What is up with Mazda vs SCCA???

[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't step up to the plate, for some reason apparently)...so their reward is to be accused of 'having too mcuh influence' and 'buying the organization'?

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

[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't have this business clue & they prove it over & over.

I'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's always called a business partner untill one or the other of the partners screws the other business partner.


Have Fun
David

[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't have this business clue & they prove it over & over.

I'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'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.

[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't know about it, it doesn't mean that it isn'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've dealt with new car sales staff and I wouldn'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'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's are yes to 1 and no to 2, then Mazda has no legitimate beef. If the answers aren't yes =1 and 2 = no, then Mazda might.

[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' 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' 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?

[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' opinions?
[/b]

I don't doubt at all that this issue isn'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's not about "getting your way," a survey asking for opinions doesn'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's not a satisfaction survey. That's a call to arms.

Did you write the survey, by the way?

K

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

[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'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'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't stack the deck in its favor, sure, in that case, don't let the door hit you in the ass.

[TimBuck]

That'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's wrong with a call to arms? I'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's warranted. Is that bad?

[jjjanos]

That'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's wrong with a call to arms? I'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's warranted. Is that bad?
[/b]

Well Tim,

You'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'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't cheat too?

[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'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's wrong with a call to arms? I'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'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.

[Knestis]

...And what's wrong with a call to arms? I'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'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'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'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've been slighted, and work out a solution.

NOBODY has to explain to me how SCCA (including it's "pro" arm and Enterprises) have bungled business opportunities and agreements. Most people here haven'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'd never enter into any racing business linked to the Club.

But that's not my point, which I think I'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

[Z3_GoCar]

...But that's not my point, which I think I'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'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't get a fair deal in the SCCA, but because they were struggling for their very existance. So if VW didn'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'd think you'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't an economically advantageous time to start from scratch in a luxuary business. In the end that'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's about the economy!"

James

[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.

[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.
[/b]

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


Roland

[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.

[Andy Bettencourt]

Ok, Ok, let's tone it down some. I feel like I am about 95% 'in the know' now after some key conversations today. This issue runs very deep BUT it can be fixed. Let'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.

[TimBuck]

jjjanos- If you'd read the GCR, you'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's customers. We will not stand for that.

The Solstice'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'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're ahead. I would walk away from it for a multitude of reasons.....tin-hat season and all.