Letter of the Month, Sports Car Magazine, page 10 Options

[Rob Hood]

Not sure who the letter writer is pointing a finger at, but he's definitely pointing a finger...perhaps at NASA?

[mitchntx]

I don't subscribe to that rag.

I went to the website, but the letter isn't published.

Can you paraphrase at least?

[robz71lm7]

Heh. I'm forced to get it through my SCCA membership, but it hits the trash can as soon as it arrives. What's the article about?

[sgarnett]

The letter writer left the SCCA because of all the bureacracy, rules that didn't make sense, and the difficulty of changing them. He tried some other organization that was a lot more progressive and laid back, decided it was too progressive and laid back, and came back to the SCCA.

It seems to be about road racing, but that isn't explicitly stated.

There have been a few (very few) good articles in the mag, but they still end up a little fluffy for my taste. I quickly check Fastrack for any interesting new rule changes/proposals/clarifications and maybe drool on the classifieds a bit before giving it to my two-year-old. The whole process takes under 30 seconds, because the section I'm most interested in prints very little of what I'm interested in.

This post has been edited by sgarnett: Dec 19 2005, 04:59 PM

[Rob Hood]

Sean paraphrased the letter pretty well, but I'll add a bit more - the guy (Scott Giles, of the SCCA Atlanta region) described some issues he had with how some events were conducted. Only one corner worker was being used at a corner, and the guy was asleep. When Scott reported this after the race, whoever he reported it to didn't think it was that big of a deal, but according to Scott, this was not a one-time occurence.

Scott went on to say that he saw "multiple races" staffed at levels under what the SCCA requires in order to throw the green flag. He was also critical of how drivers received their license, compared to other sanctioning bodies. One could probably argue the staffing and licensing requirements comparison until blue in the face, but since he didn't fully describe the situation, it can't be fully discussed.

He also stated that while rule changing in the SCCA was slow and bureaucratic (my words), the other sanctioning body would simply change a rule because ONE person decided to change the rule.

But hey, he got a free pair of Piloti shoes for being the "most eloquent" letter of the month. (IMG:http://www.frrax.com/rrforum/style_emoticons/default/rolleyes.gif)

[sgarnett]

Sean paraphrased the letter pretty well, but I'll add a bit more - the guy (Scott Giles, of the SCCA Atlanta region) described some issues he had with how some events were conducted. Only one corner worker was being used at a corner, and the guy was asleep. When Scott reported this after the race, whoever he reported it to didn't think it was that big of a deal, but according to Scott, this was not a one-time occurence.

Scott went on to say that he saw "multiple races" staffed at levels under what the SCCA requires in order to throw the green flag. He was also critical of how drivers received their license, compared to other sanctioning bodies. One could probably argue the staffing and licensing requirements comparison until blue in the face, but since he didn't fully describe the situation, it can't be fully discussed.

He also stated that while rule changing in the SCCA was slow and bureaucratic (my words), the other sanctioning body would simply change a rule because ONE person decided to change the rule.

But hey, he got a free pair of Piloti shoes for being the "most eloquent" letter of the month. (IMG:http://www.frrax.com/rrforum/style_emoticons/default/rolleyes.gif)

I missed the free shoes detail. Personally, I thought the "keep stock stock" letter was more interesting.

OK, I guess I have to add the letters to the short list of stuff I read in the mag (IMG:http://www.frrax.com/rrforum/style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)

[Absolut Speed]

Now you guys are going to make me dig that out of my stack-o-junk mail

[KeithO]

Obviously, this guy didn't run CMC. LOL!

Anyone have any cat pictures. :leaving:

[sgarnett]

(IMG:http://www.frrax.com/rrforum/style_emoticons/default/tongue.gif)

[rmackintosh]

The letter writer left the SCCA because of all the bureacracy, rules that didn't make sense, and the difficulty of changing them. He tried some other organization that was a lot more progressive and laid back, decided it was too progressive and laid back, and came back to the SCCA.

That about is the sum total of my whole feeling on the great "Club Debate"... (IMG:http://www.frrax.com/rrforum/style_emoticons/default/wink.gif) ...only I never left...:leaving:

There have been a few (very few) good articles in the mag, but they still end up a little fluffy for my taste. I quickly check Fastrack for any interesting new rule changes/proposals/clarifications and maybe drool on the classifieds a bit before giving it to my two-year-old. The whole process takes under 30 seconds, because the section I'm most interested in prints very little of what I'm interested in.

Yeah, the mag IS sorta light on the content...I myself just look at the pretty pictures scan the ads and set in on the coffee table until next month...

(IMG:http://www.frrax.com/rrforum/style_emoticons/default/biggrin.gif)

[Sidney]

Here's a little piece of SCCA vs NASA:

I had raced with Midwestern Council in a class that I helped form that was based on SCCA ASedan rules. The purpose of the rules were to allow racers to run either AS or in MC's AGS class. After a few years my teammate and I were ready to move up to AS as we wanted to run tracks that MC didn't run. Since SCCA is a national organization it seemed like AS was the perfect class.

I posted a question on the ASedan forums about not running race gas and their testing procedures. I run 93 pump gas and didn't want to run expensive race fuel. I was only going to run a few races and didn't care about points. If they tested my fuel and I failed then (which I would have) then I was fine with losing points and being dq'd. I just want to race at different tracks.

However, the Central Division Chief Steward said that if I was tested before a race, that I could be DQ'd and not allowed to race. Since it's their playground they can make the rules but I chose to play somewhere else. We looked at the American Iron rules and felt we could be competitive with our cars and the more open rules would actually be less expensive then AS should we want to upgrade to be faster.

So far so good!

Sidney

[firehawkclone]

Heh. I'm forced to get it through my SCCA membership, but it hits the trash can as soon as it arrives. What's the article about?

(IMG:http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v635/firehawkclone/Ididntdoit.jpg)

[rmackintosh]

Here's a little piece of SCCA vs NASA:

I had raced with Midwestern Council in a class that I helped form that was based on SCCA ASedan rules. The purpose of the rules were to allow racers to run either AS or in MC's AGS class. After a few years my teammate and I were ready to move up to AS as we wanted to run tracks that MC didn't run. Since SCCA is a national organization it seemed like AS was the perfect class.

I posted a question on the ASedan forums about not running race gas and their testing procedures. I run 93 pump gas and didn't want to run expensive race fuel. I was only going to run a few races and didn't care about points. If they tested my fuel and I failed then (which I would have) then I was fine with loosing points and being dq'd. I just want to race at different tracks.

However, the Central Division Chief Steward said that if I was tested before a race, that I could be DQ'd and not allowed to race. Since it's their playground they can make the rules but I chose to play somewhere else. We looked at the American Iron rules and felt we could be competitive with our cars and the more open rules would actually be less expensive then AS should we want to upgrade to be faster.

So far so good!

Sidney

Dunno....rules are rules.....I AM SURE NASA's are more relaxed, but SOMEWHERE, even they will draw the line....if I show up in a Ford model T with paper mache frame rails and a 454 blown Chevy stuffed in it, I bet they would quote me some rules... (IMG:http://www.frrax.com/rrforum/style_emoticons/default/rolleyes.gif) ...

Not to mention a "relaxed" outlook on rules can be good or bad....

[teamDFL]

Here's a little piece of SCCA vs NASA:

I had raced with Midwestern Council in a class that I helped form that was based on SCCA ASedan rules. The purpose of the rules were to allow racers to run either AS or in MC's AGS class. After a few years my teammate and I were ready to move up to AS as we wanted to run tracks that MC didn't run. Since SCCA is a national organization it seemed like AS was the perfect class.

I posted a question on the ASedan forums about not running race gas and their testing procedures. I run 93 pump gas and didn't want to run expensive race fuel. I was only going to run a few races and didn't care about points. If they tested my fuel and I failed then (which I would have) then I was fine with loosing points and being dq'd. I just want to race at different tracks.

However, the Central Division Chief Steward said that if I was tested before a race, that I could be DQ'd and not allowed to race. Since it's their playground they can make the rules but I chose to play somewhere else. We looked at the American Iron rules and felt we could be competitive with our cars and the more open rules would actually be less expensive then AS should we want to upgrade to be faster.

So far so good!

Sidney

Dunno....rules are rules.....I AM SURE NASA's are more relaxed, but SOMEWHERE, even they will draw the line....if I show up in a Ford model T with paper mache frame rails and a 454 blown Chevy stuffed in it, I bet they would quote me some rules... (IMG:http://www.frrax.com/rrforum/style_emoticons/default/rolleyes.gif) ...

Not to mention a "relaxed" outlook on rules can be good or bad....

I think that the difficulty most people have with any sanctioning body is that if you are a casual competitor, as long as a variance is not a performance advantage, the common belief is that some leeway needs to be given. The idea is often referred to as "the spirit of the rules." If a spec 100 octane gas is required, the spirit of the rules is to limit the amount of octane and/or specific gravity of the fuel. Now, if someone shows up with a fuel that confers no advantage in either case, while they may have broken the letter of the law, they have in no way compromised the spirit. Should this be allowed for someone who is at every race and accumulating points? Probably not. But someone who is no threat to win anything, my opinion is that it lenience should be afforded.

[rmackintosh]

Here's a little piece of SCCA vs NASA:

I had raced with Midwestern Council in a class that I helped form that was based on SCCA ASedan rules. The purpose of the rules were to allow racers to run either AS or in MC's AGS class. After a few years my teammate and I were ready to move up to AS as we wanted to run tracks that MC didn't run. Since SCCA is a national organization it seemed like AS was the perfect class.

I posted a question on the ASedan forums about not running race gas and their testing procedures. I run 93 pump gas and didn't want to run expensive race fuel. I was only going to run a few races and didn't care about points. If they tested my fuel and I failed then (which I would have) then I was fine with loosing points and being dq'd. I just want to race at different tracks.

However, the Central Division Chief Steward said that if I was tested before a race, that I could be DQ'd and not allowed to race. Since it's their playground they can make the rules but I chose to play somewhere else. We looked at the American Iron rules and felt we could be competitive with our cars and the more open rules would actually be less expensive then AS should we want to upgrade to be faster.

So far so good!

Sidney

Dunno....rules are rules.....I AM SURE NASA's are more relaxed, but SOMEWHERE, even they will draw the line....if I show up in a Ford model T with paper mache frame rails and a 454 blown Chevy stuffed in it, I bet they would quote me some rules... (IMG:http://www.frrax.com/rrforum/style_emoticons/default/rolleyes.gif) ...

Not to mention a "relaxed" outlook on rules can be good or bad....

I think that the difficulty most people have with any sanctioning body is that if you are a casual competitor, as long as a variance is not a performance advantage, the common belief is that some leeway needs to be given. The idea is often referred to as "the spirit of the rules." If a spec 100 octane gas is required, the spirit of the rules is to limit the amount of octane and/or specific gravity of the fuel. Now, if someone shows up with a fuel that confers no advantage in either case, while they may have broken the letter of the law, they have in no way compromised the spirit. Should this be allowed for someone who is at every race and accumulating points? Probably not. But someone who is no threat to win anything, my opinion is that it lenience should be afforded.

The "leeway" you describe is a VERY slipery slope. It sounds GREAT as an ideal, but is ALMOST impossible to administer in a track environment with VOLUNTEER officials that ALREADY make a huge amount of decisions. Sure putting "inferior" gas in the car SHOULD be an easy call. Yet, the guys and gals in tech aren't chemists...they have a documented test from the SCCA to determine if the gas meets the spec....they most likely couldn't tell you if the pump gas was Rotten Robbie's lowest grade, or rocket fuel with the supplies they have track side.....that and the fact that intermixed with the "casual competitor" is the racer who is racing for the $5 trophy as if it is the F1 championship, and takes it VERY SERIOUSLY ( I can point you to a Mitsu Evo for proof (IMG:http://www.frrax.com/rrforum/style_emoticons/default/tongue.gif) ) so rules, in any SERIOUS racing environment MUST be rules...

IMHO...if you want leeway, go HPDEing or a club more loosely defined as "run what ya brung" type of deals...

[teamDFL]

The "leeway" you describe is a VERY slipery slope.  It sounds GREAT as an ideal, but is ALMOST impossible to administer in a track environment with VOLUNTEER officials that ALREADY make a huge amount of decisions.  Sure putting "inferior" gas in the car SHOULD be an easy call.  Yet, the guys and gals in tech aren't chemists...they have a documented test from the SCCA to determine if the gas meets the spec....they most likely couldn't tell you if the pump gas was Rotten Robbie's lowest grade, or rocket fuel with the supplies they have track side.....that and the fact that intermixed with  the "casual competitor" is the racer who is racing for the $5 trophy as if it is the F1 championship, and takes it VERY SERIOUSLY ( I can point you to a Mitsu Evo for proof  (IMG:http://www.frrax.com/rrforum/style_emoticons/default/tongue.gif) ) so rules, in any SERIOUS racing environment MUST be rules...

IMHO...if you want leeway, go HPDEing or a club more loosely defined as "run what ya brung" type of deals...

I agree that the devil is in the details, but it is my opinion that amateur motorsports should accomodate small variances from strict rules interpretation at the local level. I have always felt that the main purpose of amateur motorsports, whether it is IT, HPDE or Solo is fun, and forcing someone to sit on the sidelines because they have a meaningless infraction runs contrary to that.

Now, to your point about 'run-what-you-brung', I think every organization should have an established minimum safety requirement that all cars have to meet and then they are placed in this class if they are legal for no other. Unfortunately, many times this class that invites people in is never discussed and leaves a lot of people on the sidelines.

[Sidney]

My '89 Firebird Formula racecar is not a "run-what-you-brung" kind of car. It has always been a racecar since new and was converted from SSGT rules to AS by Jon Ward. It ran AS for years and has National wins on it. I bought it to run AGS until I was ready to step up to AS. I run 93 pump gas as the compression ratio of an AS spec motor does not need race gas. Once a cell has been "contaminated" by pump gas, the requirements to flush the tank are extreme, dangerous, evironmentally hazardous, and expensive. The SCCA fuel rule in AS is stupid and 95% of the AS racers agree with this based on the thread from this past years Runoffs.

I had no dreams of winning a race and didn't care about points. I had a problem with being told I couldn't race and not getting my money back. SCCA can do whatever they want...there are options out there and NASA is a choice racers can make.

Sidney

[rmackintosh]

I guess our difference lie in the definition of "amatuer motorsports" and what they are "designed" to do....

It is a wonderful world where SO MANY of us can afford to build up a car and take it out to some of the most amazing road courses in the world! (IMG:http://www.frrax.com/rrforum/style_emoticons/default/thumbup.gif) Great stuff. And YES, there SHOULD BE groups that are flexible to allow "casual competitors" to bring out their street rod that turned into a dragster that evolved into an autocrosser then into an HPDE car and now is somewhere between all of these prep wise and the owner wants to take it to the track and mix it up a bit. There are PLENTY of groups that cater to these crowds. Sometimes, it seems as if EVERYBODY has their own track group these days...I say GREAT...more power to them!

Then there are groups like the SCCA. Which is aiming to be amatuer road racing at its pinnacle (no need to argue whether or not they achieve that here....) . As a dedicated road racer I RELISH rules that are written and enforced and are relatively stable. Accomodating "small variances" is called rules creep in an established racing series such as the SCCA is trying to run....and as someone who has dealt with THAT for years....RULES CREEP SUCKS! The SCCA does NOT "force" ANYONE to sit on the sidelines.....as mentioned above....there are PLENTY of options out there for that person to take. Why does SCCA have to bend to that person? If I decide, "hey, I can afford to race the NASCAR race at Sears Point, but only if they would accomodate my buddies Winston West car...should they have to accept my entry? I think not.

I just think there are levels, even amongst the amatuer racing crowd, that are a good thing. If I want to take my bone stock car to the track...there are plenty of smaller clubs that are there for that. If I want to take a more serious car out that is "not to spec" there are groups out there for that as well...hell, even SCCA has ITE that will run ALMOST everything. A group like NASA tries to catch both sides of the fence on this with HPDE's and a more liberal approach to race groups....good for them. I am free to decide not to race there.

JMHO

[rmackintosh]

My '89 Firebird Formula racecar is not a "run-what-you-brung" kind of car. It has always been a racecar since new and was converted from SSGT rules to AS by Jon Ward. It ran AS for years and has National wins on it. I bought it to run AGS until I was ready to step up to AS. I run 93 pump gas as the compression ratio of an AS spec motor does not need race gas. Once a cell has been "contaminated" by pump gas, the requirements to flush the tank are extreme, dangerous, evironmentally hazardous, and expensive. The SCCA fuel rule in AS is stupid and 95% of the AS racers agree with this based on the thread from this past years Runoffs.

I had no dreams of winning a race and didn't care about points.

Sidney

By run-what-you-brung I meant more than just out of spec CARS....it applies to "100%" legal cars that want to run out of spec for WHATEVER reason...same difference... (IMG:http://www.frrax.com/rrforum/style_emoticons/default/unsure.gif)

I had a problem with being told I couldn't race and not getting my money back. SCCA can do whatever they want...there are options out there and NASA is a choice racers can make.

By not being allowed to run you SHOULD have gotten your money back...dunno. As far as NASA being a valid choice for people in your shoes....see above, I wholeheartedly agree. Just don't blame the SCCA because they didn't bend the rules to fit the needs of the one....or something like that I saw on Star Trek once.... (IMG:http://www.frrax.com/rrforum/style_emoticons/default/tongue.gif)

This post has been edited by rmackintosh: Dec 21 2005, 09:55 PM

[Sidney]

Randy wrote: "I guess our difference lie in the definition of "amatuer motorsports" and what they are "designed" to do...."

Yep, that's the difference. I see "amatuer motorsports" as what the SCCA, NASA, MC, EMRA, and various other clubs do. They provide a place for us to play with our cars. Anyone think they are doing anything besides just "playing" then they need to move on to Grand Am, World Challenge, ASA, ARCA,...etc.

It's all for fun and maybe a little piece of wood/plastic that you can hang in your den.

Sidney