Fran-Am Partnership sues SCCA for not certifying cars

[USF2000]

[url="http://espn.go.com/rpm/others/2002/1028/1452464.html"]rpm.espn.com[/url]

Fran-Am Partnership sues SCCA for not certifying cars

Associated Press

DENVER -- A race-car importer filed suit in federal court Monday alleging the Sports Car Club of America and a subsidiary improperly blocked a French-built Formula race car from competing in SCCA-sanctioned races.

Fran-Am Partnership, of Aspen, Colo., accused the SCCA of refusing to certify the cars, built by Renault Sport, Michelin and Tatuus, to compete in its events.

The suit accuses SCCA of trying to hurt Fran-Am and to give SCCA's for-profit subsidiary, SCCA Enterprises, time to bring a competing car to market.

The suit also says SCCA tried to convince Renault Sport to cancel its contract with Fran-Am and instead work with SCCA and SCCA Enterprises.

The suit, which says SCCA and SCCA Enterprises violated the Sherman Antitrust Act, seeks unspecified damages.

Phone messages left with SCCA after hours Monday were not returned.

The not-for-profit SCCA, with offices in suburban Denver, has more than 2,000 amateur and professional motor sports events each year.

Fran-Am said the French-built, open-wheel cars are the Fran-Am 1600, an entry-level Formula car that sells for about $29,500, and the Fran-Am 2000, a larger and more powerful version. It said the 2000 costs more but did not list a price.

[cdona]

Not only a conflict of interest for club members but unfair trade practices as well.I wonder what our BOD's and President think now.I guess I am not the only lunatic.Let the games begin!

[Donatob]

What class, if any, did Fran-Am request certification in or did they request their own class? As Mike said, this should be interesting.

[Jim Belay]

Apparantly owners of FramAM 2L cars that should be eligible for FS Class (yes, they have FIA crash certifications, etc), have been refused homologation by SCCA HQ. Interesting, since SCCA Pro sanctions the series that uses these cars, so obviously they feel they are safe enough to collect a sanction fee from.

I suspect that SCCA was refusing homologation because they were attempting to change the rules for FS, and didn't want to grandfather in some cars, then refuse other identical cars later. The membship however responded to prevent the FS rules from taking effect, and now it looks pretty bad for the SCCA.

The SCCA BOD has said that sucess of a new car will be decided by members who will vote with their checkbook. Looks like the FranAM cars got a bunch of people to do just that (something like 40 cars in the US now), but SCCA may have dragged their feet in order to bring their own car to market. I think they've been caught with their hand in the cookie jar.

It will be interesting to see what happens...

[Chuck Gillis]

It's going to be a realllllllllly interesting NorPac convention in January. Steve Johnson and JoAnn Jensen will both be there to answer member concerns. I can't wait to ask about this one.

Could it be that the inherent conflict of interest just added ANOTHER layer of complexity? Sure looks that way from the outside. Imagine the sanctioning body that makes the rules, makes the cars, and can restrict the entry of a competing car by denying homologation, especially one that is already selling in the US. Hmmmmmm.

[USF2000]

IMHO, I'd say this is a lose-lose situation that the leadership of our club has put the members in.

Pretty much all of the major sanctioning bodies in the world have approved the Renault cars for competition and they have documented FIA safety approval.

This really isn't about letting them run FS in regionals, this is what bothers me (re-read it)and if it can be proved in court:

[b]The suit accuses SCCA of trying to hurt Fran-Am and to give SCCA's for-profit subsidiary, SCCA Enterprises, time to bring a competing car to market.[/b]

[b]The suit also says SCCA tried to convince Renault Sport to cancel its contract with Fran-Am and instead work with SCCA and SCCA Enterprises.[/b]

I looked (briefly,it's quite a read and I could be wrong) at the Sherman Anti-Trust statues, penaltys against a Corporation, IF found guilty, can be up to 10 million dollars.

It will be interesting to see how this plays out and how much will it cost the club to represent itself in the lawsuit? -Dave

[size="1"][ October 30, 2002, 08:33 AM: Message edited by: Dave Hopple ][/size]

[DENIS]

I agree completely.

The real loosers here are US, the members in the long run. Simply due to the over zelous nature of some folks on the BOD who have plans to do things that just don't make sense or are 'right'. While I have mixed feelings on the new car, the car is NOT the problem, it's the 'how it got there' issue.

As a side note, given the problems they have helped create in FM now with their approval of a second builder (like he's gonna make any money on this!) I wonder how they would take to myself or Sauce or others making parts for THEIR car or reproducing the entire car?? Oh, wait a minute. Not like FM (a "one design class" in the rule boook) this is a "one builder class" so that means you'd have to buy the parts from KC. So much for open market. Back to the top....

[cdona]

I really hoped I would never have to say I told you so but here we are.If in fact Anti Trust violations can be proven,this could bankrupt SCCA.The club does not have 10 million or even 5 million in liquidity assets that I know of.This could be really bad.One way the club could prove the Fran Am people wrong would be to let the members that are against it speak up.But then the members that were against their Spec car would also demand equal time and equal treatment and that would also hurt SCCA financially.This is a no win deal.The SCCA Board has created a very serious problem for it's members.If there are any lawyers with this type of experience that frequent this board I would like to hear their spin on this.

[timmy]

Good rational discussion of this over at the F2000 site.

OBTW, Renault can afford more and better lawyers than SCCA. Word is the "big guys" behind Fran-Am are a bit pissed at SCCA, and are no longer in a mediation mood.

[El Guapo]

Here we go again...
A few years ago something remotely similar happened to the American Motorcyclist Association (AMA), a non-profit CLUB with strong parallel market positions to the SCCA except in the 2 wheel world. The one big difference is that the AMA pretty much owns pro racing while the SCCA does not. Anyway, the AMA pro package was a partnership between AMA and Roger Edmondson's for-profit company called CCS. The AMA brought it's Superbike and 250GP classes, and CCS brought the popular Supersport and the Harley 883 classes.

The AMA decided to get arrogant and forced Edmonson out and illegally stole Edmonson's classes as their own. Edmonson sued, and won something like $3 million in damages from the AMA. The case was a little bizarre, exposing the AMA's nasty and deliberate subterfuge and personal intimidation tactics to get their way. The fiasco resulted in the resignation of the AMA's president, and the resignation of myself as a member after they received a nasty letter from me. The monthly AMA magazine, similar to Sportscar, made a quick mention of the president's resignation attributed to 'family' or something as vague, and of course NEVER mentioned a peep about the lawsuit and damages to the general membership. They also anounced a big membership fee increase in the same issue.

The AMA is a much larger organization, I think 200,000 members, but $3M is a big hit. Imagine what even $1M would do to the SCCA! The AMA or CCS never sold their own vehicles or had that type of conflict of interest, and look at how much trouble the AMA got into by being arrogant. Having Enterprises to look after multiples the chances of falling into that mud pit. IMHO the way to build a CLUB empire is to do one thing very well (sanction events) and to increase members and participation, not get into the car and parts business. Will we see reduced entry fees or something because of Enterprises? (ha ha!). Of course the SCCA hasn't been proven guilty in the Fran-Am thing, but the vibes feel odd.

[cdona]

I wonder if the individual directors are liable criminally or civilly for the BOD's decisions should the Fran Am partners prove Anti Trusts violations?Would'nt that be interesting?This type of litagation is very expensive to defend from what I have heard.I guess the members will take it in the back pocket again.All this to keep Enterprises in business.What a waste.

[Dale Carter]

Holy smokes! The internet is an amazing thing! So far, based on one newspaper article, we've got the SCCA Directors "caught with their hands in the cookie jar" (that generally means they're all common thieves), the SCCA will be paying out $10,000,000 in fines; we've got all the Members having to shell out money to keep the Club afloat and now the Directors are criminals and will probably be locked up for years! Before you know it, the Members will be asked to help raise the Directors' children and contribute to their college funds; Enterprises' management will be strung up from a tall tree - somewhere in Texas I assume - and then, for sure, all road racing will be banned by Tony George when he takes over amateur racing all across America! What ever happened to facts anyway? I sure haven't seen any yet.

PS I should probably add that I don't like the sound of this lawsuit stuff either! If there is validity to what the suit implies - to one degree or another - the SCCA will need to re-assess its position and work toward resolution to avoid potentially big problems. Nevertheless, to jump to conclusions without one bit of information beyond a newspaper article seems just a bit premature. And to suggest that the Directors, in essence, risk time in the clink or that they are potentially personally liable as a consequnce of criminal acts is just plain off-the-wall.

[size="1"][ October 30, 2002, 08:45 PM: Message edited by: John Merriman ][/size]

[JJ]

What a shame. So many of us want nothing more than buy a cool little race car, go to a race track on the weekend & let the adrenaline flow.
I would believe that all the talk is because of a prevailing belief that SCCA no longer has the memberships interest at heart. Maybe a disconnect between the top & the adrenaline seekers.
But this problem is probable no different than with the politics in the US today. Not enough of us get involved.
If this lawsuit is creditable then it will be up to the members to rethink it's choices on it's leadership. Once again, what a shame. This is suppose to be fun.

[cdona]

John -I wonder if you ever see a foul?

[DENIS]

I believe being on the local BOD, that members are, like here, bonded. Meaning they may make decissions on club business, but cannot be held liable to a personal account of the clubs workings. Then again, I'd not want to be on the hot seat for this one....

Also, I agree with John to a point. We have yet to see or hear any solid info beyond the posted story. I'd like to think they can work out an amicable (SP?) solution to this. Which in fact may be the real reason behind the suit. Given the state of FranAm and its other problems- meanig comp from Zetec and new FM, they may very well feel this is a great strong arm tactic on their part to get the cars into the SCCA. The result may simply be a re thinking of the SCCA's position on it.

[USF2000]

To me, it's simple, it doesn't matter who's right or wrong or how thick the rollbar is, it's bad for the Club, we should be thinking and talking about [b]why[/b] are we even in this position to be sued?

So much for this whole Spec Car business as a "low risk" for the club membership.-Dave

P.S. This isn't going to help retire the SCCA Enterprises debt to the club is it? Maybe we can sucker Bernie E. into buying it, to go along with his Cart stock :D

[size="1"][ October 31, 2002, 09:22 AM: Message edited by: Dave Hopple ][/size]

[cdona]

I am not for stringing the BOD's up but I am against irresponsible decisions that don't represent members concerns.I think it is obvious that this BOD's and President are focussed on other agendas.I think based on input from various
people,there are members that have dissatifaction with recent issues.This lawsuit only confirms that there is unfairness and partisan politics at the highest level of our club.If in fact this suit can be proven,it will not only costs the club financially it will also be black eye for our club in the motorsports world.By the way John,it is nothing personal I am glad you support the BOD's as I do but when there is a foul I gotta call it the way I see it.

[Keith Carter]

[quote]Originally posted by John Merriman:
[b]

PS I should probably add that I don't like the sound of this lawsuit stuff either! If there is validity to what the suit implies - to one degree or another - the SCCA will need to re-assess its position and work toward resolution to avoid potentially big problems. Nevertheless, to jump to conclusions without one bit of information beyond a newspaper article seems just a bit premature. And to suggest that the Directors, in essence, risk time in the clink or that they are potentially personally liable as a consequnce of criminal acts is just plain off-the-wall.[/b][/quote]Mike,
It seems that John recognizes a problems, but he is also following an idea that our founding fathers thought up,
Innocent until proven guilty.

This entire thread is based on an article and not a legal brief. Before we start talking trash, lets get the facts.

Maybe the Fran Am has a legitimate safety concern, I DO NOT KNOW. You do not know.

It will all come out, if it has merit. It could just be a PR stunt by Fran Am.

Don't start with the sky is falling stuff until something happens. It is like Y2K all over again.

(I hope that the analogies don't upset you Mr.C)

[DKRock]

Right and wrong, innocence and guilt no longer matter. It's in the legal system now. Many lawsuits are nothing more than extortion gambits. I. E. being buried by legal expenses just to defend yourself.

SCCA will continue to expose itself to these types of lawsuits for as long as Enterprises is part of the equation and decisions are made by the BOD for the benefit of Enterprises. The ONLY way SCCA can protect itself from similar lawsuits from other manufacturers in the future is to divest itself of the Enterprises albatross.

Lawsuits are just a tool. They do not prove anything insofar as right and wrong. We are talking about the LEGAL system here. What matters is what is LEGAL. Not what is right or just. In my bitter opinion.

[sarrcford]

Non-profit or for-profit, corporate directors have a high degree of responsibility, and may be subject to personal legal action. Most directors, before accepting a position, demand that they have Directors & Officers insurance to protect themselves in the case of litigation. I have no idea whether SCCA maintains D&O insurance for these folks, but I'm sure that many of them have become very interested now that they may be in jeopardy.

Larry Oliver
International Racing Products

[cdona]

Dave,Joe ,John etc. all bring up good points.For the club to be in this position is attributable only to SCCA the sanctioning body being in control and responsible for SCCA Enterprises the spec car manufacturer,dealer and parts supplier.It is and always will be a CONFLICT of INTEREST not only for members but for car manufacuturers,prep shops,engine builders and anyone else who is a member and has business in SCCA santioned motorsports.

[jerry]

I am going to throw something into the mix that may be germaine to this whole topic. The issue of collusion and conspiracy on the part of the BOD aside, there may be a simpler explanation for FranAm cars not to be homologated within the SCCA. There has been quite a bit of discussion on another board concerning the use of carbon fiber in the construction of the tub. I get the impression that Tech and the BOD may be hesitant to allow a car to be raced that the regions could not police in reguard to safety. The car has passed the FIA crash tests, but what happens when it has to be repaired after a shunt on track. Do the Tech inspectors within the SCCA have the knowledge to understand what needs to happen and where does a competitor get the work done? I don't know of any autoclaves in my area except maybe Penske Racing. The other issue is the longevity of carbon fiber. As I have read, it does have a shelve life and improper storage of a car under various climatic conditions can possibly lead to delamination and other types of failure. I do not any experience with carbon fiber and perhaps Richare Pare or someone else on ff1600 can comment. Do I think that the BOD may have been protecting Enterprise, by failing to allow the FranAm cars into our ranks. Quite possibly. Do I believe that it's the only reason, probably not.
Greg Kokolus
NCF #56

[Chuck Gillis]

Greg: There are other cars homologated by SCCA with carbon fiber tubs, so I don't think this is going to float the conspiracy theorists boat.

As for your question: "Do the Tech inspectors within the SCCA have the knowledge to understand what needs to happen and where does a competitor get the work done?", we really don't need to have expertise in cf repair, we are only allowed/required to note damage in the logbook. It is the competitors sole responsibility to effect repairs, not ours.

gm

[cdona]

Most carbon fiber tubs have a useable lifespan longer than most typical space frames if cared for and repaired properly when damaged.The main difference is it is much easier to inspect the integrity of a repair made on a space frame(tubular steel) than a repair to a carbon tub.Steel space frames loose rigidity sooner than carbon tubbed cars do because any good carbon tub is over built.Space frames have a useable lifespan before they begin to flex and stress.Carbon tubs are typically built not to flex with much tighter restrictions on tolerence and rigitity than space frames.Carbon bonded structures have a certain lifespan and so do space frames.Space frames are built so the can be repaired and gussited to retain rigitity when the lifecycle is reaching its end.When a carbon fiber structures life cycle is over it is over.Just a few thoughts from my friend in the aircraft business.

[fcracer17]

As Greg said, this is not the first composite tub to be homologated by the SCCA. If the concern is with the method of construction and policing dmaage or life of the tub, the rule allowing CF tubs shouldn't be in the book. However, the rule IS there and the Fran-Am car follows the rule to the letter (more so than the new Spec car.) Clearly, this lawsuit has nothing to do with the construction of the car or technical details. If it did, Fran-Am would have a very specific reason why their cars are not homologated and no grounds for filing a suit.

[sarrcford]

As Mike and others have noted, carbon fiber has been used in the aerospace industry for more than 15 years. The use includes flight control surfaces and even some composite fuselages that are subject to pressurization. While I don't know the specific tests for each particular aircraft, many hull tests require 100,000 pressurization cycles.

It would be a tough battle to convince a jury that, while carbon fiber is good enough for jet airliners operating in environments that span from -50 to +130 and thousands of cycles, that it isn't structurally acceptable for club racing.

Larry Oliver
International Racing Products

[Todd Colwell]

Mike B:

A minor correction, the new spec car is a tube frame chasis.

[fcracer17]

I'm aware that the new spec car is a tube frame. The point I was making is that it doesn't(legally) fit in the class it's been assigned to. It only belongs in FS, as does the FranAm (and that's all Renault is asking for.)

[cdona]

What is the situation with our club leaders and staff if in fact Fran Am has a legitimate case?Where does that leave us as members and competitors?I would think that a move by the membership to keep the BOD's from protecting Enterprises with little or no regard to the members well being is in order.Enterprises should either be sold off or kept just to keep Spec Racer parts and engine rebuilding available to the SCCA memmbers that have invested in those cars.Don't allow Enterprises to sell cars that compete with other classes which can adversely affect the credibility and integrity of SCCA the sanctioning body.Just a thought.Anyone got an idea of how to deal with this kind of situation with Enterprises?

[KEVIN BOECKLE]

I am an aerospace structural engineer with expereience in designing structures out of composites (graphite/Kevlar/fiberglass).

The fibers themselves last forever with little or no degredation. It's the epoxy that holds it all together that deteriorates. It is very analogous to leaving an empty plastic bottle out in the sun. The thing turns to powder in the UV light.

Yet, I am more afraid to drive in a 30 year old brazed together made-in-England space frame than I would be to drive in a 10 year old carbon tub. As long as the tub does not get exposed to UV light, it should last many years.

The Carbon components on most aircraft see much more extreme enviroments and are rated to last for years. The key is to paint the parts to keep the sun away.

I keep seeing all these bare black composite components all over the place. They look pretty, but paint the stupid things with a very thin layer of poly to keep the sun off!

Now the thing the tech inspectors should look at on a repaired tub is delamination. Also, they should be very cognisant of some idiot using fiberglass.

In reality, all carbon components are made in an autoclave under high heat and heavy vacuum.

The high heat is to cure the resin. The vacuum is to drive off excess resin between the layers.

A really good layup will have as little resin as possible to hold the fibers together. The fibers are where all the strength is, not the resin.

So essentially, any repair that is made with a chemical cure resin out in the open without an autoclave will be significantly weaker than the original part due to the very high concentration of resin. Essentially this type of repair is no different than doing non structural body work on a Corvette.

If the damage to a carbon tub is just a small hole( less than 2" in diameter ) in a side panel, it can be repaired without an autoclave and still be safe. Anything larger,particularly at a stress concentration point such as a corner or a suspension attachment, and I would say throw the tub away. Sorry, but that's life when it comes to composites. That's the risk someone takes when buying a car with a composite tub.

[Eduardo]

I say lets hang em and skip the fair trial. [img]smile.gif[/img]

First visit to the new boards since FFU went dark. No change. The same people are full speed ahead negative. Anti-club, full of criticism, but before the facts and evidence have been presented.

I thought some of you were forming your own club and leaving the SCCA. The complication is that then, you would be the BOD and you would be the target for all the cheap shots.

I enjoy reading the racing reports, the car information and personal notes. If this is nothing but a forum for bashing the SCCA, then I can find better ways to spend my time.

[Keith Carter]

Here is a shot across the bow.
I am closing this post. If somebody wants to send me some REAL evidence of this suit or discuss something other than total nonsense, send it to me. I will gladly open the thread up.

This is an important issue, but we have no facts or evidence, so everything that is written here is a waste of server space.

[dc]

I have opened this thread up for discussion again, because I don't believe that anything other than the topic getting WAY out of bounds occurred.

However, let it be blatanly known in case you have forgotten, that this subject is a HUGE hot button in this circle. It is being watched [b]VERY[/b] closely and I will not hesitate to lock it up for good if it strays off topic again or turns into the "SCCA Conspiracy Theory, 2003."

-doug

[cdona]

I was faxed a copy of the lawsuit complaint that Fran Am has filed against the SCCA.The powers that be with regard to SCCA Enterprises and SCCA appear to have created a mess for everyone.This lawsuit is much more than just SCCA not classifying the Fran am cars.The Fran Am people have letters that can prove some of the allegations.Recently I have been emailed by several different people that seem to think it is normal for SCCA to have many lawsuits filed against it.I would think that it is not normal and is a sign of irresponsible policy.I have no interest in Fran Am or FM or Mazda's Spec Sports racers.I do however want the Club to act fairly,responsibly and with integrity.It appears
if any of the allegations in this complaint are true they have not.I hope soon that this lawsuit complaint will be posted here so everyone can read it for themselves.

[dc]

I have a copy of the complaint, and I will be scanning it to convert into an Acrobat PDF file for anyone who would like to read it for themselves.

I just received the legal document, and I want to go over it, but I will post it here when it is web ready.

doug