Dave Gomberg
Well-known member
These are posted at http://www.scca.com/assets/January3meet ... inutes.pdf and http://www.scca.com/assets/prelim_TB_12-02.pdf
Dave
Dave
Preliminary January CRB Minutes and Tech Bulletin
- Thread starter Dave Gomberg
- Start date
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 brothers?
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 brothers?
Regards,
Keith Church
R. J. Sorensen
Well-known member
I never was very smart at business matters, so it's no wonder why I can't understand killing a market for a product already built in large numbers, and creating a market for product(s) yet to be built.
But the business "leaders" have all the recent successes to support their decision.
RJS
But the business "leaders" have all the recent successes to support their decision.
RJS
Dave Gomberg
Well-known member
Keith:Keith Church":sw9x2h2j said:
I have been posting similar notices on this forum every month for about the last two years (that's how long the CRB preliminary minutes and TB have been in existence). I won't be doing it any more because I'm no longer on the CRB, but someone else probably will do it.
Dave
toolatesmart
Well-known member
Second month where I didn't see much action in the want ad section of sportscar for production cars or parts. I guess they don't want the door to hit the production category in the butt on the way out.
An old CB chairman repeatedly told his committee, never do anything to hurt the embedded base of existing racers. They are the backbone of club racing. He has passed and so has his directive. I wonder if our Supreme Leader might connect that old missive with the reduction/loss in membership he wrote about in his monthly column?
An old CB chairman repeatedly told his committee, never do anything to hurt the embedded base of existing racers. They are the backbone of club racing. He has passed and so has his directive. I wonder if our Supreme Leader might connect that old missive with the reduction/loss in membership he wrote about in his monthly column?
kruck
Well-known member
Is there any possibility at all to keep this in mind? Just a little bit? The Production racing classes as a whole are healthier right now than they've been in a long, long time. With all of the talk going on about consolidating racing classes across Club Racing, the Production category isn't even being considered. Why? Because we have a great product! We have strong, competitive fields made up of many different kinds of cars, being driven by some of the best amatuer racers in this country. In the face of this crap-tastic economy we've actually been one of the very few stable (if not growing) categories in all of Club Racing, and there is a growing "buzz" amongst non-Prod-racers about our product. Regional class racers are looking at Prod more now than they have in probably 10-15 years, and even drivers of other National Classes have been giving us a try (see your current EP Champion).
Also, that comment in the latest Fastrack's wasn't meant to mean "We're right now working on creating a new class above EP". Trust me, that is not the case at all. It just meant that the task of creating parity between different displacement cars is never ending across every Prod class, and across the entire category in general, while still trying to maintain a healthy balance of participation, variety in competitively campaigned cars, and excitment about new drivers and classifications. If (and that's a huuuuge "if"!) the addition of a fourth Prod class was ever going to be considered, it would probably make more sense for the Production category as a whole to have its targeted performance potential be above that of the current EP class. That is just because if you look at the recent historical trends of newer cars, very few could even be slotted into today's FP, let alone somewhere even below that.
*I hate that I even have to say this, but I know that I should: These are solely my words, and shouldn't be interpreted in anyway as the thoughts and/or opinions of the entire Prod Ad-Hoc Committee, whatsoever.
Matt Blehm
Moderator
that's kinda my thought as well. The newer V6 cars like the 350Z, WRX, Evo, IS350, V6 Stang, E46/E9x BMW, etc, could really cool in Prod form, but the weight and displacement is WAY over what would be considered for EP.
Yeah, there's T2, and GT2, but they're still on DOT tires or a $100,000 build. you could buy a used 350Z for $5,000 and have one helluva fun car once you strip the weight out of it. (Think of a 20yr newer RX7....) They're too big for STU and too small for STO, and you're still stuck with DOTs in both those cases.
Certainly not pushing for anything or trying to stir the pot- just thinking "hey, seeing a 350Z in Prod trim would be pretty cool." It would be a nice 'middle ground' between Touring and GT, and help bring some newer cars to Prod vs. the "old technology" that's running in FP and HP..
OTOH, adding yet more classes would be playing Russian roulette with everyone and is the last thing we need.
Yeah, there's T2, and GT2, but they're still on DOT tires or a $100,000 build. you could buy a used 350Z for $5,000 and have one helluva fun car once you strip the weight out of it. (Think of a 20yr newer RX7....) They're too big for STU and too small for STO, and you're still stuck with DOTs in both those cases.
Certainly not pushing for anything or trying to stir the pot- just thinking "hey, seeing a 350Z in Prod trim would be pretty cool." It would be a nice 'middle ground' between Touring and GT, and help bring some newer cars to Prod vs. the "old technology" that's running in FP and HP..
OTOH, adding yet more classes would be playing Russian roulette with everyone and is the last thing we need.
Tom Feller
Well-known member
I wouldn't view a 4th class as necessarily faster. A 4th class would allow us to better balance the existing cars (fill the gap between H and F) plus allow us the potential to add faster cars to the top class. Basically shift all the classes where necessary. Everyone would love that. Prod racers love change, right?
Doesn't matter whether we call it GP or not, a 4th class gives us more flexibility.
Doesn't matter whether we call it GP or not, a 4th class gives us more flexibility.
So we will possibly be looking at a class between F and H but not G. OK!
Here are some possible letters between F and H, in the Russian alphabet. This would give room for plenty of "new" classes.
Жж, Зз, Ии, Кк, Лл and Мм.
Wouldn't T & S love that.
Course we could use Greek to match the GCR language; then it would be Ζ, though there is no equivelent to F so I guess then we would have to kill F and then.....
Maybe silly season will end soon for those of us not able to make Flordia and we can get back to racing.
Here are some possible letters between F and H, in the Russian alphabet. This would give room for plenty of "new" classes.
Жж, Зз, Ии, Кк, Лл and Мм.
Wouldn't T & S love that.
Course we could use Greek to match the GCR language; then it would be Ζ, though there is no equivelent to F so I guess then we would have to kill F and then.....
Maybe silly season will end soon for those of us not able to make Flordia and we can get back to racing.
Tom Feller
Well-known member
Just saying having 4 classes would allow us to divide the cars between them in a way that could make for better racing...could allow flexibility to put faster cars in the top class. Just an idea.
Keith Church
Well-known member
Dave,
I realize that by using your name in my first post on this thread someone might infer that I thought you were somehow partially at fault for the murder of GP. Nothing could be farther from the truth. In fact I need to publicly thank you for your service to the club. My post should not have had your name on it as my concern is directed at the institution and not you individually. I am fully aware that prior BOD and CRB members were responsible for the ill conceived execution of GP in their blind pursuit of only 24 classes to make televised Runoffs more attractive to the then god of SPEEDVISION. Those were shortsighted self-involved decision makers that should no longer hold elective or appointed offices in this club. The long term damage their decisions created will continue to reduce the ranks of SCCA drivers and enthusiast for years to come.
What I can't understand is the current BOD and CRB's blind allegiance this mistake. The BS in the minutes just posted is unbelievable. GP was not in trouble prior to 2007. GP numbers slipped some in 07 due in part to the beginning of the current recession but mostly because the CRB moved the very popular GP Honda, Spridgets and some Spits to HP to help bolster HP #'s. The facts simply don't support the statements made in the current minutes to justify the elimination of GP and the continued lack of support for reinstating GP. These statements make it look like the CRB is a puppet organization so afraid to say the old BOD made a mistake that they parrot the company line like the BOD had a hand up their butts.
I have pursued rules changes many times over the last 15 years. Your innovative contributions of public notice of request and some disclosure of topics of discussion have been a breath of fresh air in an otherwise dismal process. Unfortunately the odor of "secret voting" and the systematic failure of the ADHOC and CRB members to contact members for additional input on their request have wrapped your good work in some very smelly paper.
Both you and Mr. Bob Dowie have done an excellent job of service to the club and deserve our thanks. I cant understand why the rest of the CRB and BOD members lack the fortitude to simply say a mistake was made, efforts will be made to rectify that mistake and hopefully some procedures will be put in place to make it more difficult for non-racing decision makers to drive off cub racer members in the future.
Thanks again for your service.
On a more personal note, I would like to direct the following comment to the BOD.
24 classes my arss, what difference does the # of classes make. Our tech and timing officials can easily handle many more racers than we can currently persuade to attend the Runoffs. Remember Atlanta and Mid Ohio before the age of PC's and modern timing + scoring. What darn difference does it make to them what numbers are on the side of the cars or the number of classes that are in a race as long as we get full fields for each run group. The numbnutts decisions made in 2007 cost me over ten thousand dollars to build and develop another car so I could continue to pay dues and entry fees to the SCCA. Good work. Keep it up and maybe we should spend some of our racing money to replace the rulesmakers.
Respectfully,
Keith Church 93932 and 281381
I realize that by using your name in my first post on this thread someone might infer that I thought you were somehow partially at fault for the murder of GP. Nothing could be farther from the truth. In fact I need to publicly thank you for your service to the club. My post should not have had your name on it as my concern is directed at the institution and not you individually. I am fully aware that prior BOD and CRB members were responsible for the ill conceived execution of GP in their blind pursuit of only 24 classes to make televised Runoffs more attractive to the then god of SPEEDVISION. Those were shortsighted self-involved decision makers that should no longer hold elective or appointed offices in this club. The long term damage their decisions created will continue to reduce the ranks of SCCA drivers and enthusiast for years to come.
What I can't understand is the current BOD and CRB's blind allegiance this mistake. The BS in the minutes just posted is unbelievable. GP was not in trouble prior to 2007. GP numbers slipped some in 07 due in part to the beginning of the current recession but mostly because the CRB moved the very popular GP Honda, Spridgets and some Spits to HP to help bolster HP #'s. The facts simply don't support the statements made in the current minutes to justify the elimination of GP and the continued lack of support for reinstating GP. These statements make it look like the CRB is a puppet organization so afraid to say the old BOD made a mistake that they parrot the company line like the BOD had a hand up their butts.
I have pursued rules changes many times over the last 15 years. Your innovative contributions of public notice of request and some disclosure of topics of discussion have been a breath of fresh air in an otherwise dismal process. Unfortunately the odor of "secret voting" and the systematic failure of the ADHOC and CRB members to contact members for additional input on their request have wrapped your good work in some very smelly paper.
Both you and Mr. Bob Dowie have done an excellent job of service to the club and deserve our thanks. I cant understand why the rest of the CRB and BOD members lack the fortitude to simply say a mistake was made, efforts will be made to rectify that mistake and hopefully some procedures will be put in place to make it more difficult for non-racing decision makers to drive off cub racer members in the future.
Thanks again for your service.
On a more personal note, I would like to direct the following comment to the BOD.
24 classes my arss, what difference does the # of classes make. Our tech and timing officials can easily handle many more racers than we can currently persuade to attend the Runoffs. Remember Atlanta and Mid Ohio before the age of PC's and modern timing + scoring. What darn difference does it make to them what numbers are on the side of the cars or the number of classes that are in a race as long as we get full fields for each run group. The numbnutts decisions made in 2007 cost me over ten thousand dollars to build and develop another car so I could continue to pay dues and entry fees to the SCCA. Good work. Keep it up and maybe we should spend some of our racing money to replace the rulesmakers.
Respectfully,
Keith Church 93932 and 281381