Moderators: Feel free to tow this to any other relevant forums


From: "KMS - Brett Anderson" @koalamotorsport.com

Subject: Need help ASAP. Please read and react.
Date: Fri, 19 Sep 2003 20:22:28 -0400




We found out an hour ago that the SCCA has withdrawn the eligibility of the
Z4 in SSB. The cars are at the National Championships right now.

TC Kline, Jim Leithauser of Bimmerhaus, and Dave Nielsen in a KMS prepared
car, were all told the car was eligible, they were allowed to qualify, and
because they ended up in the first three positions, the Mazda Miata crowd
went bezerk.

The result of several days of protests was for the SOM (Stewards of the
meet) to rule in favour of the Z4, as the car has followed all the rules of
eligibility. The Chief steward, a few hours ago, over ruled the SOMs and
disqualified the car.

His reasoning was that a printing delay in the cars specs proved it
ineligible. The specs were published in April of this year, although the
comp board showed their meeting minutes for December 16 2002 to have
classified the car before the Dec 31 deadline.

This printing delay has happened before on several occasions, at least once
in this class, with the Acura RSX. The Chief Steward dismissed the
precedent set by these previous occurrences and disqualified the car.

It's our belief that Mazda corporate became involved, and this is a
political decision. The Mazda Miata has ruled this class for the last 9
years, and they don't like the idea of having to race against a completive
car.

I'm asking for the help of everyone on these lists. Forward this list to
any others you're on. Following is a list of email addresses of people who
have the combined ability to reverse this decision before race time at 1pm
tomorrow (Saturday 20th). This decision can be reversed up to 5 minutes
before the race time.

Please send an email expressing your disappointment in the actions of the
Chief steward to each of these addresses. Note that many mail servers will
reject more than about 20 email addresses, so you may have to break the list
up. The list is in order of priority, with the president of SCCA at the
top, Executive director next and so on, so if you can only send a few, start
at the top. All of the really important people are above the break in the
list.

Thanks for any help you can offer.

Brett Anderson
KMS


president@scca.com
aquaney@scca.com
JMartinsen@scca.com
APorterfield@scca.com
TCampbell@scca.com
GPitts@scca.com
RSchader@scca.com
DSherrod@scca.com
CClark@scca.com
BHoltz@scca.com
ESkirmants@scca.com
KPatterson@scca.com
KBarnes@scca.com
BWeston@scca.com
PMellor@scca.com
Chuck72151@aol.com
cdunias@msn.com
ddcsmc@swbell.net
PClarke@scca.com
BCohn@scca.com


JThoennes@scca.com
wmccormick@scca.com
HDuncan@scca.com
BLundquist@scca.com
GMudd@scca.com
NMcmaster@scca.com
EPrill@scca.com
ckitchen@scca.com
mflesher@scca.com
SAbrahams@scca.com
MAtchison@scca.com
DWeekes@scca.com
WGrillo@scca.com
MDickerson@scca.com
KCowen@scca.com
JFarwell@scca.com
SDowns@scca.com
sgrammer@scca.com
CCarter@scca.com
NFarhner@scca.com
TArmstrong@scca.com
HMartin@scca.com

What a load of crap...you can't blaim Mazda Corporate if they really were involved...they are just doing the best job they can to support their brand. I am amazed at the support Mazda gives its racers, and I can only expect that they try to protect the investments of the racers driving their cars.

The SCCA screwed up royally on this one, and are certainly to blaim for letting themselves be pushed around. It's Mazda's job to lobby for their own...it's SCCA's job to decide what's fair, and they BLEW it. Trust me when I say that every person on that list as well as my personal contacts at SCCA will be hearing from me.

There's a second side to the story:

http://www.honda-tech.com/zerothread?id=624402

So basically, the hardtop is not available until December, so the car is illegal? Oh well, if that's the rule, then that's the rule. In any case, they'll be kicking eveyone's asses next year.:alright

Then....why were they allowed to run all year. Why were they allowed to come to the run offs....why were they allowed to qualify..and why was it only an issue when they performed well? In a time when SCCA is fighting to hold members, these are the kind of things that turn drivers away....to other series. Fishy

Originally posted by vehdyn
Then....why were they allowed to run all year. Why were they allowed to come to the run offs....why were they allowed to qualify..and why was it only an issue when they performed well? In a time when SCCA is fighting to hold members, these are the kind of things that turn drivers away....to other series. Fishy

They weren't protested until now. Welcome to the SCCA.

A lot of the controversy stems from the fact that an SCCA board member essentially stuck the Z4, which he happens to run, into SSB, which it already appears to be an overdog in compared to the miatas and base RSX's. Second, BMW does not offer a hard top for the car as of yet, so this same board member produces and sells one for the car. A big no-no, yet somehow, this part gets homologated. Third, there were 3 Z4's entered in a field of 48 cars in SSB at the runoffs. They qualified 1-3, 2.5 seconds ahead of the rest of the field.

Whoops.

-Charlie

Originally posted by Young
There's a second side to the story:

http://www.honda-tech.com/zerothread?id=624402

I thought this link (found within your link) was more telling of the other side of the story.

http://www.coloradoscca.org/prodcar/viewtopic.php?t=1901

Hmm, after reading more threads than I can count about this, there sure seems like something fishy went on with the Z4.

It is a shame that the protest didn't arise before the Runoffs, and I feel bad for Jim L. and TC, but I seems like SCCA did the right thing giving the cars a DQ before the race.

a hard top is produced for the z4 and supposedly some dealers can get it but most cant, someone even posted on one of those threads that you can get on from a dealer for 2500+. now i do know they exist cause ive been in a z4 with one on and seen about 3 laying around question is how involved was the board member in the rulings supposedly he was greatly involved making this not to good for him self since that breaks the no profit and advatage rule. the scca has to get there shit in place imo

Well...

Clearly the Z4s presented to tech were illegal. It does not matter that they were never found illegal in the past. The hardtops are not OEM and thus a completely illegal part. All other arguments are irrelevant and a red herring at this stage.

In addition to the disqualification, perhaps there could be sanctions handed out for presenting an illegal car. I believe I've read about that in the past in the COA proceedings in SportsCar.

It is right and proper that the Z4s were disqualified, given the evidence that does not appear to be disputed. I'm glad the process worked.

George Roffe
SCCA Improved Touring Advisory Committee member (reporting to the Competition Board)

If you're going to solicit an e-mail drive it might be a good idea to keep people with nothing to do with classing/elegilbility off the list. Marketing, program development and SCCA U are just a few of the people your suggesting letters get sent to. I'm surprised you didn't include the SEB.

EC

That's retarded. I just joined SCCA today :( (I hadn't found out about this). I really like the group that I have been competing with, but I have a feeling the people who run the group at the national level are less pleasant.

edit- forgot this wasn't OT ;)

Originally posted by Geo31
Clearly the Z4s presented to tech were illegal. It does not matter that they were never found illegal in the past. The hardtops are not OEM and thus a completely illegal part. All other arguments are irrelevant and a red herring at this stage

Agreed...with more details surfaced, I'd have to agree. Seems T.C. might have been trying to get back at the SCCA for snubbing any inclusion of the 330 in T2 last year at a proper weight?

Regardless, by the book, I'd have to agree that the cars are illegal.

Jobs, please edit your post and watch your language in the Main Forums.

Dave, you forogt the :cop: smily :stickoutt

Thanks, jobs.

And John, sorry, I seem to be typing it 18 times a day these days.... ;) :D :stickoutt:

Geo - Seems the tops were actually found to be legal according to reports from the event. The actual disqulification was made based on the date issue mentioned in Brett's email, despite past precedent when that has been allowed to slide. It does seem a little fishy, and I don't think we've got all the details yet.

this is a little OT, but do they have S2000's in the same class as Z4's ?

Nope, no S2000's

Originally posted by BMWRacerITS
Geo - Seems the tops were actually found to be legal according to reports from the event. The actual disqulification was made based on the date issue mentioned in Brett's email, despite past precedent when that has been allowed to slide. It does seem a little fishy, and I don't think we've got all the details yet.

Were they actually found to be legal or was it just not addressed? I'm curious. I've been a bit out of touch today so I'm not up to date.

For sure it will be interesting to see how the rest of this plays out. I still wonder about the tops. If they are not available yet....

I sure hope it's not in reaction to them being instantly quick. That is a failure on the part of the CB if so, but I guess I shouldn't speculate anymore.

Tops are available. I talked to a local BMW yesterday. Tops became available just before Run-offs, thus the reason the cars hadn't run all season...the drivers all qualified in their Z3's. According to a few email responses from Steve Johnson, things are being looked into but the BMW drivers did nothing wrong. Of course, this is all 2nd hand.

Yeah, speculation has gotten a little out of hand here.

Originally posted by BMWRacerITS
...Of course, this is all 2nd hand.

Yeah, speculation has gotten a little out of hand here.

Yeah, I suspect there is a great deal of politicing going happening on all sides. I sure hope the COA got it right.