THSCC Forums

Yes, on both the GXP and non.



I honestly don't know. Supposedly they screwed up and it still isn't in the computer for '08 but is supposed to be or something. Never heard for sure on '08.



It's not made by the factory and thus not an option.



There's no update/backdate in T2 or SSB. How you get from what you read that Mazda got the bigger exception is beyond me. Let me clarify...first, the MS-R races against the BASE Solstice in SSB. The BASE Solstice is legal without question. Even the hard top is legal under the new "safety" rule that wasn't there back in the Z4 day. I can't help but wonder when and how that rule change came about, but that's for another conspiracy theory. Now, the MS-R did come part way through this season, and some would say it was somewhat late for this season. But Mazda went through it with SCCA staff to make sure it would be legal for this year. They did what they were told and it was made legal and published. Upon publication, there was time for a couple racers to build MS-R SSB cars from scratch and even race them at a couple regional events. THEN they were ruled illegal by some CoA, even though nobody knew there was even a protest anywhere to begin with. This is all WELL before the Runoffs.

Somewhere along in there, GM stole the last seven '07 orders off their production line of Solstice GXPs. What do I mean "stole" them? Well, those were customer ordered cars and they postponed the customer orders to '08 cars (which probably meant they had to wait another few weeks at worst) and re-optioned those to base cars and put the newly developed ZOK suspension on them. They then all were pre-sold directly to RACE TEAMS through dealers in their areas. So technically speaking, no '07 Solstice GXP ZOK was ever actually available to the "public." At least one of those was raced just a couple weeks before the Runoffs at VIR, but that's it AFAIK. GM then typed up the proper documentation to make it appear that it was an option for '07 even though nobody ever saw said option on a computer screen until WELL after orders were closed for '07 cars (they closed some six weeks or more before those seven cars were built, IIRC...at that point you could only order '08s, and you could definitely only order '08s as of the day they officially even announced the GXP ZOK package!). SCCA then decided to allow the car to race in T2 (where it does not race against Mazda, but certainly could not have beaten the Evo at least, and probably other cars currently in T2).

SCCA made a much bigger exception for the GXP ZOK, IMHO.



Exactly. Then to tell officials from the company that actually supports SCCA racing the best that 'SCCA doesn't need you' is incredibly daft.



Apparently they are now "just another safety item" that you are allowed to purchase and install from anywhere. *shakes head*

I think for *safety* I'd rather have arm restraints than a CF hard top. That thing is gonna get ripped off pretty easily and bust into a pile of shrapnel if you roll and then you're gonna wish you had the arm restraints anyway.


--Donnie

Actually I agreed with the spirit of Brice's original post. I also (gasp!) agree with Chuck on some of his points. Wes was quick to jump on the bandwagon about this being some type of evidence with regards to GM shenanigans. IMHO that is where this thread jumped the track as I can't see this showing anything new about the GM situation. Maybe Wes just wanted to bait Chuck and he took it hook line and sinker.

The two situations are related to each other in that they are both evidence of how SCCA is dealing with manufactures, but this seems to quickly evolve into a "bash GM" or "bash Mazda" (girly cars, etc.) thing. I don't blame GM, Mazda or anyone else for trying to slip as much by the rulemakers as they can. That is their job. It just looks like SCCA is not being very inconsistent in how they apply the rules. I don't blame Mazda for being upset at all.

_________________
Richard Casto
1972 Porsche 914
2013 Honda Fit Sport
2015 Honda Fit EX
http://motorsport.zyyz.com
Money can't buy happiness, but somehow it's more comfortable to cry in a Porsche than a Kia.

I've said it before and I'll say it again for clarity...GM isn't doing anything wrong here. I'm not picking on GM. They are doing what I want manufacturers to do...it's just the SCCA is letting them be too successful at it. If they had stopped the MS-R in its tracks at the beginning and then done the same with the GXP ZOK in T2, I'd be happy as a clam.


--Donnie

I didn't realize that I wielded such incredible power.

_________________
Has no responsibility whatsoever.

That mistake (about update/backdate) is how I mistakedly came to that conclusion. I thought it was less of an exception considering that GM definitely WAS offering it as a factory '08, while the MS-R package, its still ambiguous as to whether its a factory (Mazda Japan) option available for '08. With the clarification that there is no update/backdate for T2/SSB, I now see the analogy. Really, sounds like neither should have been allowed (and the SCCA could have done themselves and owners a favor by keeping the story consistent from the beginning). I don't know what the hell I'm talking about anyways, I probably should've stayed out of this.

_________________
2012 MX-5 Sport SUV

X 2

Plus any organization that feels its bigger than its supporters (big or small) is one that will fall apart at some point IMHO.

SCCA Hater since 2002

_________________
02 Focus SVT
STF 9

The MS-R package was considered a "trunk kit" pretty much all along for the SSB car. In SCCA history there have been times trunk kits weren't allowed in SS, times they were, and they currently were NOT for a while. Then the stance seemed to soften and Mazda used that opportunity to create the MS-R package. It was allowed. They thought everything was fine, and then the rug was pulled out from under them.

I think they were fine with that, too (though SCCA should have compensated the two people who built MS-Rs, just like they did the Z4 builders back in that fiasco) until GM started getting stuff handed to them. I really think the CFHT rule started it, and the GXP ZOK was the icing on the cake. GM was handed an overdog in T2 when they were clearly just an also-ran before that. (And yes, I realize the CFHT rule change happened a while ago, but I still think it's probably suspicious, and Mazda agrees.)


--Donnie

Powerful you have become, the dark side I sense in you.

_________________
Richard Casto
1972 Porsche 914
2013 Honda Fit Sport
2015 Honda Fit EX
http://motorsport.zyyz.com
Money can't buy happiness, but somehow it's more comfortable to cry in a Porsche than a Kia.

Let me try to clarify, again I am not acting as an avocate for anyone, just stating fact as I know or understand it:
First the GM issue.
The ZOK package was an available option on the base Solstice (the one that runs against the Miata in SSB) on the 2006, 2007, and 2008. If you go to www.pontiac.com and build a Solstice the option package is listed.
No controversy there.

The ZOK package for the Solstice GXP was a last minute addition to the 2007 model. A 2007 GXP equipped with the ZOK package was entered and raced at 2 National Tour events. It was protested by another Solstice owner. For the first protest, GM faxed in the factory build sheet listing the components of the option package. It was allowed by the protest committee but was warned it needed more proof of an actual build. On the second protest GM presented documented proof it built at least 4 (or possibly 6?) 2007 ZOK GXPs and delivered at least a couple of them to retail customers (race shops granted, but not owned by GM) and again the protest was denied. The protesting racer petitioned the SEB to rule on the legality of the package for update/backdate purposes. Protest committee rulings are valid only for that event and protested vehicle, they do not set precedent, only the SEB can make a general ruling. The SEB was petitioned for a ruling, and decided in early Aug that based on the documentation, it was a legal option package and 2007 GXPs could be backdated for the championships IF GM could show all the components for backdating were available to any GXP owner that wanted them by Sept 1.
GM did exactly that. There were at least 5 GXPs so equipped in AS at Topeka including ours. This is a separate issue not connected to the Mazda SCCA ruling except abstractly, see the following.
(copied with editing from my previous post)
Mazda vs SCCA:
Mazdaspeed (NOT Mazda Jp) decides it needs a better equipped MX5 to compete (win) in SCCA solo and SSB so they "invent" a model, the MSR and take it to the SCCA claiming it will be a production option package. But meanwhile, since it takes some time for said model to be shipped over from Japan they petition the BoD to let them sell the racers the parts to retrofit their cars to the specs of the (allegedly) upcoming model. SCCA walked them thru the process and the CED and SEB approved the package. It turns out however that the option package was a (admited) fabrication by Mazdaspeed alone and that Mazda Jp had no intention of ever building the 2007 (or 2008) MSR and doesn't even acknowlege it's existence! (Go to the Mazda website, altho all other MS models are listed there the only MS Miata listed is the 2005, no 2007 or 2008 MSR, never has been, never will be. According to what I read, someone did file a protest that the MSR was not a legitimate production model according to the rules a short time before runoffs (and no it was not GM!) I believe since it was a protest of a previous CEB ruling it would be heard by CoA. The CoA ruled on that filing that indeed it was not a legitimate factory option package. Mazdaspeed cried foul and requested an appeal. According to the protest and appeal procedures Mazda was an outside party, had no standing and therefore could not appeal the decision.
All of this approval of the Mazda package was done PRIOR to the ZOK GXP controversy and was cited as precidence in that approval process. GM carried thru with producing the ZOK GXP, Mazda did not. It seems the mistake made by the SCCA was in not setting the requirement that the MSR be actually produced, but since the option was listed on some Mazda dealer's order screen I suppose it was assumed that eventually it would be factory built at least by runoffs. It turns out it was a bogus listing hacked in by Mazdaspeed just to get the package approved. It's not nice to lie to Mama SCCA, and MS got their hand slapped, and now are crying about it IMHO.

There is nothing nefarious about the hardtop. The rules in showroom stock classes require all softtop cars to run a hardtop and approved rollover protection as a safety rule. Safety equipment does not have to come from, or be offered by the factory. Since the Solstice was a completely new car and the hardtops, produced by an aftermarket supplier (and distributed by Phoenix racing the largest independent Solstice race prep shop), were slow in meeting the demand. Phoenix in an obvious move kept the first produced for it's own stable of cars rather than selling them to the general public. This lead to the outcry that you could not get one except on a Phoenix prepped car, This was only short term until the production caught up with demand and Phoenix had equipped all their cars with them, they then (and now) became available for purchase thru PR. Having an item backordered due to production delays is not the same as "unavailable".
The difference with the Z4 was that hardtops were not required at that time, and the factory backed racers showed up with them claiming them to be a factory option. This was seen as giving the Z4 an aerodynamic advantage, and was protested. Since no one else could get one of these custom made "factory option" hardtops, they were ruled as being "unavailable to the general public" therefore not legal. This is closer to the S. White team using unobtainium Kumhos that to the GM hardtop backorder issue. There was a rule change deeming hardtops required safety equipment therefore did not need to be factory supplied, in between.
I hope this clears it up.
I am outa here.

_________________
SPIN or WIN!
there's no glory for going slow.

There's a lot of fabrication in your story. The option package was no more "invented" than GM did with the GXP ZOK. It was much more highly available to EVERYONE a much longer time before the Runoffs. Cite where Mazda was told cars would have to come from Japan with that package on it...I don't believe you'll find ANY evidence of that.

Now, "someone" can just file a protest right to the CoA? And then who actually *is* the interested party who the BoD *would* hear if it weren't Mazda? I'm sure if it were one of the affected racers who had built an MS-R that Jim Daniels would have been happy to be Mazda's mouthpiece in front of the BoD.

I love how you've managed to wrangle all this into a "lie to Mama SCCA" when the SCCA has done so many wrong things in how it is handled. Just absolutely amazing.


--Donnie

You know, it's funny, I just went to Pontiac.com to build a Solstice GXP Z0K with a CFHT and I couldn't do it.

The Club Sport package (I assume this is the Z0K package) is not clickable and I couldn't find a factory hard top available as an option anywhere. Maybe I'm missing something.

Any help would be appreciated.

_________________
Todd Breakey
STS 42 - 1992 Sunburst Miata
Dammit!
"You souldn't play leap frog with a porcupine. You might get hurt." - Eliza

But Chuck said you could!!!

_________________
02 Focus SVT
STF 9

I get accused of baiting and Todd posts this? He must be a master baiter.

_________________
Has no responsibility whatsoever.

One last time: The hardtop is a safety rule requirement for the class. Safety equipment can and usually is purchased from the aftermarket. You cannot order a Miata, Solstice or most any other car from the factory with 5 point harness, racing seat, roll cage, or fire supression system either, but any car that wants to race in showroom stock is required to have those items on their car, according to the rules. The aftermarket supplier's distributor for the Slostice racing hardtop that meets the safety requirement is Phoenix Racing. If you want a brand new turn key SSB legal Solstice you can buy one from a preparer that is NOT Phoenix from their ad in the back of this month's Sports Car, and yes it does include the "unobtainable" hardtop! The Club Soprt is not a "clickable package, because it is a model, not a package and has ZERO options available on it.
As much as it gripes you Donnie, GM selling even 1 2006 GXP ZOK thru a dealer to a race shop that paid for it is by definition "available to the public", independent race shops are members of the public as long as ownership is passed to them.
Mazda (the company) says there was no 2007 MSR period! It was a made up model by Mazdaspeed alone to try to circumvent the rules. Therefore Mazdaspeed should be the one reimbursing anyone who built one of the bogus model to race. IIRC 1 of those 2 was built and raced by a Mazdaspeed employee(?) anyway.

I'm sorry if the "girly" car statement offended anyone, but that is the general public perception of the Miata (not mine, as Todd pointed out I owned and AXed one from 1999 until this spring). If that wasn't so, none of you would have gotten your panties in a bunch over it. Mazda has not helped the image by lowering the performance potential each year to cater to that market.

_________________
SPIN or WIN!
there's no glory for going slow.

*YAWN*

_________________
02 Focus SVT
STF 9