What is up with Mazda vs SCCA???

[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

[jjjanos]

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."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'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?
[/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'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't need Mazda and Mazda doesn'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'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

[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'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's exactly what they did with the Solstice hardtop.

I have no problem with the rule(s) in question. Just that they don'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'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'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'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'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'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'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'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'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'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'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'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'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, (CR, 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'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'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's customers level of satisfaction with their current sanctioning body (or bodies). Mazda'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'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'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....

[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'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'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'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'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'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'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....
[/b]

Mazda's support for its racers and racing is not the issue. Mazda'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're blind, hard-headed, and have an axe to grind.[/b]

...and that is evidence that you've clearly missed - or ignored, or don'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'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'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's last post sort of summed it up. Mazda'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't see any upside to that.

[tnord]

...and that is evidence that you've clearly missed - or ignored, or don'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'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're only contributing to complexity. is it possible that this isn't nearly as hard as you guys are trying your damndest to make it?

Mazda followed the club's rules and did everything they were told to do, they still got hosed. GM still isn't following the rules.

bottom line, i've met Tim. I trust Tim. I do not trust the BoD. I know that we'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'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'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'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've heard rumors was the case with the BMW in SSB a few years ago and the Viper in T1 more recently), I'd be behind the manufacturer then too.

Jarrod

[jjjanos]

Mazda followed the club's rules and did everything they were told to do, they still got hosed. GM still isn'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't matter as I don'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've been reading this thread for the past few days with great interest, because all this year I'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'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'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'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'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.