OT - '99+ Miatas Approved for SM, [i][b]effective 3/1/05!![i
- Thread starter Greg Amy
- Start date
planet6racing
New member
OK, let's not worry about all the SM classes, but let's get them to put only the class they are competing in during that session on the car so my crew and I can know if we need to race them for position in class.
------------------
Bill
Planet 6 Racing
bill (at) planet6racing (dot) com
------------------
Bill
Planet 6 Racing
bill (at) planet6racing (dot) com
dave parker
New member
Andy
Unfortunately the Washington DC Region BoD is only concerned with $$$$. Not with making sure everyone has a place to race safely. So normal logic does not apply in the DC Region.
Of course now that I think about it normal logic does not apply to anything in the DC area, just ask your congressman.
cheers
dave parker
wdcr ITC#97
[This message has been edited by dave parker (edited February 24, 2005).]
I like that thinking - now if only our SM/SSM classes would accept that type of logic without crying foul. To quote an SM competitor "Between 3 of us (drivers/car owners), we have 20 cars either race ready or in-progress". Those 3 people will be awfully upset when they can't race in all 6 Miata-allowed classes in one day
Still keeping my fingers crossed...
Matthew
Bill Miller
New member
By my count, there are 9 classes that Miatas can run in.
SM,
SSM,
ITS,
ITA,
SSB,
EP,
FP,
GT2,
GT3.
It's an even 10 if you count ITE.
/edit/ Is the new Mazdadpeed Miata in T3?
------------------
MARRS #25 ITB Rabbit GTI (sold) | MARRS #25 HProd Rabbit
SCCA 279608
[This message has been edited by Bill Miller (edited February 24, 2005).]
SM,
SSM,
ITS,
ITA,
SSB,
EP,
FP,
GT2,
GT3.
It's an even 10 if you count ITE.
/edit/ Is the new Mazdadpeed Miata in T3?
------------------
MARRS #25 ITB Rabbit GTI (sold) | MARRS #25 HProd Rabbit
SCCA 279608
[This message has been edited by Bill Miller (edited February 24, 2005).]
Andy Bettencourt
Super Moderator
Now count how many classes "GTI's" can run in...
AB
------------------
Andy Bettencourt
New England Region, R188967
www.flatout-motorsports.com
Bill Miller
New member
Another post lost in the server switch.
Andy,
I'm not sure how your question is germane to the discussion at hand, but by my count, I have the following for the 4-cyl cars (1.8 and 2.0, 8v and 16v).
ITA,
ITB,
SSC,
FP,
EP,
GT3.
That covers 4 different chassis designs, and spans 21 years.
------------------
MARRS #25 ITB Rabbit GTI (sold) | MARRS #25 HProd Rabbit
SCCA 279608
Andy Bettencourt
Super Moderator
No shots at anyone other than the perceived (by me) issue with the fact the Miata can run in so many classes. There are plenty of cars out there that can cross over VERY well. It's all irrelevant to anything.
AB
------------------
Andy Bettencourt
New England Region, R188967
www.flatout-motorsports.com
AB
------------------
Andy Bettencourt
New England Region, R188967
www.flatout-motorsports.com
Bill Miller
New member
Morning John!
------------------
MARRS #25 ITB Rabbit GTI (sold) | MARRS #25 HProd Rabbit
SCCA 279608
------------------
MARRS #25 ITB Rabbit GTI (sold) | MARRS #25 HProd Rabbit
SCCA 279608
Dave,
If your statements were true, why do we have 2 formula groups with less than 25 cars each? The region could combine them and allow for one less group, and make races longer, allowing people to pay more money. The reason this is NOT done is safety. As far as I know, nobody in the region makes any more money based on increased car counts.
Matthew, nobody in SM wants you give up your track time for them.
The DC Comp Committe tries to make things as fair as possible for all club members. If people want to race Miatas, we want to give them a chance to race. If we had 100 GTI's, and 4 Miatas, we would do what we could to accomodate the GTI's.
Al Bell
SM/SSM driver rep, 2003-2005
ITC Driver Rep 1997-2002, 1990-1993
ITB Driver rep 1994-1996
However that was not how it was presented at the Planning Meeting. I agree that the intent of the Committee is to make things fair for all drivers however DC Region needs to first determine a manner of handling such issues as the formula classes with limited participation. This action will determine how many groups are available for the Comp Committee to work with to fit SM and SSM together.
Specifically related to SM and SSM is the issue of drivers running both SM and SSM. While not every SM driver will drive an SSM or vice versa, the classes are anticipated to be full in '05. Does this mean that DC Region will have to mandate that these drivers cannot race in both classes if the one or both of the classes is full?
There have been several interesting solutions I've heard but don't know that any of it will "fly" since they're not the usual "add another race group" or "combine groups 1 & 2 together".
Matt, Matt, Matt what have you gone and done? This is deep. Don’t you have anything better to do? Do you have Miata envy?
I do not believe that Al or I have ever claimed that SM is the savior of the club.
Matt, my intention at the meeting was to vote on a plan that allowed EVERYONE to race. I don’t recall any IT cars getting wait listed or told the class was over subscribed last year, SM did. In fact you voted for a plan that would exclude as many as 30 to 40 SM’s at each regional
Matt, we wanted a rep for SM and one for SSM. You have one for each IT group do you not?
I am. But that is why I got involved. So I could keep those that fear change from crying about the sky falling!
Nobody ever told you to stay home. In fact I very much enjoy your company and you know that. We just asked that you share the track and work with us on developing run groups that would better utilize the track. Unfortunately for you, you didn’t want to do that so I went got the open wheels to vote with me.
At least get it right man. We have 9 racecars, and 12 street or parts miatas.
Matt, I raised this issue at the annual meeting. I was all for restricted regionals. You could have gone with me on this but instead you chose to go on your anti Miata crusade. All that did was force the Miata drivers (me) to align themselves with the open wheel cars and big bore to form a larger voting block.
------------------
Mike Collins
MEATHEAD Racing
WDCR SM Drivers Rep 2005
Originally posted by mgyip:
Just remember that Spec Miata IS THE SALVATION OF SCCA (at least according to the Spec Miata class reps locally
I do not believe that Al or I have ever claimed that SM is the savior of the club.
Matt, my intention at the meeting was to vote on a plan that allowed EVERYONE to race. I don’t recall any IT cars getting wait listed or told the class was over subscribed last year, SM did. In fact you voted for a plan that would exclude as many as 30 to 40 SM’s at each regional
Matt, we wanted a rep for SM and one for SSM. You have one for each IT group do you not?
I am. But that is why I got involved. So I could keep those that fear change from crying about the sky falling!
Nobody ever told you to stay home. In fact I very much enjoy your company and you know that. We just asked that you share the track and work with us on developing run groups that would better utilize the track. Unfortunately for you, you didn’t want to do that so I went got the open wheels to vote with me.
Originally posted by mgyip:
To quote an SM competitor "Between 3 of us (drivers/car owners), we have 20 cars either race ready or in-progress".
Still keeping my fingers crossed...
Matthew
At least get it right man. We have 9 racecars, and 12 street or parts miatas.
Matt, I raised this issue at the annual meeting. I was all for restricted regionals. You could have gone with me on this but instead you chose to go on your anti Miata crusade. All that did was force the Miata drivers (me) to align themselves with the open wheel cars and big bore to form a larger voting block.
------------------
Mike Collins
MEATHEAD Racing
WDCR SM Drivers Rep 2005
IIRC your version of a restricted regional was to exclude certain classes of cars in perpetuity. While some folks would like to see wings and things go away, this flies in the face of the Club mentality. Anne had a good idea but it may be too different for anyone to grasp yet - exclude ONE CLASS PER WEEKEND which would reduce the number of race groups running on a weekend but would allow 10 groups instead of the current 9.
As for representation - the comment was made that "Since SM is so large, we want more representation" - there was no mention of SSM with that particular demand that was made at an Open Competition Meeting which made it sound very much like the spoiled child wanting more toys. You may not have made comments about saving SCCA but some of your compatriots most certainly believe that SM and SSM are the compelling reason for SCCA's current affluence.
I think that the '05 season will be the transisiton season. With a huge influx of new SMs and SSMs and the converse decline in the ranks due to attrition, '06 will provide more realistic entrant figures. SRX7 made the same claims when the class was started and even in '04 - reality is that the class grew by 1.4 cars in '04 (as opposed to the 10+ that was predicted) and that the class is much smaller than in it's heyday of 3-4 years ago.
Miata envy? To some degree - I think Miata is the undeveloped ITA overdog but I'm buried in my VW junk and will stay there for at least another season. However I have no urge to race SM however where body damage and rebuilding wrecked cars is the norm for a good quarter of the field after every race. I don't come out to crash my racecar although it happens - racing in a class where everyone seems to want to hit each other. Even Spec Wrecker wasn't that bad...
It's tough to become a car whore which is what's necessary to win. I welcome change however - ITA's face is changing and I'm curious to see how fast the newly classed Integras will be and what that'll do to the front of the ITA field. The only place where the sky is falling is in ITC where the New Beetle will eclipse the Fiesta...
Matt, I feel we need to provide a place for everyone to run. But in doing so we need to be resposible for using our limited resources in the best manner possible. My plan was to allow only one wing group to run per race weekend. That would offer each group a 5 race series. I was not for the rotating elimination of each group. that only penelizes those that participate in greater number. Why should we run two different run groups that hardly field 20 or so cars when every other group is busting at the seams and has 45 cars in it? Our workers don't want 10 groups and we don't want less track time. We need regional supplemental rules about making and maintaining class size or risk getting restricted.
------------------
Mike Collins
MEATHEAD Racing
WDCR SM Drivers Rep 2005
Thanks for refreshing my memory - now I remember why I disagreed with that form of a restricted regional. While I agree wholeheartedly that we need to formulate rules about maintaining class sizes, I also think that it's unfair to reduce the number of races for just one or two classes - if you're going to reduce the number of races for one group, you should do so for all groups.
I'm not talking about RUNNING 10 race groups on any given weekend but rather running 9 race groups (as has been the norm lately) with 1 group sitting out. I understand the workers' desire to not add more groups as well as the desire to not give up track time which is one of the reasons why such an approach could work - the only sticking point is that MARRS goes "on the road" and those races would have to either be factored into the rotation or (more likely) factored out.
There's no perfect solution but the solution should be fair to ALL race groups, not just the ones with large participation. DC Region is somewhat of a test-bed for these issues due to the local affluence and participation levels - I'd be curious how they handle this in other areas with similar demographics such as San Francisco or Los Angeles.
The solution should be fair to the largest number of people possible.The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few. Excluding all groups on a rotating basis does not solve anything.
If we exclude the 20 car groups, it only affects 20 people, not 45-50. Look at the thread on this forum, "too many races". If the formula cars had less chances to play, they would come out in larger numbers whan they could race.
It would be sort of like the probationary status for national classes.
I know we don't want to combine all the formula cars, but if we have 2 cars show up, do we have a race for them? By your logic, yes, because "it is fair to the group".
I don't see where this anti SM sentiment comes from. I have never said SM was the salvation of SCCA. We had a strong program before SM and had car count issues then. The comments that a quarter of the field have body damage after the race are the same things we heard when IT started, and they are just as false now as they were then. I've raced Miatas for 3 years and have not had to replace a single body panel.
------------------
"Bad" Al Bell
ITC #3 Datsun 510
DC Region MARRS Series
As was pointed out numerous times during the Planning Meeting, wings is protected for whatever reason. I understand the logic of serving the largest number of participants but it's unlikely that the BOD will allow such a change to occur. However now is a good time to begin lobbying this as an '06 change - I would like to see more efficient use of the race groups that we currently have. It's distressing to see a race group dedicated to 20 cars when other groups are almost to (or over) capacity.
The issue of body damage is quite real - I've looked at the cars that come off the track. While most of the damage is minor (dents and doughnuts), there's usually one car that comes back on a hook after each session. Damage depends on who you race with and dumb luck - in my case dumb luck has forced the replacement of 2 body panels in 6 years (with the same car) - all from the same incident.
The issue of body damage is quite real - I've looked at the cars that come off the track. While most of the damage is minor (dents and doughnuts), there's usually one car that comes back on a hook after each session. Damage depends on who you race with and dumb luck - in my case dumb luck has forced the replacement of 2 body panels in 6 years (with the same car) - all from the same incident.