FA Parity

[problemchild]

[QUOTE=Stan Clayton;595643]

Jose, is there anywhere in SCCA that FB and FA do not already run together in the same race group?

If folks want to advocate moving FB to FX or FC instead of FA, go for it, but let's not pretend that FB and FA have not run together for years with no more than normal risk...and will probably continue to do so irrespective of their class of assignment since these classes frequently, if not nearly always, run together in the same race group.

Which is why merging them does absolutely nothing for anybody other than checking off a box on some conceptual list created by people trying to immediately undo the policy of SCCA over four decades.

[RussMcB]

Which is why merging them does absolutely nothing for anybody other than checking off a box on some conceptual list created by people trying to immediately undo the policy of SCCA over four decades.

Doesn't merging FA/FB give them a chance to continue racing in SCCA Majors, whereas not merging them, both classes would become Regional-only classes?

[problemchild]

Doesn't merging FA/FB give them a chance to continue racing in SCCA Majors, whereas not merging them, both classes would become Regional-only classes?

SCCA picks and chooses which rules to ignore, reform, and how to do it, and when. They have been ignoring their own rules ( adding new classes and keeping underperforming classes) for several decades. By enforcing rules now, and requiring competitors to spend 10s of thousands of dollars and/or making dozens of cars uncompetitive, they are purposefully trying to disenfranchise members to clear space for members that they believe fit into their future operations model. It is a completely calculated strategy aimed at eliminating the traditional SCCA Formula classes. A few SCCA cheerleaders won't accept this clear agenda, and contribute to the charade by projecting the premise that finding ways to merge classes, will "save" the classes. The way to save the classes is to maintain the status quo, and put underperforming classes into a single group for the Runoffs, as they are for all other SCCA races in the USA.

Problem solved! Did not cost one cent! Next?

[billwald]

OH how i remember that Road Atlanta race in 2008 (?) (ARRC?).
Red Piper with Suzuki.
Novak VD conversions with Suzukis.
Wald had a new Sthor (sp?) in McClaren orange.
Fairly good field.
High hopes then for the future....

Those were very good, fun times with F1000! I ran my Stohr for 10 years. First with 10/Tenths and then with FinnSpeed. We had some great guest drivers, Shane L and Cole, rented the car out for Florida Majors. I didn't sell the car due to any reason other than wanting to try something different - PFM. In hindsight, should have kept the FB! Loved the car and class, still do.

[RussMcB]

Those were very good, fun times with F1000!

There are a few fun, old pictures in this thread:

https://www.apexspeed.com/forums/sho...RRC-Experience

Many pictures are missing, probably because we need to clear up some space from time to time.

(sorry for the thread lo-jack).

[jose gerardo]

SCCA picks and chooses which rules to ignore, reform, and how to do it, and when. They have been ignoring their own rules ( adding new classes and keeping underperforming classes) for several decades. By enforcing rules now, and requiring competitors to spend 10s of thousands of dollars and/or making dozens of cars uncompetitive, they are purposefully trying to disenfranchise members to clear space for members that they believe fit into their future operations model. It is a completely calculated strategy aimed at eliminating the traditional SCCA Formula classes. A few SCCA cheerleaders won't accept this clear agenda, and contribute to the charade by projecting the premise that finding ways to merge classes, will "save" the classes. The way to save the classes is to maintain the status quo, and put underperforming classes into a single group for the Runoffs, as they are for all other SCCA races in the USA.

Problem solved! Did not cost one cent! Next?

Dear Problem Child, your comment about SCCA picking and choosing classes to reform, consolidate or eliminate has been discusses extensively and I have heard this repeatedly and the way SCCA go about communicating these changes leaves much of the membership to believe there is a hidden agenda understood by SCCA Leadership only and not by the General Membership.

I and others believe the SCCA has to survey the classes that are on the chopping block for whatever reason and give them a chance to decide their own direction, either within the SCCA or outside of it.

[Mike B]

There are a few fun, old pictures in this thread:

https://www.apexspeed.com/forums/sho...RRC-Experience

Many pictures are missing, probably because we need to clear up some space from time to time.

(sorry for the thread lo-jack).

Russ,
Thanks for the walk down memory lane. A lot has changed since the first season in 2007. Unfortunately, some things have not changed:

I can only hope that recent debates don't derail the positive momentum generated last weekend.

Either my statement from 2007 (post #110) was accidentally prophetic, or we really have been battling perception for 12 years.

[reidhazelton]

I and others believe the SCCA has to survey the classes that are on the chopping block for whatever reason and give them a chance to decide their own direction, either within the SCCA or outside of it.

Bingo. This was my exact stance on the FA/FB merger. There was zero interest in doing so.

Here is the letter I wrote after the merger occurred. The reply from SCCA; crickets. Nothing has changed.

Dear CRB,
I am writing to you today in effort to encourage modernizing the rules making process to include two-way communication with membership. This lack of dialogue has led to many negative sentiments expressed about SCCA. During my time on the FSRAC, I had experienced nothing but hard-working people who give their time to aid SCCA and feel the negative sentiments are unfairly or incorrectly placed. However, the cause of those negative sentiments attributed to SCCA from the perspective of the larger body of membership is hard to deny. The letter writing process is frozen in the pre-internet era. As one forum poster put it, “that system is just a step better than hammers, chisels and stone tablets”. It’s a one-way communication valve. When members take time to write a letter concerning a major rule change, or a minor one for that matter, the response is ‘thank you for your input’. You can’t blame the membership for feeling disenfranchised when changes occur which they do not agree and there is little to no explanation or public discussion. Times have changed, and the ways in which we communicate have changed. We don’t write letters. People expect to have an exchange of ideas and I will outline below the current state and a modern solution which I urge SCCA to accept.

Per the SCCA handbook: “In the course of researching committee related issues, it is appropriate to view information contained on common racing websites and web boards. Participation on these venues should be treated with extreme care. . .. Regardless of how a comment is prefaced, any responses on public forums will be interpreted as an official response of the Advisory Committee.”

If this is a concern to be truly avoided, there either needs to be a ban on all posting by committee members or authorized and dedicated spokesperson or spokespeople who can speak for the relevant committee. Anything other than that, and just stating ‘to use extreme care’ does nothing to address the perceived issue this policy tries, and fails, or resolve. This policy creates worse issues by fostering a lack transparency and closed communication. For example, take the current FB/FA merger which I was a part of while on the FSRAC. Many FB members felt they were blindsided and had no input, and it seems most are against it. That lead to the same story lines, distrust, skepticism, disenfranchisement, and conspiracy theories. To have a class merger and have members of that class caught off guard is a highly detrimental situation for SCCA. If members are not aware, the current system for getting that information to members is broken and needs to be changed. Additionally, a two-way communication channel would have allowed other important information, such as that now learned on the forum conversation, to be gained by the FSRAC which could have led to a better outcome for the class. If this is to be a true member driven club, it needs to engage in these conversations and make more effort to provide information on rules change so that more members are informed.

Why does this all matter? If racers already have one foot on a limited-racing-budget banana peel, it does not take much to push them out of SCCA. Given the continually declining race entries, this is not something that can be ignored. When a racer is given a large rule change and feels they had no input, it is logical for them to feel disenfranchised. That leads to feelings of resentment, bitterness, or disappointment which in turn will lead them to go elsewhere or just stay home. We have seen this with nearly every large rule change and class merger, FA/FB merger, S2000 merger, Honda engine in FF, Zetec engine in FC, F600 inclusion into F500, etc.

The letter writing process is broken due to what most members perceive to be a lack of transparency; they do not feel that their voices are heard or considered during the rules process, and many are surprised when rules changes come into effect. During my time on the FSRAC I saw no self-dealing. Quite the opposite. However, when a competitor takes time to write a letter and all they receive is “Thank you for you input”, they are unable to see the genuine good efforts and earnest conversations taking place inside the committee on their behalf, and assume—particularly when rulings are issued that seem to run counter to their interests—that the “higher powers” are uninterested in or unmoved by them or their concerns. Additionally, FasTrack does not seem to be the majority of members’ main source for information. Evidence of this is seen in the majority of FA and FB members discovering the changes only when read on a forum or in a written response from the BoD after the decision has been made. As membership changes so does its preferred or expected communication methods and styles. If something is falling out of favor, what is in favor and most used should be adapted. Internet forums have become the main communication channel for racers. It’s a live, real time exchange that is highly transparent.

I propose naming a facilitator authorized to engage in dialogue with racers online in real time, thereby creating an environment of transparency and genuine, open discussion. This will allow FSRAC to:

• · lay out the given situation and facts as they are known, and the options available;
• · engage racers (past, current, and potential), seek their input, and create the kind of lively discussion that will promote investment and allow SCCA to continue to grow;
• · explain the reasoning behind rule changes and perhaps understand better how racers are impacted by them;
• · and dispel the “good old boys” self-serving conspiracies that are often thrown at SCCA.

This is the very process that I used to successfully implement a spec tire in Formula F. Spec tires had been the pipe dream for Formula Ford for 20 years, with multiple efforts year after year, failing based on the communication bottleneck created by the letter-writing system, and the lack of transparency that resulted. An online, real-time exchange allowed stakeholders to debate pros and cons, and finally decide on a choice supported by over 75% of those polled. When has any class ever agreed on anything, let alone by such a large majority? Even those who didn’t like the group’s majority decision respected it and felt like they had been heard in the decision-making process and had transparency into that process.

Yes, there will be forum trolls, but it also aids in lessening the trolls because more people will have accurate information and less reliance on assumption and conspiracy theory. Trolls are created in vacuums of information. When inaccurate opinions are formed due to a lack of available information—such as through the current one-way communication channel--SCCA only has itself to blame.

For changes this large and this impactful there needs to be more than ‘thank you for your input’. That response is seen as dismissive, an electronic garbage-canning of their input. The irony of writing a letter about the letter writing process is not lost on me. I look forward to being thanked for my input.

Thank you for your volunteerism for SCCA,

Reid Hazelton, 386688.

[jose gerardo]

Bingo. This was my exact stance on the FA/FB merger. There was zero interest in doing so.

Here is the letter I wrote after the merger occurred. The reply from SCCA; crickets. Nothing has changed.

Dear CRB,
I am writing to you today in effort to encourage modernizing the rules making process to include two-way communication with membership. This lack of dialogue has led to many negative sentiments expressed about SCCA. During my time on the FSRAC, I had experienced nothing but hard-working people who give their time to aid SCCA and feel the negative sentiments are unfairly or incorrectly placed. However, the cause of those negative sentiments attributed to SCCA from the perspective of the larger body of membership is hard to deny. The letter writing process is frozen in the pre-internet era. As one forum poster put it, “that system is just a step better than hammers, chisels and stone tablets”. It’s a one-way communication valve. When members take time to write a letter concerning a major rule change, or a minor one for that matter, the response is ‘thank you for your input’. You can’t blame the membership for feeling disenfranchised when changes occur which they do not agree and there is little to no explanation or public discussion. Times have changed, and the ways in which we communicate have changed. We don’t write letters. People expect to have an exchange of ideas and I will outline below the current state and a modern solution which I urge SCCA to accept.

Per the SCCA handbook: “In the course of researching committee related issues, it is appropriate to view information contained on common racing websites and web boards. Participation on these venues should be treated with extreme care. . .. Regardless of how a comment is prefaced, any responses on public forums will be interpreted as an official response of the Advisory Committee.”

If this is a concern to be truly avoided, there either needs to be a ban on all posting by committee members or authorized and dedicated spokesperson or spokespeople who can speak for the relevant committee. Anything other than that, and just stating ‘to use extreme care’ does nothing to address the perceived issue this policy tries, and fails, or resolve. This policy creates worse issues by fostering a lack transparency and closed communication. For example, take the current FB/FA merger which I was a part of while on the FSRAC. Many FB members felt they were blindsided and had no input, and it seems most are against it. That lead to the same story lines, distrust, skepticism, disenfranchisement, and conspiracy theories. To have a class merger and have members of that class caught off guard is a highly detrimental situation for SCCA. If members are not aware, the current system for getting that information to members is broken and needs to be changed. Additionally, a two-way communication channel would have allowed other important information, such as that now learned on the forum conversation, to be gained by the FSRAC which could have led to a better outcome for the class. If this is to be a true member driven club, it needs to engage in these conversations and make more effort to provide information on rules change so that more members are informed.

Why does this all matter? If racers already have one foot on a limited-racing-budget banana peel, it does not take much to push them out of SCCA. Given the continually declining race entries, this is not something that can be ignored. When a racer is given a large rule change and feels they had no input, it is logical for them to feel disenfranchised. That leads to feelings of resentment, bitterness, or disappointment which in turn will lead them to go elsewhere or just stay home. We have seen this with nearly every large rule change and class merger, FA/FB merger, S2000 merger, Honda engine in FF, Zetec engine in FC, F600 inclusion into F500, etc.

The letter writing process is broken due to what most members perceive to be a lack of transparency; they do not feel that their voices are heard or considered during the rules process, and many are surprised when rules changes come into effect. During my time on the FSRAC I saw no self-dealing. Quite the opposite. However, when a competitor takes time to write a letter and all they receive is “Thank you for you input”, they are unable to see the genuine good efforts and earnest conversations taking place inside the committee on their behalf, and assume—particularly when rulings are issued that seem to run counter to their interests—that the “higher powers” are uninterested in or unmoved by them or their concerns. Additionally, FasTrack does not seem to be the majority of members’ main source for information. Evidence of this is seen in the majority of FA and FB members discovering the changes only when read on a forum or in a written response from the BoD after the decision has been made. As membership changes so does its preferred or expected communication methods and styles. If something is falling out of favor, what is in favor and most used should be adapted. Internet forums have become the main communication channel for racers. It’s a live, real time exchange that is highly transparent.

I propose naming a facilitator authorized to engage in dialogue with racers online in real time, thereby creating an environment of transparency and genuine, open discussion. This will allow FSRAC to:

• · lay out the given situation and facts as they are known, and the options available;
• · engage racers (past, current, and potential), seek their input, and create the kind of lively discussion that will promote investment and allow SCCA to continue to grow;
• · explain the reasoning behind rule changes and perhaps understand better how racers are impacted by them;
• · and dispel the “good old boys” self-serving conspiracies that are often thrown at SCCA.

This is the very process that I used to successfully implement a spec tire in Formula F. Spec tires had been the pipe dream for Formula Ford for 20 years, with multiple efforts year after year, failing based on the communication bottleneck created by the letter-writing system, and the lack of transparency that resulted. An online, real-time exchange allowed stakeholders to debate pros and cons, and finally decide on a choice supported by over 75% of those polled. When has any class ever agreed on anything, let alone by such a large majority? Even those who didn’t like the group’s majority decision respected it and felt like they had been heard in the decision-making process and had transparency into that process.

Yes, there will be forum trolls, but it also aids in lessening the trolls because more people will have accurate information and less reliance on assumption and conspiracy theory. Trolls are created in vacuums of information. When inaccurate opinions are formed due to a lack of available information—such as through the current one-way communication channel--SCCA only has itself to blame.

For changes this large and this impactful there needs to be more than ‘thank you for your input’. That response is seen as dismissive, an electronic garbage-canning of their input. The irony of writing a letter about the letter writing process is not lost on me. I look forward to being thanked for my input.

Thank you for your volunteerism for SCCA,

Reid Hazelton, 386688.

Reid, Extremely well laid out, I hope the SCCA Listens and understand that the Membership needs to define it's own direction, not just a handful of folks.

I would be happy to participate in any efforts we collectively decide to undertake to help SCCA Improve.

Regards

Jose Gerardo

[Jnovak]

Bingo. This was my exact stance on the FA/FB merger. There was zero interest in doing so.

Here is the letter I wrote after the merger occurred. The reply from SCCA; crickets. Nothing has changed.

Dear CRB,
I am writing to you today in effort to encourage modernizing the rules making process to include two-way communication with membership. This lack of dialogue has led to many negative sentiments expressed about SCCA. During my time on the FSRAC, I had experienced nothing but hard-working people who give their time to aid SCCA and feel the negative sentiments are unfairly or incorrectly placed. However, the cause of those negative sentiments attributed to SCCA from the perspective of the larger body of membership is hard to deny. The letter writing process is frozen in the pre-internet era. As one forum poster put it, “that system is just a step better than hammers, chisels and stone tablets”. It’s a one-way communication valve. When members take time to write a letter concerning a major rule change, or a minor one for that matter, the response is ‘thank you for your input’. You can’t blame the membership for feeling disenfranchised when changes occur which they do not agree and there is little to no explanation or public discussion. Times have changed, and the ways in which we communicate have changed. We don’t write letters. People expect to have an exchange of ideas and I will outline below the current state and a modern solution which I urge SCCA to accept.

Per the SCCA handbook: “In the course of researching committee related issues, it is appropriate to view information contained on common racing websites and web boards. Participation on these venues should be treated with extreme care. . .. Regardless of how a comment is prefaced, any responses on public forums will be interpreted as an official response of the Advisory Committee.”

If this is a concern to be truly avoided, there either needs to be a ban on all posting by committee members or authorized and dedicated spokesperson or spokespeople who can speak for the relevant committee. Anything other than that, and just stating ‘to use extreme care’ does nothing to address the perceived issue this policy tries, and fails, or resolve. This policy creates worse issues by fostering a lack transparency and closed communication. For example, take the current FB/FA merger which I was a part of while on the FSRAC. Many FB members felt they were blindsided and had no input, and it seems most are against it. That lead to the same story lines, distrust, skepticism, disenfranchisement, and conspiracy theories. To have a class merger and have members of that class caught off guard is a highly detrimental situation for SCCA. If members are not aware, the current system for getting that information to members is broken and needs to be changed. Additionally, a two-way communication channel would have allowed other important information, such as that now learned on the forum conversation, to be gained by the FSRAC which could have led to a better outcome for the class. If this is to be a true member driven club, it needs to engage in these conversations and make more effort to provide information on rules change so that more members are informed.

Why does this all matter? If racers already have one foot on a limited-racing-budget banana peel, it does not take much to push them out of SCCA. Given the continually declining race entries, this is not something that can be ignored. When a racer is given a large rule change and feels they had no input, it is logical for them to feel disenfranchised. That leads to feelings of resentment, bitterness, or disappointment which in turn will lead them to go elsewhere or just stay home. We have seen this with nearly every large rule change and class merger, FA/FB merger, S2000 merger, Honda engine in FF, Zetec engine in FC, F600 inclusion into F500, etc.

The letter writing process is broken due to what most members perceive to be a lack of transparency; they do not feel that their voices are heard or considered during the rules process, and many are surprised when rules changes come into effect. During my time on the FSRAC I saw no self-dealing. Quite the opposite. However, when a competitor takes time to write a letter and all they receive is “Thank you for you input”, they are unable to see the genuine good efforts and earnest conversations taking place inside the committee on their behalf, and assume—particularly when rulings are issued that seem to run counter to their interests—that the “higher powers” are uninterested in or unmoved by them or their concerns. Additionally, FasTrack does not seem to be the majority of members’ main source for information. Evidence of this is seen in the majority of FA and FB members discovering the changes only when read on a forum or in a written response from the BoD after the decision has been made. As membership changes so does its preferred or expected communication methods and styles. If something is falling out of favor, what is in favor and most used should be adapted. Internet forums have become the main communication channel for racers. It’s a live, real time exchange that is highly transparent.

I propose naming a facilitator authorized to engage in dialogue with racers online in real time, thereby creating an environment of transparency and genuine, open discussion. This will allow FSRAC to:

• · lay out the given situation and facts as they are known, and the options available;
• · engage racers (past, current, and potential), seek their input, and create the kind of lively discussion that will promote investment and allow SCCA to continue to grow;
• · explain the reasoning behind rule changes and perhaps understand better how racers are impacted by them;
• · and dispel the “good old boys” self-serving conspiracies that are often thrown at SCCA.

This is the very process that I used to successfully implement a spec tire in Formula F. Spec tires had been the pipe dream for Formula Ford for 20 years, with multiple efforts year after year, failing based on the communication bottleneck created by the letter-writing system, and the lack of transparency that resulted. An online, real-time exchange allowed stakeholders to debate pros and cons, and finally decide on a choice supported by over 75% of those polled. When has any class ever agreed on anything, let alone by such a large majority? Even those who didn’t like the group’s majority decision respected it and felt like they had been heard in the decision-making process and had transparency into that process.

Yes, there will be forum trolls, but it also aids in lessening the trolls because more people will have accurate information and less reliance on assumption and conspiracy theory. Trolls are created in vacuums of information. When inaccurate opinions are formed due to a lack of available information—such as through the current one-way communication channel--SCCA only has itself to blame.

For changes this large and this impactful there needs to be more than ‘thank you for your input’. That response is seen as dismissive, an electronic garbage-canning of their input. The irony of writing a letter about the letter writing process is not lost on me. I look forward to being thanked for my input.

Thank you for your volunteerism for SCCA,

Reid Hazelton, 386688.

Reid, are you still a member of the FSRAC?

[reidhazelton]

Reid, are you still a member of the FSRAC?

Hi Jay,
I am not. The FB fiasco made it pretty clear it was a position I could not be successful at.

[Jnovak]

Hi Jay,
I am not. The FB fiasco made it pretty clear it was a position I could not be successful at.

I get it! Been there.

[Purple Frog]

When i was on the FSRAC I occasionally caught hell for going out online to the members to get inputs.

It seemed that no one that is a member of FSRAC has the authority to make public statements for the FSRAC, or even ask publicly for more input in a modern high speed manner.

To be fair it is tricky to try to balance what should stay "closed door" and what could be "open". I always lean towards more sunshine.

Frustrating at times. Reid hung on longer than many of us. You sit there knowing the racers don't think they are being heard, and you can't even tell them they are being heard. LOL

I know the years I was on board there were a lot of really wise folks on those conference calls. It was like a whos-who of formula car racing. When Johnson wore out as chair, many of us bailed. The way the P1 P2 thing developed it was obvious there were more storm clouds on the horizon.

[Daryl DeArman]

It seemed that no one that is a member of FSRAC has the authority to make public statements for the FSRAC, or even ask publicly for more input in a modern high speed manner..

I agree that nobody should be making public statements for the FSRAC in any manner other than official communication channels.

However, it's absolutely ludicrous to not allow, and/or encourage FSRAC members to gather all information they can to assist them in providing the most reasoned input. They aren't a sequestered jury for goodness' sake.

[Thomas Copeland]

Bingo. This was my exact stance on the FA/FB merger. There was zero interest in doing so.

Here is the letter I wrote after the merger occurred. The reply from SCCA; crickets. Nothing has changed.

Dear CRB,
I am writing to you today in effort to encourage modernizing the rules making process to include two-way communication with membership. This lack of dialogue has led to many negative sentiments expressed about SCCA. During my time on the FSRAC, I had experienced nothing but hard-working people who give their time to aid SCCA and feel the negative sentiments are unfairly or incorrectly placed. However, the cause of those negative sentiments attributed to SCCA from the perspective of the larger body of membership is hard to deny. The letter writing process is frozen in the pre-internet era. As one forum poster put it, “that system is just a step better than hammers, chisels and stone tablets”. It’s a one-way communication valve. When members take time to write a letter concerning a major rule change, or a minor one for that matter, the response is ‘thank you for your input’. You can’t blame the membership for feeling disenfranchised when changes occur which they do not agree and there is little to no explanation or public discussion. Times have changed, and the ways in which we communicate have changed. We don’t write letters. People expect to have an exchange of ideas and I will outline below the current state and a modern solution which I urge SCCA to accept.

Per the SCCA handbook: “In the course of researching committee related issues, it is appropriate to view information contained on common racing websites and web boards. Participation on these venues should be treated with extreme care. . .. Regardless of how a comment is prefaced, any responses on public forums will be interpreted as an official response of the Advisory Committee.”

If this is a concern to be truly avoided, there either needs to be a ban on all posting by committee members or authorized and dedicated spokesperson or spokespeople who can speak for the relevant committee. Anything other than that, and just stating ‘to use extreme care’ does nothing to address the perceived issue this policy tries, and fails, or resolve. This policy creates worse issues by fostering a lack transparency and closed communication. For example, take the current FB/FA merger which I was a part of while on the FSRAC. Many FB members felt they were blindsided and had no input, and it seems most are against it. That lead to the same story lines, distrust, skepticism, disenfranchisement, and conspiracy theories. To have a class merger and have members of that class caught off guard is a highly detrimental situation for SCCA. If members are not aware, the current system for getting that information to members is broken and needs to be changed. Additionally, a two-way communication channel would have allowed other important information, such as that now learned on the forum conversation, to be gained by the FSRAC which could have led to a better outcome for the class. If this is to be a true member driven club, it needs to engage in these conversations and make more effort to provide information on rules change so that more members are informed.

Why does this all matter? If racers already have one foot on a limited-racing-budget banana peel, it does not take much to push them out of SCCA. Given the continually declining race entries, this is not something that can be ignored. When a racer is given a large rule change and feels they had no input, it is logical for them to feel disenfranchised. That leads to feelings of resentment, bitterness, or disappointment which in turn will lead them to go elsewhere or just stay home. We have seen this with nearly every large rule change and class merger, FA/FB merger, S2000 merger, Honda engine in FF, Zetec engine in FC, F600 inclusion into F500, etc.

The letter writing process is broken due to what most members perceive to be a lack of transparency; they do not feel that their voices are heard or considered during the rules process, and many are surprised when rules changes come into effect. During my time on the FSRAC I saw no self-dealing. Quite the opposite. However, when a competitor takes time to write a letter and all they receive is “Thank you for you input”, they are unable to see the genuine good efforts and earnest conversations taking place inside the committee on their behalf, and assume—particularly when rulings are issued that seem to run counter to their interests—that the “higher powers” are uninterested in or unmoved by them or their concerns. Additionally, FasTrack does not seem to be the majority of members’ main source for information. Evidence of this is seen in the majority of FA and FB members discovering the changes only when read on a forum or in a written response from the BoD after the decision has been made. As membership changes so does its preferred or expected communication methods and styles. If something is falling out of favor, what is in favor and most used should be adapted. Internet forums have become the main communication channel for racers. It’s a live, real time exchange that is highly transparent.

I propose naming a facilitator authorized to engage in dialogue with racers online in real time, thereby creating an environment of transparency and genuine, open discussion. This will allow FSRAC to:

• · lay out the given situation and facts as they are known, and the options available;
• · engage racers (past, current, and potential), seek their input, and create the kind of lively discussion that will promote investment and allow SCCA to continue to grow;
• · explain the reasoning behind rule changes and perhaps understand better how racers are impacted by them;
• · and dispel the “good old boys” self-serving conspiracies that are often thrown at SCCA.

This is the very process that I used to successfully implement a spec tire in Formula F. Spec tires had been the pipe dream for Formula Ford for 20 years, with multiple efforts year after year, failing based on the communication bottleneck created by the letter-writing system, and the lack of transparency that resulted. An online, real-time exchange allowed stakeholders to debate pros and cons, and finally decide on a choice supported by over 75% of those polled. When has any class ever agreed on anything, let alone by such a large majority? Even those who didn’t like the group’s majority decision respected it and felt like they had been heard in the decision-making process and had transparency into that process.

Yes, there will be forum trolls, but it also aids in lessening the trolls because more people will have accurate information and less reliance on assumption and conspiracy theory. Trolls are created in vacuums of information. When inaccurate opinions are formed due to a lack of available information—such as through the current one-way communication channel--SCCA only has itself to blame.

For changes this large and this impactful there needs to be more than ‘thank you for your input’. That response is seen as dismissive, an electronic garbage-canning of their input. The irony of writing a letter about the letter writing process is not lost on me. I look forward to being thanked for my input.

Thank you for your volunteerism for SCCA,

Reid Hazelton, 386688.

This is very good. But we need more than just better communication. They need to re-establish trust. A good place to start would be a promise to stop back dating rules and "criteria." This is where the real breakdown occurred. Most of rest came about as a result of that.

[Jnovak]

This is very good. But we need more than just better communication. They need to re-establish trust. A good place to start would be a promise to stop back dating rules and "criteria." This is where the real breakdown occurred. Most of rest came about as a result of that.

Thomas, i am not sure what you mean. Can you give me a couplr of examples?

For sure we need to re-establish trust of club management!

[Thomas Copeland]

Thomas, i am not sure what you mean. Can you give me a couplr of examples?

For sure we need to re-establish trust of club management!

They back dated the car count criteria by a year and a half making it impossible for FB/F1000 to make the numbers, and it was done that way deliberately. You telling me they didn't understand what that backdating would do? That's what started this last round of nonsense. And it's not trolling to call them out on their blatant dishonesty on how they implemented it.

Before we can even begin to have better communication there has to be some level of trust. That's what lacking. How can anyone believe them and why the heck should they after that? This is going to take more than better communication to fix.

I would like everyone to succeed (including SCCA leadership) and come to a good arrangement. That's not what we have now.

[Jnovak]

They back dated the car count criteria by a year and a half making it impossible for FB/F1000 to make the numbers, and it was done that way deliberately. You telling me they didn't understand what that backdating would do? That's what started this last round of nonsense. And it's not trolling to call them out on their blatant dishonesty on how they implemented it.

Before we can even begin to have better communication there has to be some level of trust. That's what lacking. How can anyone believe them and why the heck should they after that? This is going to take more than better communication to fix.

I would like everyone to succeed (including SCCA leadership) and come to a good arrangement. That's not what we have now.

Tlhanks Thomas! I did not know that. Been out ofl the loop since i resigned from the FSRAC.

[924RACR]

Been out ofl the loop since i resigned from the FSRAC.

Health reasons, no doubt? Mental, I mean...

[Purple Frog]

Jay and I got so old our rotary dial phones wouldn't work with the automated conference system. And the crank broke on the side of mine. LOL

Everytime I'd say something, Reid would say "OK Boomer!"

[Jnovak]

Jay and I got so old our rotary dial phones wouldn't work with the automated conference system. And the crank broke on the side of mine. LOL

Everytime I'd say something, Reid would say "OK Boomer!"

I gave because the operator could not connect me to the meetings.

[Hardingfv32]

Before we can even begin to have better communication there has to be some level of trust.

I do not get the trust issue. Why would the CRB,etc. not be doing things that they feel are good for the membership? What would be their motivation?

What I am hearing are a lot of views that differ from the CRB. These views are no more valid than that of the CRB's. Just a lot of complaints that the CRB, etc. did not do what you know would work.

The fact is there is no way of knowing what will solve our issues... one guess is as good as another. Chances are very good that there is no way to solve our issues.

Brian

[Bob Corliss]

Yes, Greg, you are wrong. I proposed putting FB into FA as the alternative to placing the class on Regional-Only status. That's saving the class, not killing it. You'll notice that reversion to Regional status is exactly what happened to the FE cars that did not upgrade to FE2, and the SRF cars that did not upgrade to SR3, and innumerable other cars and classes over the decades that simply did not produce enough entries to warrant their National status. When was the last time you saw a Showroom Stock car? Hmm?

After the National participation for FB cars tanked several years ago, and just 7 FB cars showed up for the 2018 Runoffs, just one...ONE! showed up last fall, what did you think SCCA was going to do? With your experience what did you expect? Come on, tell us!

Moreover, I did not propose "killing" FB. On the contrary I argued, and continue to argue, that FB cars are the future of FA. After all, while the last purpose-built FA chassis rolled out of the curing oven a dozen years ago, we can still build a competitive FB-based FA for less than half the price of a new traditional FA. So too can JDR, Phoenix, and anyone else with the desire to jump in at the deep end of the pool...and no having to ask anyone's permission or subject their cars to arbitrary and capricious testing to destruction.

So, you may not like what happened, but who does? In the real world there sometimes comes a point when you have to pick up the pieces, make a virtue of necessity, and move on. You can pout and say you'll never write another letter to the CRB, but in so doing you leave the field open to those who remain engaged with the process.

Happy Holidays

Lot of noise about the future of FA.....I can share that there have been numerous (failed) attempts to "improve" the motor that "fits" in the Swift 14, 08, RT41, etc. Those efforts have severely fragmented the market, created confusion, added huge expense, leaving nearly 200 chassis that need a solution. That solution is not easy but is progressing and will be reasonable if we are patient and work together.....ie, a return to the 1.6 liter TRD designed motor that the car was designed for....anything else is not affordable and simply does not work. SCCA CAN RECTIFY THIS PARTICULAR ISSUE WITH A FEW KEYSTROKES. In terms of creating parity among different cars, that also has not worked. It is a fool's game to think that anyone is better off "reverse engineering" and then "reengineering" a better solution, even more foolish to think that anyone at this level of racing is in a position to dedicate the kind of resources it takes to complete the project and stick with it as the juice is not worth the squeeze. That kind of money and talent is more likely present and better spent in projects that have an opportunity for real returns.
A couple more points:
1. The 14 and 16 were never meant to compete against each other, yet they coexist reasonably well in FRP, where the 14 actually outperforms the 16 in some instances and on some tracks. I suspect this year the 14 will have a much better chance on ALL tracks given the ridiculousness the 16 is dealing with on rules changes. THE SCCA CAN ALSO SOLVE THIS WITH A FEW KEYSTROKES.
2. Two NEW 16 chassis were constructed in the last few years, and for the record, Swift Atlantic (Atlantic Creations) is in business, able to construct chassis, further develop the existing cars, and fully service all existing cars.
3. Swift Atlantic in its various iterations is among the most successful chassis in history, continuing to set track records and win races every weekend, including the most recent VIR Runoffs.
4. Certainly they are expensive when compared to some of the other chassis discussed here, however, I would submit that the comparison is neither fair Nor particularly transparent. The F3, F4, ProMazda, F1000, all fine cars in their own lane, are not engineered to the same standards. Conversely, if you want to compare the Swift to other chassis, one needs to consider manufacturers that are much more expensive.
5. The current view of solving the problem appears to be favoring Quantity over Quality, using the lowest common denominator, artificially slowing cars down and creating a nightmare of compliance issues at the track. The end result is analogous to asking a duck to ride a bicycle.....all you get is a lot of quacking and not a lot progress.

2020 will be an interesting season.....hope to see some of you soon.

[bill gillespie]

Well said, Bob...