Bring Back G (H) Production

John,

Please explain how adding GP back will "dilute" HP?? I just don't see it.

The way I look at it, if GP is brought back then cars that race in GP will come from one of four scenarios:

1. Parked GP cars come back. This is a good thing. No effect on HP.

2. Cars that are running uncompetitively in FP come back. Net zero impact on entries. No effect on HP.

3. Cars that are running in HP convert to GP. To me, this is more of a classification issue of the car in HP.

4. New cars are built for GP. This is a good thing. No effect on HP.


MC
 
Maybe not the right word to use. Wasn't the idea of eliminating G so there would be more cars together in F and in H? To make larger groups in a class? There had to be a reason to eliminate it. We had plenty of F, G and H here in Ohio when it happened. Sounds to me that they need to work better on the spec line so they all run with some kind of parity.
 
John McFarland":14zbr2c0 said:
Maybe not the right word to use. Wasn't the idea of eliminating G so there would be more cars together in F and in H? To make larger groups in a class? There had to be a reason to eliminate it. We had plenty of F, G and H here in Ohio when it happened. Sounds to me that they need to work better on the spec line so they all run with some kind of parity.
Click to expand...

GP was killed off to make room for T3, FE, etc. It was dismantled and split into FP and HP to give the GP cars a place to race.

In hindsight, the net effect was probably less than zero. It ran off people in HP, some GP guys parked their cars immediately, and a few soldiered on in FP. Only 2 are left.

Bringing it back would correct a wrong.

MC
 
I don't have a problem with getting G back. I just hope that F,G and H can be supported enough for it to stay. I ran G. I would like to do G again. But if I have to run H, I'll run H.
 
Now that I have Bobby Lentz's old GP 510 in the garage being restored, should I care one way or the other?

James
-the latter half of the Gauper/Rogerson sandwich-
 
I know these comments will not be probably be well recieved, but when GP was on the chopping block so was GT3 as well, and the GT3 guys rallied to saved their class, while the GP runoffs crowd scrambled to get their cars reclassified, so they could go to the runoffs the next year. it almost seemed like you GP guys just rolled over, and let them take your class away. The powers to be totally screwed you all by elminating the class alltogether, even at the regional staus, that has to be a first for the SCCA, in the past classes that did not make the numbers simply went back to regional only status, ASR comes to mind, they were national class when I first started going to SCCA events.

Then there was also the deal back in the 80s where each year a prod class got consolidated into a GT class, because at the time the club's powers to be thought tube frame purpose built race cars were the future, we all know now what a terrible decision that was. Bottom line 1986, it was EP's turn to consolidated into GT4, and I had just gotten a EP Huffaker MGB, I was too young then to be in the politics of the SCCA, but the EP racers of the times rallied to stop this, and just before the beginning of the 86 season it was decided EP would stay, and that was the end of the Prod into GT consolidation. So we all have to thank those stubborn EP and prod racers of the day for fighting for their right to keep their classes, without that struggle there would be no prod classes today. I think , if anything we have saw over the years is that history does repeat itself in the SCCA, but I never saw a class be reinstated, I wish you all luck with that, but this will be a much tougher battle than fighting to keep your class would have been a few years ago.
 
Acme Speed Shop":1g06bwnm said:
I know these comments will not be probably be well recieved, but when GP was on the chopping block so was GT3 as well, and the GT3 guys rallied to saved their class, while the GP runoffs crowd scrambled to get their cars reclassified, so they could go to the runoffs the next year. it almost seemed like you GP guys just rolled over, and let them take your class away.
Click to expand...

I guess you could say rolled over. I personally was lied too. Flat out in my face deceived!!
The only option I was given was regional status (no runoffs) or consolidation. I was told "no more waivers!!!", "I will not vote for anymore waivers", "Its by the numbers, thats the only way it makes sense."
I was mistakenly under the impression the SCCA was governed by a set of rules. There was a rule. If I had known at the time that I just had to get the right guy on the phone that had enough juice to squash it, I would have. I made my calls, I made my arguments. GT3 got to the right guy, I didn't. In the end I accepted the fact that this was the "plan", the rule of SCCA and asked to be moved into FP to be able to race at the runoffs. Then the waivers started, and haven't stopped since. Turns out there wasn't a rule. In hindsight, myself and other GP competitors should have known that an SCCA rule isn't worth the bandwith of the press release and is open to change in a 10 minute meeting. I don't feel like I rolled over, I feel like I got beat into submission. That waiver for GT3 was a unanimous vote. My representatives excuse to me. "kevin, I am as dissapointed in the process as you are".
 
Ok, I sent a support request to the CRB to reinstate GP per 2007 specs. Letter #6549. If there is enough support and we can sway the board, that will tell me how I want to build up my car. I'll run G if it's there to run.
 
So my letter primarily says "whatever you decide to do, do it immediately because all work and investment on any H or potential G cars has ceased at this point due soley to the potential instability introduced by this discussion"

Of course despite my paying 6 HP National entry fees this year my letter won't carry anything like the weight the "self described" icehole, Ron Bartel's letter will carry Because I didn't enter the runoffs, if they agree with Ron, my letter might not even be read. LOL :lol:
 
Curtis -

I'm not yet convinced that this (reviving G) is a good idea. Nor do I agree that unless you've won the Runoffs at least once you are not entitled to an opinion.

OTOH I don't think that it is reasonable to say "someone has typed on the Internet that some class changes ought to be made therefore I refuse to work on my car".

It is entirely reasonable and good to discuss changes in an open forum, I and anyone else ought to be able to make suggestion x (even if silly) without being accused of destabilizing the class....

Just my $0.02
 
Mark:

Unfortunately, I think that it is very reasonable to fear that a G revival could hurt H. Not saying - yet - that I think it is a bad idea but I certainly see a possibility - maybe even a likelyhood - that it reduces participation in H on a National and especially Runoffs level.

I do totally agree that G got a raw deal, the G cars that got moved to F got an especially raw deal, and that the existing H cars got a raw deal when they were faced with a load of faster-than-H-especially-at-Road-America ex G cars.

But just as the G into F and H shuffle was a less-than-zero-sum game, I think that subsequent reshuffles may also be zero-or-less-sum games. Or at least lack enough postive sum to sustain the extra class - if that makes any sense.

I will make another post - or maybe start another thread - trying to reason this through, as I think it is more complex than it's being made out to be.

Al
 
I agree with you 100% Al !! The discussion is great. The letters are good. I will never be about suppressing anyone's voice

I just would like the club to come out immediately with specific plans and intent. If it just hangs out there forever as one more thing to worry about it will be destructive. If we get a, we will, we won't, or a we might depending on this or that, then prospective racers will have something to plan around.

The effect is more real for some than for a guy like me with funds to build one engine and waiting to decide between H or F What abiut the racers who have made really big investments in things like Minis and Yaris and those that might follow who represent brand new participants not just shuffling from class to class? Is anybody really going to undertake a project like that without solid rules stability?
 
OK - good to see we can have constructive dialog without getting insulting.
Some things to consider.
1. In 6 days this topic has logged 112 post - an excellent show of interest to the BOD + CRB.
2. By my count there have been 18 letters to the CRB for this proposal. This number is significant to me because it represents more than the total number of inputs quoted as "received" by the CRB when G was killed and more than the number of G drivers in attendance at the 2007 "tent" meeting for the only public discussion hinting at killing the class.
3. For clarification - no one has suggested changing the HP rules. The currently eligible HP cars will remain HP eligible. Former G cars that want to return to G would be able to do so if they wished and I suspect many of the now parked former G cars in F will return. The Yaris and Mini belong in H as they are and no one has suggested removing them. They have proven quite competitive in the wet and with further development will be strong competitors in any weather.
4. GT3 had been on the burner early in 2007 and had already organized around a popular, well spoken leader who was able to unify them and present their points from a position of strength. G was ambushed and had not yet established a common voice. It didn't help when former GP Champions chimed it to support rather than oppose the "merger" at the 2007 tent meeting.
5. Reinstatement should be a very real possibility. I understand the comment that no class has been reinstated before but the SCCA hasn't had to deal with this level of economic decline before either.
6. Any reasonable leader in a decision making capacity who saw his organizations revenues decline and profitability of the major annual event dwindle year after year would jump at the chance to increase revenues and bolster Runoffs participation with no increase in cost with the simple stroke of a pen. This decision is such a no-brainer that justifying a vote against it will take some very creative wordsmithing.
7. Mark has done a good job of championing this cause so far and I hope the GP protagonist out there will follow his lead and express their support to the CRB and BOD. In addition to writing letters to the CRB we should even consider emails or other communications directed to the BOD members in our area.

Must get back to work now.
Thanks,
Keith Church
 
Keith Church":u9tk7yfg said:
OK - good to see we can have constructive dialog without getting insulting.
3. For clarification - no one has suggested changing the HP rules. The currently eligible HP cars will remain HP eligible. Former G cars that want to return to G would be able to do so if they wished and I suspect many of the now parked former G cars in F will return. The Yaris and Mini belong in H as they are and no one has suggested removing them. They have proven quite competitive in the wet and with further development will be strong competitors in any weather.
Click to expand...

Ron actually did:

Ron Bartell":u9tk7yfg said:
1) Reinstate G Production as a National class starting 1/1/2012 based on the 2008 GCR/PCS
2) Allow G cars to run in either H or G for the 2012 year with only one National championship in H for 2012
3) As of 2013 the G cars can only run in G, but there will be both an H and a G National Championship - Probably run together at RA
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.
Click to expand...
 
2nd half of post, I can't seem to compose a longish post anymore:

Which, from the perspective of an H racer trying to clear overdog ex-G cars out of H (I simplify) makes perfect sense, if the ex G cars are overdogs in H (and were not in G) why would they want to go back to G if theyb still have slots in H? Also makes sense from the perspective of an underdog ex G car in H, to get enough cars back into G to make it a viable class.

But also, IMO, makes it more or less likely to kill H in the process. And Ron clearly acknowledges this in his points, with the apparent justification that it would (hopefully) trigger an openminded re-examination of competition adjustments for the H cars.

If one is a pessimist, and looks at this from the H perspective, it looks like an awfully disruptive way of getting a competition adjustment for the old H cars.....?
 
Al, Thanks for your input - I see what you mean but --

While Ron started this thread, I listed my request on page one as simply reinstating GP. My letter #6488 contains no request for further rules change beyond simply reinstating the class per 2007 GP rules. SIX pages later Ron provided some detail to his proposal. I don't agree with provisions 2 or 4 and haven't asked anyone to support provisions 2 and 4 of his proposal but I didn't see the need to split hairs before establishing support for the REINSTATE GP idea. Plain and simple - bring GP back per 2007 rules for 2012 and 2013. IF it then fails, it fails. I don't want to see further rules meddling in the H or F rules. If the CRB and BOD are confident that they have done the right thing with the "merger" then H and F will remain strong without further change. If GP comes back then can't sustain itself they look smart. If they generate some club and Runoffs income while doing so they look smarter. WIN WIN. 4 classes of Prod racers had worked well for the SCCA for 20 years before the 24 class rule or TV carrot caused some to look for a chance to change it. BIG OOPS, FIX IT BACK.
Thanks,
Keith
 
Now that I have Bobby Lentz's old GP 510 in the garage being restored, should I care one way or the other?
Click to expand...

My opinion? No... Continue on with your previous plans. That's what we're doing.
 
Keith C. wrote:

"---4 classes of Prod racers had worked well for the SCCA for 20 years---"

And 8 Production classes worked for the SCCA for 30 years prior to that!

RJS
 
If the ex GP, now HP cars were mandated to go back to GP, you for sure would hurt HP numbers on a national level, what half or more of the HP field at Runoffs this year was ex GP cars.

If you allow the ex GP cars, now HP cars to stay in HP, well that's a no brainer, they will stay, most of them were uncompetitive in GP.

Ok, you can bet if GP ever did reinstated, they would never force the ex GP cars out of HP, so all you have to work with are the GP cars that got sent to FP, those are the cars wanting to bring back GP, so bottom line you need more cars classified in GP to bring the numbers back up, and the quick way to do that is look hard at uncompetitive cars in FP now beyond the cars moved there from GP a few years, and then look for new classifications.

I think in a nutshell, you have to prove to the CRB, that the new GP will bring cars/customers/more entires to SCCA racing, not just spread out the same number of cars by adding a class.
 
Everything Hap says makes perfect sense. If cars are not removed from H then a G revival would pose little threat to H and I'd be all for it. If the ex G cars are removed from H I'm afraid it would kill H and thus lean against.

But where does this leave Ron's goal, which is to allow the Sprites and other "2007" H cars to run competitively at the Runoffs? Nowhere, I suspect, as I can't see the ex G cars leaving H voluntarily and as above I don't support expelling them.

In summary - I'm all for giving people like Mark Coffin, ie ex GP cars that have been rather uncompetitively stuck into F. But not at the risk of killing H, thus not helping Ron etc very much.

So I think we are back to where we started - or maybe should have started - what can be done to help the 2007 H cars?

Time for a new thread I think!

(Arguably I'm being presumptuous here, but hey it's the Internet where every man is king. And I do have an HP car which is slowly becoming competitive and that I do plan to eventually take to the runoffs, so I do have a stake in a future healthy HP class with reasonable parity...)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top