THSCC Forums

http://youtube.com/watch?v=9qHQg9yDnIU

I love that damn song!!!!

_________________
02 Focus SVT
STF 9

The CFHT is available to anyone who wants one thru Phoenix racing, the named distributor. It is different in that it was required safety equipment by SCCA. The factories do not sell roll cages, harnesses or fire supression systems either but they are required to be in the cars so aftermarket suppliers parts are used. When first required, they indeed were in short supply being hand made and with a surge in demand by the racers, but now production has caught up with demand and were available to the general public well before runoffs. I haven't heard of anyone who really wanted one not being able to get it.
Hoosier was out of our size A6's from July until the day before the Pro solo finale, we had to have them overnighted to our hotel in Topeka. Had they not made it would you expected to have Hoosiers banned from competition because they were not available to the general public?
Mazda speed even said they really didn't have a problem with the HT (since they knew they really didn't have a case there IMHO, required or even optional safety equipment is exempt from the "general public" rule).
I can't remember all the details of the Z4 controversy since I wasn't really concerned with track racing, but I'd expect the rules that caused that were reviewed and refined since. I definitely don't remember BMW publically threatening SCCA with withdrawl of their support and supporting another competing sanctioning body over it tho.
Wes, you are seeing black helicopters tho, Jim J. has no control over the rules of the competition events boards or rulings of the BOD. He has no veto power, nor do I believe he even signs off on any of their rulings. His job is in overseeing club administration not competition rules making or enforcement.

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

Safety issue? Oh, that's why an SCCA Pro series, MX-5 Cup, runs with no hard top. Yeah, even though there IS a factory hard top for the car.

They're called arm restraints. Look them up.


--Donnie

The SCCA does this stuff all the time. This year the contention is over this Solstice/Miata debate. GM did this Mazda did that. Whatever. The SCCA is not consistent. They make either political decisions or just plain bad ones every year. It is an organization run by people and not everyone has the same motivation or is on the same page. They seem to get enough publicity on all their mistakes to look worse every year and make NASA look better. They make a lot of good decisions but they're overshadowed by the blatant screw ups.

When Lance Knupp won the runoffs in T1 he all but destroyed his Z06 trying to run down the Vipers. Yeah he still won. But Scotty White and his buddies at Kumho came up with a new tire that they could use. No one else could get this tire in time. But there was "a letter" that showed the tire was available. It was BS. Had that happened that White won by a hair over GM favorite Heinrocket there would have been a lot of noise. GM wasn't that interested about Knupp.

In WC GM launches the Caddy CTS-V, 3 of them, with their crew of top notch drivers. They run a win at all costs program and strong arm the SCCA to not let Porsche get in the way. GM figures they'll take care of those annoying Privateers running Corvettes. Yep, kill your own sports car so you can advertise the CTS-V. They did some shenanigans with a couple of teams to insure they held back and let the CTS-V by in more than one race. The SCCA turned the other cheek and told the Privateers to shut up and stop whining. Money talks to the SCCA. The next year Porsche beats out a certain Privateer Corvette team at one race that was contested. Porsche team changed something on the rotor/caliper/pad setup. The ruling was it was ok. Because there was some "letter" from the Porsche factory describing it as a factory replacement. No other Porsche team besides that one knew it. SCCA wants Auschenback(sp?) to win.

Just a couple of examples of how the rules get adjusted that sound fishy at the very least. SCCA is far from infallible but they should not be manipulated by the factory either. Again, money talks...

_________________
http://www.greywinds.com

These are the same Kumhos Scotty and his wife had at Nationals in 2006. Not available to anyone but them. Scotty and his wife both left with DSQ's next to their times. She would have won and he would have finished 5th IIRC.

Manufacturer advantages are everywhere in motorsports, but the GM bullshit is ridiculous. - AB

_________________
'14 Toyota Sequoia Platinum 4WD
Super Westerfield Bros - '93 Integra - LeChump Du Jour
STX 93 - Scion FR-S

http://youtube.com/watch?v=rRC971jtvEg

This one better represents the Mazda/GM/Runoffs scenario.

_________________
Has no responsibility whatsoever.

Graham,

You kind of solidified my argument. Selective enforcement sucks. Make a rule. Enforce the rule. Stick to the damn rule. Enough said.

Chuck,

The Z4 hard top was *VERY* similar. It was NOT available from the factory, or the dealer. You could only one if you had your car prepped by a certain garage (i.e. Phoenix Motorsports). The drivers showed up to the Runoffs at MidOhio and were told that they couldn't race. Too bad, so sad. Now go home. It was not considered a "required safety" item. (That's a bogus argument anyway. VERY FEW of the Production class cars have windshields much less a hard top.) Granted you didn't hear BMW threaten to leave the SCCA but you don't see that many BMWs on track anymore now do you.

Let's call a spade a spade. What the rep from MS said was probably said in anger and probably shouldn't have been said. What the SCCA said was also probably said in anger and shouldn't have been said. The way that the whole situation with the MS-R was handled by the SCCA was horrible and if the roles were reversed, GM would have gotten all bent out of shape.

The bad thing about all of this is that the SCCA hasn't given an official statement on the MS-R ruling or why they wouldn't grant an appeal to Mazdaspeed. That kind of action really shows up on the conspiracy theorist's radar.

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

Parsed it down to bare bones truth.

Julow is clueless and everyone else is running around pushing their own agenda.

_________________
02 Focus SVT
STF 9

Damnit!!! I got RickRolled!!!

_________________
02 Focus SVT
STF 9

Y'all keep bringing up GM. GM does NOT have a dog in the fight between SCCA and Mazda except they brought out a car in 2006 that beat the Miata. The sales in the US of Solstices ate into the lock Miata had on the market, not because the SSB Soli beat the Miata, but because the market wanted a 2 seat roadster that was produced by an American co. and didn't have a stigma of being a "girly" car. Mazda Jp didn't seem to care they kept producing models that had softer suspensions, engines that didn't deliver the claimed hp, and package bundles that made them even less suited for racing.
Mazdaspeed decides it needs a model to compete (win) in SCCA so they "invent" a model the MSR and take it to the SCCA claiming it will be a production option package but meanwhile let us sell the racers the parts to retrofit their cars. It turns out that Mazda Jp had no intention of ever building the 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!) the CoA ruled on that filing that indeed it was not. 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. The rest is history or at least discussed in the above posts.

AFA the Solstice hardtop, that's a red herring. You do not have to buy a Phoenix prepared car to buy the hardtop there are no restrictions on who may purchase one. Anyone can call Phoenix and order one, they are the distributor. GM does not make or sell the hardtop. GM did not request or make the rule that all softtop cars running in the showroom stock classes must run a hardtop, SCCA did before the Solstice was even on the radar. If anyone wants to know the reason that it's different in other classes you'll have to ask SCCA. They are different classes, different classes have different rules. Why can't you run A6s in STS? because the STS rules say you can't. The rules makers set the rational for each class's rules. They didn't divulge their reasoning for the differences to the general public or ask if it makes sense to you or I.

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

Okay, remove the GM angle for a bit since you don't want to believe any conspiracy theories are possible.

One SCCA entity walked Mazda through the process to get the MS-R legal. Mazda did what they were told. It was published as legal. Parts were made available and people built and RACED cars. There was never anything said about Mazda needing to have any cars come from the factory that way, or Mazda would have likely either done so or pulled it so nobody got hung out to dry. Then a mystery protest appeared that nobody connected to Mazda even knew about (and I'm still not sure anyone has seen any documentation on it...anyone got a link?). I can only assume the protest was denied (if it even exists) because it was a CoA who ruled the car illegal. Apparently the basis for ruling it illegal was calling ONE dealership, asking them if this was an option in the computer, hearing no, and tossing all cars. But apparently that dealership simply SCREWED UP as it was in the computer all along, they just looked in the wrong place. Even in the face of that new information, the BoD, the final sounding body to resolve such matters, REFUSED TO HEAR IT. It had to be obvious that this was going to be a serious problem not just with the competitors it was going to affect, but also with Mazda and SCCA relations. Yet the BoD let it go.

Horrible, horrible handling of the situation. It's likely there is a bias from the BoD toward GM, IMHO, whether you want to agree or not. No, I'm not attacking GM here...this is what they should be doing...producing what wins and trying to get in the way of anyone else. I sincerely doubt we're talking bribery or anything highly insidious, but I do think there is some "good old boy" networking going on here, and Mazda aren't and never will be "good old boys." And you know it, Chuck. Otherwise how do you explain how the GXP ZOK could be made legal? There's no way that stuff came "in time" to be fair to everyone. It sure as hell couldn't be found in no dealer systems back when the MS-R was ruled illegal.


--Donnie

Methinks Chucks panties would have gotten ruffled if the shoe was on the other foot.

Rewind to Topeka and about 30 mins before Donna's first run, your vaunted ZOK package was ruled illegal by the SCCA and you were told "tough shit", we wont even hear your appeal.

I don't think the internets would have enough room for all your conspiracy posts Chuck.

_________________
02 Focus SVT
STF 9

I don't know a whole lot about this, but from my naive point of view (I'm glad to be corrected, this whole thing is a bit confusing to me):

-the suspension package on the Solstice IS a factory option for '08

-the MS-R package is NOT an option package for '08 (am I wrong here?)

-the carbon fiber hardtop for the solsitce is NOT a factory option for the Solstice for '08. This is the msot confusing (and suspiscious IMO) part of things.

Sounds like SCCA never should have made the MS-R, OR the ZOK GXP suspension package (on an '07) legal, at least not until some '08 cars were built (at which point the '07's could switch to it due to update/backadate provisions, right?). They made an exception for GM. They also made a bigger exception for mazda, then decided against it at the last minute.

Sounds like they screwed the pooch in how they handled both situations, particularly the mazda one, as they hung some people who had bought the MS-R's out to dry. They said one thing, then changed their mind. REALLY poor form.

Someone explain to me what rational is behind making an aftermarket CF hardtop legal, thats STILL a mystery to me.

_________________
2012 MX-5 Sport SUV

Ummm, Brice, Chuck used to own a Miata and only sold it this year. I think he is well aware of the performance capabilities of the Miata. He sold it to Jim F earlier this year and Jim brought it to Sanford. Remember seeing the red NB with the crome LeMans fuel cap? That was the former Frank car.

I've personally owned 3 Miatas and I call them girly cars.

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

post edited, just a pet peeve of mine (people calling miata's "girly").

_________________
2012 MX-5 Sport SUV