Mark Coffin
Well-known member
Larry Frankenstein":193hafaw said:
Larry,
It really is that simple. Simply ask for "GP to be reinstated using the 2007 PCS". :applause:
Mark
Bring Back G (H) Production
- Thread starter Ron Bartell
- Start date
Larry,
It really is that simple. Simply ask for "GP to be reinstated using the 2007 PCS". :applause:
Mark
Darryl Saylor
Well-known member
http://www.crbscca.com/
I went to here. Filled out the form with the comments below
PLease reinstate G Production back to the 2007 PCS.
I ran a former GP 1098 Sprite (now 1275 HP Sprite) and I have a HP 1098 Midget ready to race but I hate the weight so it sits.
Thank you
Darryl Saylor
#12 HP Sprite
#11 GP?? Midget
CRB Letter Tracking Number #6614
I went to here. Filled out the form with the comments below
PLease reinstate G Production back to the 2007 PCS.
I ran a former GP 1098 Sprite (now 1275 HP Sprite) and I have a HP 1098 Midget ready to race but I hate the weight so it sits.
Thank you
Darryl Saylor
#12 HP Sprite
#11 GP?? Midget
CRB Letter Tracking Number #6614
Keith Church
Well-known member
Larry,
Thank you for your continued interest in re-instating the GP class. Hopefully you have also encouraged others to express their interest in this subject to the CRB.
Your desire to see a “plan” for this process is understandable. Usually when someone post a “plan” on any subject objectors come out of the woodwork with their own often times self-serving changes to your plan and in the ensuing debate the process becomes derailed. I really don’t want to see this happen.
Hopefully our many requests for GP’s reinstatement have sent a message to the CRB that there is potential for more members and race entries in this idea and very little downside. Those few objectors posing questions here about the dilution of HP either aren’t reading what we say or cant understand our point. There is no reason to suggest we modify existing FP or HP rules. The first step is to re-instate the 2007 GP rules as of 1/1/12. This will get some old GP cars back. Some in H or F may want to try G as well, by this I mean they might want to try running in both classes. Vertical integration of car prep rules has long been an asset to many SCCA racers who have continually elevated their car prep skills by moving up from class to class. We’ve had many multiclass National champions and reinstating GP facilitates this by allowing H Prod racers to move up a logical incremental step to GP instead of the giant 10 second a lap leap from H to F.
With the suspension of the 2.5 Rule we’ve got at least 2 years to get the numbers up. Once the class is reinstated, the participation numbers can be enhanced by adding new cars (like the early SM Miata or IT7 RX7’s) or maybe even some of the lesser modified T3 or STU cars that proved unable to generate enough numbers as classed now. We already have some darned smart people making decisions about cars and classifications and they are capable of sorting out the various rules request reinstatement of GP is sure to generate.
Having a successful GP class again will be something of a journey. A journey begins with the first step. The first step is to get G re-instated. Publishing in detail what you are going to do once you get the class back simply invites all the naysayers to piss in your cornflakes until no one has an appetite anymore. Such is life on the internet.
I would like to encourage Mark to do as much as he can here because he is more politically correct than I am and therefore much more likely to succeed at this than I. I have a very good H car. I would also love to run in GP TOO. I would gladly step aside to avoid any BS about my interest being self-serving. Mark counts to ten more slowly than I. Anybody that knows me will tell you that patience is not my strongest virtue and when someone pisses me off I can make Ron Bartell look like Dale freaking Carnegie.
Thanks,
Keith
Thank you for your continued interest in re-instating the GP class. Hopefully you have also encouraged others to express their interest in this subject to the CRB.
Your desire to see a “plan” for this process is understandable. Usually when someone post a “plan” on any subject objectors come out of the woodwork with their own often times self-serving changes to your plan and in the ensuing debate the process becomes derailed. I really don’t want to see this happen.
Hopefully our many requests for GP’s reinstatement have sent a message to the CRB that there is potential for more members and race entries in this idea and very little downside. Those few objectors posing questions here about the dilution of HP either aren’t reading what we say or cant understand our point. There is no reason to suggest we modify existing FP or HP rules. The first step is to re-instate the 2007 GP rules as of 1/1/12. This will get some old GP cars back. Some in H or F may want to try G as well, by this I mean they might want to try running in both classes. Vertical integration of car prep rules has long been an asset to many SCCA racers who have continually elevated their car prep skills by moving up from class to class. We’ve had many multiclass National champions and reinstating GP facilitates this by allowing H Prod racers to move up a logical incremental step to GP instead of the giant 10 second a lap leap from H to F.
With the suspension of the 2.5 Rule we’ve got at least 2 years to get the numbers up. Once the class is reinstated, the participation numbers can be enhanced by adding new cars (like the early SM Miata or IT7 RX7’s) or maybe even some of the lesser modified T3 or STU cars that proved unable to generate enough numbers as classed now. We already have some darned smart people making decisions about cars and classifications and they are capable of sorting out the various rules request reinstatement of GP is sure to generate.
Having a successful GP class again will be something of a journey. A journey begins with the first step. The first step is to get G re-instated. Publishing in detail what you are going to do once you get the class back simply invites all the naysayers to piss in your cornflakes until no one has an appetite anymore. Such is life on the internet.
I would like to encourage Mark to do as much as he can here because he is more politically correct than I am and therefore much more likely to succeed at this than I. I have a very good H car. I would also love to run in GP TOO. I would gladly step aside to avoid any BS about my interest being self-serving. Mark counts to ten more slowly than I. Anybody that knows me will tell you that patience is not my strongest virtue and when someone pisses me off I can make Ron Bartell look like Dale freaking Carnegie.
Thanks,
Keith
James Wiley
Well-known member
Keith,
I don't doubt your motives or sincerity, but to state that those of us in HP "just don't understand" when we express fear of a possible decline of entries in our class if G is reinstated is like a government official trying to explain why a bad policy didn't succeed. Just blame it on the benighted unwashed who wouldn't go along with what's good for them! While I would not fight or speak against G coming back, to simply dismiss a scenario that is just as likely as any that have been put forth here is not productive. I guess we shall see what we shall see...
James Wiley
#72 HP Midget
Atlanta Region
I don't doubt your motives or sincerity, but to state that those of us in HP "just don't understand" when we express fear of a possible decline of entries in our class if G is reinstated is like a government official trying to explain why a bad policy didn't succeed. Just blame it on the benighted unwashed who wouldn't go along with what's good for them! While I would not fight or speak against G coming back, to simply dismiss a scenario that is just as likely as any that have been put forth here is not productive. I guess we shall see what we shall see...
James Wiley
#72 HP Midget
Atlanta Region
Larry Frankenstein
Well-known member
Larry Frankenstein":2qiv6a4w said:
FWIW, I just got an email from the CRB stating that my "letter has been reviewed by the Prod committee, and tabled for further review. After additional research, the committee will send a recommendation to the CRB."
Any idea what that means? Are they really going to research this?
Thank you,
L
As I am no longer an Ad-Hoc member let me take a stab at explaining what that probably means;
The committee talked about it and had some unresolved questions or concerns as to whether it would be a good idea or not so they decided, after being on a 5 hour call, to spend some time before the next call to research or contemplate their opinions. If it came back from the CRB after being recommended by the Ad-Hoc for approval, then the CRB wants more reassurance that it will be a good thing for the club.....
I'm just guessing but one of those is close.
Kevin Allen
The committee talked about it and had some unresolved questions or concerns as to whether it would be a good idea or not so they decided, after being on a 5 hour call, to spend some time before the next call to research or contemplate their opinions. If it came back from the CRB after being recommended by the Ad-Hoc for approval, then the CRB wants more reassurance that it will be a good thing for the club.....
I'm just guessing but one of those is close.
Kevin Allen
Larry Frankenstein
Well-known member
Larry Frankenstein":2hx6lje6 said:
Got an update today:
"Your letter has been reviewed by the Prod committee, and a recommendation has been made to the CRB. The CRB will review your letter and the Prod committee's recommendation on their next conference call."
L
John McFarland
Well-known member
Yeah, I just got an email from SCCA on the same matter. We'll see if anything happens.
dave parker
Well-known member
"Don't worry Sweetie. No one is bringing back G Production."
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2wD-NUjVMJc
cheers
dave parker
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2wD-NUjVMJc
cheers
dave parker
Gary Wittman
Well-known member
In my opinion, with the new direction of SCCA, efforts would be better spent keeping the existing Prod classes healthy. I am pretty sure any effort toward bringing GP back will go down as wasted effort. Being a GP orphan, I would love to see GP come back but I don't see how that is going to happen.
JasonIsley99
Well-known member
Gary Wittman":2ica5nqj said:
If you know what direction SCCA is heading tell us all. Who is actually running the club, sometimes its the CRB and sometimes its the BOD but where are they taking us. Has anyone asked your opinion about any major decisions, how to solve the loss of members, if SCCA should consolidate classes or add more as they are doing now? People say its the Secret Car Club of America and not always in jest.
harvey
Well-known member
I think it is a shame but GP coming back is remote at best.
I would like to know about the NEW direction for SCCA though, I have been trying to figure that out now for about 10 years (Been around a lot longer than that just to stupid to realize that I needed to be concerned about it) and it seems that it was and still is a very deep dark secret.
I would like to know about the NEW direction for SCCA though, I have been trying to figure that out now for about 10 years (Been around a lot longer than that just to stupid to realize that I needed to be concerned about it) and it seems that it was and still is a very deep dark secret.
Gary Wittman
Well-known member
I am not privy to any of the latest coming out of SCCA beyond what most can find for themselves. If you look at the link Jason provided, you will know pretty much what I know with respect to the new direction of SCCA. I am sure this is coming from the BOD. All the CRB and advisory committees can do is try to come up with ideas to save what we can.
The BOD runs the club, not day to day as that is what the staff does. The CRB reports to the BOD. I can assure you that your area director knows what is going on. Talk to him or her and get the answer. If you don't like what they tell you run for the board.
As a long past BOD member, I will tell you there is no way that they will bring back GP. Once the class is gone there usually is no turning back.
The prod group brought a plan to the bod and it was approved just like GT-4 and 5 (GTL)
As a long past BOD member, I will tell you there is no way that they will bring back GP. Once the class is gone there usually is no turning back.
The prod group brought a plan to the bod and it was approved just like GT-4 and 5 (GTL)
Curtis
Well-known member
mengelke":2fgjb9fp said:
I am not for return of GP now but the clip above may be the most blatant lie ever told on this site. GP was screwed by special interest outside the "Production group". Why not man up and either take pride in it or apologize for it rather than trying to rewrite history?
Darryl Saylor
Well-known member
Darryl Saylor,
Your letter has been reviewed by the Club Racing Board. The response will be in
an upcoming Fastrack. Your letter details are below:
I'm going to guess the answer. No
Your letter has been reviewed by the Club Racing Board. The response will be in
an upcoming Fastrack. Your letter details are below:
I'm going to guess the answer. No
Tom Feller
Well-known member
Curtis,
The adhoc came up with a plan to consolidate into 3 classes after the BOD wrote in Fastrack that they wanted to put all of Prod into 2 classes. I'm surprised no one has mentioned that before because that note they put in Fastrack caused a huge thread on this site, and rightfully so.
We took their word for it and took action before they took action for us. Now we have three classes that are beating the 2.5 rule but we have a gap between the classes and cars that don't fit. Then they made exceptions to their own rules for the "preferred" classes.
I guess you and Mike are both right.
The adhoc came up with a plan to consolidate into 3 classes after the BOD wrote in Fastrack that they wanted to put all of Prod into 2 classes. I'm surprised no one has mentioned that before because that note they put in Fastrack caused a huge thread on this site, and rightfully so.
We took their word for it and took action before they took action for us. Now we have three classes that are beating the 2.5 rule but we have a gap between the classes and cars that don't fit. Then they made exceptions to their own rules for the "preferred" classes.
I guess you and Mike are both right.