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!)