Chuck Frank wrote:
I think you may have misread what I said, I simply said that the fight between Mazda and SCCA had nothing to do with the GXP ZOK as Wes was claiming as some sort of "proof" of something sinister when it wasn't even the issue being discussed. That was not being a GM fan boy just trying to not "muddy the waters" of this issue between Mazda and SCCA.
Ah, but add in the hard top, which the SSB car needs too, and you do have an issue relative to Mazda.
Quote:
I also said I was shocked that a BOD member would make a statement like that representing it as the official position of the SCCA, That is hardly defending anyone. Anyone who knows me for any length of time knows I have very little love for the administration of SCCA.
Okay, so you were both shocked that someone said it and yet you still tried to defend the situation in which it might have been said. Got it. You're playing both sides to CYA.
Quote:
The questionaire that was sent out IMHO was a flagrant attempt to put pressure on the SCCA BOD in defense of Mazda by racers without giving any of the facts (even one sided) except by inuendo. That's why I made the original post I wanted to know what caused such an email to be sent. I sense this is Mazdaspeed not Mazda Jp speaking for the corporation, nothing has been offered as officially coming from Mazda Jp. or even from Mazda NA only from an employee of MS who had his feelings hurt. MS is not the top of the food chain in Mazda NA or Mazda Jp, any more than GM Performance Parts makes policy for GM.
Now that's an incredibly naive way to look at things, and you know it. GMPP finds out what they can sell and how they can sell it, and they get a lot of rope to do it from what I've seen. Just like Mazdaspeed. Trying to split hairs about who represents what and all that is a little bit nuts. MS has seemed to have final say over how Mazda dollars are spent in the US on racing endeavors and that's all that matters.
Quote:
I personally LIKE and support Mazda for what it does for the grassroots racers. We tried to go with a Mazda vehicle before we bought the Solstice. I am still registered with Mazda racer support, that's how I was sent the email and survey. I am constantly using Mazda's program as a benchmark to everyone I talk to at GM to try to get their program expanded. I certainly don't want to see Mazda pull the plug.
Without any official word from the SECRET Car Club of America as to why they reversed the ruling on the MSR I speculated as to what I could possibly see as their justification, and what might have provoked the BOD member's statement.
Mazdaspeed opened the door (for GM) by getting an option package approved that by their own admission never existed except as a line on US dealer's order screen. No MSR could or would come off the production line, I would be willing to bet the parts were never even seen at the Miata Jp assembly plant or were ever in the factory assembly system. Not only were there not any 07 MSRs built by Mazda but so far AFAIK no 08s have rolled off the boats or been port assembled before delivery either. Had SCCA CoA not called shananagans on this paper option package it could have open a potential pandora's box of over the parts counter exotic "options". IMHO they gave Mazda a long rope to prove that the MSR was going to be "available to the public" due to the lag time the assembly being done in Japan would have, but Mazda Jp never even tried to make it so, until it became embarassingly obvious the BOD had been "had" by MS. If my speculation is anywhere close to what happened, it seems to me that the reversal would had to have been made before the runoffs to have credibility that SCCA was not going to bend the rules any further for the benefit (or threats) of a "friend" of the SCCA. If this IS the case then I would have to support that decision as upholding the rules.
Just like there were no GXP ZOK's built in time for anyone but a hand select few RACE TEAMS to get them for the Runoffs, either. Okay, so a few more showed up outside those select few RACE TEAMS hands in time for the Runoffs...they got them on, what, MONDAY...the day before the Runoffs kicked off. Great! GM seems to have instituted a new last minute policy for SCCA availability that's never before been seen! AWESOME!
You simply can't claim "shenanigans" on the part of Mazda for the MSR and then look the other way when GM does it EVEN WORSE. You also can't seriously believe the CoA had any right to go messing around when there was NO PROTEST. That's simply not in the rulebook. They also did it based on calling ONE DEALER who couldn't find the MSR option EVEN THOUGH IT WAS THERE AND HAD BEEN FOR MONTHS.
Say what you want, but the handling of the MSR situation STUNK. Mazda did what it was told it had to do. Had they been told a car had to come from port or even off the boat with those parts installed, they may have had time to do that. But they weren't told to do that, so they did what they WERE told to do BY SCCA. Then they had the rug pulled out from under them. Then SCCA goes and lets GM do WORSE stuff like the last minute GXP ZOK as well as the non-public obtainable hard top for both Solsti models. The hardtop thing, as has been pointed out now, being an EXACT issue that cars were already thrown out for AFTER THEY GOT TO TOPEKA FOR THE RUNOFFS for several years ago.
You can fanboy for GM all you want, but the reality is they're getting the gold mine and Mazda is getting the shaft.
--Donnie
Login
Register
FAQ
Search
