I finally got around to sending in my letter (rant!) to the SEB. The
proposal Mark mentions below has morphed several times since, and for the
worse each time.
Team.net doesn't do attachments, so it is in text below.
Any of you who are of SCCA persuasion, whether you do Nationals or not, send
notes to the SEB. 10 letters is usually a landslide so lots from the DP
crowd in opposition could go a long way. Send your letter to seb@scca.com
and cc to bod@scca.com
--Rocky Entriken
----- Original Message -----
From: "Mark J. Bradakis" <mjb@autox.team.net>
To: <fot@autox.team.net>
Sent: Wednesday, April 21, 2004 6:30 PM
Subject: Spitfire/GT6 Solo notes
>
> For those of you who have been keeping an eye on the SCCA Solo II Prepared
> category, some pervasive changes are up for comment:
>
> http://www.scca.org/_Filelibrary/File/04-06-fastrack.pdf
>
> Some interesting stuff. Rather than specific weights per car in D
Prepared,
> a displacement based formula, 1.13 x cc - a 1296 Spit can drop about 80
> pounds, and run 7" wheels. And another move would be the GT6 from FP to
DP,
> and all the EP TRs could move to DP as well. The GT6 would have to tip
the
> scales at the class max, 2100 pounds, but it could be interesting.
>
> Something to think about for those with Solo interest. For now, though, I
> just want to get a car running for the next IVR event in about two weeks!
>
> mjb.
To: Solo Events Board
Cc: Board of Directors
Re: Solo II Prepared Category proposals.
It is difficult for me to state adequately my feelings concerning the
Prepared Category proposals because to do so requires impolite terms. I am
angered and insulted by them and urge in the strongest terms that they be
rejected.
By copy of this letter to the SCCA Board of Directors, I urge that should
any semblance of this proposal find its way to you, that you summarily
reject it. Another purpose is to apprise the BoD of my view of what is
happening to divide SCCA today.
This is the Sports Car Club of America, and we generally interpret that name
to mean those who have sport with cars. We are not the Solo Car Club of
America, nor the Clubrace Car Club of America nor the Rally Car Club of
America. In writing the rules that govern our sports we must avoid doing so
with separatist views that specifically push away competitors, and their
cars, who come from another faction of the club. We should be encouraging a
broad view -- solo cars that can be raced, race cars that can be
autocrossed. Not all cars in all categories can, but some can and to reduce
that number because of parochial "us vs. them" attitudes is unproductive and
not good for SCCA as a whole.
This proposal represents a further, and official, wedge in the divisiveness
which is currently affecting SCCA, most of it I am sad to say coming from
the solo community. There is an antagonism on the part of the solo community
regarding anything having to do with road racing. Whenever any information
from the club race side is suggested, I keep hearing "solo ain't racing."
This is offered as rationale for ignoring the solutions racing has found and
doing things differently whether or not there is any need to do so. This
Prepared proposal only represents the latest -- and a major -- step in that
direction.
I wonder, then, when we are going to rewrite the B Modified rule so that the
Solo Board Chair's Formula Atlantic car is redefined in the Solo II Rules
because "solo ain't racing" and we would not want anything in the Solo
rulebook to have to refer to the GCR -- which is exactly what happened to
Prepared a few years ago.
Frankly, other than a liability distinction, solo IS racing: we are trying
to get a car through a course as fast as we can. To that end, it matters not
what the rules are, only that there are rules. We have rules. They ain't
broke.
Some history, if I may. I was around at the beginning of all this and I have
a bad habit of remembering how things were, and why.
In the beginning there were three categories -- Stock, Prepared and
Modified. Stock was street cars. Prepared was -- get ready for this: RACE
CARS. Prepared was cars "prepared" to the GCR. And then Modified was for
cars beyond GCR (in the beginning still mostly Production based with a few
small formula cars -- the first two AM champions were a Formula Vee and a
Lotus Elan, and it was nine years before a formula car won BM).
We still have Stock for street cars. Modified has grown to include a wide
variety of cars -- including three classes for GCR-rules RACE CARS. The gap
between Stock and Prepared was so huge Street Prepared was created to fit
between them (done badly because the rulewriters failed to create a true
progression). But Prepared was still RACE CARS.
The current proposal now totally abandons RACE CARS -- cars built to
Production and GT rules. Those of us who have them -- which is most of us,
especially in D Prepared -- are totally abandoned by this proposal.
*** It represents a total breach of faith with the people who are in the
class now and that is what makes me so angry. I have a race car, and that is
what the Prepared category was created for. And because I have a race car I
am able to race it, and I do. But I have not abandoned Solo to do so. I feel
it is Solo abandoning me, which is why I am so adamant in my opposition. ***
The GCR has been a remarkably stable ruleset over the years. Even the
introduction of Limited Prep -- which is bringing new cars into the
Production category -- does not do harm to the existing cars (a concept the
SEB should consider). The Solo Prepared rules have not been stable. What
originally was two preparation concepts -- Production or GT depending on
what kind of car you had -- has now become half a dozen 'I' classes where
each class has its own distinct ruleset making it impossible to give a
concise definition of what "Prepared" is. This proposal is another great
example of that instability.
"The purpose of the changes is to define a direction that is more inclusive
of future technologies and car types. The proposal organizes the Prepared
classes along a more definable performance/physical regime." What the hell
does that mean??? It is bafflegab. Impressive-sounding words that say
nothing, but are a handy excuse for what follows.
"The changes also address the shrinking participation within the prepared
community (CP excluded)." What shrinking participation? And how exactly does
the proposal address it? Here is the participation at Nationals the past
five years -- Open and Ladies combined, DNSs not included:
2003 2002 2001 2000 1999
AP 13 9 9 15 20
BP 12 9 15 18 16
CP 56 74 69 77 68
DP 25 26 22 28 30
EP 19 23 29 24 26
FP 21 16 16 15 ---
Total 146 157 160 177 160
*X 90 83 91 100 92
(X = totals without CP)
All in all remarkably stable, not shrinking. Oh, nine less in 2003 than
2002? CP had 18 fewer! You cannot expect CP's push to bring out every CP car
in the country to last forever. Overall, the participation in the last five
years has been remarkably constant. (Note FP was split out of AP in 2000).
Without CP, an average of 91.2 over the five years, and within one car of
that average three of the five years.
"The Prepared Category participation as a whole has been decreasing, with
many classes seemingly always on the border of not meeting participation
requirements per 4.7." This is just false. The category AS A WHOLE is
constant. And two classes -- AP and BP -- is not "many" classes. In my
opinion, the radical prep rules of AP are a failure, and were stupid to
begin with. It's just EMod Lite. Delete the class and send the cars in it to
Modified (some might be happy in FP, which should then be renamed AP). BP is
another situation. It needs more makes of cars besides Corvettes and Tigers
and RX7s. CP, DP, EP and FP are not threatened by 4.7. Only two classes need
help and the proposal does not even address one of them (AP).
(By the way, I sent a proposal a couple of years ago how to handle classes
like AP and AM when they dip below minimums, and what to do when they rise
up again, so the competitors are not harmed. I'd be happy to revise it and
send it again).
Yes, growth would be nice, but you are achieving that with new categories --
the proliferating ST and SM classes (which I regard as a good thing).
Prepared is sustaining itself nicely. One reason is that there is a readily
available supply of cars. They are called RACE CARS. You are creating a new
category with new preparation rules. Do you honestly think there will be a
rush to build cars to this ruleset? The beauty of ST and SP and even SM is
that they incorporate things people do anyway while keeping the car
streetable. This is not true of Prepared, where a car must be purpose-built
for the category and is thereby rendered totally unstreetable.
Once you have sat down and decided to do that -- decided to spend the ton of
money required -- it really does not matter what ruleset you build to -- the
proposed rules, the current Prepared rules, or even GCR. Either way you are
making a big-bucks investment to create a car suitable only for competition.
Or, you could do it cheaper by going into the SportsCar classifieds and
buying a car already built. Right now there is a ready supply of them --
Production and GT race cars. The new proposal would dry up that supply
because the availability of turnkey cars would disappear. The rules don't
fit. The advantage of the GCR ruleset is that cars already exist.
"There is a desire to have a car preparation allowance progression across
the Solo 2 ruleset from Stock to Street Prepared to Prepared to Modified." A
fine concept, but you screw Prepared to achieve that? A writer in North
American Pylon (an SP driver) talked about how Prepared was an "island." No,
SP is the island because it was created that way. Fault the rulewriters in
1982 who weren't bright enough to create the progression, giving SP options
that were not allowed in P. That was stupid, but 22 years later we are stuck
with it. It is not realistic to un-write the offending SP rules.
It also is not realistic to force the Prepared drivers to accommodate the SP
wannabes that *might* come in. The proposed wheel rule is written expressly
"to present a way to allow transition of a Street Prepared car to Prepared
without existing equipment being made illegal." So instead, all of us in
Prepared are rendered uncompetitive unless WE buy new equipment? I have 6"
wheels on my car now. They work just fine. I don't need new wheels. I've
already made that expenditure. But under the rules I -- and every other
driver in my class -- would now have to buy 7" wheels to keep up with that
SP wannabe who MIGHT come into my class as well as the "more money than they
know what to do with" types who will buy them just because they are allowed
to.
No, if somebody wants to come into OUR class, his buy-in includes the cost
of preparing his car under OUR rules and if that means a new set of wheels
(along with the big bucks he will spend for engine, suspension, rollbar,
seats, belts, interior work, and lightening he'll have to do), so be it. It
is no different than he also has to buy a new set of tires -- or do you want
us all to revert to street rubber to keep the SP wannabe happy too?
One part of the proposal that is total insanity is the proposed weight
table. Even you guys cannot figure out what you want to do because you keep
changing it. As insane as it is, the latest is truly stupid. My 1147cc
Spitfire, under current Solo II rules, comes in at 1405 lbs. Does anyone on
the current SEB even know where that number came from? Yeah, I thought so.
Back when Stock, Prepared and Modified were created, and Prepared was RACE
CARS, the rules were the race car rules. 1405 was the weight for the
Spitfire back then. The Comp Board has not seen fit to change that in 30
years (nor has the SEB) so it must work pretty well. Well, actually, the
Comp Board has changed it, but not for anything to do with the car. When
they decided to weigh with drivers, all weights went up 180 lbs. Later when
rollcage rules became mandatory weights went up more to compensate -- they
really did not want people trying to lighten cars already pretty much down
to minimums. My current GCR weight is 1680 -- or 1500 without driver. That
is 95 lbs added for rollcage. Currently my car, without driver, weighs in at
about 1530. So I am about 30 pounds heavy for racing, 125 heavy for solo.
And under your weight proposal you want to reduce my weight to 1262! Jeez, I
can't find the 30 pounds I'm over now for racing, never mind the 125 I'm
heavy for solo. So you want to "allow" me to take 268 pounds off my car?
Just how the heck am I to do that? THERE IS NO WAY! I've already got the
fiberglass hood and trunk lid, the lighter wheels, the racing seat,
everything out of the car I can remove, and run straight battery power to
eliminate the generator. Therefore, you have just made me all the more
uncompetitive again. The weight proposal is simply not realistic, and the
latest variant is even less realistic than the original. I am not expecting
the Solo Board to mandate GCR weights. I can accept that a full cage is not
needed for solo (IMHO, every P car should have a rollbar, closed cars
included), so I can accept the original 1405 weight and the rollcage
"penalty" is my choice. But don't be giving a lot of us already in the class
unobtainable weight reductions.
The lbs/cc factor should not be a rule -- it should be a guideline but not
the ultimate determinant for weights. It should NOT be in the book. Then you
need a realistic guideline that closely approximates what currently exists.
Like 1.25 instead of 1.1. One size does NOT fit all. Do the work to come up
with specific weights for each car. Turning a formula into a rule is taking
the lazy way out. Such an approach only works with silhouette cars. Most of
us are not silhouettes.
On the part (Item 3g) where you are shuffling all the cars around -- what's
with a 2.5-liter Fiero in DP? One car that is 25% more engine than anything
else in the class? What, do you need another overdog to compete with the
Miata? It is something else to make everything else in the class
uncompetitive. And you wonder about shrinking participation.
You people never have gotten the message on the Miata, have you? IT DOES NOT
BELONG IN DP! It seems an example of the insensitivity expressed by the SEB
towards DP. You know, I believed for years that the various SCCA boards were
all well-meaning people who mostly got it right, but what you have done
forcing the Miata down the throats of DP makes me seriously doubt that and
now with this proposal I have just about lost faith in the SEB. You diddle
around with weights, but you never pay attention to the fact the Miata is a
total overdog -- it has won every National championship in this century
since it was introduced into the class. And then you come up with cockamamie
schemes doomed to failure that supposedly would address the issue -- sending
it to AP or EP when it patently fits neither? It belongs in FP, where it
would be classed with every other vehicle it races with (and beats them
too). Oh, but Solo could not possibly take any cues from racing, so simply
because racing does it that way seems reason enough not to. I cannot help
remembering when the Viper won Super Stock and all the Corvette drivers
bleated that it was too much car, whereupon the Viper was immediately
banished to Street Prepared. How come the majority of us in DP don't get
that same consideration when an overdog appears in our class and wins every
national championship for the past three years? But we complained about it
three years ago. Now we can say we told you so, but we suspect you still are
not listening.
Okay, fully believing that the SEB has its own agenda with regard to
Prepared and that you will force it upon us whether we want it or not, I
have another proposal. Add two classes. We are adding classes like crazy in
the ST area, and we have not had a National for years without supplementary
classes. So add two more to Prepared.
They would be G Prepared and H Prepared. GP is for all cars prepared to GCR
E Production or GT3/GT4 rules. HP is for all cars prepared to GCR FP, GP, HP
or GT5 rules. Allow exceptions for not having full cages or fuel cells if
you want, but do not allow exceptions for minor items such as windscreens or
flares. Keep the cars as close to GCR as possible. They would have to change
as GCR rules change, so the fewer the exceptions the easier it is to
accomplish that. Solo's orphan car rules do not apply (no 1275 cc Bugeyes).
Require GCR weights (or GCR minus 180 to weigh without driver -- more
friendly for co-driven cars). Then those of us who want a true SCCA race
car, who want a car built under stable rules, who want a truly dual-purpose
car, can have it without being rendered uncompetitive.
It would be in keeping with the Prepared concept, and since every Prepared
class now seems to have its own ruleset anyway this would be no different in
that regard. Then you can do whatever you want with AP-FP and there would be
a sizeable group of us who just would not care, as long as you don't screw
up our class.
Rocky Entriken
19814 - Salina Region
rocky@tri.net
785-827-5143
31-year Nationals competitor
40-year autocrosser
#4 DP Spitfire
30-year Nationals competitor
|