Immediate input needed - FC

[Art Smith]

what's going on with the HIGHLY UNUSUAL request for input on changing the FC rules to allow a second supplier of Zetec intake systems?? I'm looking for as many FACTS as can be provided WITHOUT spin! was the request for input approved by the BOD PRIOR to its posting here? if not, how many people by name are currently authorized to take action in the Club's name without the BOD's prior approval?? is the Club being threatened with a lawsuit? if so, what's the alledged basis for the threatened action? is the Club being threatened with the loss of an Enterprises supplier or preferred customer status? how many people participated in the discussion and were in favor of posting the request for input here at ApexSpeed?

I would hope one of the consequences of this unseemly adventure is the BOD requires the National office to hire a senior manager/director with professional procurement experience that understands the technical and legal need for specifications and compliance verification on everything the Club approves for competition and/or requires for competition.

Art
artesmith@earthlink.net

[Mark H]

And just looking at one more thing being talked about earlier in this thread, seeing the entry list for the RRR national race this weekend, the FC class has the LARGEST (non spec SM & SFR have 1 or 2 more) car count. Now if FC is dieing off someone better tell the 12 drivers entered to QUICK sell off them dinosaurs!!! OR the rest of the club classes are in REAL trouble not even being able to out do this failing class?
Thank goodness 'Elan has Van Diemen, now their flag ship car, with the DP01 no longer needed in Champ Car.

[S Lathrop]

Mark;

You obviously do not see any potential of or for mischief when SCCA liscences an engine builder to build a "better Zetec" than QSRE. I would certainly think that better throttle response makes the Elan engine more desireable.

When the first Elan engine shows up to race, how do I or any other competitor know that the engine is a legal engine? What is a legal engine with more than one Zetec engine builder?

If Van Diemen gets its own engine manufacturer with a special engine, then why can't every other chassis manufacturers do the same? Infact maybe we should just make the parts in question free and have engine rules more like Formula Atlantic. Or every one drives a Van Diemen.

The engine is completely different in the way it is tuned. Different intake system, completely reprogrammed ECU because all the sensors are different, and even the cam timing is different. You can not change the map to the SCCA/QSRE map and plug the ECU into a QSRE harness and expect the QSRE equipped engine to run properly.

What would you say if you can only get that engine in a new Georgia build Van Diemen?

What would you say if you just bought a new QSRE Zetec last fall when this whole thing was a plot being hatched in the bowels of who knows where? There was every attempt made to sneak this rule through as a "spec line change" with no input from the advisory board or membership.

I say we leave the rules as they are and work on the problems we had at the end of last year.

[Lee Stohr]

Steve, you can build your own unique engine and submit it for approval.

[John LaRue]

Yes Lee, that would be the appropriate way to do it.

[Lee Stohr]

It may not be appropriate but that's how the system works.

[John LaRue]

You have lost me. What do you mean (not appropriate)?

[R. Pare]

I thinks that Steve meant "unique engine intake", not just "engine" - the rules allow the engine itself to be built by anybody, not just Qsre or Elite.

The rules, up to this point, have mandated a single supplier for the intake system, as well as a single ignition map. The reasoning behind this single supplier was to gain and control "equalization" to the typical Pinto, and the methodology behind the approval of those 2 items was a year-long process of test and verification. We can easily debate the results of that verification, but we cannot debate the reasoning behind the process or the desired results.

For anyone to submit their own intake system and map for approval, they would first need to show just cause to change the rule governing the approved intake system and map, and the Club, with the approval of its members, would have to agree to change the rule governing such - you cannot just haphazardly submit your system for approval and expect to get anywhere without the Club first getting its members approval for such a consequential rules change.

And this is where the rub lies in how this situation came about - at a variety of levels within Club managment, the established proceedures were either ignored, or their meanings twisted to fit a (seemingly) pre-determined outcome.

It is for this reason that considerations are underway to re-write the GCR and for the first time in the Clubs history have concrete rules governing this part of the Clubs activities.

And yes, over the last few years FC has definetely died off compared to its heyday of 10 years ago or so - Nationals used to have 25-35 entries regularly, whereas last year the average was maybe closer to 8.

[Lee Stohr]

"you cannot just haphazardly submit your system for approval and expect to get anywhere without the Club first getting its members approval"

Well, actually anyone can write to the SCCA and ask for a rules change.
I don't think the members get to vote on rules changes. They can write letters, that's it.

[R. Pare]

Lee:

Yes, anyone can write and request a rules change. The issue here is that no one did so until after the fact, AND the CRB tried to sneak it through without going through the proscribed proceedure - they actually DO NOT have ANY authority to change rules (with a "Rule Change being as described in the Rules Making Proceedure available on the Club site) with out member input - they can only recommend a change to the BoD, and the BoD HAS to have it published in Fastrack with a 30 day period of input from the members. The only exception to this need for member input is under special circumstances where the BoD really has no other choice but to get something changed "right now" -safety, etc.

The second issue is when a rule change goes directly against the philosophy behind how a given set of rules was written. In this case, the rule change requested totally ignored the reasoning behind a single supplier for the intake system, PLUS there were no limits given as to the physical form (and therefore performance parameters) that was being allowed!

Member input is indeed a form of "vote" on a rules change - if you don't believe it, go look up the flow charts published in the Operation Manual that show the Members positioned in authority above even the BoD. This is not to claim that the BoD is rules-bound to do only as the members wish, but that their input carries a lot of weight, and is ignored at their peril.

[Lee Stohr]

I think Elan wrote to the SCCA regarding their Zetec back in November.
I'll assume you are right about the 30 day comment period. If the SCCA doesn't follow their procedures, I guess you can write them another nasty letter

I don't know the factors the BOD considers when studying a rule change. I'm sure member imput is important. However, the opinion of 75 members out of 50,000 is probably not the only factor to consider. Or maybe it is, maybe protecting one special interest group of 75 people is all the club should be doing.

I have no idea what the BOD or Comp Board will do. But I guess we will find out next week.

[R. Pare]

Actually, Elan didn't ask for a "rules change" - they asked the Tech office in Topeka if they could make their own manifold, and was told OK go ahead. It wasn't until well after the fact - actually sometime late December - that even the CRB knew about it, and the BoD sometime later. The CRB somehow thought that it was within their rights to issue a "spec line change", which this clearly is not. The BoD, at the Convention, told the CRB that this was NOT a SLC and to get it published post haste for member input.

Yes, as always, there are multiple factors other than member wishes for the BoD to consider, but the wishes of the members of a particular class are generally at the very top of that list. The 75 inputs recieved represent about 80% of the current Zetec owners (ther are about 90 Zetecs currently).

The problem we are primarily faced with is that there is no official rules change proceedure, nor an official description of what constitutes a rules change vs a spec line change vs a clarification - remember, if it ain't in the CGR, it isn't a rule. There is also no published means by which an action of either the BoD or CRB can be officially challenged after the fact - you can write to them in protest, but they are not obligated to answer you in any way shape of form.

Hopefully that will get fixed sometime in the near future - I'm getting tired of having to waste my time writing those nasty letters!

[Lee Stohr]

Maybe procedures and committee's and appeal processes and flow charts are not as important as the question 'What factors are the BOD considering when leading the club?"

[Bill Steele]

Maybe procedures and committee's and appeal processes and flow charts are not as important as the question 'What factors are the BOD considering when leading the club?"

Contrary to the mantra chanted so frequently by the politicians in our midst, self interest is the loadstone guiding most human decisions. Keeping the self interest of those in power congruent with our interests is what we term democracy.

At first glance you would think with a democracy it would be quite simple to accomplish congruence, I guess pretty much nothing is as simple as it appears at first glance.

[S Lathrop]

I believe that the rules for any one class are largely the property of the active participants of that class. In short each class gets the rules they want or really care about.

Now I estimate that there are 200 to 250 active FC racers in SCCA. That includes both Club and Pro cars. For me 75 responses form the FC participants is one substantial sampling. The results of which in all most certainly represent the wishes of the vast majority of the class. When you have a 30% sampling of a population, the margin of error is negligible.

The current engine rules were the work of a lot of FC participants over an extended peroid of time. Those guys got a lot of imput and built a consensus among the participants for the new rules. This change in those rules is a complete contrast: back room deals by people who appear to have their own agendas and without any mambership input. The CRB did not pass this by the advisory committee untill they were forced to. What an insult.

I am going to suggest the the CRB has not been faithful in implimenting the Zetec rules as they were proposed and passed by the BoD in the first place.

Lee; I take it than that you are in full agreement with the change and the proceedures used in this question.

[Lee Stohr]

My opinions have no influence on this issue. I'm curious to see how the BOD decides.
My interest is more about where the SCCA is going, what is the future of amatuer road racing, how does the SCCA compete, etc. I want to see more formula and sports racer participation. Growth.

[R. Pare]

Lee:

Actually, as an Advisory Board member, your opinion DOES count, even if you are among the minority.

There are a couple of issues (actually, a ton of issues!) that directly affect the growth of the Club. One is percieved value, the other is the perception of an open, transparent, but stable and defined, rules making process. Incidents such as this one have the potential of genetating a lot of harm, not only for this class, but for the Club in general.

How the BoD will vote is anyones guess at this point. I guess we'll soon see just how serious they are about adhering to the Club rules and not set a precedent by caving in to threats of civil lawsuits.

[S Lathrop]

My interest is more about where the SCCA is going, what is the future of amatuer road racing, how does the SCCA compete, etc. I want to see more formula and sports racer participation. Growth.

I am certain every one visiting this forum agrees totally with you.

Can you elucidate me as to how this proposal (Elan Engine Concession) will advance that goal?

[Lee Stohr]

Oh yeah, like anyone listens to the advisory committee
I'm still looking for the secret back room

[R. Pare]

I'm still looking for the secret back room

You mean that you haven't recieved your Secret Decoder Ring yet?

[Lee Stohr]

I think you have to reach OT VIII to get the ring