SCCA Racers - Important Announcement, FProd Competition Adjustment Options

[ChrisFoley]

The Club Racing Board has seen fit to restrict our engines as a result of the Runoffs win by Mark Hotchkis.
This season we get to use 34mm venturis instead of the 38s we had last year. It is time to gather our evidence and write letters to the CRB expressing our feelings that this is an unfair competition adjustment which will hurt all the regular FP 914 competitors. The Kirby/Finch car will probably never be raced again and the rest of us are being made to suffer as a result of the superior effort expended by an essentially professional racing program in an amateur sport.

[J P Stein]

It doesn't take much reading on the SCCA website to realize "how things work".
Influencial members have a vested interest in keeping the status quo. That apple cart has been upset by the win of the FP 914.

Don't you realize that you people are supposed to be "field fillers" to make casual observers think that old British sportcars and Japanese coupes are faster than Porsches? (even with the 914's tenuous relation).

In GT2, Toyoda Celicas are outrunning
Porsche's Cup cars, fer Christ's sake. Can you expect better?

At any rate. good luck. You're gonna need it. (IMG:http://www.914world.com/bbs2/html/emoticons/biggrin.gif)

[jhadler]

I'll be writting my letter this weekend Chris.

It's absurd that just because ONE car wins, JUST ONCE. That all other people should suffer. Did they do that when a miata won EP? Or when a Z06 won T1?

This stinks...

On the other hand, that car does represent the "best of the breed", and what it's capable of in the hands of an A+ driver.

-Josh2

[dinomium]

That blows! Didnt also just saddle the 914 with more wieght as well? If I ever get my car going again, I am going confrence racing.
I would never have the budget to run in SCCA. Too bad all the PCA races are SCCA piggyback events here...
LAME!

[gregrobbins]

Interesting.

In one of the last SCCA magazines someone in an editorial asked you so many other racing organizations are springing up around the country and SCCA is losing followers. BS like this recent change is one reason. Politics. (IMG:http://www.914world.com/bbs2/html/emoticons/finger.gif)

In Arizona, if you don't like SCCA, you can run NAPA, ProRacing, Club Racing Arizona. And don't forget the vintage racing groups. Just not the national opportunites, but you can get plenty of track time which is all most people want.

Other option, have Jake make you more horse power (IMG:http://www.914world.com/bbs2/html/emoticons/biggrin.gif)

[Joe Ricard]

Well it was only a matter of time before the legs are hobbled for Porsches again. Wheel to wheel is real expensive compared to my trival Solo money sucking hole in the road.

Having Jake make more power is probably possible but what will the budget be like. is it worth the hours of testing developing and racing just to get another rule smacked on you next year if you happen to win.

You got to wonder if the lead cars wold not have taken each other out and the 914 finished 3rd would the new rule have been levied?

SorrY Chris I agree it is Bullshit.

[jhadler]

Joe,

This rule applies to the FP cars. I don't believe that the EP cars are at all effected.

I think the real issue is that the class was won by an all out pro level effort. A big development team, a massive budget, and a pro driver behind the wheel combined with an already well developed car.

-Josh2

[ChrisFoley]

I think Joe is referring to Saurino in the Midget and Chima in the MGB, both of whom were quicker than the 914 in qualifying, but went off on lap 2. Chima retired and Saurino went on to finish 3rd, despite being relegated to last after his off. If Saurino didn't have to fight traffic for the rest of the race I'm confident he could have matched the pace of the 914. His best lap was his first full lap after getting back on track.
There is just no sense to this knee-jerk reaction. (IMG:http://www.914world.com/bbs2/html/emoticons/screwy.gif) (IMG:http://www.914world.com/bbs2/html/emoticons/confused24.gif)

[dinomium]

QUOTE (gregrobbins @ Jan 21 2006, 11:52 AM)

Interesting. In one of the last SCCA magazines someone in an editorial asked you so many other racing organizations are springing up around the country and SCCA is losing followers. BS like this recent change is one reason. Politics. (IMG:http://www.914world.com/bbs2/html/emoticons/finger.gif) In Arizona, if you don't like SCCA, you can run NAPA, ProRacing, Club Racing Arizona. And don't forget the vintage racing groups. Just not the national opportunites, but you can get plenty of track time which is all most people want. Other option, have Jake make you more horse power (IMG:http://www.914world.com/bbs2/html/emoticons/biggrin.gif)

(IMG:http://www.914world.com/bbs2/html/emoticons/agree.gif) between the SCCA and as Peter Egan put it "Fishing with Dynamite" guys, I really think wheel to wheel in my future will be at the regional club level. I have no designs on mounting a national effort anyway!

[ChrisFoley]

QUOTE (gregrobbins @ Jan 21 2006, 01:52 PM)

Other option, have Jake make you more horse power (IMG:http://www.914world.com/bbs2/html/emoticons/biggrin.gif)

That's the problem with chokes. You can't make more horsepower. More torque -yes, more hp - no. I can still lighten the rotating mass and the valve train some more though. I'll run the current engine with the chokes if I have to and we'll do some more development on a Runoffs engine built to work around the restriction. Jake and Len will know what to do. (IMG:http://www.914world.com/bbs2/html/emoticons/idea.gif)

[alpha434]

SCCA has been around for too long. Used to be that a new organization took over every ten years or so, but there's no one with the will power to eliminate SCCA, so they drundle on. Screwing everything up and biasing towards american cars. Tell a corvette owner that he has to put in a restrictor and SCCA would have a letter from Chevrolet in a week.

So anyway. If you don't like the rulings, then walk away. If enough people do, then SCCA will burn itself to the ground and another organization would take it's place.

Local organizations are a good alternative.

[ChrisFoley]

QUOTE (alpha434 @ Jan 21 2006, 06:17 PM)

So anyway. If you don't like the rulings, then walk away. If enough people do, then SCCA will burn itself to the ground and another organization would take it's place.

I've been to some events put on by smaller orgs. SCCA still has them beat for quality, safety and parity for the most part. The only other club that I've participated with on track that comes close is PCA.
Just because I don't like a ruling is no reason for me to leave. I also know I could never get enough people to follow me to break their back.
I know how to work within their system & will do what I can to turn this around. I am batting 1000 with requests I have made in the past.
(IMG:http://www.914world.com/bbs2/html/emoticons/boldblue.gif)

[ChrisFoley]

Here's what I wrote to the SCCA Club Racing Board:

I feel that decreasing the choke sizes to 34mm is an inappropriate and excessive reaction to the Runoffs victory and lap record set by Mark Hotchkis at the 2005 Runoffs for the following reasons:
.The Kirby car was professionally prepared to the highest level and was driven by a former Indy Lights Series professional driver. The car is fully developed after being competed continuously for 25 years and no expense was spared in the car’s preparation for the 2005 Runoffs. It was at the absolute peak of potential. This is beyond even the best prep and performance I have seen from a Huffaker Midget.
.Steve Sargis matched the pace of Mark Hotchkis for more than half of the race, and challenged for the lead numerous times. In fact, he had the fastest lap of the race until lap 13. He both qualified and raced below the existing lap record. Mark Hotchkis made three laps below the previous lap record (lap 13,14,15) and Steve Sargis also made 3 laps below the previous lap record (lap 5,13,14), yet no competition adjustment has been made to the Spitfire for the 2006 season. Also, Steve Sargis lowered the lap record at the 2004 Runoffs, but no competition adjustment was made to the Spitfire for the 2005 season.
.John Saurino qualified below the existing lap record, and despite going off track early in the race and falling to last place, he managed to slice through traffic to finish third. He never had a clear lap due to traffic which means that his best lap time is not a good gauge of his potential, although the way he passed nearly 40 cars in 17 laps to achieve a podium position is a good gauge of his performance and potential. Yet, no competition adjustment has been made to the MG Midget.
.Craig Chima also qualified below the existing lap record, ahead of Mark Hotchkis, but was out of the race on lap 2. He never had a chance to show the full potential of his MGB. Viewing the Speed TV coverage leaves no question that his MGB was every bit as fast as the Kirby 914 on the straights and that he would have been able to challenge Mark had he continued. Yet, no competition adjustment has been made to the MGB for the 2006 season.
.The lack of sufficient trap speeds from qualifying at the 2005 Runoffs means there is not enough data for valid comparisons of speed potential to be made on that basis.
.No other FP 914 has finished higher than 5th place (Les Handley, 2002) in the last 5 years while a Spitfire or MG Midget has finished first or second in each of the last 5 years and beyond.
.Changing the chokes from 38 to 34 mm is a 20% reduction in intake area for the engine. The data simply does not support such a drastic change and I do not understand what basis was used to justify this.
Please rescind the adjustment and reinstate the 38mm chokes for the FP 914-4. If not, the only other appropriate course of action for the CRB is to make negative competition adjustments to the other 3 vehicles which qualified or raced below the previous lap record at the 2005 Runoffs. If the intention is to slow the FP frontrunners, please be fair and make competition adjustments to the Spitfire, MG Midget and MGB.
Thank you for your consideration.

This post has been edited by Racer Chris: Jan 22 2006, 10:15 PM

[jhadler]

Nice Chris. Let's hope it doesn't fall on deaf ears....

-Josh2

[Joe Ricard]

I was thinking of a more go for the throat.
What's your fucking beef against the 914 you knuckle heads. (IMG:http://www.914world.com/bbs2/html/emoticons/finger.gif)

Gee I wonder why I never seem to get people to pay attention to me?
Yea Chris your's is better hope it works.

[ChrisFoley]

The letter is the result of about 5 rewrites with Mary doing most of the critique. That method has served me well so far, everytime I have had an important writing assignment.
I don't tend to use emotion to get my point across. Instead, unassailable logic and clarity seems to be my best tool to convince rule makers that my way is the right way. (IMG:http://www.914world.com/bbs2/html/emoticons/idea.gif)

[gregrobbins]

Good letter Chris. I hope they give it a serious reading and recind the change, or make similar changes to the other cars mentioned.

[Dave_Darling]

Other SCCA members might do well to also send letters to the Club Racing Board. Hearing a number of complaints will probably help draw more attention to Chris' eloquent and and well-thought-out letter.

--DD

[ChrisFoley]

I decided there was more wrong than just an excessive competition adjustment so I wrote this letter to the SCCA Board of Directors. (IMG:http://www.914world.com/bbs2/html/emoticons/mad.gif)

To: SCCA Board of Directors
Subject: Club Racing Competition Adjustments

In the February ‘06 Fastrack Addendum Tech Bulletin, TB 06-02a, it was announced that the FP Porsche 914 is now limited to 34mm venturis, down from 38mm in 2005. This is a drastic change (20% reduction in intake area) and effectively eliminates the 914 from being competetive with the Spitfires and MGs in F Production. I have already written a request to the CRB regarding this change, using their new online request form. A copy of that letter is included below for reference.
I am concerned that fair and proper procedures were not followed during the period leading up to the decision by the CRB. The sole basis for the competition adjustment appears to be that the lap record set by Mark Hotchkis (1:36.28) during the 2005 Runoffs was nearly 0.6 seconds faster than the next fastest car, the Spitfire driven by Steve Sargis (1:36.82).
Several things concern me about the procedure followed by the CRB which prompted me to write to the BOD:
· It is my understanding that a letter was received by the CRB requesting that the 914 be slowed down. NO acknowledgement of the letter was posted in Fastrack as would be the standard operating procedure for such requests. Such an announcement is required in order to give the membership an opportunity to respond and have their collective voice heard on such matters. I understand that the CRB has the ability to make competition adjustments as necessary without consulting the membership, but all requests by individual members should be presented to the rest of the club for their response to be sought. If the Competition Adjustment was made in response to such a private request and not due to a proactive Production Advisory Committee investigation it smacks of the dreaded “good ole boys” syndrome which has unfairly influenced the CRB in the past.
· If the Competition Adjustment was made following a non-biased investigation into Runoffs lap times then the EP Miata would also have had to receive a similar penalty, since Jon Brakke set a new lap record during the ’05 Runoffs EP Race (1:34.96) and was nearly a second faster than the next fastest car ( Lawrence Loshak, Honda Prelude – 1:35.84). However, a similar penalty was not applied to the EP Miata.
· I have never seen a Competition Adjustment of this magnitude handed out in response to a Runoffs lap record, especially after a race as competetive as the FP race was. 4 different types of car had legitimate championship potential and circumstances played as big a role as car prep and driving ability in determining the outcome of this race. Parity already existed between the Porsche, Spitfire, Midget, and MGB and only minor, if any, adjustment was needed to ensure fairness in future competitions.
Please investigate this matter to determine if the CRB acted in the legitimate best interest of fair competition in Club Racing. Thank you for your time.

Sincerely,