Bring Back G (H) Production

[bdw73]

Also, you don't seem to be that interested in running the Runoffs with only two starts and a best finish of 14th after qualifying 20th. This discussion, and the people that should be deciding what the classes look like, are the runoffs competitors. You know, the ones that have a lot invested in time and money, and the ones that feel the result of class and venue changes the most. We are the ones that have been hosed a number of times by CRB/BOD missteps, and you can't blame us for trying to affect a change in something that is currently inequitable. Running regionals or mid-pack at the runoffs has a lot more to do with driver ability and a lot less to do with car configuration, car class, and weight.
I dont know you Ron but if you honestly beleive the crap/drivel you typed above I am not sure I want to know you.

So in your narrow mind you only think that the only people in the club that should have a say in the class they are running must be basically a podium finisher at the runoffs? and the only people that have a lot of time and money invested in there cars must be a podium finisher at the runoffs? and someone isnt able to drive unless they are on the podium at the runoffs?
Wow that is not only arrogant and pompus but a lot of hot air and bull shit.
Like I said earlier, I have no real issue with bringing back GP, I am still not convinced it is the right move for car counts, but could lend my support behind it, having the cars classed in all classes and letting the owner/driver choose I can support. but if your asking me to start from scratch for the third time in 4 years and re develop my car again, than no, I will not suppoprt that, it is not as easy as unbolting a couple pounds and going out on track, but than again maybe I dont know since I am not very important and cant drive since I havent been to the runoffs yet like you think.

 

[JasonIsley99]

I don't understand where the resistance is coming from. NO ONE will be forced to race GP if the class is reinstated.

Ron created my push back point with his "plan" to bring GP back: 4) Monitor participation, and if the numbers in H fall below the 2.5 requirement (assuming that it is reinstated), combine H into G with a performance advantage given to the H cars to make them competitive. The 948 Spridget will be left behind at that point as there is nothing that can be done to speed it up.

If GP were to fail again he would have all of the current HP cars mod up, except the 948 which he kills off, resulting in increased cost to the people who are currently running.

History has shown a lack of interest in GP once already, giving it a second shot with the potential of taking HP down does not seem like the right choice to me. A more reasonable suggestion by Ron would have been if HP/GP fail to flourish individual they are recombined under the most recent (2011ish) HP GCR spec.

 

[Mark Coffin]

I don't understand where the resistance is coming from. NO ONE will be forced to race GP if the class is reinstated.

Ron created my push back point with his "plan" to bring GP back: 4) Monitor participation, and if the numbers in H fall below the 2.5 requirement (assuming that it is reinstated), combine H into G with a performance advantage given to the H cars to make them competitive. The 948 Spridget will be left behind at that point as there is nothing that can be done to speed it up.

If GP were to fail again he would have all of the current HP cars mod up, except the 948 which he kills off, resulting in increased cost to the people who are currently running.

History has shown a lack of interest in GP once already, giving it a second shot with the potential of taking HP down does not seem like the right choice to me. A more reasonable suggestion by Ron would have been if HP/GP fail to flourish individual they are recombined under the most recent (2011ish) HP GCR spec.

Mostly a lack of interest by the then CRB.... :ask:

MC

 

[Keith Church]

OK, TIME OUT.
This is exactly what we don't want to do. There is a very real opportunity here to strengthen our club and make good competitors happy again. Public debate over the particulars or someones view of the potential problems have no merit in this discussion. If you think it can help our club then for god's sake vote fore it, dont just bitch about it. Your vote has way more impact than your opinion. If you seriously believe current competitors will suffer as a result of GP's resurrection then vote AGAINST letter 6488. I am sending the text below to the members I know to solicit their support and suggest you do the same.

Some history. In 04,05,and 06 the future of HP was in jeopardy, it had been a 1 marque class for so long. To bolster HP they moved some GP cars (Spits, 1098 Spridget LP Honda etc) to H. Then the economy began to falter and in 07 the weakened GP participation numbers dropped below the 2.5 rule for the first time in decades. For whatever reason ( TV time, make room for T1,2,3 Black Helicopter Racing) the then BOD seized the opportunity to kill GP by eliminating the 08 Runoffs race and assuring 2 consecutive years of sub 2.5 participation to justify executing the class. The GP cars that went up to F have been uncompetitively classed and most were parked. Some of the GP cars that went to H have been perceived as overdogs and as a result many traditional H cars have been parked. With the suspension of the 2.5 rule and the dire need to reclaim members and entries there is a very real opportunity to resurrect G. Doing so would bolster club revenues without adding cost, fill in the 10 second gap in times between H and F and provide a very real opportunity to restore Prod racing. The first step is to get the class back. Debate over particulars now simply dilutes the effort. Once G is reinstated we can address the inequities it’s demise created. We can then have honest public discussion of ways to strengthen all prod classes (for example – add first gen. RX7 or first gen. 1600cc SM’s to G). No changes need occur to F or H to resurrect G.


Please take a minute to ask the CRB + BOD to Reinstate GP. We can begin getting the rules right in 2013 once we get the class reinstated but the first step is to get the class back.

Your vote is vital and simple to cast.

1. GO TO SCCA.COM WEB SITE
2. at top of page select CLUB RACING
3. from column on left select the 14th item CARS AND RULES
4. in the first paragraph click on the red words "submit a rules request"
5. FILL IN THE FORM WITH YOUR MEMBER + EMAIL INFO
6. Click on Category and select "PROD"
7. Click on class and select "PRD"
8. for title enter "PLEASE REINSTATE G PROD"
9. for request enter: "Please reinstate G Prod.for National racing in 2012 per request #6488.
10. Click on SUBMIT at the bottom of the page

Mark is right. Ask for the 2007 GP rules to be added back to the PCS for 2012.

Thanks again for taking the time to read this.
Keith Church

 

[Gary Wittman]

Ron, one problem is you are using the Runoffs as the benchmark for parity in each class. This is something that should try to be avoided. A Runoffs level playing field is desirable but that means every time there is a location change for the Runoffs, there is a mad rush to change rules to achieve parity and once that gets close the location changes again. This becomes an unending cycle. Two choices that come to mind to solve this is keep the Runoffs at one track (not going to happen) or change the Runoffs location every year (probably is not going to happen).

Another problem is, the cars that came to HP from GP were not very competitive in GP. The cars that were competitive in GP went to FP. Most of the cars that are still running have found a home and will most likely stay there. I applaud all who would like to see GP come back but I don't see how it would be possible with the old rules. However, I would support an effort to bring GP back if I see a viable plan.

I think efforts to fix HP would be more effective than trying to bring back GP. I just don't think that bringing back GP will fix HP.

You should also have a little more respect for the guys running mid-pack and back. Without them you would not have enough competitor to have a class. Those opinions should be heard also. Mid-pack guys are also fighting for position.

BTW, try adding 220 lbs to a 1520 lb car and tell me it is not a big deal. That is about the weight of my crew chief and he is pretty big.

 

[Curtis]

OK. So reasonable debate is clearly over now let the chips fall where they may

Mark you an unselfish gentleman sportsman and friend. Sorry we disagree on this point.

Keith. You are a champion and racers racer I wish I knew better.

Ron. Buy a boat and a length of chain, then send me a pm so I can make a suggestion about what to do with your left over 948s

Look forward to seeing all three of you at the track after silly season is over.

 

[KDENNIS]

History has shown a lack of interest in GP once already, giving it a second shot with the potential of taking HP down does not seem like the right choice to me.

I don't mean to jump on you Jason, I know you werent actively involved when all this went down. GP did not have a lack of interest when it was killed. One year it finished 26th in participation during the "24 class" rule and the move to Topeka. The car count that year was the same that T3 had years later when it was deemed savable. The year GP was kicked out of the club, the 25th class GT3, was given a waiver. There is a misconception GP was the "problem child". When in fact at no time in recent memory was GP on probation under any participation average rule. HP and GT4/GT5 were on and off for years. GP literally had one bad year. Most of us in GP in fact supported the consolidation because we were under the impression there was a rule, and we were told there would be no more waivers. In an effort to still be able to go to the runoffs the split up was begrungingly supported. Foolishly we were wrong and got blindsided by repeated waivers for other classes while GP was wiped off the map. I personally was flat out lied to by my rep, told "by the numbers" "no more waivers" and then a unanimous vote to waiver GT3 and T3 over and over. At this same time, GT4 and GT5 were being consolidated to make room for SM. Many believe the cries for help for GP fell on deaf ears as SCCA was heavily invested in FE and it needed to make room for that as well. You only need to go back and look at the runoff fields 2004, 5, 6 to see what GP was brining to the table. GP got screwed, and that is wear alot of these bad feelings come from.
My distain for the BOD's recent ruling has more to do with their constant manipulation than with GTL or T3. I believe the only way to get them to see how wrong the rule is to make them try and enforce it. History tells us they don't want to consolidate or eliminate classes but yet they only suspended the rule instead of eliminating it.

I would support GP coming back, but only as another production slot and part of a revamp of the prod classes narrowing the performance envelope that the ADHOC had to work with when classifying cars. The introduction of the new EP cars, I think will eventually push everybody down. The classifying of cars into 3 classes will be difficult. The CRB has a hard time equalizing 1998 miatas to 1999 miatas with the same engine. Thats not to say things aren't pretty good now. I think one of the things makes prod so cool is the miriad of cars runnning. Tightening up the the differences between cars makes adjustments easier and the racing better. Given the recent results of cars moving around this will likely do more damage than good, its more of a "in a perfect world" type scenario.

Again, I am not jumping on you Jason. I just need for everybody to understand what actually happened, and to see the suspension of the 2.5 rule is not a solution and only further throws things into question for the future. Thats not stability and thats not good for the club.

 

[KDENNIS]

Some history. In 04,05,and 06 the future of HP was in jeopardy, it had been a 1 marque class for so long. To bolster HP they moved some GP cars (Spits, 1098 Spridget LP Honda etc) to H. Then the economy began to falter and in 07 the weakened GP participation numbers dropped below the 2.5 rule for the first time in decades. For whatever reason ( TV time, make room for T1,2,3 Black Helicopter Racing) the then BOD seized the opportunity to kill GP by eliminating the 08 Runoffs race and assuring 2 consecutive years of sub 2.5 participation to justify executing the class. Keith Church

This isn't what happened. There was no 2.5 rule at this point and GP did not fall victim to it.
It was the now defunct 24 class rule that got GP. I was gonna put all this together in a time line so it was on record and then decided my time was better spent staining my oak knee wall topper in my entry way. I will try and put this all together this weekend. We need to understand the past, to effectively prevent it in the future.

 

[JasonIsley99]

I don't mean to jump on you Jason, I know you werent actively involved when all this went down. GP did not have a lack of interest when it was killed. One year it finished 26th in participation during the "24 class" rule and the move to Topeka. The car count that year was the same that T3 had years later when it was deemed savable. The year GP was kicked out of the club, the 25th class GT3, was given a waiver. There is a misconception GP was the "problem child". When in fact at no time in recent memory was GP on probation under any participation average rule. HP and GT4/GT5 were on and off for years. GP literally had one bad year. Most of us in GP in fact supported the consolidation because we were under the impression there was a rule, and we were told there would be no more waivers. In an effort to still be able to go to the runoffs the split up was begrungingly supported. Foolishly we were wrong and got blindsided by repeated waivers for other classes while GP was wiped off the map. I personally was flat out lied to by my rep, told "by the numbers" "no more waivers" and then a unanimous vote to waiver GT3 and T3 over and over. At this same time, GT4 and GT5 were being consolidated to make room for SM. Many believe the cries for help for GP fell on deaf ears as SCCA was heavily invested in FE and it needed to make room for that as well. You only need to go back and look at the runoff fields 2004, 5, 6 to see what GP was brining to the table. GP got screwed, and that is wear alot of these bad feelings come from.
My distain for the BOD's recent ruling has more to do with their constant manipulation than with GTL or T3. I believe the only way to get them to see how wrong the rule is to make them try and enforce it. History tells us they don't want to consolidate or eliminate classes but yet they only suspended the rule instead of eliminating it.

I would support GP coming back, but only as another production slot and part of a revamp of the prod classes narrowing the performance envelope that the ADHOC had to work with when classifying cars. The introduction of the new EP cars, I think will eventually push everybody down. The classifying of cars into 3 classes will be difficult. The CRB has a hard time equalizing 1998 miatas to 1999 miatas with the same engine. Thats not to say things aren't pretty good now. I think one of the things makes prod so cool is the miriad of cars runnning. Tightening up the the differences between cars makes adjustments easier and the racing better. Given the recent results of cars moving around this will likely do more damage than good, its more of a "in a perfect world" type scenario.

Again, I am not jumping on you Jason. I just need for everybody to understand what actually happened, and to see the suspension of the 2.5 rule is not a solution and only further throws things into question for the future. Thats not stability and thats not good for the club.

I understand... I wont argue the fact that there were, and still are, classes that have bigger issues, but we weren't talking about GT/Touring/wings and things. With some work I think we can get back down to 24 classes. :wink:

 

[David Dewhurst]

OK, TIME OUT.
We can then have honest public discussion of ways to strengthen all prod classes (for example – add first gen. RX7 or first gen. 1600cc SM’s to G). Keith Church

None of this post is negative, only attaching some facts.

keith, this is from 2006 IIRC when Scott & my self attempted to get the 1st gen RX7 classified in G production. Included is a partial of Scott's letter. I also wrote a letter supporting the addition of the 1st gen RX7 (had a ITA car at the time) to G production.

***Dear Sirs:

This is a request for the classification of the 79-85 12A Mazda RX7 into G Production as a limited preparation car with Improved Touring carburetion and an unported engine. I am making this request because I believe the performance parameters of the 12A RX7 are a good fit for G Production. I also believe that other cars currently listed in G Production set a precedent for the inclusion of the 12A RX7. Specifically these ?other? cars are the ITA and ITB classed Honda Civic/CRX Si that are listed as limited prep/IT induction engine eligible cars in G Production.

Sincerely

Scott Peterson
Member 175876***

CRB response, thank you for the information, no.

There were also several posters within this thread that wanted no part of the 1st gen RX7 in G production.

With respect o the 1.6 Miata being classed, there have been in this thread or the "SCCA Board Suspends 2.5 Participation Rule Through 2013" thread folks taking shots at the Miata being already in to many classes.

I continue to crew with a production car.

With our personal race cars both Scott & myself have moved on.

EDIT:
Gary, I did meet your crew chief this year at the Runoffs.

 

[brian downey]

I just sent in the paper work to get GTL split.We can have GTL and GTsuperL.GTsuperL will go down to 900cc so we can get Legend cars and B Spec cars.It will be great!Oh damn my drink is empty. Be careful what you wish for...... Kevin,man up and get a GTL car and lets go race.You cant be happy your whole life.

 

[KDENNIS]

I just sent in the paper work to get GTL split.We can have GTL and GTsuperL.GTsuperL will go down to 900cc so we can get Legend cars and B Spec cars.It will be great!Oh damn my drink is empty. Be careful what you wish for...... Kevin,man up and get a GTL car and lets go race.You cant be happy your whole life.

If your OK getting beat in your fancy tube car, by an old GP driver in a tub car I might just do that..........OH wait

 

[brian downey]

Bobbys car is the fancy tube car,mine is the shop beater and you bring it.It will be fun and you need to get out and clear your head of the rest of the world.

 

[Larry Frankenstein]

Where's the market for 12 948 short blocks?

If G returns the market for your 948s might open up.

Ron, one problem is you are using the Runoffs as the benchmark for parity in each class. This is something that should try to be avoided. A Runoffs level playing field is desirable but that means every time there is a location change for the Runoffs, there is a mad rush to change rules to achieve parity and once that gets close the location changes again. This becomes an unending cycle. Two choices that come to mind to solve this is keep the Runoffs at one track (not going to happen) or change the Runoffs location every year (probably is not going to happen).

Yes, good point.

You should also have a little more respect for the guys running mid-pack and back. Without them you would not have enough competitor to have a class. Those opinions should be heard also. Mid-pack guys are also fighting for position.

Also agreed, we all have a vested interest in how this goes. There is no need to get personal with anyone here it doesn’t get us anywhere.

Curtis,
I think the difference with what Keith is proposing ( and I agree) is to simply reinstate GP as it was. This is the prudent approach, IMHO. Get things started by reinstating the 2007 GP PCS specs. This way no one gets moved out of HP against their will, everyone gets to choose to continue to race which class they want. If old GP cars come back great. If people keep racing in their current classes (FP, HP, GTL, whatever), then great. If people want to build a NEW car for GP, then that's even better.

I don't understand where the resistance is coming from. NO ONE will be forced to race GP if the class is reinstated.

Edit: I just realized that the GP Specs were gutted in 2008, removing a lot of cars that went to HP. The 2007 Specs would be a better choice, as it has the limited prep GP cars that were moved.

This is why I wanted to see the 2008 PCS. Can requests be changed to reflect this?

The reinstatement of GP is kind of a no brainer, because it gives the CRB more room to "manuever" for new classifications. And since the 2.5 rule is suspended for a few years, it gives GP time to grow. Give it a combined Runoffs race w/ another class (GTLite would be a good choice given the smaller car count there). Win, win, win.

The 2.5 rule was suspended only through 2013. G may take longer than that to get back up to speed. Unless of course the 2.5 rule is completely dropped.

Larry

 

[Larry Frankenstein]

I would support GP coming back, but only as another production slot and part of a revamp of the prod classes narrowing the performance envelope that the ADHOC had to work with when classifying cars. The introduction of the new EP cars, I think will eventually push everybody down. The classifying of cars into 3 classes will be difficult. . . .

I think one of the things makes prod so cool is the miriad of cars running. Tightening up the differences between cars makes adjustments easier and the racing better.

I was similarly thinking that an overall redistribution might be in order given that some newer cars/models have been added since G went away. I’m not sure doing it along with reinstating G would be the best timing though. Evaluating the Prod classes during the first year G is reinstated may give better insight to how things are working overall.

Larry

 

[R. J. Sorensen]

Larry F. wrote:

"If G returns the market for your 948s might open up."

If G returns the market for my HP Bug-Eye and a garage full of parts might open up.

I can only hope!

RJS

 

[Ron Bartell]

I dont know you Ron but if you honestly beleive the crap/drivel you typed above I am not sure I want to know you.

Barry - The reason I wrote those things is because I am a total A**hole. If you knew me you would already know that.

The reason I said that you should at least attend the Runoffs is because you would then realize the effort, sacrifice, and expense it takes just to be there, let alone be successful there. You probably think that you are putting out a lot of effort and expense, but you have no idea what it takes until you actually do it. That is why the people that do should have more of a voice than the people that don't. I'm not trying to put you down, and I am sure you can drive, but issues like this are more urgent to people that have spent a lifetime racing this class, versus someone who has a couple years in it at a regional level. Everyone is important and should have a voice, but some people have more skin in the game. I hope you can understand that.

The reason that the H cars with the smaller engines are at a disadvantage is of course due to the venue. However, we will be racing at RA for at least three more years IIRC, so unless something is done we can just watch the Spridget class, which was the whole class at one time, dwindle away until they are gone. I think it is worth trying to do something to stop that.

We can either do something extraordinary and have runoffs-only specifications for weight that change when the venue changes, or we can just hand the win to some other former G car. It is as simple as that. Clearly my motive is self-serving. I don't think there is any secret in that. But splitting the current H into two groups would solve the problem without creating runoffs-specific rules.

Or, we could do nothing. Write your letters either way.

P.S. Curtis - I don't have any 948 stuff any more.

 

[bdw73]

The reason I said that you should at least attend the Runoffs is because you would then realize the effort, sacrifice, and expense it takes just to be there, let alone be successful there. You probably think that you are putting out a lot of effort and expense, but you have no idea what it takes until you actually do it. That is why the people that do should have more of a voice than the people that don't. I'm not trying to put you down, and I am sure you can drive, but issues like this are more urgent to people that have spent a lifetime racing this class, versus someone who has a couple years in it at a regional level. Everyone is important and should have a voice, but some people have more skin in the game. I hope you can understand that
Ron, I do know what it takes to get to the runoffs, have been there many times not as a driver but as a participant helping develop a car in the prod class years ago, also know what it takes at the pro level which by the way makes a runoffs effort look like a walk in the park. I choose to race both regionals and nationals but have no intrest in going to the runoffs because my family is more important to me and choose to spend more time with them than commit to a true runoffs effort.

But that doesnt make me any less important than you or anyone else in this club, I still spend a lot of time and money to compete at the regional and national level and should have a equal say as everyone else. the day this club becomes about a few people that think they are above someone else is the day this club will go extinct.

 

[dryenko]

Quote :
"the day this club becomes about a few people that think they are above someone else is the day this club will go extinct"

In some ways, this is already true and happening.
Why else the continued waivers for some classes, but not others, as stated in previous posts?
CRB / BOD fix of the day, rather than along term vision, other new clubs to race with, plus the economy have a big say as well.
I am sending a letter with simple request as Kieth suggests : Reinstate G Prod, 2007 GCR / PCS.
No harm will be caused by implementing this request, with only potential upside for the club and those who wish to compete.
I have at least 2 cars sitting that could compete
Lets see what happens.
No respense from the CBR/ BOD will certainly prove out the quote above
And that this SCCA we speak of is not a bottom up, democratic institution
BC
Member 60530
2011 H Prod / Prod Fest Champion
30 plus years of observing machinations such as these...

 

[John McFarland]

I agree with Barry. I don't know if reinstating G would be a good thing. It would dilute H again and there would only be a few G's and a few H's. Isn't that why G died and was placed in H and F? So the split would make each class larger? I would assume to most of you that my opinion wouldn't matter. I am a Regional racer, not a National racer. I have no aspirations of running at the Runoffs or even running nationals. I have a family and a tight budget that I have to live with and I have a hobby that is hard for me to do because of costs. I just recently was able to even get a car back in the garage after 4 years without one and am still trying to figure out how to get it out on track. I would bet a lot of the "sitting" cars are there because of costs and time.