What is up with Mazda vs SCCA???

Tim,

Given my income, I'd probably "pick up my football and go home!" But beleive me and I'm sure you know, we have all faced, shall we say, "inequities" in our racing experience, and it is always the love of the sport that gets us through them.


Highest regards, I hope the whole thing gets sorted out,

G
 
Hey Tim, Josh Sirota here. Although I sold my SSC Mazda, you guys (including Robert, Jeremy, and everyone else over there) all made me feel so welcome that I still feel like a part of the Mazda family.

Here's my problem: no doubt that things are very very broken is T2, T3, SSB and SSC. On a personal level, I couldn't be more happy to be away from that madness.

But only the members can fix it. A manufacturer can't do it, because then it will be perceived to be a manufacturer flexing its muscle, which many of the members will bristle at. Perhaps this survey is an attempt to get the members active in the solution, I don't know. But it seems like this sort of problem cannot have a manufacturer being part of the solution, since it is already perceived that a manufacturer is part of the problem.

I also think that painting the picture that the entire SCCA is broken, when I think it's really just SS/T processes and procedures (and the people involved with those processes), is overly alarmist. Most of us still really like the club in general.
 
Tim,

We need the BoD member's name. You want to see change? We need a name. There's where it starts. ACCOUNTABILITY.
 
Josh there are more things needing a fix then just SS & Touring. SCCA is a group that makes a call and then changes things when somebody screams. Personally I saw that happen with the original SM incorporation into the GCR. The first edition had SM being (just like IT) Regional Only with mo avenue to become a national class. The SM racers SCREAMED (me as loud or louder then most) SCCA changed the wording and SM is now a national class. This type stuff happens all the time (SMs legal in IT issue earlier this year.)
I am a Mazda racer so I am biased, but Tim Buck is a straight shooter. He is really good at taking care of us (Mazda racers) and helping us compete. His opinion carries a ton of weight because he is able to see the opposite side of a situation while explaining his side. You notice he wants SCCA to be better from this situation. I really don't think this can happen until staunch SCCA racers and officals accept NASA as competition. SCCA reminds me of the old NFL and how they looked down on the AFL until the NFL got their butts beat head up. NASA is gaining strength in Texas and is a good alternative even if there is no added Mazda support there. With Mazda getting involved you could see larger NASA grids and smaller SCCA grids down here.
Tnord, the NASA safety issues (at least at NASATX events) were early on and most all are folks that attend both sanctions events. My biggest problem with NASA is their car classification from SCCA IT to their NASA PT. Not easy to crossover at this point.Mac
 
My biggest problem with NASA is their car classification from SCCA IT to their NASA PT. Not easy to crossover at this point.Mac
[/b]
Click to expand...

??? Crossover is simple. The only thing you need is the additional safety requirement of a right side net or seat bolster if you don't already have (you do), otherwise the car will be ready for PT... oh, and some decals. There is no ITA - PT_ direct fit, however I would guess yours might fall in PTE Mac, or maybe PTD with many points to spare. PT actually levels the playing field that much more... a fully prepped ITS car might end up in PTC, change a thing or two and PTD, possibly even low level prep PTE. PT separates the full prep IT cars from the light prep IT cars better. NASA is not going to design rules around SCCA, but they have designed rules to allow SCCA cars to run as is with NASA and be fairly competitive without making any changes.
 
I hope this does not go down like the IRL vs. CART deal. Back in the mid '90s could many have imagined CART being the "loser" in the split. At first it was inconceivable because CART had all of the known drivers because that is where the sponsors were. Now what sponsors are left have jumped to the IRL and Champ Car is left with many hard to pronounce names.

I sure hope SCCA sees NASA as a threat but something tells me they are arrogant enough to not give them a lot of thought until it is too late. NASA is approaching this like the IRL did, get the sponsors and the drivers/teams will come. NASA has as much or more contingency money available as the runoffs this year. If the Mazda contingency for nationals and the runoffs is reduced or scrapped entirely, the Eprod race will have about 10 cars next year. This year 28 out of 35 were Mazdas. I counted 140 out of 626 were Mazdas at the runoffs and I am sure I missed some of the sportsracers and FA's that probably were Mazda powered .

matt
 
Suffice to say that the National Office & BOD certainly sees NASA as a threat to the extent that they have over-reacted in some instances. The identification of the threat isn't a problem, our reaction has been. But please let's keep this on the topic of SCCA's relationship with Mazda and to a lesser extent other manufacturers.

This is certainly not the first time policies of the club have left a bad taste in the mouth of a mfg. And we aren't the only ones to drive factory teams away, anyone recall Dodge's return to NASCAR? Well they left for a reason.

The problem is we can't seem to learn from this, partly because there isn't a consistent, good solution. A deacde ago we lost MFG support when one car was just faster off the factory. Enter the solution of "trunk kits" to help equalize the fields and now there was no benefit to building the better mousetrap. Once that happens it's harder to justify the factory dollars and the mfg walks away. This is just the extension of that policy, a mfg building a package to win and another trying to match them. The problem seems to be that one was allowed to compete and the other excluded and naturally people end up pissed off. Whatever happened to the rule you must produce XXX number of option Y cars to be eligible? Once that went out the window it looks like all we did is drive the cost up for the mfg's and lose support.

Now it appears there are two things that need to be addressed. One is our continuing inability to put a good face on the actions of the club publically, to our partners and to our members. By this I don't just mean the conversation between the mystery BOD member and Mazda but also the fact that we hear about this (and many other policies) this way.

Secondly, there is a larger pattern of the appearance of rules being enforced differently depending on the situation and the participants. This seems to be further aggravated by the perception of meddling by various parties both in and out of the club. That too has to stop.
 
I'm here with you on my day off, while taking cell calls from OTHER Mazda employees who are at the CalClub Regional at Buttonwillow. Grrrr!) and take a lot of pride in what we do for both our brand and our sport. It must have touched a nerve with me!

We have not threatened to take our ball and go home. We have asked our customers (the Mazda racers) how they feel about the situation. Our reaction will be dictated by their (your) responses.

[/b]
Click to expand...

I think it is great that Mazda is putting effort into building the sport and supporting drivers. However, Mazda needs to remember that they are not doing it for completely altruistic reasons. I don't see Mazda giving any money to me to run a Fiero. It is definitely a symbiotic relationship. Mazda gets good publicity/advertising for their cars, the drivers get support for their racing, and SCCA gets more entries/publicity/etc.

Question- If you were investing a lot of time and money in a corporation that had some real problems in how it was being run, were showed little appreciation for said investments, were the butt of some poorly administered rules by said organization, then were told by a member of its Board of Directors that you aren't needed... what would you do?

[/b]
Click to expand...

Tim, you just complained that you resent the implication that Mazda was receiving special treatment due to its investment, and then you make the above statement implying that Mazda desires "appreciation" for their investment. Please be careful...this "appreciation" could be easily misconstrued.

In general, SCCA has be very careful how they treat all the manufactures, in order to ensure impartiality. I would like to think that SCCA tries to encourage/appreciate all manufacturers equally, regardless of investment. However, we also obviously have the business side of it...difficult balancing act.

Until we get ALL the details of the current situation, it very difficult for anyone here to make a judgment in terms of who exactly was at fault, and what needs to be done.
 
Would someone who received it please post the actual survey items?

I write instruments for a living and have enough experience to believe that the language of stem and response options of a survey are good indicators of its true purpose.

K
 
Kirk,
I wish I had had the brains to copy the survey as I was doing it. Once you complete the survey you cannot get back to the text.
I am not an expert but it was pretty obvious to me that it was not written by a neutral party.
Dick
 
But, Jake, you and I both know SCCA has always been somewhat vulnerable to corporate "lobbying". Doesn't make it right, but it it exists in all venues, sports and politics.

Now if the official you are upset with was standing up to what he perceived to be "overreaching" arrogance on the part of Mazda, shouldn't we applaud him?

G
[/b]
Click to expand...

You mean like when John Heinricy (sp?) and some other mfg reps sent a letter to the SCCA saying that they'd pull support for racers if SSB and T3 were merged, essentially killing that deal? :unsure:
 
Dicks right, I just tried my survey link and it said I had already taken the survey - too late. Need to find someone who has NOT taken the survey to copy and paste each screen. But... it appears the survey was not standardized. Depending upon your answer to certain questions (solo vs. club racing, racing NASA now or not, etc), your next set of questions may be different than the other guy. Here is part of the survey, and from what I gather solo did not get to answer this one...

As some of you may know, MAZDASPEED Motorsports and the leadership/management of the Sports Car Club of America (the Club) have had some difficult situations recently. Earlier this year, SCCA approved a suspension option package (MS-R) for the Mazda MX-5 for SSB class competition in 2007. Within two months, after some of our Mazda racers had purchased a 2007 MX-5, the option package, and raced with the option package, SCCA wrongly decided the package would not be legal for competition in 2007.
-
In October of this year at the SCCA Runoffs, one of our MAZDASPEED staff, there to support the Mazda competitiors at the event, was told by a prominent member of SCCA’s Board of Directors that “SCCA doesn’t need Mazda and Mazda doesn’t need SCCA". As you can imagine we were shocked that the club leadership felt this way about MAZDASPEED involvement.
-
Normally in the course of business relationships, when someone discounts your contribution to the point of saying we don’t need you, you take your business elsewhere. While that was our first reaction, it doesn’t take into consideration you, our customers and team members. These difficulties have affected many of our Mazda Team Support members and we have been working through them with your best interest as our #1 priority.
-
The long term commitment MAZDASPEED has made to our members and the results of these support programs has benefited Mazda as well. Mazda’s market share for street vehicles among club members is 3 times our industry average. Mazda is the most raced brand within the club, in fact over 50% based on the latest results. We benefit greatly by having team members as advocates for our vehicles as family and friends ask you what car to purchase. For all this support, we thank you.
-
Please read the following five (5) statements carefully and decide which one fits your feelings the best, then respond by clicking the box next to that statement. Please respond to only one link and respond only once. We would also appreciate any comments and suggestions you have on the matter and have provided a comment section for you to give any feedback. If you would like to copy any leadership of the club on your response, please feel free to do so. We suggest that your forward your comments to the National office as well as your local SCCA Region Executive.
-
While these choices don’t go into specific detail, they will give us an indication of the direction you (our customer) would like us to take and where we should apply our support. Please understand any support not given to SCCA in the future will still be invested into amateur (grass roots) racing. Our vision is to expand our position in this area, not pull back.
-
Again, thank you for your support in making MAZDASPEED Motorsports Development a great success and Mazda a success in the market place. We value your business and loyalty.

* MAZDASPEED is considering building stronger ties with other racing organizations such as NASA and scaling back involvement with SCCA. Please let us know if you support this idea. Following, are five statements, Please read all five statements and then select the one you MOST agree with.

1. Please continue the same level of support to SCCA Club Racing, I am satisfied with the Club and its leadership and plan to continue participating in SCCA events.

2. Please continue the same level of support to SCCA Club Racing. As a Mazdaspeed Motorsports Development member, I will get personally involved with club management to seek a solution to the current situation. If necessary, I will seek club office to protect the relationship between SCCA and with Mazdaspeed Motorsports.

3. I do not approve of the way SCCA Club Racing’s management and officials have acted or their comments. Don’t reward this bad behavior, but also don’t throw the baby out with the bath water. Examine alternative places to compete with Mazdaspeed (i.e. NASA or other grass roots organizations) and keep me advised. At this point I do not have any available options for racing with alternative racing organizations and am limited to the SCCA. If Mazdaspeed withdraws its support from SCCA Club Racing I will be negatively impacted as I have no other place to race. I will support Mazdaspeed Motorsports by getting personally involved with club management to seek a solution to the current situation.

4. I do not approve of the way SCCA Club Racing’s management and officials have acted or their comments. There are other racing organizations in my area and I will consider participating with them as an alternative or in addition to SCCA. I can compete with anyone (NASA, SCCA, Mazda Owners Club, etc.), but I would prefer to have as many options as possible.

5. Stop all involvement with SCCA Club Racing as soon as possible (2008 season). I have an alternative racing organization where I can compete that is better. I feel that Mazdaspeed’s involvement in that organization will be more appreciated. In my response I will tell you where the support should be directed.


 
After reading numerous offerings by many regarding this situation, a number of questions occur to me that have not been addressed. The most interesting to me is prompted by those who allude to the fact that MAZDASPEED is being one sided or slanted toward their own wants and desires, and is:

I wonder what questions have been asked by the parent corporation of those individuals entrusted to channel corporate advertising dollars in the US regarding the actions of SCCA? Has there been a request to "show cause" for the funds to continue to come to the US? Is this survey a response of those at MAZDASPEED to address the parent corporation?

Does MAZDASPEED have any influence or control over the TV advertising dollars spent by Mazda to support coverage of racing attributed to SCCA? I am sure that fund is quite large.

Yes, I do drive a Mazda and that is because it was the best car for the money at the time to replace my car built on a 40 year old street car tub.

Another question......is there any other manufacturer who offers the same level of support to EVERY owner of the marque regardless of the level at which he/she competes? I ask this question because I don't know. Maybe someone can enlighten me.

I will be very interested in Kirk's evaluation of the instrument from the standpoint of academia.

This could get really interesting.................
 
A couple of things leap out at me on the survey but I want to be able to give it a comprehensive look before I have any opinions. My first impression however, is that the most appropriate title for this instrument might be something like, "To What Degree Would you be Willing to Choose Mazda over SCCA?"

One subtext to this issue that we could also use MUCH better data on is membership. It's not sufficient to simply say, "SCCA had XX,XXX members last year and now has XX,XXX. NASA had XX,XXX and now has XX,XXX so NASA has a competitive advantage."

** I'm a member of BOTH organizations, as are more than a few other folks I know. Some were SCCA members first, then joined NASA when they decided it made sense given the events they want to run. Others were NASA members first and joined SCCA for similar reasons. It's important to know how many members are in fact crossovers.

** SCCA has had 50,000 members, plus or minus, for a long time - like damned near as long as I can remember being involved. (I won't pretend to be fully up-to-date on what the actual figures are.) My guess is that we are up to member number 400,000 or thereabouts, which suggests that there is a pretty significant turnover. I don't know what the current NASA dynamic might be but since they are new, growth metrics mean different things.

In short, Mazda would be well advised to understand how these two market niches (it's silly to pretend that they aren't primarily talking about those two options, mention of "other grass roots organizations" notwithstanding) might actually be similar and different.

K
 
Kirk, here it is. I'll format it as close as I can to the real deal but this forum does not allow HTML.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

MAZDASPEED MOTORSPORTS SURVEY
Questions marked with an asterisk (*) are mandatory.

Thanks for participating. These answers are very important to our motorsports program. MAZDASPEED appreciates you and your time. This should only take about 5 minutes.

1. *What is your Team Support Number (preferred) or Name?

2. *My primary racing organization in 2007 was:
SCCA
NASA
Grand-Am
IMSA
NHRA
Other, please specify

3 *Consider how happy you are with the primary club with which you currently compete. Please indicate how likely you would be to consider switching to another sanctioning body if you could campaign your Mazda elsewhere.

I am not satisfied with the organization I race with and would consider a change to another organization if I had the option

I am relatively satisfied with the current organization I race with but am interested in exploring other organizations

I am very satisfied with the current organization I race with and would not consider changing
Not sure

4. I have also participated in events sanctioned by the following organizations. (Multiple selection ok)
SCCA
NASA
Grand-Am
IMSA
NHRA
Other, please specify

5. *Which organization will be your primary focus in 2008?
SCCA
NASA
Grand-Am
IMSA
NHRA
Other, please specify

6 *I am currently actively participating in the following type(s) of racing. (Select all that apply)
Solo/Autocross
Club (Amateur) Road Racing
Import Drag Racing
Rally
Professional Racing
Other, please specify

7. If you are a Professional Racer, where do you race? (multiple ok)
MX-5 Cup
World Challenge
NASA
Star Mazda
Grand-Am
Not Applicable
Other, please specify

8. *Please note the number of races you've competed in, over the past TWO years.
0 Races
1-3 Races
4-6 Races
7-9 Races
10-13 Races
14+ Races
Other, please specify

9. *Are you aware of any NASA racing events that are held at race tracks in your area? (race tracks where you normally compete)
Yes
No
Not Sure
Other, please specify

10. *Have you participated in any NASA Events?
Yes
No

11. Comments about anything on this page? (optional)
 
I took the survey and it netted out something like this for me:

I race SCCA and I race a Mazda. I don't race NASA and I am not currently upset enough with the SCCA to follow Mazda's 'support' monies over to NASA. Mazdaspeed support is VERY important to me (those that aren't a member of MazdaComp or Mazdaspeed Motorsports as it's called now can't comprehend the level of parts availablility and 'cost-based' pricing they provide) and my racing effort as well as my company.

I am also a big-time SCCA supporter. I am involved as much as humanly possible, both locally and nationally. It dissappoints me personally and 'globally' that this issue has happened. I would feel the same way if the MR package was allowed and a competitive Pontiac package was not...lobbying by manufacturers happens - and should happen - hell, it's business. It's just the SCCA's job to try and keep a level playing field.

I just don't feel like I know enough about this issue but I hope cooler heads will prevail.
 
Just as a note, Rons post is only part of the questions I saw. Perhaps the answers you give create other avenues and questions. My survey took me through at least three pages like that.

Kirk, why not sign up? Just go get yourself a Miata, for Conover Motor Sports, of course,..and you're set! Or call Booo wee!.
 
You want to know the gist of this?
Mazda didn't do anything wrong with the MX5. SCCA was in on every aspect of the development.

The bottom line is.... I should have been driving the MX5 instead of Jim Daniels and non of this would have ever been a problem! :happy204:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top