SCCAForums.com

ccytrader:

I still think it should actually be, "Can this supposed suffering SCCA membership base prove they are mistakes?"  If they bury the JCW for a reason, then its not a mistake. 

Bingo!

And we have a winner!

Gold star for you, sir.

--Andy

 

Andy Hollis:

John V:

[

When did Stock (talking Solo here, not club racing) mean a bone-stock car?  I haven't been at this that long, so I really don't know. 

I have been at this for quite some time and can answer that.  Stock was never "bone-stock".  I've got some really old rulebooks and the allowances for shocks, exhaust, front sway bar, alignment, etc. are all there.

What has changed is the level of seriousness in prep.  Back then, there were no National Tours, Pro Solo, significant manufacturer involvement or even awareness of autocross beyond the participants.  All of that has changed in a big way.  The sport has grown...a lot.  And with any competitive endeavor, the more people participate and the higher the stakes, the taller the pyramid.  The other big change is the availability of information over the Internet.  Back in the day, probably five people in the whole country knew what the absolute best car in any particular class was, and how best to prep it.  Few cared and fewer still  went to nationals and did their homework while there.  Now that information is out there for all to see.   And debate.   

--Andy

I would like to add that I believe there needs to be some amount of allowances in stock to allow different makes of similar type cars to compete together. The current rule set and classing system you described earlier work amazingly well except for what's confusing membership and being debated here lately. I'm still working on my ideas but it's apparant that formula will not work for cars of the type currently classed in AS/CS/ES. It will be interesting to see what happens to the sedans of DS/GS/HS.

---

Steve W.
ACR SRT-4

After doing some more research, it seems that there was not one MS-R built in 07 at the port as a true "port installed" package, and the package is not available in 08. So not one of these cars was actually built by Mazda (in the factory or at the port), but were all pieced together after purchase.  It seems that stretches the limits of "stock" classing as the rules state:

"13. STOCK CATEGORY

Cars running in Stock Category must have been series produced with

normal road touring equipment capable of being licensed for

normal road use in the United States, and normally sold and

delivered through the manufacturer’s retail sales outlets in the

United States. Car models not specifically listed in any Stock

Category class must have been produced, and must meet the above

requirements and been sold through normal U.S. dealerships, in

quantities of at least 1,000 in a 12- month period in order to be

eligible for the Stock Category.

Except for modifications authorized below, Stock Category cars must

be run as specified by the factory with only standard equipment as

defined by these Rules. This requirement refers not just to

individual parts, but to combinations thereof which would have

been ordered together on a specific car. Any other modifications or

equipment will place the car in Street Touring, Street Prepared,

Street Modified, Prepared or Modified Categories as appropriate.

Configurations involving damaged parts (e.g., blown fuses) are not

typically authorized by the manufacturer and hence are not allowed.

Option package conversions may be performed between specific

vehicles of a particular make and model, but only between configurations

from within a particular model year. Such conversions must

be totally complete and the resultant car must meet all requirements

of this Section."

 

Or have I interpreted this wrong? (I feel sure some may think so, and will be glad to state that.)

SoloRT:

After doing some more research, it seems that there was not one MS-R built in 07 at the port as a true "port installed" package, and the package is not available in 08. So not one of these cars was actually built by Mazda (in the factory or at the port), but were all pieced together after purchase.

[snip]

Or have I interpreted this wrong? (I feel sure some may think so, and will be glad to state that.)

Here we go again.  This horse has been beat to death incessantly.

Option packages do not have to actually be built, just available to be ordered.  Such was the case with the MS-R, based on the investigation by the SEB at the time.  People will debate said documentation, but that's the way the SEB saw it.  There are plenty of examples of options that were never placed on certain cars but could have been ordered (2nd gen MR2 is an example, good luck finding a real base hardtop model with ABS).

--Andy 

Andy Hollis:

Here we go again.  This horse has been beat to death incessantly.

Option packages do not have to actually be built, just available to be ordered.  Such was the case with the MS-R, based on the investigation by the SEB at the time.  People will debate said documentation, but that's the way the SEB saw it.  There are plenty of examples of options that were never placed on certain cars but could have been ordered (2nd gen MR2 is an example, good luck finding a real base hardtop model with ABS).

--Andy 

On the other hand 2nd Gen Mr2s with factory installed abs are not hard to find and 2nd Gen Mr2s that came from the factory as hardtops are not hard to find. Finding a single miata with ANY of the MR-S parts factory installed is well, not possible right?

 

What happened to the SEB policy of not classifying new cars until they had been available 6 months?

 

 

It's considered an option package, not a new car.

 

---

wheelspecs.com

Never mind...

What policy?  The membership would have a cow.  They want cars classed when the first rumor shows up on some bulletin board.

The SEB has in the past tried to balance the timing to be as quick as possible but still make the decision with some data.

Marcus

---

Marcus
ESP 89
www.margravemotorsports.com

Andy Hollis:

Here we go again.  This horse has been beat to death incessantly.

Option packages do not have to actually be built, just available to be ordered.  Such was the case with the MS-R, based on the investigation by the SEB at the time.  People will debate said documentation, but that's the way the SEB saw it.  There are plenty of examples of options that were never placed on certain cars but could have been ordered (2nd gen MR2 is an example, good luck finding a real base hardtop model with ABS).

--Andy 

Andy,

If this WAS truely available to be ordered, it is extremely hard to believe that not ONE was ordered by an enthusiast, collector, or hard core autocrosser (but built by several after the fact). And is the philosophy of "option packages do not have to actually be built, just available to be ordered" in the rulebook? I see in the rules...

 "Such conversions must be totally complete and the resultant car must meet all requirements of this Section." and then requirements...

"and normally sold and delivered through the manufacturer’s retail sales outlets in the United States. "

 

You also stated "There are plenty of examples of options that were never placed on certain cars but could have been ordered (2nd gen MR2 is an example, good luck finding a real base hardtop model with ABS)." Is there a more complete list of examples (especially newer cars)?

I'm not trying to beat a dead horse. I'm trying to understand why the horse was killed, did he deserve to die, and if it was not deserved, what can be done to protect everyone else's horse from harm (now and in the future). This is a quest for clarification and understanding... 

 

At least I'm not asking whether anyone's ruling's beliefs are based on their pastor's convictions and sermons

Patrick Washburn:

Gromit801:

[

So what part of "autocrossers IN SCCA," was hard to understand?   That vast majority of dues paying members who only seem to matter to SCCA when it comes to coughing up money for National events.

As you your comment about autocrossers running a couple times and leaving, WELL DUH!  Why should they stay?  Why should they join SCCA?  There's nothing in SCCA anymore to accommodate people who want to run their completely stock car, and still want to be competitive.   Anyone remember the concept of "Showroom Stock?"

So many people have their heads so clogged with mods and "throw money at it until it wins," bullshiet. 

 

 

Cole? 

 

http://www.northamericanmotoring.com/forums/showthread.php?t=132065 - for perspective on some earlier posts...

---

Charlie Thompson
'04 JCW Cooper [STX]
NER Cannon Fodder

cmt52663:

Patrick Washburn:

Gromit801:

[

So what part of "autocrossers IN SCCA," was hard to understand?   That vast majority of dues paying members who only seem to matter to SCCA when it comes to coughing up money for National events.

As you your comment about autocrossers running a couple times and leaving, WELL DUH!  Why should they stay?  Why should they join SCCA?  There's nothing in SCCA anymore to accommodate people who want to run their completely stock car, and still want to be competitive.   Anyone remember the concept of "Showroom Stock?"

So many people have their heads so clogged with mods and "throw money at it until it wins," bullshiet. 

 

 

Cole? 

 

http://www.northamericanmotoring.com/forums/showthread.php?t=132065 - for perspective on some earlier posts...

 

Is it just me or did that link bring me right back here?  Puts things in a whole new light for me.

---

Rob S.
116 FS 2008 Ford Mustang Bullitt

South Carolina Region

SoloRT:

Andy,

If this WAS truely available to be ordered, it is extremely hard to believe that not ONE was ordered by an enthusiast, collector, or hard core autocrosser (but built by several after the fact). And is the philosophy of "option packages do not have to actually be built, just available to be ordered" in the rulebook? I see in the rules...

 "Such conversions must be totally complete and the resultant car must meet all requirements of this Section." and then requirements...

That part is for option package conversions.  Which is what people are doing.

 

"and normally sold and delivered through the manufacturer’s retail sales outlets in the United States. "

That part is for the *car* as a whole, not any specific option package.  Plenty of MX5's built and sold.  Be careful what you "sound bite" w/o the context. 

You also stated "There are plenty of examples of options that were never placed on certain cars but could have been ordered (2nd gen MR2 is an example, good luck finding a real base hardtop model with ABS)." Is there a more complete list of examples (especially newer cars)?

Why would anyone keep a list of that sort of thing?  The MR2 is one that gets bandied about all the time, so it was top of mind.  And our rules allow it whether there are any other examples anyway, so the point is really moot.   

 

I'm not trying to beat a dead horse. I'm trying to understand why the horse was killed, did he deserve to die, and if it was not deserved, what can be done to protect everyone else's horse from harm (now and in the future). This is a quest for clarification and understanding...

If this is your first exposure to this issue, I suggest that you search this forum for the huge thread on this topic.  There, you will find more than you ever wanted to know. 

This is yet another one of those issues that can be argued either way.  Our rules happen to allow for this situation.  It's extreme, sure.  But it's legal.  The only debateable point is the one you have not yet mentioned, 3.4 on Limited Availability Options.

3.4 LIMITED AVAILABILITY OPTIONS
The SEB may designate limited availability option packages as inappropriate for the Stock Category even though the base car is eligible for Stock. Such exclusions will be included in Appendix A (Automobile Classes). 

This is where the SEB has discretion and can exclude an option package.  In this particular case, it was deemed that the class would be better off including the package rather than excluding it.  It was judged to make the MX5 competitive but not dominant over the 99 Miata and the Solstice Z0K.  That part is a judgement and certainly opinions will vary as to where those chips will really lie in the long run.

The rules are good, IMO, and have served us well.  They are mostly objective, but there is some subjectivity involved which allows for some "finesse" at the hand of the sport's governing body to handle unusual circumstance.  And there have been plenty of circumstances where certain packages were placed apart from the base model.  JCW Mini, Saturn Ion Redline, Caliber SRT-4 and Viper ACR are recent examples that have gone the other way.  Solstice Z0K and Z0KT, and the S2000 CR are one's that went together with the base car like the MS-R.  So leeway is there for a judgement call.  And you can always debate someone's judgement.   That's what this really comes down to.

--Andy 

Very well put Andy.

---

2007 Mazda MX-5 MRS (C-stock)

I like the MS-R MX5, and I want it to be in CS. But I want to see Mazda actually make it an available order-able from the dealer option package. Otherwise it's just a trunk kit. Why not allow the 99 Protege trunk kit cars in HS then? They have a lower stiffer suspension and bigger bars as well.

If you can't order it, why allow it in STOCK CLASS. What incentive to manufactures now have to make anything available to the general public? What is so hard about that? And if they only want mazda comp members to have the MS-R, then cool, Mazda Motorsports can fax a MS-R waiver on a sheet to take to the dealer to order the car.

I just think this was a huge mistake classing this car in stock given the lazy half as$ed route gone about to get it in CS. GM went through all the hoops and did this and that. Mazda didn't. Maybe this is a way to make it up to them for the retarded things one of the national staff members said and to save face. 

I've been a long time miata driver and fan and I have always owned at least 1 mazda for the last 10 years. All but 1.5 of those years I owned 2. And I love the mazda comp guys. But how this car got classed when it has to be assembled from parts only ordered from mazda comp is just not right.

Argue against me all you want folks, and those who own one are good for jumping on this lapse in judgement. Being an SEB member is a sucky hard thankless job. But please tell me the final deciding factors in this decision. We all know money isn't one of them.

 You should not have to build a stupid stock class car (beyond the shock, sway bar and alignment stuff we already do). This just seems like a pandora's box that has now been opened. Because the next car that comes along and doesn't get classed in stock will send a message of favoritism.

It's probably a few simple reasons staring me in the face, but this worries me.....its a dark path.....don't go down it. :)

---

David Hedderick
Pearland (Houston), TX
01 CRG YZ125 (FOR SALE! $2500)
08 Mazda 3s
02 Mazda Protege (automatic tow vehicle)
92 Miata SE - Fun half-arsed STS2 Car

Very well put David!

 

Wow, that sounds  familiar......

 

I have owned 8 Mazdas (2 currently)and was one of the first members of Mazda Motorsports (3 digit #). I love Mazdas and their support! But that's not the issue...

Davebs14:

I like the MS-R MX5, and I want it to be in CS. But I want to see Mazda actually make it an available order-able from the dealer option package. Otherwise it's just a trunk kit. Why not allow the 99 Protege trunk kit cars in HS then?

Show me the documentation where the Protege kit is listed as an orderable option package.  The MS-R had that.  Whether anyone took advantage of it or not is moot, as far as the rules go.  You can decide you don't like it, but that's a philosophical point of view, not a "judicial" one.

 

If you can't order it, why allow it in STOCK CLASS.

They priced it so high that no one in their right mind would have paid to have one built and delivered.  Did you try to order one and were rejected?

 

I just think this was a huge mistake classing this car in stock given the lazy half as$ed route gone about to get it in CS.

You are welcome to your opinion on that.  And, on any contentious decision, up to half the members will be disappointed in the outcome (aren't you tired of hearing me say that yet?), so it's not surprising that you are not alone in that opinion.

 But please tell me the final deciding factors in this decision.

Asked and answered in my first post above.  Point by point on how the rules were applied and how the subjective decision was made on 3.4.  You may not agree with it, but the reason have been given.

 

 You should not have to build a stupid stock class car (beyond the shock, sway bar and alignment stuff we already do). This just seems like a pandora's box that has now been opened. Because the next car that comes along and doesn't get classed in stock will send a message of favoritism.

Hilarious.  How many real SS Camaros or WS6 Firebirds do you think we'll see in FS?  How many real LE1's were there back in their heyday?  People do option package conversions all the time.   Its nothing new.

 

It's probably a few simple reasons staring me in the face, but this worries me.....its a dark path.....don't go down it. :)

Not at all.  We've been going down it for many years.  ACR, R-package, CR, CS, and M030 that wre built but scarce, and other option package combinations that were never built on the line, but "could have been".  The reasoning is above.  It's very clear and point by point.  I'm not sure what you don't understand about.  I do understand that you don't like it.  But that is irrelevant.

 --Andy

PS: 

 

I had an issue that I had first asked about back in November/December.  It's now March and I hadn't received a reply.  I talked to Brian yesterday and received a reply today.  Great job.  Thanks Brian. 

---

Too Many 2's are never enuf
00,00,01Spyder, 91T, 93NA, 85NA>SC project