G or H, I will enter either.
 
Ted is right, there are cars parked just waiting for a place to play. There are 2 top-10 Runoffs GP cars sitting in garages in my town alone (one of them is the 2008 national champion Toyota). I know Keith's Toyota is just sitting there too, and he'd bring it out in a heartbeat.

If G-Prod came back, it's a sure bet we'd bring more cars to the Runoffs than half the classes did this year. :beat:

MC
 
The post here are nice to read but they don't count as far as the club goes. In 2007 the BOD said they didnt get enough member input in favor of continuing GP so they decided to kill it. Today there is a very good system in place that logs each members input if it is submitted as a request. Lets use that to document our interest. It is this simple:

Go to the SCCA site, select Club Racing, then click on Cars and Rules. In the first paragraph, click on the red letters "send a request to the CRB". Enter your name + member info then select the Prod category and type in "reinstate GP" in the title field. In the Request field type in " please reinstate G Prod. as requested in letter 6488" and click on submit.

You will get an immediate response with a letter #. If you dont mind making your support or opposition public simply re-post your feelings here along with the letter # you get from the club.

Pro or Con, invest 2 minutes of your time in this process to get something resolved and documented.

Thanks,
Keith
 
Done. Keith is right, it only takes a couple of minutes to do and gets your voice on record.

This works for disenfranchised H-Prod competitors as well. If you'd like to see G-Prod come back to allow for a more equitable balance in H-Prod (give the overdogs in H-Prod a place where they'll be more suited), send in a request for the reinstatement of G-Prod.

With a 10 second per lap gap between FP and HP, there is definitely a place for G-Prod to fit.

Send in that request!

Mark
 
I would love to see GP come back as much as anybody but I don't see it coming back as it was. It was broken before it was terminated. The Spitfires and Spridget were moved to HP before the demise of GP because they were no longer competitive in GP. There were other models that would have been close to follow. Before we jump up and send in all those letters, we should try to figure out what would make GP work if it did come back. A plan without content goes nowhere. We would need new car models, along with some of the originals, to make GP work.

I think what we need to work on more than bringing GP back is finding ways to bring parity to HP. I think HP is on the verge of falling into the pit GP did for similar reasons. It has not been too long ago that HP was near being eliminated due to a low count. If more of the original HP cars drop out, it may fade away unless more of the current front runner models join in.

One thing is certain though, with the 2.5 rule set aside for the interim, it should be safer to start trying to bring back GP. It will have a low count in the beginning and may cause HP to drop in numbers. Hopefully, the numbers will get high enough if/when the 2.5 rule is enacted again.
 
request sent AGAIN, not sure how many times we need to do this, I hopw Keith is correct and they can track this better now.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top