2007 Solstice GXP now obsolete?

Chuck Frank · **Posted:** Thu Jul 05, 2007 1:09 pm

Bunce is on the entry list for the Milwaulkee tour this weekend so we will have to see if he brings more documentation, I'm sure another protest will be lodged. It's a holiday week, so I haven't been able to reach my contacts for more info and part #s. There is plenty of precidence for it to be declared legal on the 07. Supposedly GM actually built 4 07 GXP ZOKs, Mazda hasn't built a single MSCS yet it is legal?

Donnie Barnes · **Posted:** Thu Jul 05, 2007 2:12 pm

Nick Flynn has the part numbers. The fact that no factory MS-R's exist is irrelevant...there's clear documentation that you *could* order one, they just priced it such that you'd be stupid to do so, so nobody did. This is basically the same situation that people still bitch about with the old MR2 and ABS and whatever. You could have ordered one in some special config, but none were *actually* done. There' s paperwork showing you could have, no proof that Toyota wouldn't let you, yet no example exists of that config. But it's still been deemed legal. Same with the MS-R, so get over that one.

This case is different so far. Nobody has produced a parts list, though one must exist as Nick claims to have the parts on order as of Monday. IMHO, the car in Peru should have been tossed for lack of documentation, but instead it was not penalized (though the protest was upheld!). The rule clearly requires documentation they didn't provide.

That said, if GM produced GXP ZOKs AND PEOPLE CAN FIND THEM ON A LOT AND THE PARTS REQUIRED TO CONVERT ARE READILY AVAILABLE, then it should be legal. If any of those tests fails, though, then no way. That is to say that if the GM computer can't find the cars that were built so that people know which dealer they gotta go to to get them, too bad. If no cars got produced, then too bad (because you can't say you could have ordered one since you couldn't have and we have proof). If the parts aren't readily available, too bad.

That pretty much seems to sum it up, IMHO.

--Donnie

Chuck Frank · **Posted:** Fri Jul 06, 2007 2:29 pm

Why would they have to have gone to a dealer's lot? I doubt you could find my GXP's configuration on any dealer's lot, no dealer would have ordered it that way for stock, just like no dealer would order a na ZOK for stock. If a ZOK ended up on a dealer's lot it was because someone cancelled a special order too late for the dealer to cancel it from the factory. If GM built a handful of GXP ZOKs, I doubt they had any trouble finding racers willing to take them without a need to send them to a dealer to sit on his lot.
I also doubt Ford sent many of the original GT40s to dealers or that they appeared in their dealer inventory system, but that doesn't make them not exist!
If Nick has the part # list and was able to order the parts, they must be "readily available", no?

Aaron Buckley · **Posted:** Fri Jul 06, 2007 3:04 pm

Chuck Frank wrote:

If a ZOK ended up on a dealer's lot it was because someone cancelled a special order too late for the dealer to cancel it from the factory.

I understand that, but if no Z0K existed in the GXP lineup, then how would someone have known to order one such that they could cancel the order 'late' and have it end up in a dealer inventory?

This whole things smells rotten to me.

Regardless, I still don't think that the Z0K parts are going to take the GXP from a midpack car to a winner. - AB

Chuck Frank · **Posted:** Fri Jul 06, 2007 4:39 pm

I was refering to the na ZOK, not the GXP.
In 06 no one not "in the know" would have known about the availability of the na ZOK option, it did not appear on the dealer's option list, you had to go thru SCCA to order one.
Under the current rules, if GM built it, it's legal.

Donnie Barnes · **Posted:** Fri Jul 06, 2007 5:04 pm

Actually, Nick said he had them early in the week because he was assuming they'd show, but in reality he still has yet to see the part numbers or try to order the parts. So as of now they do not exist to be ordered as far as anyone can tell.

The first sentence of section 13 of the rulebook is very clear. It ends with "and normally sold and delivered through the manufacturer's retail sales outlets in the United States." I'm not familiar with the '06 ZOK situation, so I can't comment on its legality, but I think the point was that there was a commonly available procedure that one could use to get that car. Currently, no such procedure appears to exist so CURRENTLY the ZOKT is illegal, IMHO. That isn't to say that GM won't rectify that in a reasonable timeframe and change the legality status, but RIGHT NOW, IMHO, the ZOKT is illegal for Solo competition.

I wasn't born yet with the GT40 was sold new and I have no idea what the Solo rulebook looked like then, so I can't comment on how relevant that example is.

--Donnie

Arthur McDonald · **Joined:** Fri Aug 29, 2003 1:54 am **Posts:** 2052

Chuck Frank wrote:

I also doubt Ford sent many of the original GT40s to dealers or that they appeared in their dealer inventory system, but that doesn't make them not exist!

Being the Ford guy, I have to stick my nose in now that the hallowed name of the Ford GT40 has been invoked in this discussion of GM chickens and eggs. Whether you could order a GT40 through a dealer is probably not relevant to a stock class discussion, since I doubt they built 1000 of them in any model year. However, in the early 70's you could order a DeThomaso Pantera through your friendly Lincoln-Mercury dealer, for the same $14K as a Continental. And look, it's right there in the AS list in the Solo II rules!

Chuck Frank · **Posted:** Fri Jul 27, 2007 7:44 pm

Donnie Barnes wrote:

GM announced a ZOK package for the 2008 GXP today. Doesn't the ZOK have stiffer springs and thus pretty much make it the GXP to have? Since 2007 people can't use those...

--Donnie

Bulletin: 7/27/07
SEB rules ZOK is a legal option package conversion for 2007 GXP.
Parts have been ordered.
Film at 11:00

Donnie Barnes · **Posted:** Fri Jul 27, 2007 9:18 pm

Yeah, and not a single SEB member I know got a single thanks. On top of that, we've got people emailing the SEB chair directly instead of trying to work through their SEB reps to get their agenda furthered. Even better is how people are posting how they know the kit is exactly the same as what's been offered as a "trunk kit" all along. Only that isn't even remotely true.

Man, this whole soap opera has been a ton of fun.

--Donnie

Donnie Barnes · **Posted:** Fri Jul 27, 2007 9:39 pm

BTW, the package is only legal if GM gets the parts in people's hands by August 3 (for AS, otherwise it goes to SS). And FWIW, I voted in favor of making it legal, even though I really don't like the way GM did this.

You can not compare this to the Elise situation. The SEB never ruled on that as no letter was ever written on it and nobody was ever protested.

You can not compare this to the old MR2 situation since we don't know that no cars exist in that particular option package, all we know is that none have been found and documentation exists that says you COULD HAVE ordered that package ALL YEAR LONG (even if nobody did).

You can not compare this to the Miata MS-R situation because at least Mazda announced everything a LONG time ago, had it all out in the open, and did give customers a chance to actually order the stupid kit on a car. They priced it such that you'd be stupid to so nobody did, but at least they offered it. They also got the parts in everyones hands long before now, yet Solstice owners will have maybe five weeks to get their cars test time before Nationals.

Why did I vote in favor? Because it only hurts Solstice people in having to upgrade to an 08 if we don't allow it. The 08 would have stayed in AS anyway, so there was no use hurting them all now, particularly since not many people (myself included) feel the car is any more than somewhat trophy capable, not really capable of winning AS open.

--Donnie

Chuck Frank · **Posted:** Mon Jul 30, 2007 9:50 am

I've already given my thanks.
...to GM for recognizing the efforts and dedication of the early adaptors and the potential market in SCCA members by putting in such an effort to not obsolete the 07 GXP.
Whatever setup etc info comes from the 07s will give the 08 ZOK buyers a leg up in preping their cars for next season.
Any SEB member that votes to do an individual or a group "a favor" (thus deserving of a thank you), or because of their personal opinions about the ability of a car to win it's class, is not doing the job they were charged with in accepting the position, and should resign from that position for the good of the organization IHMO.
The same goes for demeaning opinions sent to the SEB in support or in opposition of an issue in an unrelated public forum. Doing so just continues to undermine members confidence that their "representative" does not have a personal agenda that is outside of true representation. AFAIK the SCCA is not the military, and therefore does not have a formal "chain of command" protocol that must be followed in submitting an opinon.

Aaron Buckley · **Posted:** Mon Jul 30, 2007 9:58 am

Chuck Frank wrote:

I've already given my thanks.
...to GM for recognizing the efforts and dedication of the early adaptors and the potential market in SCCA members by putting in such an effort to not obsolete the 07 GXP.
Whatever setup etc info comes from the 07s will give the 08 ZOK buyers a leg up in preping their cars for next season.
Any SEB member that votes to do an individual or a group "a favor" (thus deserving of a thank you), or because of their personal opinions about the ability of a car to win it's class, is not doing the job they were charged with in accepting the position, and should resign from that position for the good of the organization IHMO.
The same goes for demeaning opinions sent to the SEB in support or in opposition of an issue in an unrelated public forum. Doing so just continues to undermine members confidence that their "representative" does not have a personal agenda that is outside of true representation. AFAIK the SCCA is not the military, and therefore does not have a formal "chain of command" protocol that must be followed in submitting an opinon.

You never dissapoint Chuck. Please read my PM. -AB

Richard Casto · **Posted:** Mon Jul 30, 2007 10:16 am

No good deed goes unpunished.

Donnie Barnes · **Posted:** Mon Jul 30, 2007 10:21 am

That's classic.

It's not about "favors", it's about keeping members happy. It's a club, after all. I don't personally believe that GM met the letter or the intent of the current rule, but the reality of the situation is that not allowing the package now would have simply hurt the 07 owners for no great reason. IMHO, you should be pleased and somewhat thankful that the SEB recognized that. Several GXP owners were, but I note you are not among them. That's all.

Am I calling you out on this issue? Somewhat, because of your know-it-all rantings on the issue that were simply completely WRONG. It's tiresome and annoying, and only serves to undermine your own position.

I think it's quite funny that I voted how you would have liked me to vote on the issue, but the reason why I did it is something that I should resign for. Awesome. I also thought it funny that you didn't even trust me to put your letter in front of the rest of the SEB and sent it to Marcus instead. But I guess it shouldn't be that shocking since everyone is out to get you...

Look, obviously we don't get along personally. We don't have to. But if there is an issue like this again, I will still REPRESENT you properly. I have no problem with that. I'm a big boy and can separate my own feelings from the situation. All the SEB members seem pretty good about that, in fact. Just calm down and send in the info.

As for thanks, well, I knew it was too much to ask. But I will point out that I worked no less than five hours or so in total on this single issue, and a couple people on the SEB worked a few more than that. What do I get for that work? Pretty much nothing. It doesn't count as my work assignment at events, it doesn't pay, and it certainly isn't glamorous. I also don't do it for the thanks (which is good, because if anyone tried to do this job for *that* you'd quit in a hurry). I do it because I like helping out the club and feel I can do a decent job of it. There are few willing to do it, too.

Good luck getting those parts and getting them on and tested. I actually do hope they help. Very few people seem to care that the 993, STi, and C4 are competitive in AS so they aren't attracting any new blood. The S2000 is still strong in terms of participation and ability to win, but having another car in the mix would be cool.

--Donnie

Wes Eargle · **Joined:** Mon Oct 27, 2003 9:47 am **Posts:** 3683

So GM took a break from losing money hand over fist to make a spring package available to the <500 cars in the country that will be affected? And you thank them instead of the guys that write the rules?

THSCC Forums

2007 Solstice GXP now obsolete?

Who is online