What is up with Mazda vs SCCA???

[lateapex911]

And something is rotten, it appears, in Topeka.

Here are some relevant quotes:

Dear MAZDASPEED Motorsports Development Team Member,

Now that the 2007 racing season has concluded, I want to thank each of you for your efforts this year. The results speak for themselves:

* Five SCCA Runoffs Championships
* Four NASA National Championships
* 14 SCCA Solo Championships
* Two NASA Time Trial Championships
* SCCA SPEED World Challenge Touring Car - Manufacturers Championship
* SCCA SPEED World Challenge Touring Car - Drivers Championship
* SCCA SPEED World Challenge Touring Car - Crew of the Year
* Additional race wins in GrandAm GT & NHRA Sport Compact Drags
* Strong support of our ladder program in karting, Skip Barber, Star Mazda, and Atlantic, plus our MX-5 Cup series.

As you know, more people road-race Mazdas than any other brand. Grassroots motorsports is the foundation of the Mazda motorsports business, and we have thousands of customers like you to thank.

As we prepare our 2008 plans, I feel it important to solicit feedback from our most important partners - you. To achieve this, we have created a survey that asks you where you race, with which sanctioning body, how often and where you think our focus for the future should be. The survey can be accessed from a link at the bottom of this e-mail. Please take the time to consider your needs, as it will greatly influence where we place our collective efforts in 2008 and beyond.

Without rehashing old news, many of you know that MAZDASPEED and the leadership/management of the Sports Car Club of America have had some difficult situations recently, including some unfortunate comments being made to members of my staff. These difficulties have affected many of our team members, and we have been working through them with your best interest as our #1 priority. We hope to work towards commons goals and will be meeting with the SCCA leadership in early December. While I cannot speak as to the SCCA goals, the Mazda goal is simple - satisfying our customers.

Again, thank you for your support in making MAZDASPEED Motorsports Development a great success and Mazda a success in the market place. We value your business and loyalty.

Robert T. Davis
Senior Vice President
Product Development & Quality

and the pertinent survey quotes:

As some of you may know, MAZDASPEED Motorsports and the leadership/management of the Sports Car Club of America (the Club) have had some difficult situations recently. Earlier this year, SCCA approved a suspension option package (MS-R) for the Mazda MX-5 for SSB class competition in 2007. Within two months, after some of our Mazda racers had purchased a 2007 MX-5, the option package, and raced with the option package, SCCA wrongly decided the package would not be legal for competition in 2007.
-
In October of this year at the SCCA Runoffs, one of our MAZDASPEED staff, there to support the Mazda competitiors at the event, was told by a prominent member of SCCA’s Board of Directors that “SCCA doesn’t need Mazda and Mazda doesn’t need SCCA". As you can imagine we were shocked that the club leadership felt this way about MAZDASPEED involvement.
-
Normally in the course of business relationships, when someone discounts your contribution to the point of saying we don’t need you, you take your business elsewhere. While that was our first reaction, it doesn’t take into consideration you, our customers and team members. These difficulties have affected many of our Mazda Team Support members and we have been working through them with your best interest as our #1 priority.
-
The long term commitment MAZDASPEED has made to our members and the results of these support programs has benefited Mazda as well. Mazda’s market share for street vehicles among club members is 3 times our industry average. Mazda is the most raced brand within the club, in fact over 50% based on the latest results. We benefit greatly by having team members as advocates for our vehicles as family and friends ask you what car to purchase. For all this support, we thank you.
-
Please read the following five (5) statements carefully and decide which one fits your feelings the best, then respond by clicking the box next to that statement. Please respond to only one link and respond only once. We would also appreciate any comments and suggestions you have on the matter and have provided a comment section for you to give any feedback. If you would like to copy any leadership of the club on your response, please feel free to do so. We suggest that your forward your comments to the National office as well as your local SCCA Region Executive.
-
While these choices don’t go into specific detail, they will give us an indication of the direction you (our customer) would like us to take and where we should apply our support. Please understand any support not given to SCCA in the future will still be invested into amateur (grass roots) racing. Our vision is to expand our position in this area, not pull back.
-
Again, thank you for your support in making MAZDASPEED Motorsports Development a great success and Mazda a success in the market place. We value your business and loyalty.

and from an article in Autoweek...

"Even so, 2007 was better than 2006, says Jim Julow, former Dodge executive and now SCCA president and CEO. "I think we learned a ton last year. Probably the most obvious is in the track changes this year. Lap times are down, speeds are up, the fun factor is higher."

Manufacturer participation seemed reasonably healthy. Mazda, Honda, General Motors, Toyota and Goodyear had a full public-relations presence, but even some of those manufacturers thought the SCCA had issues to address. Robert Davis, Mazda senior vice president and head of the company's racing program, said his company is "trying to spread our support more evenly among the SCCA and [the National Auto Sport Association]. SCCA is better known, but I would say right now NASA is better run."

NASA is the SCCA's biggest competitor and seems to appeal to a younger demographic. Julow admits that there's room for improvement. "We're still struggling to get membership where we want it, and we're still struggling to get participation in club racing. Our rally program is up, solo is up, but club racing this year was off a few percentage points, and that's not good, and we're down here at the Runoffs about the same number, 5 or 6 percent."


So, what the hell is going on here???????

I know that the club has extended dubious allowances to the Solstaces, and that the Mazda package was allowed, then disallowed, which on the suface, seems unfair. Be that as it may, (thats a whole discussion/ issue itself,) what the hell is a BoD member doing telling Mazda they aren't needed!?!

Jeeez...the ONLY public exposere SCCA gets on TV is the Speedworld challenge and the Runoffs. Mazda puts big money into the Touring Car class in the Speed series, and pays major bucks to run tons of advertising on the programs. Without thier financlail backing, SCCA would be in a much different place, as Speed will NOT air those races without the needed income from advertisers. And if that goes away, so does SCCA's exposure in one quick snip....and that's certainly not what the club needs....less exposure!

Now, I don't want to be unreasonable, and make uninformed decisions, so.....Who said it, and in what context???

[grjones1]

Although I would be concerned with officials who can't maintain friendly relations with manufacturers, I would also be highly concerned with anyone "buying" SCCA and its equal consideration for all marques.

G

[lateapex911]

Right....and there are plenty who point out that the Solstace is anything but stock, and can't be bought from a dealership by John Q Public....cries of "favoratism" have rung out. Whats good for the goose, and all that...

[Knestis]

"...SCCA is better known, but I would say right now NASA is better run."[/b]

This is pretty interesting and reflects - I think - Mazda's need to have things clear, in terms of what kind of organization they are dealing with.

SCCA is a club masquerading as a business.

NASA is a business masquerading as a club.

At least with NASA, when a manufacturer's representative has a high-level conversation with a national decision-maker, he/she knows that answers come from a commercial point of view. THAT they can deal with. With SCCA, they might be dealing with someone who's got their own little hobby horse to ride, who happens to have made it up the Club food chain...

My throwaway comment about SS elsewhere aside, let's not ignore the fact that Mazda didn't get what it wanted in terms of competition allowances in one of the classes not among the FIVE RubOffs titles they DID get. If we ARE a club, then maybe it's OK that a manufacturer can't bully the rules into their favor that additional bit...?

K

[grjones1]

But, Jake, you and I both know SCCA has always been somewhat vulnerable to corporate "lobbying". Doesn't make it right, but it it exists in all venues, sports and politics.

Now if the official you are upset with was standing up to what he perceived to be "overreaching" arrogance on the part of Mazda, shouldn't we applaud him?

G

[grjones1]

I would also add that possibly other manufacturers upon hearing that Mazda no longer "owns" SCCA might be willing to step in and compete for our business. And in turn Mazda might relent and fall into a more reasonable line. Isn't it wonderful that a basis for checks and balances might still exist?

[pgipson]

My throwaway comment about SS elsewhere aside, let's not ignore the fact that Mazda didn't get what it wanted in terms of competition allowances in one of the classes not among the FIVE RubOffs titles they DID get. If we ARE a club, then maybe it's OK that a manufacturer can't bully the rules into their favor that additional bit...? [/b]

My concern is that, if the conversation occurred as detailed in the survey (which I did get -- I've belonged to Mazda Support since it started), then what was the context? And what did the "prominent BoD member" mean? If the feeling on the BoD is that mfg support is only for people with offices in Kansas, then maybe we need to remind them of who the club organization is for. Having mfg support is a good thing for racers, and if it doesn't help the national office, well that's too bad.

I agree that if a mfg is trying to leverage support in exchange for favorable treatment that creates an advantage, that is unacceptable. But the rules should be the same for all.

[lateapex911]

This was posted over on SM.com, by Tim Buck. He's beeen with Mazda for years, and is often the guy who answers the phone when a support member calls for parts and advice.


It was not a trunk kit. It was an actual option listed on Mazda's sales brochures, site, dealer info, etc. And as an OPTION, according to the GCR it did not even have to be available to the public (like to Solstice hardtop).

Dampers, springs, swaybars, LSD, 17" wheels, underchassis bracing... I think that was it. We had to create the option to even begin to try to compete with the Solstice and all of it's various upgrades/options. I sure wish we hadn't needed to do that. Had SCCA just classified base model cars, it would have saved us a lot of time, money, and aggravation.

I don't have a problem with Pontiac using their carbon fiber, unobtainable hardtop. As long as the playing field is LEVEL. They (the CoA) took our option away because they said it wasn't available to the public (although that is arguable). Pontiac gets to keep theirs, even though it's not available to the public.

I have no problem with GM (Well...). We WANT to race against them. As fairly as possible. It's great for the brand. Similar cars battling it out on the track? Great! It generates public interest in both cars. Win-win, right? Problem is, GM stacked the deck early on with their Z0K and CF top. Actually, the base model cars would have been perfect against each other (and it would have been cheaper for the racers!). But I guess they wanted more than to just "compete". So in order to run with them we had to answer with a suspension package that would let the Miata run with the Solstice. So we did. We jumped though all of the hoops that Jeremy Thoennes asked of us, and the CRB gave us the ok, adding the MS-R option to the spec line. All legal, above board, and done according to the GCR. MS-R option was allowed in the April Fastrack.

Someone must have protested the option, because it went to court and was disallowed. Then the CoA heard it and upheld the protest. THEN they let us know that they had disallowed the MS-R. We had no idea up until that point that there was a problem. Talk about lack of due process!

Our final option was to take it to the BoD to try to get it reversed. Which we did. I (we) did an exhaustive amount research (trying to play catch-up), found out that we were RIGHT according to the GCR and that because it was an OPTION, it could be added to the spec line by the CRB (even without being available to the public!). We prepared an extensive, well laid out appeal to the BoD outlining why. per the GCR the MS-R option is legal and requesting that it not be taken away.

I was told that the BoD chose not to hear our appeal. NOT TO HEAR IT!

And this is just one of the issues we have had with the club. I'm not going to detail each one. Suffice it to say that Mazda feels that its substantial investment in SCCA is both taken for granted and unappreciated. We don't ever want special treatment. Just parity. Just a transparent way to classify cars, allow options, add restrictions, and administer/apply their own ruleset.

You all are our customers. We WILL listen to you.

If the overwhelming majority of you feel that there is nothing wrong with the SCCA, then we will continue to stay the course, fighting the good battle.

If the majority of you are dissatisfied with the SCCA, we want to know about it. There are other options out there, and other places to invest Mazda's time and money.

Either way, now is your opportunity. You can affect change. If you are a staunch SCCA supporter but feel the club is losing its way- here is your chance to band together and fix what is currently broken. If you'd like to see Mazda invest in other sanctioning bodies to help them grow, TELL US.

Personally, I feel competition is good for the breed. And SCCA can definitely use some improving. So some competition from other sanctioning bodies will only help SCCA in the long run.

This whole thing can absolutely be used as a POSITIVE to not only fix some of the problems at SCCA, but improve our sport a a whole.


I am sure curious to see what happens...


Well, thats certainly a reasonable, respectful and well written position. I'm anxious to hear the club's counter.

[TimBuck]

Thanks Jake. Yup, I'm the guy on the phones (along with Scott, James, and Brian)

I have been a club racer (first crew for a friend, now driver) since 1987, and with Mazda Motorsports since 1998.

First, I absolutely resent the implications that we are lining ANYBODY'S pockets. Shame on you! (And I personally don't think any manufacturer would do that.) That is not the way we funtion. You can't honestly believe that??? That's either speaking from ignorance or from small-mindedness (or envy?).

Second, Mazda does NOT "own" the SCCA. Yes, we have more cars racing in the club than all other manufacturers combined. That's from SCCA's data. We got that way because Mazda offers very raceable cars AND we have a grassroots support system that is second to none. We have since 1990. I now feel that this is becoming a hinderance. I feel a lot of resentment from other brands' racers, and even some backlash in the rules-making and classifying of cars (along the lines of "there are too many Mazdas out there already, why classify the XXX in SS" or "why help out the XXX in ITA? Sure it's at a disadvantage, but there are too many Mazda's out there already"). That kind of thinking most hurts the individual racer who is trying to compete with that particular car.

If you don't, or don't want to race a Mazda, great! I relish the competition. I love mixing it up on the track wih GM, Honda, Nissan, Ford, and anyone else who wants to come to the table. But don't bash us from behind a bulletin board because we offer our racers so much. Is that the way you want to win races???

What we do for club racing (and solo for that matter) is available to any manufacturer. I can't understand why they don't see the value in it... And now I can't understand why SCCA doesn't seem to see the value in it either.

See you at the track.

(edit for spelling)

[gsbaker]

<blockquote>"...SCCA is better known, but I would say right now NASA is better run."

This is pretty interesting and reflects - I think - Mazda&#39;s need to have things clear, in terms of what kind of organization they are dealing with.

SCCA is a club masquerading as a business.

NASA is a business masquerading as a club.</blockquote>

That&#39;s all we need to know.

Casual observations on the back and forth, ignoring the technical facts:
<blockquote>1. Mazda thinks they got screwed, rightly or wrongly.
2. Mazda drops an implied threat to SCCA that they will take their $ elsewhere.
3. SCCA calls what they think is, and may be, a bluff.</blockquote>
Absent insider information, all else is speculation.

[henryj63]

Tim, you guys have a ton of support on this matter, just check out the prod and gt sites. We all want to know the name of the BOD member who made the comment to Mazda personnel.

Hank Biesterfeldt
#33 GT-3 RX-7
Milwaukee Region

[TimBuck]

what&#39;s the URL for the GT site?

Gregg- to the casual observer that may be what it appears. But it truly goes much deeper than what your statements imply. SCCA needs to change some of it&#39;s policies and procedures. Soon. They are hemorrhaging customers. SCCA entries are declining and NASA entries are on the rise. From a business standpoint, how long can that continue?

Maybe this will be the catalyst that prompts some positive change. Time will tell. Consider it a call to arms.

It&#39;s easy to be just a racer and not get involved in the club... that&#39;s how we (the racers/customers) lose control.

[gsbaker]

Gregg- to the casual observer that may be what it appears. But it truly goes much deeper than what your statements imply.[/b]What do my statements imply?


SCCA needs to change some of it&#39;s policies and procedures. Soon. They are hemorrhaging customers. SCCA entries are declining and NASA entries are on the rise. From a business standpoint, how long can that continue?[/b]
For a very long time--given that NASA is coming from a low base point--even if one is going to characterize 5% as a hemorrhage. As the Doc notes, NASA is a franchise-style business. When the franchisor-franchisee relationship collapses, it&#39;s game over.

SCCA is like the Green Bay Packers, which had to sell stock to the locals to survive in its early days. Consequently, the Packers will always be around in Green Bay.

SCCA is owned by the members, and it will always be around. The same cannot be said for NASA.

[tnord]

both groups have their problems.

a huge chunk of SCCA members/supporters are plenty pissed for a multitude of reasons; no faith in top level leadership of Julow and the BoD; Runoffs in Topeka; Ed Ozment; and the usual classification BS makes for a large chunk of dissatisfied members.

NASA is plenty well known for cutting corners. limited staffing at worker stations and other safety personnel, dangerous race groupings, and cutting track time short for racers is fairly common from what i read.

there&#39;s a little bit of &#39;the grass is always greener&#39; going on here i&#39;m sure. but there&#39;s enough substance there that Mazda probably has legitimate grounds to be the spark that ignites the whole deal.

i think one of our main problems is that we are a volunteer run organization, and all too often you get unqualified people in very important positions, simply because no one else is willing to do it. it takes a huge amount of time and commitment to hold a position within the club, and i don&#39;t think badly of ANYONE not willing to do it. it&#39;s like the math teacher vs engineer thing.

[henryj63]

Tim, check out;

www.gt-racecar.com
www.prodracing.com

[lateapex911]

Thanks Jake. Yup, I&#39;m the guy on the phones (along with Scott, James, and Brian)

I have been a club racer (first crew for a friend, now driver) since 1987, and with Mazda Motorsports since 1998.

.......... I feel a lot of resentment from other brands&#39; racers, and even some backlash in the rules-making and classifying of cars (along the lines of "there are too many Mazdas out there already, why classify the XXX in SS" or "why help out the XXX in ITA? Sure it&#39;s at a disadvantage, but there are too many Mazda&#39;s out there already"). That kind of thinking most hurts the individual racer who is trying to compete with that particular car.

[/b]


Tim- I hope your comments regarding lined pockets, etc, aren&#39;t aimed at me in any way. I&#39;ve been a Mazda comp member since 92 or so, and have often marveled at how awesome it is to be able to pick up a phone and talk to someone (you, often!) who really knows what you&#39;re talking about and what you need.....and how Mazda can afford to staff and run the department. Screw the low costs, LOL, that expert knowledge is a HUGE benefit, and I have chosen to support Mazda over the years in my car buying and racing decisions largely because they have treated me so well over the years.

That said, I serve on the IT ad hoc commiteee, and I can assure you, Mazda gets no favoritism, nor is it resented in any way among those on the ITAC, and no rules decisions nor classsifications have been manipulated to hurt or benefit Mazda. We have what we feel is perhaps the best category in SCCA, and we realize the reasons it has become what it is. We won&#39;t do anything that could threaten our cornerstone values, and any manipulation of the rules or classifications to help or hurt any specific manufacturer is certainly one of the values we will never bend on. We feel that it is the fairest way to handle things, both to the members AND the manufacturers.

[TimBuck]

But, Jake, you and I both know SCCA has always been somewhat vulnerable to corporate "lobbying". Doesn&#39;t make it right, but it it exists in all venues, sports and politics.

Now if the official you are upset with was standing up to what he perceived to be "overreaching" arrogance on the part of Mazda, shouldn&#39;t we applaud him?

G
[/b]




I would also add that possibly other manufacturers upon hearing that Mazda no longer "owns" SCCA might be willing to step in and compete for our business. And in turn Mazda might relent and fall into a more reasonable line. Isn&#39;t it wonderful that a basis for checks and balances might still exist?
[/b]

Nope, these are the offensive posts. Did I do something to tick this guy off? Or did Mazda?



Although I would be concerned with officials who can&#39;t maintain friendly relations with manufacturers, I would also be highly concerned with anyone "buying" SCCA and its equal consideration for all marques.

G
[/b]

Oops, and this one too.

[henryj63]

Mazda Envy! :P

[grjones1]

Mr Buck,

If you will notice my comments were in the subjunctive, i.e. "could" and "might." That means conditional, if all that has been said is the case. And somewhere in the thread of Jake&#39;s it was implied that Mazda&#39;s contribution to SCCA, e.g., putting us on Speed Vision, etc. deserved extra consideration. Point here is all of us appreciate any help we can get from any manufacturer (even though shamefully little is available from mine) but that same hoped-for assistance cannot be allowed to threaten the integrity of the club.

That&#39;s all I&#39;m saying. Mazda has done a great deal for SCCA and hopefully they have enjoyed some benefit from their involvement; I know my wife drives a Mazda 3 (because it&#39;s a darn good car.) And from your comments, your attitude is the right one- perhaps we should look more closely at GM&#39;s.

In fact from what I read here Mazda has a legitimate complaint in the case of SSB. I hope SCCA has the good sense to straighten it out.

I&#39;m sorry you took offense, but I must say when one says another org is better run (when it most certainly is not) and threatens to pick up his football and go home (to NASA) because he doesn&#39;t like a questionable call I too may become offended. And no I don&#39;t envy people having to look in a mirror (see themselves over and over and over) all over the racetrack.

[TimBuck]

G- thanks for the follow up. I appreciate it. I had hoped I somehow misread those posts. We (Mazda) would never ask for and never accept any "special consideration" from any sanctioning body. We at Mazdaspeed live and breath racing (case in point- I&#39;m here with you on my day off, while taking cell calls from OTHER Mazda employees who are at the CalClub Regional at Buttonwillow. Grrrr!) and take a lot of pride in what we do for both our brand and our sport. It must have touched a nerve with me!

We have not threatened to take our ball and go home. We have asked our customers (the Mazda racers) how they feel about the situation. Our reaction will be dictated by their (your) responses.

Question- If you were investing a lot of time and money in a corporation that had some real problems in how it was being run, were showed little appreciation for said investments, were the butt of some poorly administered rules by said organization, then were told by a member of its Board of Directors that you aren&#39;t needed... what would you do?

btw- the first racecar I ever drove was my buddy&#39;s ITC Fiesta (he called Team Fiasco!)

[grjones1]

Tim,

Given my income, I&#39;d probably "pick up my football and go home!" But beleive me and I&#39;m sure you know, we have all faced, shall we say, "inequities" in our racing experience, and it is always the love of the sport that gets us through them.


Highest regards, I hope the whole thing gets sorted out,

G

[JoshS]

Hey Tim, Josh Sirota here. Although I sold my SSC Mazda, you guys (including Robert, Jeremy, and everyone else over there) all made me feel so welcome that I still feel like a part of the Mazda family.

Here&#39;s my problem: no doubt that things are very very broken is T2, T3, SSB and SSC. On a personal level, I couldn&#39;t be more happy to be away from that madness.

But only the members can fix it. A manufacturer can&#39;t do it, because then it will be perceived to be a manufacturer flexing its muscle, which many of the members will bristle at. Perhaps this survey is an attempt to get the members active in the solution, I don&#39;t know. But it seems like this sort of problem cannot have a manufacturer being part of the solution, since it is already perceived that a manufacturer is part of the problem.

I also think that painting the picture that the entire SCCA is broken, when I think it&#39;s really just SS/T processes and procedures (and the people involved with those processes), is overly alarmist. Most of us still really like the club in general.

[Mattberg]

Tim,

We need the BoD member&#39;s name. You want to see change? We need a name. There&#39;s where it starts. ACCOUNTABILITY.

[IPRESS]

Josh there are more things needing a fix then just SS & Touring. SCCA is a group that makes a call and then changes things when somebody screams. Personally I saw that happen with the original SM incorporation into the GCR. The first edition had SM being (just like IT) Regional Only with mo avenue to become a national class. The SM racers SCREAMED (me as loud or louder then most) SCCA changed the wording and SM is now a national class. This type stuff happens all the time (SMs legal in IT issue earlier this year.)
I am a Mazda racer so I am biased, but Tim Buck is a straight shooter. He is really good at taking care of us (Mazda racers) and helping us compete. His opinion carries a ton of weight because he is able to see the opposite side of a situation while explaining his side. You notice he wants SCCA to be better from this situation. I really don&#39;t think this can happen until staunch SCCA racers and officals accept NASA as competition. SCCA reminds me of the old NFL and how they looked down on the AFL until the NFL got their butts beat head up. NASA is gaining strength in Texas and is a good alternative even if there is no added Mazda support there. With Mazda getting involved you could see larger NASA grids and smaller SCCA grids down here.
Tnord, the NASA safety issues (at least at NASATX events) were early on and most all are folks that attend both sanctions events. My biggest problem with NASA is their car classification from SCCA IT to their NASA PT. Not easy to crossover at this point.Mac

[mbuskuhl]

My biggest problem with NASA is their car classification from SCCA IT to their NASA PT. Not easy to crossover at this point.Mac
[/b]

??? Crossover is simple. The only thing you need is the additional safety requirement of a right side net or seat bolster if you don&#39;t already have (you do), otherwise the car will be ready for PT... oh, and some decals. There is no ITA - PT_ direct fit, however I would guess yours might fall in PTE Mac, or maybe PTD with many points to spare. PT actually levels the playing field that much more... a fully prepped ITS car might end up in PTC, change a thing or two and PTD, possibly even low level prep PTE. PT separates the full prep IT cars from the light prep IT cars better. NASA is not going to design rules around SCCA, but they have designed rules to allow SCCA cars to run as is with NASA and be fairly competitive without making any changes.

[xr4racer]

I hope this does not go down like the IRL vs. CART deal. Back in the mid &#39;90s could many have imagined CART being the "loser" in the split. At first it was inconceivable because CART had all of the known drivers because that is where the sponsors were. Now what sponsors are left have jumped to the IRL and Champ Car is left with many hard to pronounce names.

I sure hope SCCA sees NASA as a threat but something tells me they are arrogant enough to not give them a lot of thought until it is too late. NASA is approaching this like the IRL did, get the sponsors and the drivers/teams will come. NASA has as much or more contingency money available as the runoffs this year. If the Mazda contingency for nationals and the runoffs is reduced or scrapped entirely, the Eprod race will have about 10 cars next year. This year 28 out of 35 were Mazdas. I counted 140 out of 626 were Mazdas at the runoffs and I am sure I missed some of the sportsracers and FA&#39;s that probably were Mazda powered .

matt

[lateapex911]

http://prodracing.com/prodcar/viewtopic.ph...er=asc&start=40 (http://prodracing.com/prodcar/viewtopic.php?t=8540&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=40)

[Matt Rowe]

Suffice to say that the National Office & BOD certainly sees NASA as a threat to the extent that they have over-reacted in some instances. The identification of the threat isn&#39;t a problem, our reaction has been. But please let&#39;s keep this on the topic of SCCA&#39;s relationship with Mazda and to a lesser extent other manufacturers.

This is certainly not the first time policies of the club have left a bad taste in the mouth of a mfg. And we aren&#39;t the only ones to drive factory teams away, anyone recall Dodge&#39;s return to NASCAR? Well they left for a reason.

The problem is we can&#39;t seem to learn from this, partly because there isn&#39;t a consistent, good solution. A deacde ago we lost MFG support when one car was just faster off the factory. Enter the solution of "trunk kits" to help equalize the fields and now there was no benefit to building the better mousetrap. Once that happens it&#39;s harder to justify the factory dollars and the mfg walks away. This is just the extension of that policy, a mfg building a package to win and another trying to match them. The problem seems to be that one was allowed to compete and the other excluded and naturally people end up pissed off. Whatever happened to the rule you must produce XXX number of option Y cars to be eligible? Once that went out the window it looks like all we did is drive the cost up for the mfg&#39;s and lose support.

Now it appears there are two things that need to be addressed. One is our continuing inability to put a good face on the actions of the club publically, to our partners and to our members. By this I don&#39;t just mean the conversation between the mystery BOD member and Mazda but also the fact that we hear about this (and many other policies) this way.

Secondly, there is a larger pattern of the appearance of rules being enforced differently depending on the situation and the participants. This seems to be further aggravated by the perception of meddling by various parties both in and out of the club. That too has to stop.

[ScotMac]

I&#39;m here with you on my day off, while taking cell calls from OTHER Mazda employees who are at the CalClub Regional at Buttonwillow. Grrrr!) and take a lot of pride in what we do for both our brand and our sport. It must have touched a nerve with me!

We have not threatened to take our ball and go home. We have asked our customers (the Mazda racers) how they feel about the situation. Our reaction will be dictated by their (your) responses.

[/b]

I think it is great that Mazda is putting effort into building the sport and supporting drivers. However, Mazda needs to remember that they are not doing it for completely altruistic reasons. I don&#39;t see Mazda giving any money to me to run a Fiero. It is definitely a symbiotic relationship. Mazda gets good publicity/advertising for their cars, the drivers get support for their racing, and SCCA gets more entries/publicity/etc.




Question- If you were investing a lot of time and money in a corporation that had some real problems in how it was being run, were showed little appreciation for said investments, were the butt of some poorly administered rules by said organization, then were told by a member of its Board of Directors that you aren&#39;t needed... what would you do?

[/b]

Tim, you just complained that you resent the implication that Mazda was receiving special treatment due to its investment, and then you make the above statement implying that Mazda desires "appreciation" for their investment. Please be careful...this "appreciation" could be easily misconstrued.

In general, SCCA has be very careful how they treat all the manufactures, in order to ensure impartiality. I would like to think that SCCA tries to encourage/appreciate all manufacturers equally, regardless of investment. However, we also obviously have the business side of it...difficult balancing act.

Until we get ALL the details of the current situation, it very difficult for anyone here to make a judgment in terms of who exactly was at fault, and what needs to be done.

[Knestis]

Would someone who received it please post the actual survey items?

I write instruments for a living and have enough experience to believe that the language of stem and response options of a survey are good indicators of its true purpose.

K

[dickita15]

Kirk,
I wish I had had the brains to copy the survey as I was doing it. Once you complete the survey you cannot get back to the text.
I am not an expert but it was pretty obvious to me that it was not written by a neutral party.
Dick

[Bill Miller]

But, Jake, you and I both know SCCA has always been somewhat vulnerable to corporate "lobbying". Doesn&#39;t make it right, but it it exists in all venues, sports and politics.

Now if the official you are upset with was standing up to what he perceived to be "overreaching" arrogance on the part of Mazda, shouldn&#39;t we applaud him?

G
[/b]

You mean like when John Heinricy (sp?) and some other mfg reps sent a letter to the SCCA saying that they&#39;d pull support for racers if SSB and T3 were merged, essentially killing that deal? :unsure:

[mbuskuhl]

Dicks right, I just tried my survey link and it said I had already taken the survey - too late. Need to find someone who has NOT taken the survey to copy and paste each screen. But... it appears the survey was not standardized. Depending upon your answer to certain questions (solo vs. club racing, racing NASA now or not, etc), your next set of questions may be different than the other guy. Here is part of the survey, and from what I gather solo did not get to answer this one...

As some of you may know, MAZDASPEED Motorsports and the leadership/management of the Sports Car Club of America (the Club) have had some difficult situations recently. Earlier this year, SCCA approved a suspension option package (MS-R) for the Mazda MX-5 for SSB class competition in 2007. Within two months, after some of our Mazda racers had purchased a 2007 MX-5, the option package, and raced with the option package, SCCA wrongly decided the package would not be legal for competition in 2007.
-
In October of this year at the SCCA Runoffs, one of our MAZDASPEED staff, there to support the Mazda competitiors at the event, was told by a prominent member of SCCA’s Board of Directors that “SCCA doesn’t need Mazda and Mazda doesn’t need SCCA". As you can imagine we were shocked that the club leadership felt this way about MAZDASPEED involvement.
-
Normally in the course of business relationships, when someone discounts your contribution to the point of saying we don’t need you, you take your business elsewhere. While that was our first reaction, it doesn’t take into consideration you, our customers and team members. These difficulties have affected many of our Mazda Team Support members and we have been working through them with your best interest as our #1 priority.
-
The long term commitment MAZDASPEED has made to our members and the results of these support programs has benefited Mazda as well. Mazda’s market share for street vehicles among club members is 3 times our industry average. Mazda is the most raced brand within the club, in fact over 50% based on the latest results. We benefit greatly by having team members as advocates for our vehicles as family and friends ask you what car to purchase. For all this support, we thank you.
-
Please read the following five (5) statements carefully and decide which one fits your feelings the best, then respond by clicking the box next to that statement. Please respond to only one link and respond only once. We would also appreciate any comments and suggestions you have on the matter and have provided a comment section for you to give any feedback. If you would like to copy any leadership of the club on your response, please feel free to do so. We suggest that your forward your comments to the National office as well as your local SCCA Region Executive.
-
While these choices don’t go into specific detail, they will give us an indication of the direction you (our customer) would like us to take and where we should apply our support. Please understand any support not given to SCCA in the future will still be invested into amateur (grass roots) racing. Our vision is to expand our position in this area, not pull back.
-
Again, thank you for your support in making MAZDASPEED Motorsports Development a great success and Mazda a success in the market place. We value your business and loyalty.

* MAZDASPEED is considering building stronger ties with other racing organizations such as NASA and scaling back involvement with SCCA. Please let us know if you support this idea. Following, are five statements, Please read all five statements and then select the one you MOST agree with.

1. Please continue the same level of support to SCCA Club Racing, I am satisfied with the Club and its leadership and plan to continue participating in SCCA events.

2. Please continue the same level of support to SCCA Club Racing. As a Mazdaspeed Motorsports Development member, I will get personally involved with club management to seek a solution to the current situation. If necessary, I will seek club office to protect the relationship between SCCA and with Mazdaspeed Motorsports.

3. I do not approve of the way SCCA Club Racing’s management and officials have acted or their comments. Don’t reward this bad behavior, but also don’t throw the baby out with the bath water. Examine alternative places to compete with Mazdaspeed (i.e. NASA or other grass roots organizations) and keep me advised. At this point I do not have any available options for racing with alternative racing organizations and am limited to the SCCA. If Mazdaspeed withdraws its support from SCCA Club Racing I will be negatively impacted as I have no other place to race. I will support Mazdaspeed Motorsports by getting personally involved with club management to seek a solution to the current situation.

4. I do not approve of the way SCCA Club Racing’s management and officials have acted or their comments. There are other racing organizations in my area and I will consider participating with them as an alternative or in addition to SCCA. I can compete with anyone (NASA, SCCA, Mazda Owners Club, etc.), but I would prefer to have as many options as possible.

5. Stop all involvement with SCCA Club Racing as soon as possible (2008 season). I have an alternative racing organization where I can compete that is better. I feel that Mazdaspeed’s involvement in that organization will be more appreciated. In my response I will tell you where the support should be directed.

[Dave Burchfield]

After reading numerous offerings by many regarding this situation, a number of questions occur to me that have not been addressed. The most interesting to me is prompted by those who allude to the fact that MAZDASPEED is being one sided or slanted toward their own wants and desires, and is:

I wonder what questions have been asked by the parent corporation of those individuals entrusted to channel corporate advertising dollars in the US regarding the actions of SCCA? Has there been a request to "show cause" for the funds to continue to come to the US? Is this survey a response of those at MAZDASPEED to address the parent corporation?

Does MAZDASPEED have any influence or control over the TV advertising dollars spent by Mazda to support coverage of racing attributed to SCCA? I am sure that fund is quite large.

Yes, I do drive a Mazda and that is because it was the best car for the money at the time to replace my car built on a 40 year old street car tub.

Another question......is there any other manufacturer who offers the same level of support to EVERY owner of the marque regardless of the level at which he/she competes? I ask this question because I don&#39;t know. Maybe someone can enlighten me.

I will be very interested in Kirk&#39;s evaluation of the instrument from the standpoint of academia.

This could get really interesting.................

[Knestis]

A couple of things leap out at me on the survey but I want to be able to give it a comprehensive look before I have any opinions. My first impression however, is that the most appropriate title for this instrument might be something like, "To What Degree Would you be Willing to Choose Mazda over SCCA?"

One subtext to this issue that we could also use MUCH better data on is membership. It&#39;s not sufficient to simply say, "SCCA had XX,XXX members last year and now has XX,XXX. NASA had XX,XXX and now has XX,XXX so NASA has a competitive advantage."

** I&#39;m a member of BOTH organizations, as are more than a few other folks I know. Some were SCCA members first, then joined NASA when they decided it made sense given the events they want to run. Others were NASA members first and joined SCCA for similar reasons. It&#39;s important to know how many members are in fact crossovers.

** SCCA has had 50,000 members, plus or minus, for a long time - like damned near as long as I can remember being involved. (I won&#39;t pretend to be fully up-to-date on what the actual figures are.) My guess is that we are up to member number 400,000 or thereabouts, which suggests that there is a pretty significant turnover. I don&#39;t know what the current NASA dynamic might be but since they are new, growth metrics mean different things.

In short, Mazda would be well advised to understand how these two market niches (it&#39;s silly to pretend that they aren&#39;t primarily talking about those two options, mention of "other grass roots organizations" notwithstanding) might actually be similar and different.

K

[Ron Earp]

Kirk, here it is. I&#39;ll format it as close as I can to the real deal but this forum does not allow HTML.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

MAZDASPEED MOTORSPORTS SURVEY
Questions marked with an asterisk (*) are mandatory.

Thanks for participating. These answers are very important to our motorsports program. MAZDASPEED appreciates you and your time. This should only take about 5 minutes.

1. *What is your Team Support Number (preferred) or Name?

2. *My primary racing organization in 2007 was:
SCCA
NASA
Grand-Am
IMSA
NHRA
Other, please specify

3 *Consider how happy you are with the primary club with which you currently compete. Please indicate how likely you would be to consider switching to another sanctioning body if you could campaign your Mazda elsewhere.

I am not satisfied with the organization I race with and would consider a change to another organization if I had the option

I am relatively satisfied with the current organization I race with but am interested in exploring other organizations

I am very satisfied with the current organization I race with and would not consider changing
Not sure

4. I have also participated in events sanctioned by the following organizations. (Multiple selection ok)
SCCA
NASA
Grand-Am
IMSA
NHRA
Other, please specify

5. *Which organization will be your primary focus in 2008?
SCCA
NASA
Grand-Am
IMSA
NHRA
Other, please specify

6 *I am currently actively participating in the following type(s) of racing. (Select all that apply)
Solo/Autocross
Club (Amateur) Road Racing
Import Drag Racing
Rally
Professional Racing
Other, please specify

7. If you are a Professional Racer, where do you race? (multiple ok)
MX-5 Cup
World Challenge
NASA
Star Mazda
Grand-Am
Not Applicable
Other, please specify

8. *Please note the number of races you&#39;ve competed in, over the past TWO years.
0 Races
1-3 Races
4-6 Races
7-9 Races
10-13 Races
14+ Races
Other, please specify

9. *Are you aware of any NASA racing events that are held at race tracks in your area? (race tracks where you normally compete)
Yes
No
Not Sure
Other, please specify

10. *Have you participated in any NASA Events?
Yes
No

11. Comments about anything on this page? (optional)

[Andy Bettencourt]

I took the survey and it netted out something like this for me:

I race SCCA and I race a Mazda. I don&#39;t race NASA and I am not currently upset enough with the SCCA to follow Mazda&#39;s &#39;support&#39; monies over to NASA. Mazdaspeed support is VERY important to me (those that aren&#39;t a member of MazdaComp or Mazdaspeed Motorsports as it&#39;s called now can&#39;t comprehend the level of parts availablility and &#39;cost-based&#39; pricing they provide) and my racing effort as well as my company.

I am also a big-time SCCA supporter. I am involved as much as humanly possible, both locally and nationally. It dissappoints me personally and &#39;globally&#39; that this issue has happened. I would feel the same way if the MR package was allowed and a competitive Pontiac package was not...lobbying by manufacturers happens - and should happen - hell, it&#39;s business. It&#39;s just the SCCA&#39;s job to try and keep a level playing field.

I just don&#39;t feel like I know enough about this issue but I hope cooler heads will prevail.

[lateapex911]

Just as a note, Rons post is only part of the questions I saw. Perhaps the answers you give create other avenues and questions. My survey took me through at least three pages like that.

Kirk, why not sign up? Just go get yourself a Miata, for Conover Motor Sports, of course,..and you&#39;re set! Or call Booo wee!.

[IPRESS]

You want to know the gist of this?
Mazda didn&#39;t do anything wrong with the MX5. SCCA was in on every aspect of the development.

The bottom line is.... I should have been driving the MX5 instead of Jim Daniels and non of this would have ever been a problem! :happy204:

[Ron Earp]

I&#39;ll get them all, hold on....

[tnord]

I took the survey and it netted out something like this for me:

I race SCCA and I race a Mazda. I don&#39;t race NASA and I am not currently upset enough with the SCCA to follow Mazda&#39;s &#39;support&#39; monies over to NASA.
[/b]

do you think you are influenced by the fact that there is no class in NASA you can easily convert to as opposed to SM guys who only have to change decals?

[Ron Earp]

Complete Mazda Survey

MAZDASPEED MOTORSPORTS SURVEY
Questions marked with an asterisk (*) are mandatory.

Thanks for participating. These answers are very important to our motorsports program. MAZDASPEED appreciates you and your time. This should only take about 5 minutes.

1 *What is your Team Support Number (preferred) or Name?

2 *My primary racing organization in 2007 was:
SCCA
NASA
Grand-Am
IMSA
NHRA
Other, please specify

3 *Consider how happy you are with the primary club with which you currently compete. Please indicate how likely you would be to consider switching to another sanctioning body if you could campaign your Mazda elsewhere.

I am not satisfied with the organization I race with and would consider a change to another organization if I had the option

I am relatively satisfied with the current organization I race with but am interested in exploring other organizations

I am very satisfied with the current organization I race with and would not consider changing

Not sure

4 I have also participated in events sanctioned by the following organizations. (Multiple selection ok)

SCCA
NASA
Grand-Am
IMSA
NHRA
Other, please specify

5 *Which organization will be your primary focus in 2008?

SCCA
NASA
Grand-Am
IMSA
NHRA
Other, please specify

6 *I am currently actively participating in the following type(s) of racing. (Select all that apply)

Solo/Autocross
Club (Amateur) Road Racing
Import Drag Racing
Rally
Professional Racing
Other, please specify

7 If you are a Professional Racer, where do you race? (multiple ok)

MX-5 Cup
World Challenge
NASA
Star Mazda
Grand Am
Not Applicable
Other, please specify

8 *Please note the number of races you&#39;ve competed in, over the past TWO years.
0 Races
1-3 Races
4-6 Races
7-9 Races
10-13 Races
14+ Races
Other, please specify

9 *Are you aware of any NASA racing events that are held at race tracks in your area? (race tracks where you normally compete)
Yes
No
Not Sure
Other, please specify

10 *Have you participated in any NASA Events?
Yes
No

11 Comments about anything on this page? (optional)

MAZDASPEED MOTORSPORTS SURVEY
Questions marked with an asterisk (*) are mandatory.

If you have not participated in a NASA racing event, please read the comment in the question below and check the one that most appropriately finishes the sentence for you:

12 *There are NASA racing events in my area…


- but I have not participated in them.

- but I do not care to participate in them.

- and I will be participating in their events in 2008.

I am not aware of a local NASA region or chapter that exists in my area.

Other, please specify


13 If you&#39;re not aware of any NASA region or chapter in your area, please give the name of the largest city where you reside.

14 *Are you active an active SCCA Club Racer? (National or Regional)
Yes
No

15 Comments about anything on this page? (optional)

MAZDASPEED MOTORSPORTS SURVEY
Questions marked with an asterisk (*) are mandatory.
These Questions are Specifically for SCCA Racers.

16 *Are you a Regional or National Competitor?
Regional
National
Both Regional and National

17 *Participating in SCCA events, how would you rate your personal experience competing at an SCCA race?

1 Excellent
2 Good
3 Fair
4 Needs Improvement
5 Very Dissatisfied N/A

Event Organization
Competency of Officials
Amount of Track Time
Level of Competition
Ability of organization to competently classify/equalize cars in your class

18 *Please note the type of racing you do.
Formula Cars
Sports Racer
GT Class
Production Class
Showroom Stock/Touring
Spec Miata
Improved Touring (IT)
Other, please specify

19 *Please note the specific classes you race in.
FORMULA MAZDA
FORMULA E
FORMULA ATLANTIC
C SPORTS
D SPORTS
GT1
GT2
GT3
GTL
E-PRODUCTION
F-PRODUCTION
SSB
SSC
T3
Spec Miata
ITS
ITA
IT7
Other, please specify

20 Comments about anything on this page? (optional)

MAZDASPEED MOTORSPORTS SURVEY
Questions marked with an asterisk (*) are mandatory.


As some of you may know, MAZDASPEED Motorsports and the leadership/management of the Sports Car Club of America (the Club) have had some difficult situations recently. Earlier this year, SCCA approved a suspension option package (MS-R) for the Mazda MX-5 for SSB class competition in 2007. Within two months, after some of our Mazda racers had purchased a 2007 MX-5, the option package, and raced with the option package, SCCA wrongly decided the package would not be legal for competition in 2007.
-
In October of this year at the SCCA Runoffs, one of our MAZDASPEED staff, there to support the Mazda competitiors at the event, was told by a prominent member of SCCA’s Board of Directors that “SCCA doesn’t need Mazda and Mazda doesn’t need SCCA". As you can imagine we were shocked that the club leadership felt this way about MAZDASPEED involvement.
-
Normally in the course of business relationships, when someone discounts your contribution to the point of saying we don’t need you, you take your business elsewhere. While that was our first reaction, it doesn’t take into consideration you, our customers and team members. These difficulties have affected many of our Mazda Team Support members and we have been working through them with your best interest as our #1 priority.
-
The long term commitment MAZDASPEED has made to our members and the results of these support programs has benefited Mazda as well. Mazda’s market share for street vehicles among club members is 3 times our industry average. Mazda is the most raced brand within the club, in fact over 50% based on the latest results. We benefit greatly by having team members as advocates for our vehicles as family and friends ask you what car to purchase. For all this support, we thank you.
-
Please read the following five (5) statements carefully and decide which one fits your feelings the best, then respond by clicking the box next to that statement. Please respond to only one link and respond only once. We would also appreciate any comments and suggestions you have on the matter and have provided a comment section for you to give any feedback. If you would like to copy any leadership of the club on your response, please feel free to do so. We suggest that your forward your comments to the National office as well as your local SCCA Region Executive.
-
While these choices don’t go into specific detail, they will give us an indication of the direction you (our customer) would like us to take and where we should apply our support. Please understand any support not given to SCCA in the future will still be invested into amateur (grass roots) racing. Our vision is to expand our position in this area, not pull back.
-
Again, thank you for your support in making MAZDASPEED Motorsports Development a great success and Mazda a success in the market place. We value your business and loyalty.


21 * MAZDASPEED is considering building stronger ties with other racing organizations such as NASA and scaling back involvement with SCCA. Please let us know if you support this idea. Following, are five statements, Please read all five statements and then select the one you MOST agree with.


1. Please continue the same level of support to SCCA Club Racing, I am satisfied with the Club and its leadership and plan to continue participating in SCCA events.

2. Please continue the same level of support to SCCA Club Racing. As a Mazdaspeed Motorsports Development member, I will get personally involved with club management to seek a solution to the current situation. If necessary, I will seek club office to protect the relationship between SCCA and with Mazdaspeed Motorsports.

3. I do not approve of the way SCCA Club Racing’s management and officials have acted or their comments. Don’t reward this bad behavior, but also don’t throw the baby out with the bath water. Examine alternative places to compete with Mazdaspeed (i.e. NASA or other grass roots organizations) and keep me advised. At this point I do not have any available options for racing with alternative racing organizations and am limited to the SCCA. If Mazdaspeed withdraws its support from SCCA Club Racing I will be negatively impacted as I have no other place to race. I will support Mazdaspeed Motorsports by getting personally involved with club management to seek a solution to the current situation.

4. I do not approve of the way SCCA Club Racing’s management and officials have acted or their comments. There are other racing organizations in my area and I will consider participating with them as an alternative or in addition to SCCA. I can compete with anyone (NASA, SCCA, Mazda Owners Club, etc.), but I would prefer to have as many options as possible.

5. Stop all involvement with SCCA Club Racing as soon as possible (2008 season). I have an alternative racing organization where I can compete that is better. I feel that Mazdaspeed’s involvement in that organization will be more appreciated. In my response I will tell you where the support should be directed.

22 Comments? (optional)

[Andy Bettencourt]

do you think you are influenced by the fact that there is no class in NASA you can easily convert to as opposed to SM guys who only have to change decals?


[/b]

Not really. NASA is what it is. From the outside it looks like they have had significant issues over the past few years and I can tell you for 100% certainty that as some of their class poularity grws, they will have to make changes to accomodate that growth - at the expense of the people who were there at the core. There is no escaping it.

For me, the biggest factor may be that the New England has one of the biggest and best club racing programs in the country, yet NASA is not even a serious option up here. It probably has just as much to do with track availability than it does the realative strength of the NARRC, NERRC, NYSRRC and MARRS series.

[Carlos Gutierrez]

Andy ;
Understand your position and your dedication to the SCCA. Us folks down here in South/Central Florida would also have long tows to Georgia-Alabama-the Carolinas, to race NASA.
Having said that, this issue is far bigger and greater than Mazda vs SCCA BOD re the double cross on the SSB Miata trunk kit option and the "we don&#39;t need you - you don&#39;t need us" comment from a SCCA board member.
Having purchased Mazda racing parts ever since Damon Barnett ran the entire Mazda racing department with just one secretary (Dec. 1978), I have seen the steady growth and expansion of Mazda&#39;s involvement with SCCA and grassroots racing across the country. No other Manufacturer can compare with the support Mazda provides their amateur Club racers.
At this time, they are sounding a call to arms in order to help them justify their existence and involvement in SCCA. Of course there are politics involved. Of course we are being positioned as pawns in a chess game. But there is a bigger picture here and it is more serious than the above example. Robert Davis as Sr. VP of Mazda Racing put his neck on the line for his racers. He involved the Mazda &#39;Motors&#39; folks to help facilitate the trunk kit option (according to SCCA&#39;s rules and guidance) and the BOD shot him in the back after their own people had agreed to the legal written procedures Mazda followed. This is the latest of MANY similar conflicts between Mazda and the SCCA executive staff and BOD&#39;s. The results of this is that Mazda &#39;Corporate&#39; is very upset with Comp for allowing themselves and their involvement to be continually &#39;bitch slapped&#39; by the SCCA.
At this time every Mazda racer across the land must fill out and return their surveys AND send a letter supporting Mazda Comp and whatever decision they have for their future plans. Bottom line, We need Mazda Comp and SCCA needs us. We all need to back our &#39;golden goose&#39;. Don&#39;t take their money and support for granted (gratitude). If Mazda Corporate decides to adjust their budget and more appease the &#39;Motors&#39; folks; " to sell more cars we need more media & print ads or we need more rebates and incentives to the customer", that means less money to the racing department. That means WE get screwed. Thats not the way Tim Buck, et all is playing it but we all know how this corporate game is played. Mazda Comp is fighting for it&#39;s existence as we today know and enjoy it. We need to support them in their dealings with SCCA.
Why ? &#39;cause it&#39;s in our own best interests.
Remember, this is not a Division/Regional issue, purely a SCCA executive and Board of Directors issue with Mazda Comp. I give no support to the group that is presently in charge of policy and final decisions at SCCA.
soap off ;
Carlos Gutierrez

[Matt Rowe]

Carlos, unless you&#39;ve heard something different there has been no discussion about a reduction in Mazda&#39;s support or spending, just moving it from one group to another. I&#39;m sure NASA would welcome them with open arms as most will readily acknowledge NASA is run like a business and would foolish to turn away the cash cow that Mazda represents.

What I am curious about is how the other manufacturers feel about this. It is one thing for Mazda to go race somewhere else, but if the remaining mfgs don&#39;t migrate then what is the point for Mazda? Is it really worth it to them to have a major presence in a group with no other mfg&#39;s? How much PR do you get out of being the top 1 of 1 manufacturers? If no other mfgs participaties it&#39;s not too impressive and keeping in mind that NASA is a business they will have an interesting time trying to balance sponsor money vs a level playing field especially when Mazda has the bigger pockets over the long term. Would anyone else feel like they will get a fair deal with NASA?

[Andy Bettencourt]

Carlos,

I understand your points and agree with them to alarge extend. My post may have been taken singularly as it was just a response to Trav&#39;s question regarding my first post in this thread.

[Knestis]

Some thoughts, although I&#39;ve asked around to see if MazdaSpeeders who are NOT SCCA members got the same survey. It would be significant if they did NOT...


...
1 *What is your Team Support Number (preferred) or Name?

2 *My primary racing organization in 2007 was:
SCCA
NASA
Grand-Am
IMSA
NHRA
Other, please specify
[/b]

Again, without knowing who got the survey, it&#39;s difficult to decode the intent of this. If in fact the survey went to EVERY MazdaSpeed member, then it could be as simple as it seems. If not, that&#39;s important. It&#39;s not an accident that SCCA is first on the list and NASA is second. People who create surveys but don&#39;t actively strategize against telegraphing their intent very often put the responses that they care about most first in the list, regardless of whether they are positive or negative.

This item also presumes that the respondent has a "primary racing organization." I&#39;m a member of both organizations and while I ran more SCCA than NASA events, I don&#39;t know that my desired response - that I am not primarily affiliated with just one group - is there to choose.



3 *Consider how happy you are with the primary club with which you currently compete. Please indicate how likely you would be to consider switching to another sanctioning body if you could campaign your Mazda elsewhere.

I am not satisfied with the organization I race with and would consider a change to another organization if I had the option

I am relatively satisfied with the current organization I race with but am interested in exploring other organizations

I am very satisfied with the current organization I race with and would not consider changing

Not sure
[/b]

The interesting thing here is that I THINK MazdaSpeed supports individual racers with the same basic program (parts, etc.) regardless of the sanction under which they race, right? If so, what is MazdaSpeed&#39;s interest in any of those individuals changing their primary affiliation (to the degree that they have one)? This is troublesome. If MazdaSpeed isn&#39;t supporting SCCA as an organization - and Tim&#39;s comments are about the racer as "customer" - then what&#39;s up?

The "profile" items (deleted here; about which other sanctioning bodies, how many races, etc.) help the developer to decide how much weight should be put on any given response. If someone only ran one Regional, then they aren&#39;t as "important" to planning decisions as someone who runs a full season of Nationals and the RubOffs.



9 *Are you aware of any NASA racing events that are held at race tracks in your area? (race tracks where you normally compete)
Yes
No
Not Sure
Other, please specify

10 *Have you participated in any NASA Events?
Yes
No

[/b]

Again - VERY telling. They&#39;ve already asked what other organizations the respondent has raced with, but now want to know specifically about NASA. Not an accident, suggesting that this is what they really care about. (Probably not a surprise to anyone who&#39;s looked at this.) This is also an opportunity for branching logic...



11 Comments about anything on this page? (optional)

MAZDASPEED MOTORSPORTS SURVEY
Questions marked with an asterisk (*) are mandatory.

[/b]

...and since this looks like it&#39;s a new page, it suggests that the following questions are indeed presented using adaptive logic - the following items being based on responses on the previous page. I&#39;m going to guess that Ron checked "No" - that he had never participated in a NASA event.




If you have not participated in a NASA racing event, please read the comment in the question below and check the one that most appropriately finishes the sentence for you:

12 *There are NASA racing events in my area…

- but I have not participated in them.

- but I do not care to participate in them.

- and I will be participating in their events in 2008.

I am not aware of a local NASA region or chapter that exists in my area.

Other, please specify


13 If you&#39;re not aware of any NASA region or chapter in your area, please give the name of the largest city where you reside.

14 *Are you active an active SCCA Club Racer? (National or Regional)
Yes
No

15 Comments about anything on this page? (optional)

[/b]

...and Ron checked "Yes" to item 14, I&#39;ll bet. New pages follows.




MAZDASPEED MOTORSPORTS SURVEY
Questions marked with an asterisk (*) are mandatory.
These Questions are Specifically for SCCA Racers.

16 *Are you a Regional or National Competitor?
Regional
National
Both Regional and National

17 *Participating in SCCA events, how would you rate your personal experience competing at an SCCA race?

1 Excellent
2 Good
3 Fair
4 Needs Improvement
5 Very Dissatisfied N/A

Event Organization
Competency of Officials
Amount of Track Time
Level of Competition
Ability of organization to competently classify/equalize cars in your class

[/b]

It really strikes me that no place to this point has the respondent been asked about MazdaSpeed&#39;s service or support. It is really a window into the thinking of whoever developed this, that they would presume to survey SCCA members re: their satisfaction with event organization and other aspects of the SCCA&#39;s racing program. This suggests that they think that something here is within their sphere of influence - that they can effect change on the SCCA, or on the choices that members are making with respect to their participation in SCCA events. NOBODY in their right mind surveys a group of people about something that the surveyor&#39;s organization can&#39;t influence - or that they don&#39;t think they can influence.

Now, we don&#39;t know if some other branch might ask the same about NHRA competitors&#39; satisfaction with THEIR events. It&#39;s possible and if they did, it would be meaningful. If they don&#39;t, it&#39;s more meaningful in ways that folks here are likely to care about.




...

21 * MAZDASPEED is considering building stronger ties with other racing organizations such as NASA and scaling back involvement with SCCA. Please let us know if you support this idea. Following, are five statements, Please read all five statements and then select the one you MOST agree with.

1. Please continue the same level of support to SCCA Club Racing, I am satisfied with the Club and its leadership and plan to continue participating in SCCA events.

2. Please continue the same level of support to SCCA Club Racing. As a Mazdaspeed Motorsports Development member, I will get personally involved with club management to seek a solution to the current situation. If necessary, I will seek club office to protect the relationship between SCCA and with Mazdaspeed Motorsports.

3. I do not approve of the way SCCA Club Racing’s management and officials have acted or their comments. Don’t reward this bad behavior, but also don’t throw the baby out with the bath water. Examine alternative places to compete with Mazdaspeed (i.e. NASA or other grass roots organizations) and keep me advised. At this point I do not have any available options for racing with alternative racing organizations and am limited to the SCCA. If Mazdaspeed withdraws its support from SCCA Club Racing I will be negatively impacted as I have no other place to race. I will support Mazdaspeed Motorsports by getting personally involved with club management to seek a solution to the current situation.

4. I do not approve of the way SCCA Club Racing’s management and officials have acted or their comments. There are other racing organizations in my area and I will consider participating with them as an alternative or in addition to SCCA. I can compete with anyone (NASA, SCCA, Mazda Owners Club, etc.), but I would prefer to have as many options as possible.

5. Stop all involvement with SCCA Club Racing as soon as possible (2008 season). I have an alternative racing organization where I can compete that is better. I feel that Mazdaspeed’s involvement in that organization will be more appreciated. In my response I will tell you where the support should be directed.

22 Comments? (optional)
[/b]

First a hint: If you are taking a selected-response test and truly to NOT know which is the correct answer, pick the longest response. Since there is no "right" or "wrong" answer in this case, the fact that response #3 is quite a bit longer and more detailed than the other options strongly suggests to me that this is what the survey developer wants you to choose. Further, since it represents an action, it is not a stretch to infer that this is the action that he/she wants you to take.

This is reinforced by the fact that the last line (the action they are asking you to undertake) of both #2 and #3 are essentially the same. Response 3 is response 2 with a big stick, but with qualifiers. It&#39;s not "I&#39;m breaking up with you," but instead is "I&#39;m thinking about breaking up with you and just might, if you don&#39;t change your ways." The desired outcome is not a break-up, but instead is a change of behaviors.

* * *

At the end of this, I am left with the strong impression that the motivation behind the instrument is to leverage past commitment to MazdaSpeed members, to get them to exert pressure to effect change on the current leadership of SCCA.

There&#39;s no direct intimation that Mazda corporate media buys (SportsCar, coverage of SPEED Touring or GT races, etc.) are in jeopardy. Were there to be - and I am pointed not saying this is the case - it would be a whole &#39;nother level of coercion, that would strongly suggest that indeed, Mazda views its commitment of those monies as buying them some consideration in terms of Club Racing involvement. Had there been items included that asked about how often the respondent watched TV coverage of motor sports events "sponsored" by Zoom Zoom ads, I&#39;d be worried about this but given what is said here, I&#39;m not.

I&#39;m still struggling because I don&#39;t understand what this "support" for SCCA is, that keeps getting mentioned, beyond the regular MazdaSpeed member deal. Some clarity here would be helpful - contingency money that&#39;s better than NASA folks get? But that&#39;s not something the Club gets - that&#39;s for Mazda entrants. Event sponsorship? "Support" sounds like it should be something that&#39;s good for the whole organization...?

If we are talking simply about the benefit afforded to the Club by some nominal increase in entries or entrants, that might be ascribed to Mazda&#39;s support of individual racers, there&#39;s some huge presumptions there. How many MazdaSpeed members would not still be racing at their current levels of commitment (in a Mazda or something else for that matter) absent the membership benefits? I honestly don&#39;t know.

Nope. Everything considered, I think that Mazda is simply PO&#39;d at the current leadership, over what might be very real inequities, and are using this survey as a veiled threat to activate SCCA members to their cause - to punish the decision makers responsible. It is an interesting question, whether their calling in this favor from the Club members who have benefited individually from MazdaSpeed support is the same as "buying favors" or "having the club in their pocket." Frankly, I think the line is pretty darned thin.

K

[Bill Miller]

Nice analysis Kirk, thanks. :023:

[Ron Earp]

Hey Kirk,

My answers were as you guessed with respect to the questions. I checked the Zoomerang site and their surveys can support logic branching. There were four pages of questions on the survey and you can tell when one page ends since the page concludes with "Any comments on this page?"

Good analysis there.

Ron

[Knestis]

More info - it&#39;s been suggested in the Sandbox that (as I thought was the case) Mazdaspeed support is indeed the same for NASA drivers as it is for SCCA drivers.

If this is the case, then Mazda can&#39;t for all practical purposes take its support from SCCA and "move it" to NASA. It can probably get SCCA members pissed off enough to do its bidding to chase the current leadership out of power, as revenge for lousy treatment (the SSB thing, personal slights, or other issues); and it might be able to scare some folks into looking at NASA as an alternative, motivated by the same thinking.

However, unless the Mazdaspeed membership rules change and SCCA drivers are treated less well than NASA drivers - or are made ineligible for program benefits completely - I&#39;m having difficulty understanding where the stick is.

K

Edit - Further, one has to presume that the cost/benefit math nets a positive as far as Mazda is concerned: They get their money&#39;s worth somehow. Mazdaspeed is not an altruistic venture, a reality that figures into further consideration and conversation on the subject...

[Matt Rowe]

Kirk, I was already wondering about Mazda&#39;s ability to exclude SCCA or include NASA and came to the same conclusion. Short of requiring a NASA membership number before any order is placed it&#39;s not practical to prevent SCCA racers from participating in the Mazdaspeed deals/program. Even then a token annual fee to NASA each year would still allow SCCA racers to have the same opportunities.

However, I would imagine there are some actions Mazda could take. Off the top of my head:
Pulling the MX-5 cup from Pro
Backing out of Speed GT & Touring Car (to go where?)
No support at Runoff&#39;s
No SCCA class specific packages such as SS/T packages (again where would the cars be raced)
No organized support/parts for IT, prod (?) and SM (yeah right)
Contigency money

Without the other mfg&#39;s moving with them it almost appears that Mazda&#39;s departure would decrease their visibility while largely maintaining the same support to the current racers. So the net affect MIGHT be worse for Mazda as it is for us. There are still long term issues and the impact on the trust other mfg&#39;s would have in us but in the more immediate term it&#39;s may just be extremely embarassing, not fatal.

Also, I&#39;m not aware of any group with a comparable Solo program nor is their one on the way. I suspect that is a substantial part of the mazda program as well. Walking away from that would likely be a loss that would be hard to replace.

The short answer is they need us, we need to stop pissing off customers/partners.

[mbuskuhl]

More info - it&#39;s been suggested in the Sandbox that (as I thought was the case) Mazdaspeed support is indeed the same for NASA drivers as it is for SCCA drivers.

[/b]

I&#39;m gonna disagree, define "support"... - access to parts, pricing, and contingency

I would concur that MAZDASPEED "supports" both NASA and SCCA drivers equally in terms of access to parts, both comp and OEM, and pricing on these items. The "support" is different with contingency, MAZDASPEED only provides contingency for the NASA Championships where they provide money for SCCA not only at the Runoffs but throughout the year... http://www.mazdamotorsports.com/webapp/wcs...o/2007_cont.pdf (http://www.mazdamotorsports.com/webapp/wcs/stores/servlet/B2BDirect/info/2007_cont.pdf)

The payouts to SCCA drivers are grossly more than that to NASA drivers.

[lateapex911]

I think events like this cause Mazda...or any business partner, to think big picture. "What do we really get from this relationship? What does it really cost us?? Is there a way to allocate those resources more effectively??"

If YOU went to do a job for someone, they told you how to do it, then they changed their minds and told you you wouldn&#39;t get payed, you&#39;d feel double crossed, and be rightfully upset. While that&#39;s not exactly what Mazda has said happened here, it&#39;s pretty equivilent.They operated on good faith, followed the rules, then saw no return. Lose lose.

They are in this for recognition, credibility and the difficult to measure referals. If they don&#39;t see that those goals are being reached, they need to question the effectiveness of the relationship.

"Should we pull the staffing that develops the SCCA packages? The staffing that deals with the inventory numbers and the support? That interfaces with the club personel? That goes out and finds sources and suppliers, and negotiates contracts with them? Should we forget about advertising with this club at their events? Should we not waste the money sending the truck and the personell to their events? Maybe our dollars would go further in other areas, like import drag racing, or drifting? Maybe we can trust those organizations more. "

The simple fact is that Mazda spend a lot of time and money doing things that don&#39;t always bring a return, and even if they do, it&#39;s really hard to track. Do you think they made money last year on the 1st gen ITA brake duct kit? Ummm...doubt it. Made a referral from it? Who knows...maybe.

But, when your business partner screws you, you have to examine the relationship and determine if you are getting enough out of the deal to contiinue....basically, you need to make sure you don&#39;t cut your nose off to spite your face.

I think Matt hit it earlier..thier "support" goes much deeper than a "Comp number".

[dickita15]

Jake,
You seem to be accepting a version of what happened after hearing one side of the story, a recounting of a conversation between two people from one of them.

Some random thoughts on all of this.

I still think the attributed quote “SCCA does not need Mazda and Mazda does not need SCCA” may or may not be appropriate depending on what was said just before that.

I am told by my Director that he Director that is claimed to have said this denies that is what he said. I was told it was not the director accused in the Prod thread and was not my director.

I suggested that the BOD should make a public statement of the facts as they know them but that may not be a good idea as the Chairman of the BOD has a meeting scheduled with the President of Mazda in the next couple of weeks and if that public statement disputes the facts as laid out by Mazda the statement might just add more insult rather than solve the problem. I think at this point I would rather have the problem fixed than have a full accounting. After all no possible explanation would satisfy the “SCCA is always wrong” crowd that hangs out on some of the internet boards.

I am thrilled to be a customer of Mazdaspeed. The convenience, pricing and advice I have received have been wonderful. I am always happy when Tim answers the phone because his knowledge of what I want is top of the line. Twice I have seriously considered changing cars in the last 8 year because the Rx7 is less than competitive in ITA and in both cases I decided to not change in part because I hate giving up Mazda’s help.

But as a regional racer the only support I get is this service. Mazda’s contingency program has no direct effect on me.

What does SCCA on a national level get form Mazda? Well Pro gets a fee for running the MX5 series, but I understand that that is already scheduled to end.
Mazda buys ads on WC airings and while none of that money goes to SCCA it does make it easier to convince Speed to air the shows.
Mazda does provide some sponsorship for various awards dinners and such similar to what Hawk or Simpson might do.
And most importantly Mazdaspeed support makes it easier to race which translates in to more racers which is good for the club.

But Mazda with a great as their contribution to the sport is does not subsidize SCCA.

The relationship between Mazda and SCCA is business. It ain’t personal, it is just business. In order for a business relationship it has to be profitable for both parties. Neither side can win every time.

[Mazmarc63]

[quote]

Having purchased Mazda racing parts ever since Damon Barnett ran the entire Mazda racing department with just one secretary (Dec. 1978), I have seen the steady growth and expansion of Mazda&#39;s involvement with SCCA and grassroots racing across the country. No other Manufacturer can compare with the support Mazda provides their amateur Club racers.



God you&#39;re old. :P

[gsbaker]

I still think the attributed quote “SCCA does not need Mazda and Mazda does not need SCCA” may or may not be appropriate depending on what was said just before that.
...

The relationship between Mazda and SCCA is business. It ain’t personal, it is just business. In order for a business relationship it has to be profitable for both parties. Neither side can win every time.
[/b]
Bingo. Absent other (inside) information, we casual observers cannot say whether someone&#39;s actions are appropriate.

That said, my guess is that Mazda is pushing its position (whatever that may be), and Topeka is pushing back. Nothing more than posturing.

[ddewhurst]

***The relationship between Mazda and SCCA is business. It ain’t personal, it is just business. In order for a business relationship it has to be profitable for both parties. Neither side can win every time.***

Dick, not to argue with you or anyone else BUT it is "real personal" when a SCCA BoD member runs his mouth at a SCCA member. The friken SCCA BoD, CRB & Jim J. need to remember that they are in a business with ALL SCCA members who are the customer & they are the vendor. It appears that for many years they (SCCA boards & pres.) don&#39;t have this business clue & they prove it over & over.

I&#39;ll will take what Tim Buck (SCCA member) said as a reasonable staement. You know NO ONE from the SCCA (SCCA boards & pres.) is ever going to come close to saying anything that we might believe factual. Forget about the business partner deal for a moment because it&#39;s always called a business partner untill one or the other of the partners screws the other business partner.


Have Fun ;)
David

[jjjanos]

So, let me get this straight:

Solstice Hardtop - available or not available to the public from the manufacturer? And please note that, just because a dealer doesn&#39;t know about it, it doesn&#39;t mean that it isn&#39;t available to the public. I.e. Has ANYONE gone to a dealer, inquired and, when/if told no such beast exists, had the "you want fries with that" sales person check with Pontiac? I&#39;ve dealt with new car sales staff and I wouldn&#39;t trust them to know whether the car comes with tires let alone with a carbon fiber top that 99.999% of its customers won&#39;t want or even ask about.

MX5 package - was it available to the general public before the cutoff date or not?

Those are the only things that matter in this discussion. If the answer&#39;s are yes to 1 and no to 2, then Mazda has no legitimate beef. If the answers aren&#39;t yes =1 and 2 = no, then Mazda might.

[Carlos Gutierrez]

Bingo. Absent other (inside) information, we casual observers cannot say whether someone&#39;s actions are appropriate.

That said, my guess is that Mazda is pushing its position (whatever that may be), and Topeka is pushing back. Nothing more than posturing.
[/b]

With all due respect to you and Kirk above ; you casual observers are not being requested to say or do anything.
Only registered Mazdaspeed members. They are the one&#39;s whose best interests are in question and should respond to defend their best interests. :cavallo:

and to you Mr Marc ... yes, I am older than dirt ... but still young enough to get into that silver bullet of yours and lower your lap time by half a second :P
remember the &#39;99 Moroso ECR; you in the SpeedSource/Mears Rx7 , me in the Sabol Rx7 .... last lap pass on the inside ... for position !! I still do, not yet old enough to forget :023:
Be well,
Carlos G.

[Mazmarc63]

[quote]

remember the &#39;99 Moroso ECR; you in the SpeedSource/Mears Rx7 , me in the Sabol Rx7 .... last lap pass on the inside ... for position !! I still do, not yet old enough to forget :023:


I always hated that track. :lol:

Miss you man.

To stay on topic, I sent my survey this morning. I am a Mazda guy to the bone. My Dad always told me "because is not a reason" but I "side" with Mazda just "because".

[Knestis]

With all due respect to you and Kirk above ; you casual observers are not being requested to say or do anything.
Only registered Mazdaspeed members. They are the one&#39;s whose best interests are in question and should respond to defend their best interests. :cavallo: ...[/b]

My current best understanding of the situation is that you are being asked to exert political pressure inside of the Club, as consideration for support granted to you personally by Mazda. With respect, the distinction between this and "in a pocket" are getting fuzzier and fuzzier to me.

Question: If GM had twice as many advocates activated as a result of its support for SCCA Club racers, would you be totally OK with them doing what you are doing?

K

[TimBuck]

K- that is not correct. We are surveying our customers to see how satisfied they are with their current sanctioning body (or bodies), and asking their opinion as to how Mazda should respond to certain situations/issues within the SCCA.

This is NOT about a comment made to a member of our staff at the Runoffs. This is NOT about using our customers to get our way.

Why is it bad that we are asking our customers&#39; opinions?

[jjjanos]

K- that is not correct. We are surveying our customers to see how satisfied they are with their current sanctioning body (or bodies), and asking their opinion as to how Mazda should respond to certain situations/issues within the SCCA.

This is NOT about a comment made to a member of our staff at the Runoffs. This is NOT about using our customers to get our way.

Why is it bad that we are asking our customers&#39; opinions?
[/b]

Tim,

The cover letter, perhaps? The context? The overtones? Correctly or in error, the manner in which this has been presented strongly implies that the motivation is response to Mazda "not getting their way." If people infer it as this, one only needs to look at the way in which it has been presented.

Since you are here...

MX5 package - was it available to the general public before the "cutoff" date or not?

[Carlos Gutierrez]

My current best understanding of the situation is that you are being asked to exert political pressure inside of the Club, as consideration for support granted to you personally by Mazda. With respect, the distinction between this and "in a pocket" are getting fuzzier and fuzzier to me.

Question: If GM had twice as many advocates activated as a result of its support for SCCA Club racers, would you be totally OK with them doing what you are doing?

K
[/b]

K
Answer : once upon a time VOA (Volkswagen of America ) had a well established SCCA club racing program in place that supported their grassroots racers. Not as prominent and successful as Mazda&#39;s is today but still a great help to those who raced the VW brand. Then, over a short period of time, the rules interpretation clashes with SCCA and the resulting "take it or leave it" attitude by the executive board caused VW to say
"screw it, we&#39;re outa here, no one can deal with these idiots".
I only used VW as an example because you race that brand today &#39;the hard way&#39;, on your own, having to deal with aftermarket shops and using your own ingenuity to resolve your racing needs. If you were around at that previous time, you would realise what you had to lose and then what you did lose.
Fast foward to today ... deja vue ...
Nobody has me or anyone "in their pocket". Both myself and the majority of Mazda racers only want SCCA and Mazda to repair their differences and continue a fair and equitable relationship as business partners. Unfortunately, sometimes one has to strike back in order to get negotiations and relations back on track. And with the present SCCA BOD, ya better bring a big stick as some of these guys are habitual hardheads.
In this case, we, the Mazdaspeed membership are the big stick. Maybe, if VOA had you in their camp back in the day, you would also be enjoying active, hands on manufacturer support today with your effort.
Finally, I happen to respect your intelligence and opinions as you have proferred here over the years. No wish to engage in a "distinction" pissing match with you.
just speaking my peace,
Carlos Gutierrez

PS EDIT
now that I see Tim Buck has posted a response ... nevermind... he can speak on our behalf better than me.

[JeffYoung]

To me, corporations tend to:

1. Act more like people than we think;

2. Actually give a shit about what customers think.

I think those two items explain what is going on here. Mazda is, in my view rightfully so, ticked off about the Bling R-1 I mean Miata issue. They are reacting as anyone of us would (or any one of us would at least feel like reacting -- by lashing out a bit at SCCA.

But they are also interested in what their customers think. I read the survey to be a questioning of whether Mazda racers are as ticked off at the SCCA as Mazda is now. If so, Mazda can use the survey to do one of two things: try to get its "constituents" within the SCCA to right the ship so to speak, or simply leave the SCCA altogether if its constituents support that.

I don&#39;t see anything wrong or cloak and dagger about what Mazda is doing. It seems to me to predictable human behavior by a company that got the shaft.

I&#39;m also only a small fish in the IT world. I have no idea what "pull" Mazda has in classes like Showroom Not, etc., but I suspect that influence is not as large as we may think.

Either way, I see nothing good coming from Mazda dropping its support for Club Racing over something that at least from my side of things looks like an SCCA clusterfark. Now, if Mazda left because the BoD wouldn&#39;t stack the deck in its favor, sure, in that case, don&#39;t let the door hit you in the ass.

[Knestis]

K- that is not correct. We are surveying our customers to see how satisfied they are with their current sanctioning body (or bodies), and asking their opinion as to how Mazda should respond to certain situations/issues within the SCCA.

This is NOT about a comment made to a member of our staff at the Runoffs. This is NOT about using our customers to get our way.

Why is it bad that we are asking our customers&#39; opinions?
[/b]

I don&#39;t doubt at all that this issue isn&#39;t just about one nasty comment, and there is NOTHING at all wrong with asking people their opinions. I do it for a living. :)

All I did was look at the language of the instrument and make inferences re: the intent of the person who created it based on that language, and on the construction and presentation of the survey. Whether you personally think it&#39;s not about "getting your way," a survey asking for opinions doesn&#39;t typically include options where respondents pledge that...

"If necessary, I will seek club office to protect the relationship between SCCA and with Mazdaspeed Motorsports."

"I will support Mazdaspeed Motorsports by getting personally involved with club management to seek a solution to the current situation."

That&#39;s not a satisfaction survey. That&#39;s a call to arms.

Did you write the survey, by the way?

K

PS - Note that i&#39;m NOT commenting on the substance of Mazda&#39;s complaint. I think they have valid gripes, based on the limited facts as I know them. I&#39;m only having opinions on the response.

[dickita15]

Dick, not to argue with you or anyone else BUT it is "real personal" when a SCCA BoD member runs his mouth at a SCCA member. The friken SCCA BoD, CRB & Jim J. need to remember that they are in a business with ALL SCCA members who are the customer & they are the vendor. It appears that for many years they (SCCA boards & pres.) don&#39;t have this business clue & they prove it over & over.

I&#39;ll will take what Tim Buck (SCCA member) said as a reasonable staement. You know NO ONE from the SCCA (SCCA boards & pres.) is ever going to come close to saying anything that we might believe factual. Forget about the business partner deal for a moment because it&#39;s always called a business partner untill one or the other of the partners screws the other business partner.
Have Fun ;)
David
[/b]
David you must admit however from your statement that you have a bias in who you want to believe.
And by the way it is okay to argue with me, I am not a moderator. :D

[TimBuck]

That&#39;s a little out of context. It was more along the lines "pick which statement you most agree with" and that was one of the choices.

And what&#39;s wrong with a call to arms? I&#39;ve even called it that myself. There are an AWFUL lot of people that will whine and complain about something from behind a bulletin board without lifting a finger in the real world to help fix the perceived problem. Now is a chance to affect some change, if you feel it&#39;s warranted. Is that bad?

[seckerich]

Mazda has every right to be pissed and so do I. An officer of SCCA took it upon himself to tell my sponsor I no longer need them. If this was his opinion so be it. When they open their mouth and convey this to a sponsor as a member of the BOD it better Damn well be the consencus of the BOD or they should be removed. Who do these arrogant --- think they are anyway? Which one will step up and replace the money it will possibly take from my pocket? I have already spoken with a few and plan to speak with the rest. :mad1:

[jjjanos]

That&#39;s a little out of context. It was more along the lines "pick which statement you most agree with" and that was one of the choices.

And what&#39;s wrong with a call to arms? I&#39;ve even called it that myself. There are an AWFUL lot of people that will whine and complain about something from behind a bulletin board without lifting a finger in the real world to help fix the perceived problem. Now is a chance to affect some change, if you feel it&#39;s warranted. Is that bad?
[/b]

Well Tim,

You&#39;ve been here twice without answering a question related to the real issue. One of those times, the question was directed directly at you.

I.e.Was the MX-5 "option" available prior to March 1, 2007?"

While I appreciate the support to grassroots drivers given by Mazda, I&#39;d really like an answer to this question.

As for the Solstice hardtop - two Pontiac dealers in the DC area tell me that the part number listed in the GCR is not a valid part number.

So, is Mazda upset because GM got a cheat or is Mazda upset because you couldn&#39;t cheat too?

[Hahn63]

Mazda has every right to be pissed and so do I. An officer of SCCA took it upon himself to tell my sponsor I no longer need them. If this was his opinion so be it. When they open their mouth and convey this to a sponsor as a member of the BOD it better Damn well be the consencus of the BOD or they should be removed. Who do these arrogant --- think they are anyway? Which one will step up and replace the money it will possibly take from my pocket? I have already spoken with a few and plan to speak with the rest. :mad1:
[/b]


Well said Steve! The BOD works for us not the other way around. I will answer this call to arms, long over due!!! :bash_1_:


Roland

[ScotMac]

Tim, you are saying contradictory things. First you say that :


This is NOT about using our customers to get our way.
[/b]

Then you say:


That&#39;s a little out of context. It was more along the lines "pick which statement you most agree with" and that was one of the choices.

And what&#39;s wrong with a call to arms? I&#39;ve even called it that myself. There are an AWFUL lot of people that will whine and complain about something from behind a bulletin board without lifting a finger in the real world to help fix the perceived problem. Now is a chance to affect some change, if you feel it&#39;s warranted. Is that bad?
[/b]

A call to arms is what? Asking your customers to fight back, to help you get your way, pure and simple. That is NOT acceptable behavior for a particular manufacturer, and i am sure the hardheaded SCCA BOD will agree. This is not going in a good direction, for either parties involved.

[Andy Bettencourt]

Ok, Ok, let&#39;s tone it down some. I feel like I am about 95% &#39;in the know&#39; now after some key conversations today. This issue runs very deep BUT it can be fixed. Let&#39;s not judge either side from a surface-view. It will be fine.

Having said that, comments to sponsors, members, or partners that even remotely resemble what is being portrayed in these threads are rediculous.

[dickita15]

Mazda has every right to be pissed and so do I. An officer of SCCA took it upon himself to tell my sponsor I no longer need them. [/b]

But Steve that is not even what is being alleged was said. The quote that I guess Tim says he was told is “SCCA does not need Mazda and Mazda does not need SCCA”. That could be a reasonable or unreasonable statement based on what was said to him right before that.
I was told the person who supposedly said it denies that is what he said. Two people, imperfect memories, some emotion.
We will not ever know the truth.

[TimBuck]

jjjanos- If you&#39;d read the GCR, you&#39;d see that the MS-R package is an "option" like you said. There are no time constraints, OR public-availability constraints for "options". The MODEL (as determined by the VIN) has to be available by said date. Obviously, the 2007 MX5 was. There is no such requirement in the GCR regarding "options".

An OPTION (not defined by VIN) can be added by the CRB to the Spec Line in the GCR at any time.

"9.1.7 The Club Racing Board may classify any particular model of a car, as determined by the VIN, or permit specific options listed on the spec line for that car."

It was properly added to the Spec Line by the CRB, then taken away by the CoA months later. These are GCR definitions. Read them yourself.

This hurt Mazda, but more importantly, several of Mazda&#39;s customers. We will not stand for that.

The Solstice&#39;s hard top is also an "option", and is not available to the public. Yet they keep it. Now I ask you, how fair does that look to you?

[grjones1]

"...We will not stand for that."

Got to jump on that one, Tim. We&#39;ve all been "mistreated" on occasion "in our opinion" and sometimes we just had to swallow it and press on. Ease up fellow.

[tnord]

Tim -

You&#39;re ahead. I would walk away from it for a multitude of reasons.....tin-hat season and all.

[grjones1]

Here we go with the ad hominem.

[lateapex911]

Dick, you&#39;re right. (Of course...LOL) I shouldn&#39;t pre-judge the situation. Without hearing the whole story, it&#39;s hard to draw conclusions. I think I have tried to word my thoughts in such a manner, but perhaps not. On the surface, I do have a hard time imagining what could have been said in advance of the alleged statemant that would make that statement OK. But, my imaginiation isn&#39;t boundless, so who knows. I&#39;ll keep an open mind.

That said, I really would like to understand the mechanics of the situation better, though I know I probably never will, as business dealings are often tough to publicize. (sigh)

As an aside, this situation does bring to light how great we have it in IT. SS/Touring is, as Jeff Young coined, "SS-Not", LOL. I would HATE to be on those Ad hocs. Trying to find a class of cars...that is more than 2 or 3, (!) that race equally right off the showroom floor is nigh impossible.

Of course, we&#39;re fools if we think those classes aren&#39;t "adjusted" in some way. It&#39;s subversive, and all under the cloak of emails and "option packages" but there is, to be sure, an attemp at balancing. Here we see an unfortunate blow out.

We&#39;ve (the ITAC) gotten suggestions that we should peel back the "5 year" rule, to allow new cars to play, and one arguement against that is that it would drive up the cost of racing..."Everyone will HAVE to have the new Borgawd belchfire 400!"...and the second arguement is "The manufacturers will be beating the walls down lobbying"... But, the counter to that is "We get to set the weights and the cars equalizing parameters" There should be no "Car of the year", Now manufacturuers lobbying?? I dunno &#39;bout that!

Nevertheless...the SS/Touring model is a very tricky one. Better them than me!

[mazda49]

Why is the club offending a big supporter when it comes to media exposure, monetary and parts support, advertising in the clubs publications, being a cheerleader in an arena of enthusiast for their product, The club could be cutting off it nose to spite it&#39;s face. The club isn&#39;t a top of the mind awareness orginzation in the grand scheme of marketing to the general public. Currently, MAZDA has provided a platform to help grow and support the club with a group of cars that can be easily raced. There aren&#39;t many of those customers standing in-line to take MAZDA&#39;s place. How long has it taken VW to return to the club? Do you remember Formula Vee, Super Vee, Rabbit and Golf Cup races and their support, that is just now returning. I don&#39;t think E-F-G-and H Production are being supported by British Leyland anymore. Nissan does&#39;t seem to have an interest as they did in the 70&#39;s, and Toyota is in NASCAR with a gazillion dollar budget. Take alook at this website, outside of the MAZDA&#39;s board, in reality there is very little interest. The club makes alot of irrational moves and this appears to be another one. MAZDA isn&#39;t always right.....but in a capitlistic society America votes with there pocketbook and it looks like the purse strings are drawing tight a at major supporter.
I&#39;ll bet the marketing department at the club is reacting to a major account, possibily, moving across the racetrack! The club is dismal at retaining the players who support it. How much will it cost to replace MAZDA should they redirect their funds. They want to sell cars, parts, and image. Who would be so inept as to offend the person who is sponsoring the events and sport I enjoy. The crux of the problem is a straight and honest answer could have prevented the survey. Which is asking are you happy with the club?
Why is the club allowing MAZDA to even think of an alternative? But, I guess a board member has spoken for us all........ and MAZDA now is calling for consensus of opinion among the supporters....Bill Hennecy

[Knestis]

...And what&#39;s wrong with a call to arms? I&#39;ve even called it that myself. There are an AWFUL lot of people that will whine and complain about something from behind a bulletin board without lifting a finger in the real world to help fix the perceived problem. Now is a chance to affect some change, if you feel it&#39;s warranted. Is that bad?[/b]
If you are speaking as Tim Buck, SCCA member number XXXXXX, I have absolutely NO qualms with that. If you are speaking as a representative employee of Mazda, I have to say that I think it&#39;s a different thing.

Look - I completely agree that based on the facts (again, as I know them), Mazda has a legitimate beef. However, using your past support for a group of members as motivation to get them to lobby for a change in the upper echelons of the club - that&#39;s CLUB - is a problematic way to tackle what is a fair grievance. Have high-level meetings, sit down with the marketing department, and explain to whoever manages contingency programs that you feel like you&#39;ve been slighted, and work out a solution.

NOBODY has to explain to me how SCCA (including it&#39;s "pro" arm and Enterprises) have bungled business opportunities and agreements. Most people here haven&#39;t heard my personal story of how an investor and I got dinked out of a Sports Renault CSR deal, after it was theoretically signed and sealed. The money guy left the deal making pointed comments about "amateur hour" and how he might go racing but he&#39;d never enter into any racing business linked to the Club.

But that&#39;s not my point, which I think I&#39;ve made reasonably clear. I do hope it works out but there are a lot of members who race other kinds of cars who might be ambivalent about mistreatment of a brand that many perceive to have actually gotten a pretty good shake over the years.

K

[jjjanos]

jjjanos- If you&#39;d read the GCR, you&#39;d see that the MS-R package is an "option" like you said. There are no time constraints, OR public-availability constraints for "options". The MODEL (as determined by the VIN) has to be available by said date. Obviously, the 2007 MX5 was. There is no such requirement in the GCR regarding "options".

An OPTION (not defined by VIN) can be added by the CRB to the Spec Line in the GCR at any time.

"9.1.7 The Club Racing Board may classify any particular model of a car, as determined by the VIN, or permit specific options listed on the spec line for that car."n

It was properly added to the Spec Line by the CRB, then taken away by the CoA months later. These are GCR definitions. Read them yourself.

This hurt Mazda, but more importantly, several of Mazda&#39;s customers. We will not stand for that.

The Solstice&#39;s hard top is also an "option", and is not available to the public. Yet they keep it. Now I ask you, how fair does that look to you?
[/b]

Thank you for your response. I believe, however, that defer to the judgment of the CoA as to the legality of any interpretations regarding the GCR. The difference between an "option" and a "model" is subjective and thus I am not suprised that Mazda has taken the particular position it has. For example, Honda produces several variants of the Civic. Honda has decided to call each of these variants a model. Thus we have civic DXs, LXs, EXs and SIs. Honda could just as easily have defined this as a single model and sold options known as the DX, the LX, the EX and the SI.

Thus, option and model is a meaningless test since neither has a absolute definition. Thus, a logical starting point would be whether the option/model meets the intent/purpose of the rules.

"Automobiles sold by the Manufacturer/Distributor that are designated not for public use or cannot be licensed are not allowed in SS classes."

"Current model year cars will be eligible for classification consideration if they are available to the general public through the normal dealer network by March 1st of the model year."

The intent of the rule to me, and I infer from the COA opinion that this is their opinion as well, that if the item/model/option must both be available to the general public and must be available by March 1st. As you have not disputed either point, I will take that as an admission that the item/model/option failed one or both requirement.

More importantly, regardless of whether this ruling was correct or not, it is the ruling of the independent judicial process. There is no further action that the club may or can take - by its own rules intended to preserve that independent judicial body. These are rules under which your corporation agreed to participate in the club.

You have strongly implied that one of the purposes of this survey is to act as a threat to the judicial system of the club. It cannot be a threat to the rules making or policy making arms of the club as they played NO PART in the judicial proceedings. Mazda&#39;s contribution to the club received due consideration via the rules making process - the item was approved by the club. This approval was deemed in error by TWO independent judicial bodies of the club. Your defacto threat raises serious implications regarding the possibility that Mazda is attempting to circumvent and corrupt the independence of the SCCA judiciary.

You will note that these inferences are based on your statements here and at other forums which you seem to be representing as official Mazda positions.

Frankly, sir, if this is indeed the case, then I would suggest that the unnamed BoD member was being far too charitable and polite - and there, lateapex911, you have a set of circumstances under which the statement sounds perfectly reasonable. "If you want us to override a CoA decision in violation of our rules, then SCCA doesn&#39;t need Mazda and Mazda doesn&#39;t need SCCA.

I also note that I failed to hear any outrage or dissatisfaction vocalized when the CoA ruled the BMW top illegal at the Runoffs.

The classification of the Solstice top is an entirely separate matter. It is my opinion that this item, like the package you feel should have been legal, fails both tests. As you know, the CoA may only address appeals brought to it and cannot initiate a judicial action. It is a shame that the top never was tested by the SCCA CoA judicial process - or at least I can find no record of such a protest reaching the CoA. I would love to see how they reconciled such contradictory rulings.

Since an official may protest any vehicle, I offer my services at the Summit Point National. I will be flagging and thus have the right file a protest. I am interested in honoring both the spirit and letter of the law. I shall volunteer my time to do so, provided that the protest fee be fronted. I believe the current fee is $25. Should you like the decision to be appealed, I shall perform the same service, again provided that the appeal fee be fronted to me.

If you desire a protest at the earliest possible National, I believe that a simple search among your own customers could find someone willing to enter such a protest.

[Z3_GoCar]

...But that&#39;s not my point, which I think I&#39;ve made reasonably clear. I do hope it works out but there are a lot of members who race other kinds of cars who might be ambivalent about mistreatment of a brand that many perceive to have actually gotten a pretty good shake over the years.

K
[/b]

I&#39;ve discussed this with a friend, who brought up the VW sagas, having raced a Super Vee. He stated that VW dropped their amature racing efforts not because they didn&#39;t get a fair deal in the SCCA, but because they were struggling for their very existance. So if VW didn&#39;t stop the spending there would be no more VW in North America.

If Mazda dropped their comp efforts to the amaturs and only supported the pro racer, would anyone really stop racing a Mazda? I&#39;d think you&#39;d really see a lot of grass-roots manufactures, and parts sales houses spring up to fill the demand. Need I say MazdaWorld? The demand is there, although this isn&#39;t an economically advantageous time to start from scratch in a luxuary business. In the end that&#39;s why I think the club is having a hard time is the price of fuel is up, home values are down, and the economy is really soft. To take a phrase from President Clinton, "It&#39;s about the economy!"

James

[TimBuck]

Quick and to the point-

The Hondas that you mentioned are all MODELS because they are designated by their VIN as such (there is a unique digit in their VIN that shows they are a DX, EX, Si, or ??). Not because Honda chose to call them models. They fit the GCR definition as a MODEL. The MS-R was not designated in any part of the MX-5&#39;s VIN, and was therefore not a MODEL but an OPTION according to the GCR. Because it was an option, the CRB was well within its scope to add it to the SS Spec Line. At any time. Regardless of availability.

It&#39;s exactly what they did with the Solstice hardtop.

I have no problem with the rule(s) in question. Just that they don&#39;t seem to be equally enforced.


BTW- There is no intent of a rule. There is nothing subjective involved here. Just the GCR as written.

A little known fact is that we were not notified of the Action of the Courts until AFTER the proceedings. We had no chance whatsoever to rebut or defend. A total lack of due process.

Actually, from what I understand, the BoD can overturn a CoA ruling.

That is not how the conversation took place. Not even close. If you had been there, you&#39;d have been as shocked as I was.

The BMW was excluded from the Runoffs under a different ruleset than we have today. It was unfortunate, but it was not legal at the time.

I would love to see the Solstice protested on the grounds of its hardtop. But unfortunately they already have a couple National Championships with it. One of them should belong to Honda. The other... ??? Can we go back and rerun those races?

Did I miss anything?

[Matt Rowe]

I have no problem with the rule(s) in question. [/b]
I would if I were in SS. Why would I want to run a class where I pick a car at the begining of the season based on what has been classed, only to find just prior to the runoffs that a new "option" or "package" or whatever had been offered that gave my competitor a significant advantage. That would seem to be the implication of allowing any package or options after the cutoff date. Right? That&#39;s not a stable or cost friendly rule set. SS already suffers from the car of the year class, that would imply a car of the week class assuming two mfg&#39;s are willing to go that far.


I would love to see the Solstice protested on the grounds of its hardtop.[/b]
So why didn&#39;t someone protest the legality? There was plenty of time between the Mazda COA decision and the runoffs.

[grjones1]

"...Why would I want to run a class where I pick a car at the begining of the season based on what has been classed, only to find just prior to the runoffs that a new "option" or "package" or whatever had been offered that gave my competitor a significant advantage."

I doubt this will be appreciated either, but in 1986 or thereabouts I traded my SSB first gen VW GTI for a new Shelby GLH becuse it was kicking the GTI&#39;s rear in class; only to find at the beginning of the season the GTI had been dropped to SSC for that year. S--- happens. And I didn&#39;t change my allegiance to NHRA or whatever was available in that decade, I complained loudly that rule changes should be made in a timely fashion. I think there&#39;s a point here.

[jjjanos]

Quick and to the point-

The Hondas that you mentioned are all MODELS because they are designated by their VIN as such (there is a unique digit in their VIN that shows they are a DX, EX, Si, or ??). Not because Honda chose to call them models. They fit the GCR definition as a MODEL. The MS-R was not designated in any part of the MX-5&#39;s VIN, and was therefore not a MODEL but an OPTION according to the GCR. [/b]

Sir, you are arguing a tautology. Their VIN defines them as separate models because Honda defines them as a separate model. Since Honda defines them as a separate model, their VIN must show them as a separate model.

I would be more than happy to use a consistent definition of MODEL, but it must be absolute and free of subjective interpretations. I say the MS-R is not an option, it is a model regardless of how Mazda chooses to define it. Then again, I may say the MS-R is an option, not a model, regardless of how Mazda chooses to define it - especially since I am unaware of any definition of model.


Because it was an option, the CRB was well within its scope to add it to the SS Spec Line. At any time. Regardless of availability.[/b]

I believe that the 18July2005 CoA decision makes it clear that, at least for the 2007 competition year, that you are absolutely and completely wrong. You&#39;ll note that the CoA is the final and absolute arbitrary of the meaning and intent of the rules under which your customers and you agreed to participate.


It&#39;s exactly what they did with the Solstice hardtop. [/b]

And the CRB may do whatever it damn well feels like and those decisions are presumed legal until ruled otherwise by SCCA&#39;s independent judiciary.

As it appears that the legality of the Solstice hardtop never was tested, it is, therefore legal until otherwise determined. Perhaps you should have had someone with standing protest the top and take it to the CoA.


I have no problem with the rule(s) in question. Just that they don&#39;t seem to be equally enforced.
BTW- There is no intent of a rule. There is nothing subjective involved here. Just the GCR as written.[/b]

No sir. The rule is equally enforced. The CRB added option/model/item and until a judicial action is initiated, the items are deemed legal. An action was begun on the MS-R and two independent bodies determined that the rule was illegal specifically because "this model is not available to the general public." Please note: "model" being a meaningless term. The subjectiveness of this is being used by Mazda - they claim the MS-R is an option, not a model because MAZDA has not defined it as a model.


A little known fact is that we were not notified of the Action of the Courts until AFTER the proceedings. We had no chance whatsoever to rebut or defend. A total lack of due process.[/b]

Mazda has no standing sir in the case. 8.3.1 clearly establishes who has a right to protest at an event. 8.1.4 clearly establishes who has standing in a Rules Interpretation protest. In neither case, I can find no reference that a manufacturer has standing.

You sir are accusing the First Court of perjury - "The First Court obtained information, data, and testimony from the Club Racing Board, (CRB), SCCA Club Racing, Mazda Motors, Mazda Motorsports, and a Mazda dealership."

If there was NEW information, unavailable at the time of either court, a new judicial proceeding could have been initiated. You chose to not do that. Or Mazda could have entered a car with these specifications, filed a protest and taken the new evidence to the CoAs.


Actually, from what I understand, the BoD can overturn a CoA ruling. [/b]

8.4.5. "The Court’s decision shall be final, binding and not subject to further appeals by any other party, either within the SCCA organization or outside the Club."

No, the BoD may not overturn a CoA decision. The BoD may change the rule, rendering the decision moot. It may not change the opinion or decision.


I would love to see the Solstice protested on the grounds of its hardtop. But unfortunately they already have a couple National Championships with it. One of them should belong to Honda. The other... ??? Can we go back and rerun those races?[/b]

Well, sir... I have told you how it can be done. I suggest that Mazda Motorsports issue a check. If an official from Mazda Motorsports OFFICIALLY contacts me via a PM, I will provide the information required to have you issue a check for the initial protest fee.

[TimBuck]

Please don&#39;t take my absence as an admission of ANYTHING, but I feel I am beating my head against a wall here. You do not have a complete understanding of the situation, nor do you have all of the facts. And honestly I was just here on a personal basis (mostly as a fellow racer). I am not interested in this part of the discussion any more. No argument I use, nor any facts, definitions, or circumstances I present will likely sway you. So I respectfully agree that you and I are not going to agree on the MS-R situation.

Mazda feels right in that particular situation, and I as a racer feel that Mazda&#39;s argument has merit. You may not, but of course that is your right. However, that is but one of several recent issues that have made Mazda re-examine their involvement with SCCA (ref. the penalty given to Jeff Altenburg after the Glen race vs the penalty PD received after Toronto. Be sure to watch clips and listen to commentators). The survey is intended to determine Mazda&#39;s customers level of satisfaction with their current sanctioning body (or bodies). Mazda&#39;s future dealings with the club will depend the results of that survey and the wishes of their customers.

I am sure that Mazda will make the results of the survey public once they&#39;ve been compiled. That decision will be made much higher up the food chain than my cubicle.

Regards

Tim Buck

[LMan]

My current best understanding of the situation is that you are being asked to exert political pressure inside of the Club, as consideration for support granted to you personally by Mazda. With respect, the distinction between this and "in a pocket" are getting fuzzier and fuzzier to me.

Question: If GM had twice as many advocates activated as a result of its support for SCCA Club racers, would you be totally OK with them doing what you are doing?

K
[/b]

..lessee.....Mazda steps up and provides more support for its racers than any other manufacturer (the others won&#39;t step up to the plate, for some reason apparently)...so their reward is to be accused of &#39;having too mcuh influence&#39; and &#39;buying the organization&#39;? :blink:

No wonder they are upset. Talk about biting the hand.... :rolleyes:

[IPRESS]

Here is the DEAL plain and simple.
Racing is expensive.
Mazda supports club racing more then any other mfg.
I am a member of SCCA.
An SCCA national BOD member either said or infered that SCCA does not need Mazda to a Mazda exec.
Even if it was not said verbatim that is the jist that a SPONSOR came away with.
I am not happy about being represented by someone who messes with sponsor relations...PERIOD!
You guys attacking Tim Buck is not cool either. (IMHO) The discussion started out fine but as usual the razor sharp keyboards came out before it was over!
Is there a contingent of Honda haters out there? How about Nissan haters? VW?
I don&#39;t ever see it, but there is always a damn sure lot of MAZDA haters spouting off on any Mazda issue. It is easy to see why other mfgs. have turned their backs on club racing programs.

Yeah I feel like Mazda is sending a message and asking for a little help in fixing a problem within the club. Which is saying one thing and doing another. Over and over again leadership makes a call and changes it when someone yells WOLF. It would be nice to have leadership LOOK AHEAD and weigh what their decisions will bring in the way of WOLF crys and then make the RIGHT decision the first time. SCCA reacts. You almost have to force that reaction at times. Mazda can&#39;t force anything. Members that want something done can.

My BOD member is not happy about this either and has told me he will get answers and take action. I am going with that until I see different.

[tnord]

Please don&#39;t take my absence as an admission of ANYTHING, but I feel I am beating my head against a wall here.

Regards

Tim Buck
[/b]

remember what i said about walking away while you&#39;re ahead? :P

certain people on this board are just anti-mazda no matter what. be it jealousy, bitterness, or whatever, just like the BoD member you encountered, they&#39;re blind, hard-headed, and have an axe to grind.

[ScotMac]

..lessee.....Mazda steps up and provides more support for its racers than any other manufacturer (the others won&#39;t step up to the plate, for some reason apparently)...so their reward is to be accused of &#39;having too mcuh influence&#39; and &#39;buying the organization&#39;? :blink:

No wonder they are upset. Talk about biting the hand.... :rolleyes:
[/b]

Mazda&#39;s support for its racers and racing is not the issue. Mazda&#39;s attempt to use that support to effect political change is the issue (see "call to arms").

[Knestis]

...but there is always a damn sure lot of MAZDA haters spouting off on any Mazda issue.[/b]


...certain people on this board are just anti-mazda no matter what. be it jealousy, bitterness, or whatever, just like the BoD member you encountered, they&#39;re blind, hard-headed, and have an axe to grind.[/b]

...and that is evidence that you&#39;ve clearly missed - or ignored, or don&#39;t understand - the complexity of the issue.

Asking an academic question that turns it situation over ("What if GM did the same thing?") attempts to shift the conversation to one about club practice and not about your individual situations. If you take that - or any of the other good questions raised here - and make it about your own competitive or financial interests, then you are (with respect) part of the problem and not the solution. We GET in these pickles because everyone&#39;s fighting for their own little piece of the pie, rather than thinking about things strategically - drivers and BoD members alike!

And playing the hater card contributes nothing to either understanding or resolving this complex situation.

K

[JeffYoung]

Kirk, that&#39;s where you and I disagree. This is not a complicated situation, to me anyway. Mazda gives a lot to SCCA racers, and to club racing, via support. Someone at SCCA said something that ticked them off. They responded like a normal person would -- first anger, and then what do I do about this situation?

Tim&#39;s last post sort of summed it up. Mazda&#39;s pissed. They are trying to figure out if their customers are pissed too, and how much. If their customers are as pissed as Mazda, then we may lose the support that Mazda gives to the SCCA. I don&#39;t see any upside to that.

[tnord]

...and that is evidence that you&#39;ve clearly missed - or ignored, or don&#39;t understand - the complexity of the issue.

Asking an academic question that turns it situation over ("What if GM did the same thing?") attempts to shift the conversation to one about club practice and not about your individual situations. If you take that - or any of the other good questions raised here - and make it about your own competitive or financial interests, then you are (with respect) part of the problem and not the solution. We GET in these pickles because everyone&#39;s fighting for their own little piece of the pie, rather than thinking about things strategically - drivers and BoD members alike!

And playing the hater card contributes nothing to either understanding or resolving this complex situation.

K
[/b]

and you&#39;re only contributing to complexity. is it possible that this isn&#39;t nearly as hard as you guys are trying your damndest to make it?

Mazda followed the club&#39;s rules and did everything they were told to do, they still got hosed. GM still isn&#39;t following the rules.

bottom line, i&#39;ve met Tim. I trust Tim. I do not trust the BoD. I know that we&#39;ll never know the whole story so I make decisions based on the information I have instead of trying to read into it and make assumptions. if the club comes out with another side of the story, i&#39;ll rethink it.

have fun arguing amongst yourselves.

[IPRESS]

The one thing I do know is a certain contingent on this board could over analyze an anvil.

This thing is way more simple to fix:

Do your best to not piss off the sponsors. .......and maybe use a little tact when interacting with them.






OH BTW Kirk, the "Mazda hate" is stupid but prevelant no matter if it is a CARD or not.

Just like people hate the Yankees and in the past the Cowboys (to bad they haven&#39;t been good enough to warrant any hate in the past few years,) Mazda gets the brunt of displeasure in club racing from the non Mazda folks. That said, I would expect things to be worked out and Mazda SCCA involvement to continue. NASA is gaining participants and I would expect Mazda to get more involved there no matter the issue we are throwing around.

[JIgou]

In our division, I can count on two hands the number of active road racers who get involved in the running of the club by either taking positions of leadership or helping influence those leadership positions.

If this issue between Mazda and SCCA does nothing more than get a few more folks to pay attention and get involved in the running of the SCCA, I think it&#39;s a great thing. If it manages to fix a few things along the way because people got pissed off and started firing messages off to the BOD and President, all the better.

And if this were an issue between GM and SCCA or Dodge and SCCA, and not something driven by a single person in a position of power (as I&#39;ve heard rumors was the case with the BMW in SSB a few years ago and the Viper in T1 more recently), I&#39;d be behind the manufacturer then too.

Jarrod

[jjjanos]

Mazda followed the club&#39;s rules and did everything they were told to do, they still got hosed. GM still isn&#39;t following the rules. [/b]

I would suggest that he CoA ruling from the July hearing would suggest otherwise regarding adhering to the rules. Whether we agree with that opinion or not, it remains the official determination through 31Dec2007.

As for GM - my opinion is the part added to the specification line violates the CoA ruling regarding the MS-R. That opinion, however, doesn&#39;t matter as I don&#39;t sit on the independent judicial body of the SCCA.

Think the hardtop is illegal? All it takes is $25 for the initial protest. Simply file one.

[thedemoguy]

I&#39;ve been reading this thread for the past few days with great interest, because all this year I&#39;ve been thinking about buying a Spec Miata, not only because of the size of the class but the support Mazda gives to the people that race them.

So far I&#39;ve come to a couple conclusions in regards to the relationship between the SCCA Bod and Mazda.

1. Mazda really does give a shit about the people that race there cars.

2. Some cranky old fart that was elected to the bod because he&#39;s been around for ever should learn to keep his big yap shut, and leave the sponsors to the people in the PR department.

3. Now I&#39;m definitely buying a Miata SM, because a sponsor that will put up with all this shit and still ask there costumers what they would like them to do,...well I give them a lot of credit.

And what&#39;s up with sicking a lawyer on the guy...lol with all that mumbo jumbo...give me a brake...lol and all for just $25...

[jjjanos]

Thank you for contacting Pontiac! We appreciate the time you have taken to contact us.

A hardtop for the Solstice is
not a part produced for sale to the general public;
your preferred Pontiac dealership is not aware of this part for that reason. You may want to contact the SCCA for information on how to obtain this part. We apologize for any inconvenience.

At Pontiac, we strive to provide exceptional customer service. If we can be of any further assistance please email us or call 1-800-762-2737, between 8:00 a.m. and 11:00 p.m., Eastern Time, seven days a week.
Thank you for contacting Pontiac!

Sincerely,

The Pontiac Marketing Team

So, according to Pontiac, I cannot even get the part from Pontiac.....

Very interesting. Very interesting indeed.

[tom_sprecher]

3. Now I&#39;m definitely buying a Miata SM, because a sponsor that will put up with all this shit and still ask there costumers what they would like them to do,...well I give them a lot of credit.
[/b]

It&#39;s too bad the BoD or CRB (and ITAC ;) ) doesn&#39;t ask their members what they would like them to do every once in a while...maybe we all could give them some credit.

[dickita15]

Wow that is kind of a cheap shot.
I have had current members of all three of those boards ask my opinion from time to time.

[lateapex911]

It&#39;s too bad the BoD or CRB (and ITAC ;) ) doesn&#39;t ask their members what they would like them to do every once in a while...maybe we all could give them some credit.



[/b]

You simply can not be serious!
There are what ..FIVE ITACers who post here, read what you all have to say, and ask questions!! What about the VIN rule?? We are ASKING for YOUR response. How about the ECU rule? We ASKED you for your thoughts...and even wrote up a preface outlining the intent, as well as advantages and disadvantages to each option to spur your thoughts and responses!

The CRB ASKs us ITACers things all the time....and we in turn dig around, asking you. You might not know it, but if I wrote, "Ther CRB is thinking about..." everytime we discussed concepts and ideas, it might get out of control, LOL, but trust me, the water gets tested.

As for the BoD, I don&#39;t know about your guy/gal, but I know mine, and he hears from me when there is the need, and he considers my opinion, asks smart followup questions and thats all I can ask .

[Butch Kummer]

Knowing Mr. Sprecher, he had his tongue planted firmly in his cheek when entering that post in repsonse to the previous poster&#39;s implication that Mazda is the only entity that asks for input from it&#39;s "costumers".

Perhaps it would have been clearer with a <sarchasm on> and <sarchasm off> entry?

[Andy Bettencourt]

He did have a wink after the ITAC.... :birra:

[tom_sprecher]

He did have a wink after the ITAC.... :birra:
[/b]

Jeez, Jake, be cool, it&#39;s like Butch and Andy said.

Like most others here I greatly appreciate that you all ask for input when replying to CRB requests and assume that the input you gain from the community you serve forms the basis of your collective response. As a volunteer representative of the IT community at large that is your responsibilty and obligation and as a member of that constituency I believe you all do an excellent job.

I strongly feel when others in a similar type of position that see their role and unfortunately themselves as something more than that described above it may be time to re-evaluate their suitablity for the position. They can no longer effectively execute the will of the members which ultimately is what they have been tasked with. This opinion prompted the remark in the first place.

In the future I will try to remember Butch&#39;s suggestion and use the <sarchasm on/off> switch.

[lateapex911]

oops, my bad. Your comment came on the heels of a similar comment made by someone else, and I was shocked then...theirs was serious. So sorry! I&#39;ll read more carefully next time!

[msogren]

NASA needs the $. NASA seems to need and appreciate the racers and the track junkies. SCCA is run by weekend Kings that need to feel powerful, and that you are lucky to be allowed to run asolo or race.
I have not renewed my SCCA card and have gone oval racing to avoid the hassle of SCCA.( and lack of under age driver allowance).
My Son and I will go NASA racing , with a ITB Golf, next spring. SCCA has pissed off my pleasant , easy going , Son, enough to sell my Miata. The only car that SCCA solo tracks seem to excel with.
NASA seems to put the customer first, But I have not run any events. I have looked at the schedule and car counts for Sebring. SCCA gets more cars for sure, but the actual tracktime is a little less for NASA.
Cost about the same.
I see a real opportunity for Mazda to grab the NASA hand and add some exposure ...
I may go back to SCCA eventually, only if my Son can get a better return or experience. Now I will go any place else. We run the Vette club solos , they are fast, appreciate the cash and help that we extend , and are friendly!! Imagine that!! Some damp days, we get 30 runs!!!

[fastbenz]

Since an official may protest any vehicle, I offer my services at the Summit Point National. I will be flagging and thus have the right file a protest. I am interested in honoring both the spirit and letter of the law. I shall volunteer my time to do so, provided that the protest fee be fronted. I believe the current fee is $25. Should you like the decision to be appealed, I shall perform the same service, again provided that the appeal fee be fronted to me.
[/b]

Protest fee for a national is $50 Where in the rules does it state that a flagger can file a protest ? Flaggers are officials ?

[NutDriverRighty]

To the best of my knowledge, flaggers ARE officials. We aren&#39;t stewards, but by the GCR definition, we are officials. There was an incident at T5 at Road Atlanta last year where a driver made an error in judgement that caused a class leader to hit the wall driver&#39;s right at 5A at nearly WOT. I was very upset, especially since my partner was looking the guy in the face and telling him to hold his position. He ignored the instructions and backed into traffic, causing a multi-car crash. I called my Flag Chief and she said that I could if I wanted. Instead, I approached the drivers involved and told the primary victim that if he wanted to file a protest, that my partner and I would be happy to give face-to-face "testimony" as to the events. The crew chief for the driver "at fault" approached me and said that it was a rookie mistake and that I saw him apologize to all involved and he was noticably distraught. Either way, my partner and I had to write and submit an incident report that was submitted to the stewards for their review. IIRC, he was penalized by finishing position for the incident, but nothing additional.
To make a long post somewhat longer. Yes, I do believe that we can protest as race officials. Secondly, if it is an incident on track, we are almost always asked to give a written report ASAP after the incident for the stewards to review.

Scott Franklin

[JeffYoung]

I believe any registered participant at an event can file a protest -- worker, crew, driver, official.

[Greg Amy]

Where in the rules does it state that a flagger can file a protest ?[/b]
GCR 8.3.1, "The right to protest shall rest with any entrant, driver, organization, or official taking part in the competition in question."


Flaggers are officials ?[/b]
GCR 5.x, "OFFICIALS, THEIR DUTIES, OPERATING PROCEDURES, AND EQUIPMENT"
GCR 5.5, "FLAGGING AND COMMUNICATIONS"
GCR 5.5.4, "Corner Stations"

There was a protest of a driver at LRP in &#39;06 by an F&C personnel, who thought the driver was taking a dangerous wet line through the corner. In the end it was "nollied", but illustrated that "flaggers" can most certainly protest drivers... - GA

[shwah]

To take this further off topic.

I agree that a flagger is permitted to file a protest. However, a flagger protesting my line would really tick me off. If you are not driving the car, you have no idea what is or is not working between that drivers seat and the racing surface. Now if that line results in an incident, this is a different story.

I actually had a situation this year when a flagger called in that I was taking a &#39;dangerous&#39; line through his corner, because I placed the inside two tires in the grass every time by. Had a conversation with the black flag steward before my victory lap, and just nodded my head to get on to impound and get out of the race car sooner on a hot July afternoon. However, unless they make a change in the supps, I can take any damn line I please (within the &#39;racing rules of the road&#39;), provided I do not leave the racing surface, and re-enter, and gain an advantage by doing so. So by the rule I need to make sure I drive on the racing surface at each corner, which I was doing. Granted in most cases this approach is not ideal, but on that corner of that course on that day it worked best to use about 36" of the racing surface for my car. I have since changed this practice to only use the good line there when neccessary - and did use it twice at my next race at the track when lapped traffic did not leave room to come through with 4 (well I guess 3) on the pavement.

[jjjanos]

Protest fee for a national is $50 [/b]

In that case, I&#39;ll need $50. No, strike that. The GM top has me tee&#39;d off because it doesn&#39;t appear to meet the spirit of the rules either. I&#39;ll pay 50% of the initial fee. On March 2, 2008, I&#39;ll check with local dealers and Pontiac HQ as to the availability of the part. If it isn&#39;t available to the public, paper will be filed at Summit.


Where in the rules does it state that a flagger can file a protest ? Flaggers are officials ?[/b]

Already covered, but shoot - I&#39;d even enter the bloody event to gain standing for this one.

The hardtop should have been tossed to be consistent with the CoA ruling on the Mazda. Nothing I hate more than hypocrisy.

re:Protesting a "line" - flaggers can do that, but, and I&#39;ve said it before, they would be foolish to do so.

re: 2-wheels in the grass... Hmmmm, I&#39;m thinking that the GCR clearly defines the racing surface and it doesn&#39;t include the grass.

9.1.4. Off-Course Excursions
The driver is required to follow the pavement or marked course during a competition, and shall not gain an advantage from an off-course excursion. Unless otherwise provided by Supplementary Regulations , whenever a driver leaves an artificially marked course or an airport circuit with all four (4) wheels, he shall re-enter the course at the same spot where he went off, and cannot simply re-enter further down the course, subject to the directions of the Corner Worker controlling re-entry.

So, it putting two wheels in the grass was the fast line, you gained an advantage and are in violation of 9.1.4. (note to the GCR gnomes cleaning up language... define off-course excursion).

Reading this, it appears that the GCR has no requirement that you "reenter" where you exited on a natural terrain course. The reentry regulations have to do with airport and parking lot courses.

Then again, it would be pretty CS to protest someone over this.

[Greg Amy]

re:Protesting a "line" - flaggers can do that, but, and I&#39;ve said it before, they would be foolish to do so.[/b]
To clarify (I should have done this above) the "line" that the flagger protested was one that was a wide rimshot around the outside of the corner, well off the normal dry line, and placed the driver heading straight for the corner station, rather than obliquely, and it made the corner personnel nervous. The F&C guy tried to get the Chief Stew to black flag the driver to ask him to change his line, the CS refused; thus the F&C guy protested.

So, there really was more to this than "I didn&#39;t like the line he was taking"...but, still an illustration that F&C *can* protest. - GA

[JohnRW]

Back on topic (not that there is anything wrong with tangential posting...):

After some discussions in the secret underground world of leaked half-truths, I&#39;m starting to get the aroma of some "SCCA Pro" issues between SCCA and Mazda that seem to have leaked over and are stinking up the SCCA Club Racing club house. Don&#39;t know about you, but I&#39;ll be royally pissed if ANY of this issue between SCCA and Mazda is due to problems in the Pro series. Think "tail wagging dog". I&#39;m not even sure which end of the "dog" is which, at this point. If any of this is the case, both Mazda and the BOD/Pro Racing have some apologizing to do to club racers. Neither party is an "innocent" victim here.

Contact your director. Give them DIRECTION. They (supposedly) work for us.

[camop]

THANK YOU! All of you people that make the SCCA such a fantastic place to be on race weekends. I have never thought of you as "Weekend Kings" or egomaniacs.

I mostly race in Central Florida, Carolina, and South Florida. From my school at Sebring 4 years ago to last weekends Turkey Trot, Flaggers, Registrars and Stewards have been fantastic.

Sincerely,

Neal Norton

[shwah]

In that case, I&#39;ll need $50. No, strike that. The GM top has me tee&#39;d off because it doesn&#39;t appear to meet the spirit of the rules either. I&#39;ll pay 50% of the initial fee. On March 2, 2008, I&#39;ll check with local dealers and Pontiac HQ as to the availability of the part. If it isn&#39;t available to the public, paper will be filed at Summit.
Already covered, but shoot - I&#39;d even enter the bloody event to gain standing for this one.

The hardtop should have been tossed to be consistent with the CoA ruling on the Mazda. Nothing I hate more than hypocrisy.

re:Protesting a "line" - flaggers can do that, but, and I&#39;ve said it before, they would be foolish to do so.

re: 2-wheels in the grass... Hmmmm, I&#39;m thinking that the GCR clearly defines the racing surface and it doesn&#39;t include the grass.

9.1.4. Off-Course Excursions
The driver is required to follow the pavement or marked course during a competition, and shall not gain an advantage from an off-course excursion. Unless otherwise provided by Supplementary Regulations , whenever a driver leaves an artificially marked course or an airport circuit with all four (4) wheels, he shall re-enter the course at the same spot where he went off, and cannot simply re-enter further down the course, subject to the directions of the Corner Worker controlling re-entry.

So, it putting two wheels in the grass was the fast line, you gained an advantage and are in violation of 9.1.4. (note to the GCR gnomes cleaning up language... define off-course excursion).

Reading this, it appears that the GCR has no requirement that you "reenter" where you exited on a natural terrain course. The reentry regulations have to do with airport and parking lot courses.

Then again, it would be pretty CS to protest someone over this.
[/b]

As long as I have a wheel on the racing surface, I have not left the racing surface, and have not made an off course excursion. I am in fact very much ON the course. This can be modified in supplemental regs for a specific event if someone wants to prevent it, but the words written above do not prevent me from driving every corner with two wheels 4 feet in the grass, or dirt, or whatever is present inside (or outside) the curbing.

[Knestis]

... the words written above do not prevent me from driving every corner with two wheels 4 feet in the grass, or dirt, or whatever is present inside (or outside) the curbing. [/b]

Huzzah!

I got black flagged at Portland a hundred years ago for driving over the curbs. The steward told me (I was on my Nervice logbook at the time) that they could "pitch me out of control." I shared a line that I&#39;d stolen from a Renault Cup guy I really respected - "When I paid my entry fee, I figured I&#39;d rented the WHOLE track." Luckily I was smiling when I said it, because he wasn&#39;t there for a second.

K

[seckerich]

Just a little update to get this thread back on track. The wording in this email makes me feel more like a customer than a share holder. To me that is the root of the problem.


To: Regional Executives

From: Jim Julow, President & CEO SCCA

Date: 11/28/2007

Subject: Mazda & SCCA


Based on some recent e-mails, it would appear that some of you may be receiving inquiries regarding SCCA&#39;s business relationship with Mazda. For some background--about two weeks ago, Mazda sent out a survey to its Mazdaspeed members. In the cover letter was a suggestion that responders may want to include the SCCA headquarters and Board of Directors as part of their feedback. To date, we have received about 35 e-mails addressed to me or the BOD. What follows is the statement we are sending to acknowledge receipt of the e-mail.

"Thank you for your input. We at SCCA clearly understand the position and importance of Mazda in the grassroots racing community and, in particular, its support for our racers that drive Mazda products. To that end, since the issues with the MSR package occurred earlier this summer, the SCCA has been working to resolve its differences with Mazda. However, with various public and private comments made by Mazda in recent weeks, it is clear that there is much more work to be done. The plan is for SCCA to meet with Mazda personnel again in the very near future. We are committed to doing everything we can to repair the damage and put both companies on a road to the outstanding relationship and partnership that we have enjoyed in the past.

We all have a common goal-the betterment of SCCA, and in situations like this, we need and appreciate the support of the members for which the Club exists."

[NutDriverRighty]

35 letters and e-mails?? I sent e-mails from everyone from Jim Julow to Terry Ozment and everyone in-between!! While I appreciate the tone of the letter, I&#39;m waiting for the "proof in the pudding".

While I&#39;m beginning to get into a ranting mood, I&#39;d like to say that my e-mails weren&#39;t about the MSR package or any SS issues, but the fact that (it seems) that the SCCA front office reps were screwing the club members by biting the hand that feeds us, not only the Mazda TSP members, but the club as a whole from all of the $ they pump into it. Secondly, after sending 6-8 e-mails myself, I didn&#39;t receive a copy of this "receipt" e-mail.

Scott Franklin
just another cog in the machine.

[ddewhurst]

Come on SCCA members 35 letters to the SCCA/President for a subject as this is nothing. I&#39;m not talking about the Mazda SS/SCCA issues, I&#39;m talking about the alleged comment from the vendor (BoD member) to the customer (SCCA member). & please don&#39;t any of you smoooooth talkers get on my case about not knowing the factual words to the SCCA member. A BoD member has zero business talking to a customer so as to piss off the customer. I&#39;m one of the 35 who sent a polite letter. :D

My individual letters went to the President & each BoD member. Received a response fron the President & 6 BoD members.

IF YOUR GOING TO TALK THE TALK, HOW ABOUT YOU WALK THE WALK.

OR AS YOUNG LADIES TOLD YOU IN THE PAST YOUR ALL SHOW & NO GO.

Yea I&#39;m pissed :mad1: because 35 letters shows that most of you don&#39;t give a dam about anything with the SCCA other than yourselves. :mad1: Send your friken letter.

[jjjanos]

As long as I have a wheel on the racing surface, I have not left the racing surface, and have not made an off course excursion. I am in fact very much ON the course. This can be modified in supplemental regs for a specific event if someone wants to prevent it, but the words written above do not prevent me from driving every corner with two wheels 4 feet in the grass, or dirt, or whatever is present inside (or outside) the curbing.
[/b]

Sporting Regulations 2008 Version of General Competition Rules
6.8.3
The driver is required to follow the pavement or marked course during a competition.... (emphasis added).

Two wheels in the dirt/grass would be a VERY loose definition of following the pavement. The curbs, on the other hand, are part of the pavement, but might not be part of the marked course. You know - the white lines on the edge of the pavement at many courses/circuits.

[planet6racing]

Come on SCCA members 35 letters to the SCCA/President for a subject as this is nothing. I&#39;m not talking about the Mazda SS/SCCA issues, I&#39;m talking about the alleged comment from the vendor (BoD member) to the customer (SCCA member). & please don&#39;t any of you smoooooth talkers get on my case about not knowing the factual words to the SCCA member. A BoD member has zero business talking to a customer so as to piss off the customer. I&#39;m one of the 35 who sent a polite letter. :D

My individual letters went to the President & each BoD member. Received a response fron the President & 6 BoD members.

IF YOUR GOING TO TALK THE TALK, HOW ABOUT YOU WALK THE WALK.

OR AS YOUNG LADIES TOLD YOU IN THE PAST YOUR ALL SHOW & NO GO.

Yea I&#39;m pissed :mad1: because 35 letters shows that most of you don&#39;t give a dam about anything with the SCCA other than yourselves. :mad1: Send your friken letter.
[/b]

David:

SETTLE DOWN. SERIOUSLY. For most of us, this is the first we are hearing of this and, since I&#39;m not privvy to the survey or any of the other information, this is internet heresay. I&#39;m not going to go flying off the handle from rumors that I have not researched (and do not have time to research). As a result, no letter will be written by me. If you have a problem with that, feel free to come and talk to me about it.

[LMan]

Is it possible that many, many more letters were sent but only ~ 35 were actually seen by Mr. Julow?

[Andy Bettencourt]

I sent my &#39;letter of concern&#39; to my BoD rep - who happens to be the Chairman.

[gsbaker]

:mad1: Send your friken letter.[/b]
These guys will be in town next week for the PRI show, Dave. I&#39;ll beat on &#39;em for ya. :bash_1_:

:D

[shwah]

Sporting Regulations 2008 Version of General Competition Rules
6.8.3
The driver is required to follow the pavement or marked course during a competition.... (emphasis added).

Two wheels in the dirt/grass would be a VERY loose definition of following the pavement. The curbs, on the other hand, are part of the pavement, but might not be part of the marked course. You know - the white lines on the edge of the pavement at many courses/circuits.
[/b]
You say tomato, I say tomato. If the car didn&#39;t leave the course, then it didn&#39;t leave the course.

[Gary L]

Towards the end of the SSC race at the ruboffs, Heinricy put both left wheels of the Cobalt on the curbing at the apex of a right hand turn (T9, IIRC). Looked a little weird to me (and I&#39;m a curb-hopping SOB), but apparently the officials had no problem with it. :)

[pgipson]

Come on SCCA members 35 letters to the SCCA/President for a subject as this is nothing. I&#39;m not talking about the Mazda SS/SCCA issues, I&#39;m talking about the alleged comment from the vendor (BoD member) to the customer (SCCA member). & please don&#39;t any of you smoooooth talkers get on my case about not knowing the factual words to the SCCA member. A BoD member has zero business talking to a customer so as to piss off the customer. I&#39;m one of the 35 who sent a polite letter. :D

My individual letters went to the President & each BoD member. Received a response fron the President & 6 BoD members.

IF YOUR GOING TO TALK THE TALK, HOW ABOUT YOU WALK THE WALK.

OR AS YOUNG LADIES TOLD YOU IN THE PAST YOUR ALL SHOW & NO GO.

Yea I&#39;m pissed :mad1: because 35 letters shows that most of you don&#39;t give a dam about anything with the SCCA other than yourselves. :mad1: Send your friken letter.
[/b]

I sent my second e-mail today, this one to Mr. Julow. I did get his response (much like the one posted previously) and I informed him that I didn&#39;t feel it address appropriately my original concern, which is the SCCA side of the incident mentioned in the Mazda survey. I included the exact text from the survey (again) and I copied the BoD email, my division BoD member and another BoD member that I know personally.

There are rules and expectation placed on all participants at SCCA events, including rules of conduct. If these were violated by a BoD member then there are procedures for such violations to be processed. All members should want to make sure that members of the Board are held to at least the same standard of conduct as the average driver or worker.

[ddewhurst]

Bill, when Tim Buck of Mazda posts that this is what the BoD member said to him, I&#39;ll make book on Tim.

LMan, when Jim Julow says he & the SCCA BoD received 35 letters that&#39;s good enough for me. If you can please attempt to get a second respoonse from SCCA headquaters on how many letters the SCCA received have at it. I&#39;s also posibile that it Will be 95* in Wisconsin on Dec.1 st 2007, not very likely tho.

***These guys will be in town next week for the PRI show, Dave. I&#39;ll beat on &#39;em for ya.***

Greg, yer not telling me the whole BoD group is going to be there are you? NAW, you don&#39;t want to piss em off because that would be acting like one of the BoD members did to Tim Buck.

Andy, your BoD guy & my BoD chairman representive is one of the seven untouchables who didn&#39;t respond to my e-mail letter.

To those of you who didn&#39;t write a letter don&#39;t be shocked when a BoD member talks to you like he/she did to Tim. :o What better time to start cleaning house that RIGHT NOW. :cavallo:

[Quickshoe]

this is internet heresay.[/b]
Clarification, the survey isn&#39;t internet heresay. It is available for viewing by anybody through a link on the Mazda comp home page.

I am not a member, so I didn&#39;t complete it, but I can view it.

http://www.zoomerang.com/recipient/survey....=WEB2276DNG47Z8 (http://www.zoomerang.com/recipient/survey.zgi?p=WEB2276DNG47Z8)

[ScotMac]

Clarification, the survey isn&#39;t internet heresay. It is available for viewing by anybody through a link on the Mazda comp home page.

I am not a member, so I didn&#39;t complete it, but I can view it.

http://www.zoomerang.com/recipient/survey....=WEB2276DNG47Z8 (http://www.zoomerang.com/recipient/survey.zgi?p=WEB2276DNG47Z8)
[/b]

It appears to be open to completion by non-members also.

[bldn10]

"If the car didn&#39;t leave the course, then it didn&#39;t leave the course."



Yea, but the Rule says nothing about "leaving the course" - it requires you to follow the marked/paved course. If you are consistently making little pretense of following the course by creating your own in the dirt, I think you could be penalized.

[Knestis]

If "follow the course" is defined as "follow the line," I can do that on either side of it.

Did I mention that I rented the "whole track?"

:026:

K

[ddewhurst]

***If "follow the course" is defined as "follow the line," I can do that on either side of it.

Did I mention that I rented the "whole track?"****


By your definition of whole track, I presume you will not be upset when your side by side racing for a win & the competitior only leaves you room for only two tires on that hard black stuff while the other two tires are on the green stuff called grass. :rolleyes:

Do ya see what the Spherical bearing mounted in control arms has done to your mind. :blink:

ps: What does this definition of race track have to do with the original thread? More corruption just like the Spherical bearings.

[LMan]

LMan, when Jim Julow says he & the SCCA BoD received 35 letters that&#39;s good enough for me. If you can please attempt to get a second respoonse from SCCA headquaters on how many letters the SCCA received have at it. I&#39;s also posibile that it Will be 95* in Wisconsin on Dec.1 st 2007, not very likely tho.


[/b]

Well, if only 35 letters were sent, it must not be a big issue, then. :birra:

[ddewhurst]

***Well, if only 35 letters were sent, it must not be a big issue, then.***

Well LMan, when a BoD member runs his/her mouth to you please don&#39;t start squealing like a little pig looking for someone to listen. I&#39;ll throw you in the pot with all the other do gooders that think the SCCA BoD world is perfect. I have had a BoD member step WAY out of line with a letter addressed to me & each other BoD member. Details not required. I&#39;m not saying that ALL BoD members function in like manner but I&#39;m here to tell YOU some get out of line. In the case of the SCCA member who happens to be a Mazda employee I&#39;ll take his word that a SCCA BoD member out ran outside the boundry with his/her mouth. Plerase notice I didn&#39;t touch the SS issues, only that the SCCA member is a Mazda employee.

David Dewhurst

[LMan]

Easy, Tiger. I&#39;m not absolving anyone, I&#39;m just making an observation.

Fact: this incident you speak of occurred, and pages and pages of upset/outraged SCCA members went n and on about how it was inexcusable and that protests/letters/eccentri should be sent to Mr. Julow, REs, etc. I inferred from that that this was an official Big Deal ™.

Fact: after all that, Mr. Julow&#39;s (somewhat canned) response states he received 35 complaints. Since there was such a disparity between the apparent Internet outrage and the *actual* complaints received, I inferred two possibilities:

a. Many members are a lot more adept at Internet venom that in making actual complaints; or
b. Mr Julow understated the number of complaints, by accident or design.


Fact: When I decided to give the &#39;many members&#39; the benefit of the doubt and only expressed the possibility (no accusation) that Mr Julow understated the number of complaints, you told me off that if by damn if Mr. Julow said there were 35 complaints, then there were only 35 complaints, end of story. Fine.

So, I then said that if that is true, then it must not be a crisis, and the official Big Deal ™ designation might need to be lifted. Now, you tell me off for reaching this opposite conclusion. :blink:

So, which is it? Big Deal™? Mr Julow really received a lot more complaints and aint tellin? They were lost? Or is it that many Internet forum-warriors can&#39;t be bothered to make actual complaints to those in charge?


Inquiring minds and all that.... I have no axe to grind.

[ddewhurst]

***They were lost?***

The SCCA Headquartes in are noted for bad counting & or loosing letters. I have no facts, just years of reading on a couple sites & things usuall come out quite clear.

***Or is it that many Internet forum-warriors can&#39;t be bothered to make actual complaints to those in charge?***

That ^ is a FACT.

***Inquiring minds and all that.... I have no axe to grind.***

I hear you ^, have you ever heard Julow answer questions live when you were in a tent meeting at the Runoffs. :( I also have a very good friend who is a payed employee of the SCCA. < I hear truthful items. :( I also know Tim Buck & will take his word to the bank. :D

IMHU of the information the BoD member should a axed from all positions he/she holds with the SCCA.

David Dewhurst

[lateapex911]

And some of us internet warriors actually picked up the phone and called people closer to the action, and did some personal research, then made our feelings known based on the discoveries.

Email isn&#39;t the only way to get things done.........

[ddewhurst]

Jake, is your last post aimed towards me? (Remember the deal about how high the soap box is & how far one has to fall.) If so would you like to see the letter I wrote to the President & each BoD member based on facts ?

If I did a survey of three sites (Production, IT & Spec Miata) the number of people who wrote letters to the BoD will make 35 look silly.

[lateapex911]

No David, look at the posting time...we posted at nearly the same time...my comments were in response to L man.

[fastbenz]

So now that we know who made this thoughtless remark I can&#39;t wait to see what happens next.

[Knestis]

Oh, "we" do, do "we?"

K

[thedemoguy]

Well,...Who was it ...?

[attachmentid=1235]

[Chris Wire]

Well,...Who was it ...?

[attachmentid=1235]
[/b]

BUSTED!!! This is clearly the culprit sabotaging our relationship with Mazda!

[fastbenz]

KP JONES from Florida

[Knestis]

... from Florida[/b]

Ah. That explains why W is making that face. ;)

Seriously though - at the end of the day, does it really make a difference WHO said it? The issues run deeper than just a tactless comment from one person to another.

K

EDIT - and what if (and I said "IF") Jones is right?

[seckerich]

Ah. That explains why W is making that face. ;)

Seriously though - at the end of the day, does it really make a difference WHO said it? The issues run deeper than just a tactless comment from one person to another.

K

EDIT - and what if (and I said "IF") Jones is right?
[/b]
Then it better be the consensus of the entire BOD. If not he crossed the line by running his mouth to a sponsor as a BOD member. Either way way out of line. Lets see the same person talk with your VW cup guys. :rolleyes:

[LMan]

And some of us internet warriors actually picked up the phone and called people closer to the action, and did some personal research, then made our feelings known based on the discoveries.

Email isn&#39;t the only way to get things done.........
[/b]

Completely agree. But Mr. Julow writes:

"Based on some recent e-mails, it would appear that some of you may be receiving inquiries regarding SCCA&#39;s business relationship with Mazda. For some background--about two weeks ago, Mazda sent out a survey to its Mazdaspeed members. In the cover letter was a suggestion that responders may want to include the SCCA headquarters and Board of Directors as part of their feedback. To date, we have received about 35 e-mails addressed to me or the BOD. What follows is the statement we are sending to acknowledge receipt of the e-mail."

So apparently Mr Julow isn&#39;t aware of the non-email inquiries *shrug*. I do note that he includes the BoD in his estimate, so he speaks for the Board as well when he says only 35 complaints were heard. I would think that if there were significant non-email noise he might have mentioned that as well.

Again, I am not disparaging your efforts, far from it...I didnt really mean &#39;Internet warriors&#39; to be pejorative but I can see how that could happen. I only note how the flood of outrage at the grassroots level appears to have become a trickle of water at the highest levels....if that is indeed the case.

Done on this one. Merry Christmas :114: :snow_cool: :birra:

[seckerich]

Completely agree. But Mr. Julow writes:

"Based on some recent e-mails, it would appear that some of you may be receiving inquiries regarding SCCA&#39;s business relationship with Mazda. For some background--about two weeks ago, Mazda sent out a survey to its Mazdaspeed members. In the cover letter was a suggestion that responders may want to include the SCCA headquarters and Board of Directors as part of their feedback. To date, we have received about 35 e-mails addressed to me or the BOD. What follows is the statement we are sending to acknowledge receipt of the e-mail."

So apparently Mr Julow isn&#39;t aware of the non-email inquiries *shrug*. I do note that he includes the BoD in his estimate, so he speaks for the Board as well when he says only 35 complaints were heard. I would think that if there were significant non-email noise he might have mentioned that as well.

Again, I am not disparaging your efforts, far from it...I didnt really mean &#39;Internet warriors&#39; to be pejorative but I can see how that could happen. I only note how the flood of outrage at the grassroots level appears to have become a trickle of water at the highest levels....if that is indeed the case.

Done on this one. Merry Christmas :114: :snow_cool: :birra: [/b]

Merry Christmas to you as well. Next time you sign up to a board to stir up crap--sign a real name. :114:


(editied by lateapex911 for quote code.)

[shwah]

KP JONES from Florida
[/b]
The only other source that I read this from fingered another source a week or two ago. So do you mind telling us where, (besides our favorite chicken little) you heard this from? Just want to be sure we have accurate info this time around.

[lateapex911]

Actually, I&#39;d rather have "fastbenz" sign his name so we know who is naming names.....

[thedemoguy]

Just tell us what his name is and we&#39;ll have the bailiff whack his peepee....







[attachmentid=1237]

[mbuskuhl]

Press release scheduled tomorrow, Dec. 11 Tuesday from SCCA according to BOD member Mike Sauce. Should be interesting.

[ddewhurst]

I understand IT is not National racing but for those without a clue this isn&#39;t bad money to go along wit a $10.00 plaque.

Posted by Chuck Clark on the Production site.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

National Races:
$600, $300, $150

Divisional Champ:
$1,000

Runoffs:
$5,000, $2,500, $1,250
tow fund money from $50-600 based on distance

Have Fun ;)
David


ps: Mark, I look forward to the press release tomorow. If part of the press release don&#39;t include getting rid of the BoD who had brain turned off with mouth open we need to start all over because the BoD & President didn&#39;t get the message which is two fold.

[shwah]

Looks pretty similar to the VW deal. They also pay out for pole at the runoffs. And of course they pay IT drivers for lowly regional wins :D :eclipsee_steering: .

All in all those numbers can make a big impact on a club racer&#39;s years. Thank you to Mazda, and Nissan and VW for seeing the value in providing this support.

[thedemoguy]

KP JONES from Florida[/b]

Now you need to give the factual evidence to prove that KP was the one to start the trouble,...becouse I "heard" that fastbenz was the one,...I also "heard" that fastbenz was really a very slow Benz that just gets in the way.


[attachmentid=1239]

[mbuskuhl]

I understand IT is not National racing but for those without a clue this isn&#39;t bad money to go along wit a $10.00 plaque.
[/b]

That money is great. Add on a tire manufacturer and your weekends pay for themselves. Too bad regional cars (IT) get squat in the way of contingency. I&#39;d bet Mazda puts up that kind of money for NASA next year, they did it for the NASA Championships and I foresee it happening for NASA regular season races, we&#39;ll know soon. Just another reason the other organization has been very appealing to me.

[JohnRW]

http://www.scca.com/newsarticle.aspx?hub=6&news=3242

[mbuskuhl]

http://www.scca.com/newsarticle.aspx?hub=6&news=3242
[/b]

How warm and fuzzy, according to Julow everyone is friends again. Now lets see the 2008 Mazda Contingency info.




ps: Mark, I look forward to the press release tomorow. If part of the press release don&#39;t include getting rid of the BoD who had brain turned off with mouth open we need to start all over because the BoD & President didn&#39;t get the message which is two fold.
[/b]

Guess it&#39;s start over David.

[Knestis]

Dear SCCA Members:

In the last several weeks, there has been considerable public discussion regarding the relationship between SCCA and Mazda. Recently, management and leadership from both organizations met face-to-face, and while we are not going to re-hash everything that has happened over the last 12 months, we are confident in stating that both SCCA and Mazda have similar goals and are moving forward together in a positive manner.

Specifically, we have discussed and reached an understanding regarding car classification, the Court of Appeals processes, the role of manufacturers within SCCA racing and comments made publicly and privately by members of both organizations.

Following our face-to-face meetings, we are confident that both SCCA and Mazda are on a positive path heading into the future. There have been things that both organizations have done to upset the other in the past, but we believe that we are all stronger, and smarter, moving forward.

It is important to note that the discussions and activities over the last several months have given us great feedback on how to better serve and communicate with not just Mazda, but all of our partners. Motorsports would be nothing without competition, and while some programs are designed specifically to remove the brand of vehicle, tire or other component from the equation, diverse activities demand diverse participation. That is something on which both SCCA and Mazda can certainly agree.

This is our first and, ultimately, only public statement regarding the issues of the last several months. Some will always desire greater detail, but it would not be productive for SCCA, Mazda or any of our partners to continue to focus on anything but the future and building stronger, more viable programs for the Club.

- Jim Julow, SCCA President & CEO[/b]

From the previous link

K

[seckerich]

The rug is up as usual and the jerk with the big mouth gets a pass. Business as usual. Enough of us now know who and what that hopefully we can make some changes going forward.

[jjjanos]

Yep, get rid of them all when all it takes is 5 of them to prevent a removal and we don&#39;t even know whether the BoD member is going to be sitting when the new terms begin.

Makes sense to me.

[thedemoguy]

[attachmentid=1240]

Let God sort-em out....

[dj10]

Looks like Mazda and the SCCA kissed and made up.

[keycom]

They "may" have made up, but I doubt that they kissed! :018: