What is up with Mazda vs SCCA???

With all due respect to you and Kirk above ; you casual observers are not being requested to say or do anything.
Only registered Mazdaspeed members. They are the one's whose best interests are in question and should respond to defend their best interests. :cavallo: ...[/b]
Click to expand...

My current best understanding of the situation is that you are being asked to exert political pressure inside of the Club, as consideration for support granted to you personally by Mazda. With respect, the distinction between this and "in a pocket" are getting fuzzier and fuzzier to me.

Question: If GM had twice as many advocates activated as a result of its support for SCCA Club racers, would you be totally OK with them doing what you are doing?

K
 
K- that is not correct. We are surveying our customers to see how satisfied they are with their current sanctioning body (or bodies), and asking their opinion as to how Mazda should respond to certain situations/issues within the SCCA.

This is NOT about a comment made to a member of our staff at the Runoffs. This is NOT about using our customers to get our way.

Why is it bad that we are asking our customers' opinions?
 
K- that is not correct. We are surveying our customers to see how satisfied they are with their current sanctioning body (or bodies), and asking their opinion as to how Mazda should respond to certain situations/issues within the SCCA.

This is NOT about a comment made to a member of our staff at the Runoffs. This is NOT about using our customers to get our way.

Why is it bad that we are asking our customers' opinions?
[/b]
Click to expand...

Tim,

The cover letter, perhaps? The context? The overtones? Correctly or in error, the manner in which this has been presented strongly implies that the motivation is response to Mazda "not getting their way." If people infer it as this, one only needs to look at the way in which it has been presented.

Since you are here...

MX5 package - was it available to the general public before the "cutoff" date or not?
 
My current best understanding of the situation is that you are being asked to exert political pressure inside of the Club, as consideration for support granted to you personally by Mazda. With respect, the distinction between this and "in a pocket" are getting fuzzier and fuzzier to me.

Question: If GM had twice as many advocates activated as a result of its support for SCCA Club racers, would you be totally OK with them doing what you are doing?

K
[/b]
Click to expand...

K
Answer : once upon a time VOA (Volkswagen of America ) had a well established SCCA club racing program in place that supported their grassroots racers. Not as prominent and successful as Mazda's is today but still a great help to those who raced the VW brand. Then, over a short period of time, the rules interpretation clashes with SCCA and the resulting "take it or leave it" attitude by the executive board caused VW to say
"screw it, we're outa here, no one can deal with these idiots".
I only used VW as an example because you race that brand today 'the hard way', on your own, having to deal with aftermarket shops and using your own ingenuity to resolve your racing needs. If you were around at that previous time, you would realise what you had to lose and then what you did lose.
Fast foward to today ... deja vue ...
Nobody has me or anyone "in their pocket". Both myself and the majority of Mazda racers only want SCCA and Mazda to repair their differences and continue a fair and equitable relationship as business partners. Unfortunately, sometimes one has to strike back in order to get negotiations and relations back on track. And with the present SCCA BOD, ya better bring a big stick as some of these guys are habitual hardheads.
In this case, we, the Mazdaspeed membership are the big stick. Maybe, if VOA had you in their camp back in the day, you would also be enjoying active, hands on manufacturer support today with your effort.
Finally, I happen to respect your intelligence and opinions as you have proferred here over the years. No wish to engage in a "distinction" pissing match with you.
just speaking my peace,
Carlos Gutierrez

PS EDIT
now that I see Tim Buck has posted a response ... nevermind... he can speak on our behalf better than me.
 
To me, corporations tend to:

1. Act more like people than we think;

2. Actually give a shit about what customers think.

I think those two items explain what is going on here. Mazda is, in my view rightfully so, ticked off about the Bling R-1 I mean Miata issue. They are reacting as anyone of us would (or any one of us would at least feel like reacting -- by lashing out a bit at SCCA.

But they are also interested in what their customers think. I read the survey to be a questioning of whether Mazda racers are as ticked off at the SCCA as Mazda is now. If so, Mazda can use the survey to do one of two things: try to get its "constituents" within the SCCA to right the ship so to speak, or simply leave the SCCA altogether if its constituents support that.

I don't see anything wrong or cloak and dagger about what Mazda is doing. It seems to me to predictable human behavior by a company that got the shaft.

I'm also only a small fish in the IT world. I have no idea what "pull" Mazda has in classes like Showroom Not, etc., but I suspect that influence is not as large as we may think.

Either way, I see nothing good coming from Mazda dropping its support for Club Racing over something that at least from my side of things looks like an SCCA clusterfark. Now, if Mazda left because the BoD wouldn't stack the deck in its favor, sure, in that case, don't let the door hit you in the ass.
 
K- that is not correct. We are surveying our customers to see how satisfied they are with their current sanctioning body (or bodies), and asking their opinion as to how Mazda should respond to certain situations/issues within the SCCA.

This is NOT about a comment made to a member of our staff at the Runoffs. This is NOT about using our customers to get our way.

Why is it bad that we are asking our customers' opinions?
[/b]
Click to expand...

I don't doubt at all that this issue isn't just about one nasty comment, and there is NOTHING at all wrong with asking people their opinions. I do it for a living. :)

All I did was look at the language of the instrument and make inferences re: the intent of the person who created it based on that language, and on the construction and presentation of the survey. Whether you personally think it's not about "getting your way," a survey asking for opinions doesn't typically include options where respondents pledge that...

"If necessary, I will seek club office to protect the relationship between SCCA and with Mazdaspeed Motorsports."

"I will support Mazdaspeed Motorsports by getting personally involved with club management to seek a solution to the current situation."

That's not a satisfaction survey. That's a call to arms.

Did you write the survey, by the way?

K

PS - Note that i'm NOT commenting on the substance of Mazda's complaint. I think they have valid gripes, based on the limited facts as I know them. I'm only having opinions on the response.
 
Dick, not to argue with you or anyone else BUT it is "real personal" when a SCCA BoD member runs his mouth at a SCCA member. The friken SCCA BoD, CRB & Jim J. need to remember that they are in a business with ALL SCCA members who are the customer & they are the vendor. It appears that for many years they (SCCA boards & pres.) don't have this business clue & they prove it over & over.

I'll will take what Tim Buck (SCCA member) said as a reasonable staement. You know NO ONE from the SCCA (SCCA boards & pres.) is ever going to come close to saying anything that we might believe factual. Forget about the business partner deal for a moment because it's always called a business partner untill one or the other of the partners screws the other business partner.
Have Fun ;)
David
[/b]
Click to expand...
David you must admit however from your statement that you have a bias in who you want to believe.
And by the way it is okay to argue with me, I am not a moderator. :D
 
That's a little out of context. It was more along the lines "pick which statement you most agree with" and that was one of the choices.

And what's wrong with a call to arms? I've even called it that myself. There are an AWFUL lot of people that will whine and complain about something from behind a bulletin board without lifting a finger in the real world to help fix the perceived problem. Now is a chance to affect some change, if you feel it's warranted. Is that bad?
 
Mazda has every right to be pissed and so do I. An officer of SCCA took it upon himself to tell my sponsor I no longer need them. If this was his opinion so be it. When they open their mouth and convey this to a sponsor as a member of the BOD it better Damn well be the consencus of the BOD or they should be removed. Who do these arrogant --- think they are anyway? Which one will step up and replace the money it will possibly take from my pocket? I have already spoken with a few and plan to speak with the rest. :mad1:
 
That's a little out of context. It was more along the lines "pick which statement you most agree with" and that was one of the choices.

And what's wrong with a call to arms? I've even called it that myself. There are an AWFUL lot of people that will whine and complain about something from behind a bulletin board without lifting a finger in the real world to help fix the perceived problem. Now is a chance to affect some change, if you feel it's warranted. Is that bad?
[/b]
Click to expand...

Well Tim,

You've been here twice without answering a question related to the real issue. One of those times, the question was directed directly at you.

I.e.Was the MX-5 "option" available prior to March 1, 2007?"

While I appreciate the support to grassroots drivers given by Mazda, I'd really like an answer to this question.

As for the Solstice hardtop - two Pontiac dealers in the DC area tell me that the part number listed in the GCR is not a valid part number.

So, is Mazda upset because GM got a cheat or is Mazda upset because you couldn't cheat too?
 
Mazda has every right to be pissed and so do I. An officer of SCCA took it upon himself to tell my sponsor I no longer need them. If this was his opinion so be it. When they open their mouth and convey this to a sponsor as a member of the BOD it better Damn well be the consencus of the BOD or they should be removed. Who do these arrogant --- think they are anyway? Which one will step up and replace the money it will possibly take from my pocket? I have already spoken with a few and plan to speak with the rest. :mad1:
[/b]
Click to expand...


Well said Steve! The BOD works for us not the other way around. I will answer this call to arms, long over due!!! :bash_1_:


Roland
 
Tim, you are saying contradictory things. First you say that :
This is NOT about using our customers to get our way.
[/b]
Click to expand...

Then you say:
That's a little out of context. It was more along the lines "pick which statement you most agree with" and that was one of the choices.

And what's wrong with a call to arms? I've even called it that myself. There are an AWFUL lot of people that will whine and complain about something from behind a bulletin board without lifting a finger in the real world to help fix the perceived problem. Now is a chance to affect some change, if you feel it's warranted. Is that bad?
[/b]
Click to expand...

A call to arms is what? Asking your customers to fight back, to help you get your way, pure and simple. That is NOT acceptable behavior for a particular manufacturer, and i am sure the hardheaded SCCA BOD will agree. This is not going in a good direction, for either parties involved.
 
Ok, Ok, let's tone it down some. I feel like I am about 95% 'in the know' now after some key conversations today. This issue runs very deep BUT it can be fixed. Let's not judge either side from a surface-view. It will be fine.

Having said that, comments to sponsors, members, or partners that even remotely resemble what is being portrayed in these threads are rediculous.
 
Mazda has every right to be pissed and so do I. An officer of SCCA took it upon himself to tell my sponsor I no longer need them. [/b]
Click to expand...

But Steve that is not even what is being alleged was said. The quote that I guess Tim says he was told is “SCCA does not need Mazda and Mazda does not need SCCA”. That could be a reasonable or unreasonable statement based on what was said to him right before that.
I was told the person who supposedly said it denies that is what he said. Two people, imperfect memories, some emotion.
We will not ever know the truth.
 
jjjanos- If you'd read the GCR, you'd see that the MS-R package is an "option" like you said. There are no time constraints, OR public-availability constraints for "options". The MODEL (as determined by the VIN) has to be available by said date. Obviously, the 2007 MX5 was. There is no such requirement in the GCR regarding "options".

An OPTION (not defined by VIN) can be added by the CRB to the Spec Line in the GCR at any time.

"9.1.7 The Club Racing Board may classify any particular model of a car, as determined by the VIN, or permit specific options listed on the spec line for that car."

It was properly added to the Spec Line by the CRB, then taken away by the CoA months later. These are GCR definitions. Read them yourself.

This hurt Mazda, but more importantly, several of Mazda's customers. We will not stand for that.

The Solstice's hard top is also an "option", and is not available to the public. Yet they keep it. Now I ask you, how fair does that look to you?
 
"...We will not stand for that."

Got to jump on that one, Tim. We've all been "mistreated" on occasion "in our opinion" and sometimes we just had to swallow it and press on. Ease up fellow.
 
Dick, you're right. (Of course...LOL) I shouldn't pre-judge the situation. Without hearing the whole story, it's hard to draw conclusions. I think I have tried to word my thoughts in such a manner, but perhaps not. On the surface, I do have a hard time imagining what could have been said in advance of the alleged statemant that would make that statement OK. But, my imaginiation isn't boundless, so who knows. I'll keep an open mind.

That said, I really would like to understand the mechanics of the situation better, though I know I probably never will, as business dealings are often tough to publicize. (sigh)

As an aside, this situation does bring to light how great we have it in IT. SS/Touring is, as Jeff Young coined, "SS-Not", LOL. I would HATE to be on those Ad hocs. Trying to find a class of cars...that is more than 2 or 3, (!) that race equally right off the showroom floor is nigh impossible.

Of course, we're fools if we think those classes aren't "adjusted" in some way. It's subversive, and all under the cloak of emails and "option packages" but there is, to be sure, an attemp at balancing. Here we see an unfortunate blow out.

We've (the ITAC) gotten suggestions that we should peel back the "5 year" rule, to allow new cars to play, and one arguement against that is that it would drive up the cost of racing..."Everyone will HAVE to have the new Borgawd belchfire 400!"...and the second arguement is "The manufacturers will be beating the walls down lobbying"... But, the counter to that is "We get to set the weights and the cars equalizing parameters" There should be no "Car of the year", Now manufacturuers lobbying?? I dunno 'bout that!

Nevertheless...the SS/Touring model is a very tricky one. Better them than me!
 
Why is the club offending a big supporter when it comes to media exposure, monetary and parts support, advertising in the clubs publications, being a cheerleader in an arena of enthusiast for their product, The club could be cutting off it nose to spite it's face. The club isn't a top of the mind awareness orginzation in the grand scheme of marketing to the general public. Currently, MAZDA has provided a platform to help grow and support the club with a group of cars that can be easily raced. There aren't many of those customers standing in-line to take MAZDA's place. How long has it taken VW to return to the club? Do you remember Formula Vee, Super Vee, Rabbit and Golf Cup races and their support, that is just now returning. I don't think E-F-G-and H Production are being supported by British Leyland anymore. Nissan does't seem to have an interest as they did in the 70's, and Toyota is in NASCAR with a gazillion dollar budget. Take alook at this website, outside of the MAZDA's board, in reality there is very little interest. The club makes alot of irrational moves and this appears to be another one. MAZDA isn't always right.....but in a capitlistic society America votes with there pocketbook and it looks like the purse strings are drawing tight a at major supporter.
I'll bet the marketing department at the club is reacting to a major account, possibily, moving across the racetrack! The club is dismal at retaining the players who support it. How much will it cost to replace MAZDA should they redirect their funds. They want to sell cars, parts, and image. Who would be so inept as to offend the person who is sponsoring the events and sport I enjoy. The crux of the problem is a straight and honest answer could have prevented the survey. Which is asking are you happy with the club?
Why is the club allowing MAZDA to even think of an alternative? But, I guess a board member has spoken for us all........ and MAZDA now is calling for consensus of opinion among the supporters....Bill Hennecy
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top