Bring Back G (H) Production
- Thread starter Ron Bartell
- Start date
Keith Church
Well-known member
Well it has been nearly 2 months since more than a dozen of us racers asked our appointed rules makers to resurrect GP from it's unwarranted murder. Justice moves slowly. It's been over a month since our unelected decision makers told us they were postponing a decision until after the final 2012 rules were finalized in order to further "research" the issue. Now I'm only a 25+ year member with 10 years or so in Prod and only 2 South East Division National Championships in GP so I'm sure they would have wanted to contact some of you other experienced GP drivers for input on this issue. That explains why they never contacted me even though I had made some effort here to solicit support for a timely effort to put more Prodcars back on SCCA tracks. I am asking those of you who were contacted by the Adhoc or CRB for input on this subject since last Oct. to please post the nature of that contact here so we can know what they need to know before making a decision about our future. For the rest of us that got a form letter indicating a decision had been made without additional input from us I would like for you to post here that you requested reinstatement of GP and never heard from the Adhoc or CRB.
Tom, if I understand your post correctly the BOD told their appointed lackies on the CRB that they were going to cut Prod racing in half and the CRB encouraged their appointees on the Adhoc to bargain away 25% of our classes in response to that threat. What a load of disgustingly gutless political crap. I admire many of my fellow competitors who have served selflessly on the Prod Adhoc and some of the few CRB members that have been kind enough to talk with me about issues over the years but if this is how the rules are made the system is considerably flawed.
If GP is once again sacrificed to the whims of the unelected rules makers over the objections of significant member input then maybe it is time we push for a rules change that has the CRB and Adhoc members both nominated by and and elected by drivers. Ir's our money, our lives and supposedly our club - isn't it time we had something to say about who makes the decisions that make or break us.
Can't wait to hear "their" decision and how "they" justify it. Anybody else puzzled as to why new ST classes were just added to National racing despite the failure of some existing ST classes to generate enough participation to meet the BOD's own participation rules?
So how long before "they" cut us to 2 classes then merge us with ST. Would really appreciate someone from the CRB or BOD posting here to confirm that elimination of Prod is not part of their long term strategy.
Oops, helicopter's here again.
Keith Church
Tom, if I understand your post correctly the BOD told their appointed lackies on the CRB that they were going to cut Prod racing in half and the CRB encouraged their appointees on the Adhoc to bargain away 25% of our classes in response to that threat. What a load of disgustingly gutless political crap. I admire many of my fellow competitors who have served selflessly on the Prod Adhoc and some of the few CRB members that have been kind enough to talk with me about issues over the years but if this is how the rules are made the system is considerably flawed.
If GP is once again sacrificed to the whims of the unelected rules makers over the objections of significant member input then maybe it is time we push for a rules change that has the CRB and Adhoc members both nominated by and and elected by drivers. Ir's our money, our lives and supposedly our club - isn't it time we had something to say about who makes the decisions that make or break us.
Can't wait to hear "their" decision and how "they" justify it. Anybody else puzzled as to why new ST classes were just added to National racing despite the failure of some existing ST classes to generate enough participation to meet the BOD's own participation rules?
So how long before "they" cut us to 2 classes then merge us with ST. Would really appreciate someone from the CRB or BOD posting here to confirm that elimination of Prod is not part of their long term strategy.
Oops, helicopter's here again.
Keith Church
Keith Church":3befhkrt said:
Keith -
I won't say "I know how you feel" as it wasn't my class that got the chop, but I did disagree with killing G and wrote a letter at the time.
I will say though that I think your statement here is unfair. First - "politics" is simply a name for the process by which groups of humans make decisions, you really can't get away from that unless maybe by going to a dictatorship which is unlikely to be better unless one of us is in charge 8)
Second, the BOD which IS elected has to ultimately be at fault if we disagree with the result - which we do. THey are in charge and get to tell the CRB and by extension the ad hoc what to do.
(Continued, as my browser makes it almost impossible to type long posts, what a shame...)
My memory, which may be flawed, is slightly different from what Tom said, but leads to the same place.
What I remember (somewhat dimly) is that GP fell afoul of the participation rule (3.5 at the time maybe) and was not granted a waiver, was threatened with demotion to regional status, and that the consolidation was floated to avoid that. I can't imagine that the ad hoc could have stopped this???
Either way, it was a victim of the widespread (but IMO totally incorrect) view that "SCCA has too many classes", a mindset that all classes HAD to have individual Runoffs races, and the fact that various interests seem to always be pushing new classes. Given all of these constraints, GP "had to go" - just as more classes are likely to go now to get to the just announced 24 (25?) class goal.
These strategic things must ultimately be decided at the top, and if we disagree with some or all of them then our input should go in at the top, I guess....
OTOH, to say that the production community requested GPs elimination via consolidation is at best a distortion. Kind of like saying that the defendant "requested" a life sentence when the alternative was execution....
My memory, which may be flawed, is slightly different from what Tom said, but leads to the same place.
What I remember (somewhat dimly) is that GP fell afoul of the participation rule (3.5 at the time maybe) and was not granted a waiver, was threatened with demotion to regional status, and that the consolidation was floated to avoid that. I can't imagine that the ad hoc could have stopped this???
Either way, it was a victim of the widespread (but IMO totally incorrect) view that "SCCA has too many classes", a mindset that all classes HAD to have individual Runoffs races, and the fact that various interests seem to always be pushing new classes. Given all of these constraints, GP "had to go" - just as more classes are likely to go now to get to the just announced 24 (25?) class goal.
These strategic things must ultimately be decided at the top, and if we disagree with some or all of them then our input should go in at the top, I guess....
OTOH, to say that the production community requested GPs elimination via consolidation is at best a distortion. Kind of like saying that the defendant "requested" a life sentence when the alternative was execution....
RonInSD":2plcwjh8 said:
Not many drivers do go. But I was there last year (for Race Technology) and do think that it offers a chance to make a "political" impact (for better or worse) if anyone cared enough to put in the time.
I remember in particular several comments made in the CRB open house meeting by members who operated Spec Miata or SRF "arrive and drive" operations, to the effect that last year's Runoffs qualifying rules were excluding significant #s of serious SM and SRF competitors (and virtually no one else) by virtue of the fact that you could finish (to paraphrase) in the top half of the field at a bunch of Nationals in those classes and get nary a point.
The CRB agreed to look into that and - I suspect - that's where this year's rule came from.
IMO, what we as Prod racers should be doing is arguing against two things:
1. The overall idea that SCCA "has too many classes" (as I've said before, what I think this usually means is "too many classes other than mine")
2. The idea that we can improve things by consolidating classes.
'Cuz if you accept #1 & #2 above you are likely to eventually find yourself in the "outbox"
Neither Tom or Al is 100% correct. Gp was not on probation from the former 3.5 of top divisions.
GP was not on any type of probation since at least the mid 90's. The plan Tom speaks of came after the 24 class rule. GP was eliminated by the 24 class rule. The plan tom speaks of was to be the replacement for the 24 class rule and was in effect for like 2 weeks before they went back on it. GP finished 26th in participation T3 was 24th, GT3 was 25th. GT3 was given a waiver and GP was not. At that time it meant GP would not be invited to the runoffs. Many GP competitors supported the consolidations into HP and FP because in the absence of a runoffs spot we all new the class would die anyways. I was told no waivers for anybody, I was told this is what GP competitors wanted, I was told GP had been on probation for the last 5 years, I was told there was nobody running GP. All lies. Mike's comment just furthers what I have said all along. They were doing so many things at that time, they didn't even know why they were doing it. Every reason why they eliminated GP has been reversed and discounted as not good policy, but they still won't admit that the elimination of GP was a mistake.
GP was not on any type of probation since at least the mid 90's. The plan Tom speaks of came after the 24 class rule. GP was eliminated by the 24 class rule. The plan tom speaks of was to be the replacement for the 24 class rule and was in effect for like 2 weeks before they went back on it. GP finished 26th in participation T3 was 24th, GT3 was 25th. GT3 was given a waiver and GP was not. At that time it meant GP would not be invited to the runoffs. Many GP competitors supported the consolidations into HP and FP because in the absence of a runoffs spot we all new the class would die anyways. I was told no waivers for anybody, I was told this is what GP competitors wanted, I was told GP had been on probation for the last 5 years, I was told there was nobody running GP. All lies. Mike's comment just furthers what I have said all along. They were doing so many things at that time, they didn't even know why they were doing it. Every reason why they eliminated GP has been reversed and discounted as not good policy, but they still won't admit that the elimination of GP was a mistake.
To further what Kevin said, the eligibility rules were nothing more than a game of musical chairs over a several year period. One year it was the 3.5 rule, another year it was the 24 class rule, another year it was the 2.5 rule, etc., and every year when some class (other than GP) got caught out, it got probation or a waiver (a waiver if it was a favored class like T3, or probation if it was an unfavored class like HP or GTL), then that one year, and that one year only, when the music stopped and GP got caught on the outside looking in, the BOD said "a rule's a rule" and eliminated GP. Then the next year, when it was a different class on the chopping block, they went right back to handing out waivers to favored classes. I fully understand your frustration with the way it was handled.
harvey
Well-known member
I have heard of the SCCA NEW plan for many years and have personally asked where I might find this information numerous times but have NEVER been given the location that I could find it nor been offered an explanation from anybody. This was when I was a Ad Hoc member as well as now when I am not.
If there is a PLAN then why is it not public knowledge?? maybe because it is a countinuous work in progres that changes at every corner, person and whim, I can't even imagine that happening in the SCCA.
I see it as stated above GP is dead and it is due to being in the wrong place at the wrong time and the whim of a few people.
If there is a PLAN then why is it not public knowledge?? maybe because it is a countinuous work in progres that changes at every corner, person and whim, I can't even imagine that happening in the SCCA.
I see it as stated above GP is dead and it is due to being in the wrong place at the wrong time and the whim of a few people.
Mark Meller
Well-known member
Made the request for G to be reinstated... Got all the form letters... was not contacted by anyone asking for an explaination. My letter is below:
The performance potential of H Prod and F Prod are too far apart. There's too big of a "hole" between them. There are many cars currently classified in H & F whose performance potential best falls in that "hole".
John McFarland
Well-known member
The only thing that I have received from SCCA in response to my letter was that it was received, and it was reviewed. Nothing beyond that.
I agree the "gap" between F and H is too big. It would be a pretty big investment to move up from H to F only to be blown away by the true FP cars.
I agree the "gap" between F and H is too big. It would be a pretty big investment to move up from H to F only to be blown away by the true FP cars.
Keith Church
Well-known member
OK Dave,
GP is dead, buried, dug up and it's bones burned and the ashes spread on the Dead Sea by really smart guys who know best how to save our failing club.
Proof is in the pudding, smart guys.
Has anyone ever seen a rep of the rules makers for our club post a notice here when the preliminary minutes for the monthly CRB meeting were done. First time I've seen this, but I don't see everything.
Sorry HP small bore guys, we just couldn't make it happen. Now the minutes state that the ADHOC and CRB knew GP would die if the possibility to win a Runoffs was taken away. Then they admit that small bore HP cars have no chance of prevailing at the Runoffs. I wonder what message this sends to our small bore HP bretheren?
Regards,
Keith Church
GP is dead, buried, dug up and it's bones burned and the ashes spread on the Dead Sea by really smart guys who know best how to save our failing club.
Proof is in the pudding, smart guys.
Has anyone ever seen a rep of the rules makers for our club post a notice here when the preliminary minutes for the monthly CRB meeting were done. First time I've seen this, but I don't see everything.
Sorry HP small bore guys, we just couldn't make it happen. Now the minutes state that the ADHOC and CRB knew GP would die if the possibility to win a Runoffs was taken away. Then they admit that small bore HP cars have no chance of prevailing at the Runoffs. I wonder what message this sends to our small bore HP bretheren?
Regards,
Keith Church
From FASTRACK
"Before GP cars were reclassified, GP was in serious difficulty. Between 2003 and 2005 the
number of cars at the Runoffs in GP dropped from 38 to 17."
More Lies!!!!!!! :-[...
GP starters
2003 34 cars
2004 33 cars
2005 29 cars
2006 24 cars (first year at in Kansas)
Announcemnet GP killed due to 24 class rule
2007 16 cars (last runoffs for GP)
I can't find all of the participation spreadsheets but I do know from memory the total participation the year GP was killed, was within 1 or 2 entries to T3 one of the years they got a waiver because it was worth saving.
I will say it again!!!!!! GP WAS NOT IN TROUBLE, IT WAS NOT ON PROBATION, IT FELL TO AN ABITRARY 24 CLASS RULE THAT HAS SINCE BEEN REPEALED, BECAUSE IT WAS WRONG!!!!!!
"Before GP cars were reclassified, GP was in serious difficulty. Between 2003 and 2005 the
number of cars at the Runoffs in GP dropped from 38 to 17."
More Lies!!!!!!! :-[...
GP starters
2003 34 cars
2004 33 cars
2005 29 cars
2006 24 cars (first year at in Kansas)
Announcemnet GP killed due to 24 class rule
2007 16 cars (last runoffs for GP)
I can't find all of the participation spreadsheets but I do know from memory the total participation the year GP was killed, was within 1 or 2 entries to T3 one of the years they got a waiver because it was worth saving.
I will say it again!!!!!! GP WAS NOT IN TROUBLE, IT WAS NOT ON PROBATION, IT FELL TO AN ABITRARY 24 CLASS RULE THAT HAS SINCE BEEN REPEALED, BECAUSE IT WAS WRONG!!!!!!
From FASTRACK
"Before GP cars were reclassified, GP was in serious difficulty. Between 2003 and 2005 the
number of cars at the Runoffs in GP dropped from 38 to 17."
GP was in serious difficulty? Lets see whos in serious difficulty but still has a class!
Runoffs starters:
2002 CSR-10 FA-13
2003 CSR-13 FA-23
2004 CSR-16 FA-24
2005 CSR-17 FA-27
2006 CSR-17 FA-15
2007 CSR-15 FA-15
2008 CSR-12 FA-9
2009 CSR-16 FA-15
2010 CSR-12 FA-13
2011 CSR-9 FA-14
That looks like 10 years of serious difficulty.
"Before GP cars were reclassified, GP was in serious difficulty. Between 2003 and 2005 the
number of cars at the Runoffs in GP dropped from 38 to 17."
GP was in serious difficulty? Lets see whos in serious difficulty but still has a class!
Runoffs starters:
2002 CSR-10 FA-13
2003 CSR-13 FA-23
2004 CSR-16 FA-24
2005 CSR-17 FA-27
2006 CSR-17 FA-15
2007 CSR-15 FA-15
2008 CSR-12 FA-9
2009 CSR-16 FA-15
2010 CSR-12 FA-13
2011 CSR-9 FA-14
That looks like 10 years of serious difficulty.
Bobby Lentz
Well-known member
Participation - I only included HP in addition to GP because of the perception that HP was consistently stronger then GP. It's just not true. GP had one down year in 2007 and it happened to be the only year where there was a 24 class rule for the runoffs so no runoffs race for 2008 and therefore no class...
2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011
GP 276 248 259 162 27 0 0 0
HP 196 207 237 230 245 262 247 226
2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011
GP 276 248 259 162 27 0 0 0
HP 196 207 237 230 245 262 247 226
Mark Coffin
Well-known member
KDENNIS":1yz9vw6b said:
You forgot S2000...how the hell does it stay afloat???
MC
Mark Coffin
Well-known member
Bobby Lentz":3a4npr9y said:
And HP was helped with the addition of some small bore GP cars that were removed from GP and moved to HP in those years....it was a systematic euthanasia by the BOD.
MC