Retro Letter 2004 or Why SCCA System Sucks

Post Reply
problemchild
Posts: 902
Joined: June 25th, 2006, 9:34 am

Retro Letter 2004 or Why SCCA System Sucks

Post by problemchild »

I was looking for some bio material and found this correspondance on my PC.

JANUARY 12, 2004
To: SCCA Club Racing Competition Board
From: Greg Rice

I would like to submit 3 rule proposals for FV. Please see attachment.

Formula Vee has always been a class for common people.
As the class has evolved, the development of safety, technology, and competition elements have made the cars more robust and more aerodynamic. In a time when most classes have expanded their cockpit sizes, FV driver compartments have gotten smaller and smaller. At the same time, the size of average people has grown and continues to grow. Class rules that have never been friendly to large drivers are now preventing many common people from participation in Formula Vee.

I am proposing 3 rule changes that will help more above-average-sized drivers compete and bring the SCCA FV rules into the 21st century. I believe that these proposals will have positive affects on safety and competition. Most importantly, more common people will be attracted to the class and fewer will leave.

Please consider each proposed rule change separately. I expect that all will eventually be implemented but sooner would be best. I am taking these ideas from discussions on the internet and the paddock. The best part about these proposals is that no existing car’s level of competitiveness will be compromised or made obsolete. Those that will require ballast can add it and those that want to extend their overall length can do so.

I expect that you will receive other letters on this topic. Unfortunately it is a non-topic for smaller people who have become the majority because of the rules. Please contact me if I can provide any additional information. Our class needs to make some tough decisions to survive and prosper. I hope that we can start with these.

SUBMITTED JANUARY 12/ 2004
FV RULE CHANGE PROPOSALS
FROM GREG RICE #111210

Rule Proposal #1
C.2. Weight and Dimensions
( change the following )
Minimum weight as qualified or raced, with driver: 1050 lbs. (currently 1025)

Rule Proposal #2
C.2. Weight and Dimensions
( change the following )
Wheel base, Maximum: 86.5” ( currently 83.5)
Overall length, Maximum: 130” ( currently 127)

Rule Proposal #3
C.9. Body
( add the following )
For cars manufactured after 01/01/2005, the cockpit opening shall be designed to meet current SCCA FS requirements
( FIA F3 homologation requirements [article 275] ).
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Then, in the interest of playing fair, and encouraging input, I presented this form letter so that people could respond, pro or con.

TO: SCCA CLUB RACING COMPETITION BOARD
P. O. BOX 19400, TOPEKA, KS , 66619-0400

FROM: NAME___________________________________ MEMBER #______________

HEIGHT__________ WEIGHT___________

I AM A FV DRIVER YES NO

IF ANSWER IS YES, MY FV RACE CAR; REQUIRES ________ LBS OF BALLAST

OR IS ________ LBS OVERWEIGHT

THE CURRENT SCCA FV RULES ARE RESTRICTIVE TO COMPETITIVE PARTICIPATION OF ABOVE-AVERAGE SIZED PEOPLE.
AGREE DISAGREE

REGARDING FV RULE CHANGES PROPOSED BY GREG RICE


Rule Proposal #1 C.2. Weight and Dimensions
( change the following )
Minimum weight as qualified or raced, with driver: 1050 lbs. (currently 1025)

I SUPPORT THE PROPOSED RULE CHANGE #1 YES NO



Rule Proposal #2 C.2. Weight and Dimensions
( change the following )
Wheel base, Maximum: 86.5” ( currently 83.5)
Overall length, Maximum: 130” ( currently 127)

I SUPPORT THE PROPOSED RULE CHANGE #2 YES NO



Rule Proposal #3 C.9. Body
( add the following )
For cars manufactured after 01/01/2005, the cockpit opening shall be designed to meet current SCCA FS requirements
( FIA F3 homologation requirements [article 275] ).

I SUPPORT THE PROPOSED RULE CHANGE #3 YES NO


COMMENTS____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

What happened? Somebody scribbled a giant NO over the form letter, made copies, and handed them out at Lybarger's Christmas party. Bob was a BOD member at the time.
My proposal was quietly dismissed and never acted upon. These issues are still relevent 10 yrs later. These issues should have been fixed 25 yrs ago.
Go ahead, lay some crap on me about "all it takes is to write a letter".
Greg Rice
"Happy 50th Birthday"
problemchild
Posts: 902
Joined: June 25th, 2006, 9:34 am

Re: Retro Letter 2004 or Why SCCA System Sucks

Post by problemchild »

Yes.
A well thought out, and well written proposal, great for the class, presented independantly, with no dirty backroom politics, went absolutely nowhere.
Greg Rice
"Happy 50th Birthday"
smsazzy
Posts: 703
Joined: June 24th, 2006, 5:56 pm

Re: Retro Letter 2004 or Why SCCA System Sucks

Post by smsazzy »

If the overwhelming majority of letters to the SCCA said NO, why would they implement it? It sounds to me like the process worked, unfortunately there were not enough forward thinking individuals in the class at that time to make the changes.

You proposal would have been good for FV in my opinion. Whoever sank it did a dis-service to the class.

Blaming the process is not the answer. Hopefully next time around a proposal like this will get more support.
Stephen Saslow
FV 09 NWR
problemchild
Posts: 902
Joined: June 25th, 2006, 9:34 am

Re: Retro Letter 2004 or Why SCCA System Sucks

Post by problemchild »

I have sent in my letter regarding the disc brake fiasco. Doing my part to support the stupid SCCA process that will waste several years, and 100s of hours of energy, before maintaining the status quo ...... all the while providing the unnecassary distraction from good discussion about lowering FV costs and getting a good control tire in place. :roll:

I also have listed (for loan) 2 sets of modified 4-bolt rear drums that can be used/tested by anyone interested in doing R&D. See ad on Apexspeed.

Interesting that I hear all this talk about part shortages, but nobody buys parts when I list them for sale. After investing and storing for decades, I am not giving them away (well ... practically), but all real German VW .... and much cheaper than converting to Chinese junk.
Greg Rice
"Happy 50th Birthday"
jhenn4716
Posts: 50
Joined: October 11th, 2010, 9:11 am

Re: Retro Letter 2004 or Why SCCA System Sucks

Post by jhenn4716 »

problemchild wrote:Interesting that I hear all this talk about part shortages, but nobody buys parts when I list them for sale. After investing and storing for decades...
That's why there's a parts "shortage". How many drivers/owners have piles of stuff sitting around in garages, sheds, storage lots all over? If all those parts would become available, I bet the cost of racing (the cost of parts) would go down. Talk about a manufactured dilemma. We're our own worst enemy.

And to address the issue of nothing getting done I want to quote Butch Kummer's post on Apex,

"Quite simply, the membership cannot be consulted on everything the BoD decides or we'd never get anything done. You elect a Director to represent your interests and we get criticism that even THAT process is too cumbersome to adapt quickly! Some things go out for member input while others don't - we often make decisions based on what we THINK members want even while knowing a portion will disagree."

As long as we sit amongst ourselves and bicker about everything.. nothing ever will get done. Somebody has to make those unpopular decisions and we will have to live with it.
Jeff
Mysterian #55
Post Reply