glenwood":qa07oe3x said:
I’ll pick on the Mazda Miata – 9 race groups you can enter them in
A couple of weeks ago, I received an email from a fellow Honda-pilot, who was pointing out how many Mazda's were entered in Prod for the Runoffs, and if that was healthy for the category. This was my response:
That's seven different classifications though, and it's the one manufacturer who offers BY FAR the most support financially and technically. It's not only the easy button, because they do a lot of the work for you, but it also pays the best. I imagine all of those Mazda racers are wondering the same about all those non-Mazda's, and why anyone would chose to race something else. Don't blame Mazda because they've been the one car marker who's made the most fun, cheap, easy to work on cars in recent history, and then supported the grassroots campaigning of them better than anyone else. Its been the basis of that company for probably 15 years. Honda could've done the same with many of their cars, but they chose to offer half the contingency and none of the support. Hell, even their merchandise and parties aren't as good, or as freely given away. Then on top of that, they've made hardly anything worth racing in ten years.....and they're the second best option! It's my job on the PAC to create class parity and lots of competitive cars. However, it's not my job to decide which cars people end up chosing to race. They can chose for themselves, and for many people, MazdaSpeed makes their decision quite easy. Believe me, I've thought on many, many occasions, if I called them up inquiring about running a Miata, just what is there to be had. I bet it's more than I ever got from HPD, and it's not like I get nothing. But, just their advertised contingency alone would be considerably more.
glenwood":qa07oe3x said:
….. it only happens where people are using their money and power to influence outcomes – just like Congress, SCCA is a lobbyland – money gets results – Rick, you can get their attention for a moment but that is it – people do what they value and the Board could care less about your concerns – even if there is virtue – positive change, from your perspective, will only come with new people on the Board who carry forward your values and ideas
Wow that's insulting. But, you're right, as someone who is on the PAC, I do infact do precisely what I value, and that is real, honest, hard competition. I do not believe in participation medals, I do not believe in everyone gets a blue ribbon. I believe in the integrity and stability of our rule book, yet I believe in growth and creating lots of viable options without sacrifice to that integrity and stability. I do not believe in being stagnant, because I believe the world is always changing and you'd better be working to stay one step ahead of it, or you'll find yourself on the losing side as someone or something comes along with different ideas/resources/methods/etc. and does it better than you. All of that, to me, is what real, honest, hard competition is all about.
Dean":qa07oe3x said:
I think RA is the main problem. It just favors the LP cars.
I really can't wait for the Runoffs to move, just so I can stop listening to that excuse. Road America does have long straights, but it's not just a "power track". To be fast there, you need an incredibly well balanced, all-around capable racecar, that is having the crap driven out of it, just like every other track I've ever been to. But it makes me wonder, once the Runoffs do move, what will the excuse be then? We know what Sargis is doing, we know what Prill did in his Lotus 7 (qualified at a 2:34.1 in 2009), and the Walkers were still taking chunks out of their lap times with theirs last week (2:35.6 after just three laps of the race), and on the one-off trips that Nigel Saurino (2:35.1 at 2010 Sprints) and Harold (2:35.1 at 2009 Runoffs) made to Road America, they both ran very respectable times. But sadly, neither of them ever returned again, because apparently one event was all they ever needed to be 100% confident that their car and their driving was already so in-tune with Road America, that they could never gain anymore speed there, no matter what they did. In the meantime, guys like Sargis, Prill, Kannard, Wessel, Sam, Charlie, myself, etc. have all attended a lot of events there in the past four years, have tuned our cars, worked our asses off, and hung our balls out the window as we consistently drove within an inch of crumpling our cars up into little foil & fiberglass balls in every corner. Nevermind the work that's being done away from the track, running lots of events earlier in the year, testing like crazy, constantly developing both the car and the driver, and many late nights in the garage. If someone can give me one example, just one, of a "LBC" that can say the same over the past four years (other than Sargis, who for some reason is the elephant in the room that doesn't matter, for reasons I don't understand), then I'll shut up. Was it really such a daunting task before ANYONE ever bothered to seriously try? Seriously? And I know I'm going to get poo'd down with "You don't own one, you haven't lived it, you didn't know the 'old days' and how things use to be, you don't understand!" My response to that is, "Well, maybe that's the kind of perspective that's needed here.", because in my opinion, that's the kind of thinking that got Prod to being on life support in the first place. The constant rules creep, the constant knee jerk reactions and changes to classifications, the constant desire that just one facet of cars MUST be the clear and concise benchmark and standard for the class. That's precisely how you keep ensuring that just you and your buddies are the only ones racing, and that no new challengers arise to take on you and your product (some call that "competition"). However, that's also precisely how you prevent the generation of growth, the enticing of new drivers to your category, or the generation of any sort of positive "buzz" about your product. In the professional world, that's called "lack of a sustainable business model".
racingspridget":qa07oe3x said:
It was Glen's first trip to RA and he will be the first to admit he was still learning the track, but 14 seconds off the pole.......?
He was running 2:47's, and this is your comparative benchmark you're using to make your case? I set the ITA track record at Road America back in 2005 with my ITA Integra at a 2:43.4, and that was a 2600lbs, 145whp, IT crap-box on DOT tires. This car you're referring to, that had all of "this, that, and the other thing", was running ITB times, 6 seconds slower than the HP times....
and you're blaming the classification? How about "It's 12 seconds slower than Saurino and Harold ran in their first trips there." instead? I honestly hate to even point that out, because I'm not trying to dig on Glen and what he did or anything like that, but if a public case is going to be made like this, to try and crush, and bad mouth, and bruise something that so many of us actually do really enjoy and love (contrary to the vocal minority on this forum), then a public counter-case HAS to be welcomed and made as well.
