Remove MX5 Global Cup cars from EP

Thanks all for jumping in with details and opinions. I am learning even more about how the MX5 Global Cup car should never be allowed in Production. Hopefully Sam Henry and John LaRue are listening. No one from CRB has contacted me. I am still thinking about going through with an appeal to the protest at Sebring but time is running out. I am not sure if anyone will listen.

If they truly believe this car is a production car in addition to T3 and STU then why stop there...

Rules suggestion for MX5 Global Cup car:
- Leave in EP with sequential tranny and ABS. Allow all production cars the same features
- Provide an air restrictor so the cars can run FP
- Provide an even smaller restrictor for HP

The above is ridiculous just as allowing that car in any Production class.

Bill and Jim, thanks for the comments.

Jim, yes the horse is out of the barn but I am counting on someone with a logical mindset to put it back in the barn or shoot it . :D
 
Piner":iqx2cabp said:
I am still thinking about going through with an appeal to the protest at Sebring but time is running out. I am not sure if anyone will listen.
Click to expand...
I am not a fan of this classification.

However, given it was approved by the BoD and published as RM 22-01 on January 7, 2022 I'm not clear that you have a leg to stand on with an appeal.

And, using the appeal process to try and get the reg changed will be ineffective; the Court will simply reject it back to you as a compliant classification.

If you contact me directly maybe I can better understand your protest and could assist with the appeal if it's viable. But it can't change the existence of RM 22-01.

Greg
 
Greg, just thinking out loud here..
The RM is signed by the CRB, so there should be a paper trail, meeting minutes, something to update the classification. Was the PAC included in that conversation since it directly affects the Prod classes?

Reviewing the GCR (Jan 2022), the spec lines are as follows:
STL calls out 16-18 on one line, 2019 on another at +100lb. Weights are called out for the class- 2450lb for the early and 2550 for the late. See GCR page 468 for reference
EP spec line is only for 16-19. for weights, it says "see notes" ....... here's the note: "Car preparation is limited to what is permitted by the MX-5 Global Cup rules and the car must meet all MX-5 Global Cup rules." :think: Well that doesn't help the guy in the tech shed. AT ALL. See GCR pages 495, 496
T3: 2016-2021 are all on same spec line, but the sequential gearbox is called out at +100lb. base weight 2370lb. See GCR page 690.

It *appears* to me that the CRB isn't taking the sequential into account for EP, but they are in other classes since EP is only 2016-2019 and the sequential came out for the 2020 model. I think it would be reasonable to call this an oversight to include the 2020+ in Prod with the sequential, especially with no weight adder for the sequential like mentioned in other classes.

Since it can run as-is in both STL and T3, the cars still have a place to play, and that place shouldn't be in EP.

Heck, classify it in GT3 if they want a third place to play within the same handful of run groups. GT3 allows sequentials and even ABS per spec line.
 
Matt, I'm not arguing the value or processes of this classification, I'm arguing its compliance to the GCR.

The BoD can make up any regs it wants to; in this case - regardless of the reason it chose to - it made up RM 22-01, classifying the 20-22 MX5 Cup cars into EP. The very existence of that Racing Memo makes it compliant to the GCR.

So your beef is with the Board of Directors; they approved this regs change. It was likely at the request of the PAC and/or CRB, but that process does not change its compliance status.

Write your BoD rep(s).

Greg

Edit: I justed noticed the sig of RM 22-01 is "CRB". So it's probable that this came from the CRB, using its BoD-delegated authority for car classifications. This is within the CRB's authority, and does not change its compliance to the GCR.
 
Matt i agree with much of what you said. As for the weight adder in T3 that is a result of the CRB ignoring the fact that this car breaks class philosophy in Touring. The sequential gear box, running on slicks, and its a factory built race car. All three break class philosophy. So I requested the weight adder as most all other classes who allow a sequential has a weight adder. The car is non compliant for STL also due to the sequential and slicks. The best fit is STU but mandate DOT tires.
 
Greg,
We're close to the same page here.
I initially pointed at the BOD for making that change, but the bottom of the RM was indeed signed by "CRB". so the BOD issued the request on behalf of the CRB.

Thus the CRB is the culprit. WHY they made the change is what I'm trying to get to... did the CRB act on a letter, or just say "Hey, it's 2022.. let's update the spec lines to include new cars..." but they only did it for 2 of 3 classes that car is eligible in.)

This is what leads my to believe it was an oversight in some way, shape, or form. I would write a letter to the CRB and BOD explaining the issue..
1. (sequential and ABS are outside Prod philosophy), and ask that these cars be looked at.
2. Sequentials are allowed in other classes AND the car is already classed there, So put it there and take it out of EP.
2. spec line weights for 16-19 are different than 20+ in the other two classes it's listed. EP spec line was just updated to include the 20+ cars with sequentials at the same weight as the original trans.


I am also not arguing compliance to the GCR. With RM 22-01, the sequential is "compliant to the GCR". I'm arguing that the RM change to make it compliant was possibly made in error or poorly thought thru and needs to be revisited. i.e. It was a simple mistake and it can be rectified with some clear and patient dialogue. Yelling and finger pointing won't resolve.

Edit note: couple of edits made to the above for correction/clarity after I slept on it and re-read my comments this morning.
 
Matt93SE":mw7t62v9 said:
Greg,
We're close to the same page here.
I initially pointed at the BOD for making that change, but the bottom of the RM was indeed signed by "CRB". so the BOD issued the request on behalf of the CRB.

Thus the CRB is the culprit. WHY they made the change is what I'm trying to get to... did the CRB act on a letter, or just say "Hey, it's 2022.. let's update the spec lines to include new cars... but they only did it for 2 of 3 classes that car is eligible in.)

This is what leads my to believe it was an oversight in some way, shape, or form. I would write a letter to the CRB and BOD explaining the issue..
1. (sequential and ABS are outside Prod philosophy), and ask that these cars be looked at.
2. Sequentials are allowed in other classes AND the car is already classed there, So put it there and take it out of EP.
2. spec line weights for 16-19 are different than 20+ in the other two classes it's listed. EP spec line was just updated to include the 20+ cars with sequentials at the same weight as the original trans.


I am also not arguing compliance to the GCR. With RM 22-01, it is not compliant. I'm arguing that the change to make it compliant was a mistake and needs to be revisited. I *personally believe* that it was a simple mistake and it can be rectified with some clear and patient dialogue. Yelling and finger pointing won't resolve.
Click to expand...

Matt thanks very much. Let me know if I can shape my letter in a better way.

There's two other issues that need to be addressed: Any car requiring a specific fuel isn't SCCA legal for the runoffs (unless it specifies an SCCA Runoffs fuel - this car does not).
And while the sealed engine may work for IMSA, it seems a little awkward for both competitors and the tech shed given past runoffs history. If I protest your camshaft, am I denied because the seal is there? If not, and your cam is in spec, do I have to pay $25K for a new motor since I broke the seal? Those both seem, not thought through.

Good catch whoever spotted those.
 
Doug, you need to file an appeal and include the weight of the car as run. The weight listed on the side of the car was 2400 lbs. That would make it light by what was just stated.
Let's go back to the start of this thing. The car was entered in E production for Homestead but did not run that class on 01/07/2022 which was the first day of practice and qualifying because it was not listed on the spec line. After whom ever made the decision to add the car and Notified Copeland Motorsports the car was run on 01/08/2022 in qualifying as an E prod and went on to win that race.
I spoke to the chief steward at Homestead on Sunday and he had no knowledge that the car was legal for the class. in his opinion the car was illegal for the class.
I'm not sure what happened but the car did not run Homestead on Sunday.

Paul
 
PaulL":f9e96po8 said:
Doug, you need to file an appeal and include the weight of the car as run. The weight listed on the side of the car was 2400 lbs. That would make it light by what was just stated.
Click to expand...
You can only appeal what was protested and disallowed. You cannot add additional protest items to an appeal.

Doug and I had a phone conversation last night and I gave him an overview of my opinions. General summary, the protest was against the car's eligibility for the class, and his protest was disallowed because of RM22-01. Appealing that will not change the car's compliance to be classified.

As such, it is my opinion that pursuing an appeal is pointless and will result in a denial. Efforts are better spent elsewhere.

The BoD has delegated to the CRB the ability to classify cars without the BoD's express approval; the CRB used that authority to make this classification. As such, the car's classification is compliant to the GCR.

You can write to the CRB and use logic to convince them to rescind this classification.

If that fails, the last place to "appeal" this decision is to contact your BoD Area reps and ask them to override the CRB's decision.

If that fails...welcome to SCCA.

Greg
 
Well it appears Greg was right.... "Welcome to the SCCA". CRB just approved the MX5 Global Cup car with a sequential transmission. They have a weight penalty of 150 lbs. That makes them 2550. I can't wait to protest their fuel..... according to their spec line!

I am looking forward to putting a DCT (sequential) transmission in my car and add 150 lbs.

Sports Car Club of America/Mazda
 
Regardless of any weight penalty, let's don't go there.

1. Sequential transmissions were very briefly approved roughly in Prod ~20 years ago. There was a letter writing campaign organized on the old Prod website to reverse this - and it was quickly reversed. It is simply an unnecessary jump in expense / sophistication.

2. Even if allowed at a punitive weight, eventually someone would successfully petition to have the weight penalty made reasonable.

3. Similarly, no matter what the current understanding, someone will likely eventually successfully use the "Global Cup Car" precedent to get a sequential box approved, perhaps at a punitive weight. See #2.

If you don't want a camel in your tent, don't let the camel's nose in the tent.
 
I was personally involved with the only EP car equipped with a sequential box (that I know of). Pratt Cole installed it in his EP 1600 Miata back in approx 1996 or 1997. It was an interesting piece that was fun to drive (I drove it in a Pacific Raceways national in 98). It was not a magic bullet and in fact Pratt went faster with the PBS gear box he installed after the sequential was outlawed. 2 out of 3 of his Nat Championships came with the PBS.
Geartronics makes paddle shifters and other electronics for the Quaife gearboxes and has an interesting tech article dispelling the myth that a sequential is a huge time saver.
http://www.geartronics.co.uk/shift_times.htm

Mazda went with the sequential for reliability. The OEM trans is inadequate for racing.
 
As far as the "class philosophy" argument goes, that has gone the way of the Dodo. Various classes have been afflicted with alternate sanctioning bodies rulesets. GCR requires the entrant have a complete set of those rules to go along with the GCR and chassis/engine workshop manual required of every SCCA racer. Tech should have all the specs needed to adjudicate a dispute with those publications.

You will likely gain 0 traction with the CRB or BOD with a protest or letter writing campaign...
 
dhrmx5":3i3h6f6x said:
...an interesting tech article dispelling the myth that a sequential is a huge time saver.
Click to expand...
From personal experience (I'm driving a sequential-equipped Civic in STU the beginning of this year) I don't find the Quaife as a time saver at all. For me, it's biggest advantage is being able to upshift the car right after coming out of the apex without disturbing the chassis. Allows me to be in the next lower gear for better acceleration and not worry about having to upshift (which, I suppose, one can argue is a time saver...)

That may change as I become more accustomed to it.

dhrmx5":3i3h6f6x said:
As far as the "class philosophy" argument goes, that has gone the way of the Dodo. Various classes have been afflicted with alternate sanctioning bodies rulesets.
Click to expand...
A big "amen" to that. We are making our categories so diluted and "diverse" that we are removing their key differentiations (and purposes). We are at the point where, effectively, there's not a lot of difference between Touring 2, E Production, Super Touring U, and GT3.

Hell, might as well just combine them all together with adders/subtractors for minor differences like wings, splitters, DOTs, and gearboxe, and "limited prep".

You think your class is not being "afflicted" by this? Revelation: you are.

"In our constant club-racer quest to make our cars faster, safer and "more reliable" we have pushed for rule changes that simply accelerated the rate of entropy. Every class of production racing does this, of course, until it finally brings on its own demise." - Peter Egan
 
dhrmx5":2xegmwbp said:
As far as the "class philosophy" argument goes, that has gone the way of the Dodo. Various classes have been afflicted with alternate sanctioning bodies rulesets. GCR requires the entrant have a complete set of those rules to go along with the GCR and chassis/engine workshop manual required of every SCCA racer. Tech should have all the specs needed to adjudicate a dispute with those publications.

You will likely gain 0 traction with the CRB or BOD with a protest or letter writing campaign...
Click to expand...

We did in fact get 100lbs added to the car.

By the way, yes, many categories have cars that don't fit the (original) class philosophy.

The problem is then, why would SCCA ever use this as an excuse to deny a member request.

If the ship has sailed, it's sailed for both members and the club... I just really hate the hypocrisy.
 
dhrmx5":27zsls0r said:
You will likely gain 0 traction with the CRB or BOD with a protest or letter writing campaign...
Click to expand...

I don’t know who dhrmx5 is but I couldn’t disagree more.

As I was voted in as a Director 18 months ago, I have avoided public statements on forums like this because someone would inevitably say “Dayle said X and its coming from a Director” when it may be Dayle the ex-racer injecting a comment about the topic.

But I will jump ion on this…..the BoD and CRB both receive many letters that are for and against rules (both proposed or enacted) and we listen. The squeaky wheel does get the grease. And, yes…..this is coming from a Director……not Dayle the Race Chair, not Dayle the ex-racer.

I am a BoD liaison to the CRB so I have seen plenty of letters over the past 15 months. Lots of them about BSpec…who woulda thunk, right?

So please feel free to write the letters….we really do read all the letters sent to the BoD.

Dayle
 
Greg Amy, couldn't agree more.

Dayle Frame, Yes, I should have limited my statement to cars that were placed on purpose by the CRB or BOD. Letters are obviously the most effective way to let the CRB/Ad Hoc know what the members are thinking.
 
One of these with an excellent driver (Selin Rollian) is signed up for Roebling.

Still working out kinks in the EP TR8 but had a good outing at CMP. I know Roebling well, and have run 1:20 there in the ITS car, so hoping to get down at least into the 19s, hopefully less in EP althoug it will be hot.

We will see how the MX5 Cup car does. Roebling is 80% Miata track with one very long straightway that is very much TR8 track..lol...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top