Go Back   American Sedan Forum > Main American Sedan Categories > American Sedan Rules

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #81  
Old 02-02-2019, 12:15 PM
jimwheeler jimwheeler is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Kansas City
Posts: 5,165
Default

why is any discussion a moot point?
Reply With Quote
  #82  
Old 02-07-2019, 09:25 AM
Rotaryracer Rotaryracer is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2016
Posts: 19
Default

Probably flogging a dead horse at this point, but I found the following quote in the February 2019 issue of SportsCar rather interesting.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Peter Keane
"The goal for the RRB moving forward is communication, communication, communication. We plan to improve communication with the members, Regions, SCCA staff, and the technical inspectors."
I'm not sure what qualifies as "communication", but I think a WDYT to solicit feedback on SMG being added as spec'd to A-Sedan might have been a good start.

Last edited by Rotaryracer; 02-07-2019 at 09:34 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #83  
Old 02-16-2019, 05:06 PM
scottybwhite scottybwhite is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2019
Posts: 8
Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by Danny"TheKid"Richardson View Post
Kevin was kind enough to email me the answers to the above questions that were posed.

-Why was Kevin removed from WCVision rulemaking.

Well, to put it clearly, I was brought in in 2011 to help reverse a million dollar per year losing entity, and helped turn it into one of the most popular series in the US. Enough so, that it was bought out by SRO, and the partners that I was tied to sold their shares and moved on. Luckily, before this transfer took place, I was offered a six figure salary to develop the new DPi tires in the IMSA paddock and the entire product development from 2015 forward. It was too good to pass up.
While that is a nice spin on what happened after KF was removed from WC, it isn't exactly true... KF and SB were removed because they were caught manipulating data for the purpose of BOP adjustments that would benefit one or more mfg which in turn provided a financial gain for themselves.


Quote:
Why was Kevin cast out from the Touring World?

Again to clarify this, I was brought in to manage to the new Touring classes many many years ago (2009?). Most were failing, and not making the numbers. Fast forward, all are above the average, some in the top 10, and healthy with respect to the future. I was recently moved to AS, Formula, and Super Touring. All facing the same fate with weak numbers country wide.
Again many untruths and misleading statements here...

KF was removed as a touring liaison due to several members relating to their area directors the dirty dealings he had been involved in. After multiple letters from multiple team owners and individual racers the BOD looked into some of the things KF had been involved in and made the decision to remove him from touring with explicit instructions to no longer involve himself in touring. A portion of the BOD wanted him removed from the CRB as well but the vote was not unanimous and he was allowed to stay on the CRB where he has continued to work hard to influence touring decisions IE: squashing the SMG move to T3...

Also important to have a bit of a history lesson here in that 2009 touring was suffering more than any other factor due to a disastrous economy. Has touring grown since 2009? Yes it has grown AND shrunk since KF was in charge. The problem with KF's assertion he is the hero of touring is the economy has improved dramatically and other similar classing venues have grown at an exponentially faster pace than touring has. While most racers, team owners and mfg's involved in touring classes will tell you the slow growth compared to other similar venues is do to constant meddling with rules and car classifications along with the continual slowing of all the touring classes as a general philosophy endorsed by KF. Many cars are carrying hundreds of pounds in ballast (some up to 450Lb) and choking them off with FP restrictors pulling up to 30% of their potential power...

These factors while they may be somewhat successful in keeping BOP in check make the classes very unattractive to MFG's and would be newcomers to the class. These factors have also caused several people to leave the touring classes because of the simple fact that a great team that worked hard and found speed within a given rule set could count on being rewarded with less power and more lead. This promotes sandbagging and a very significant lack of trust in the process among racers...

The new regime in Touring has taken some great steps forward since KF was removed but his meddling and underhanded dealings have now caused the touring liaison to resign...

With KF as a liaison in AS and ST you can see what has been happening, cars getting classed that the constituents repeatedly made it known they did not want (both AS and ST) and kockblocking a move they did want (SMG to T3) without following due process... Same $hit different day...

KF will also simply repeat lie after lie until he wears everyone down...

Jeff, I hope this post isn't outside forum guidelines, feel free to remove if it is but I just can't stand to see so much false information out there, Thanks for listening to the facts
Reply With Quote
  #84  
Old 02-17-2019, 09:48 PM
KFan KFan is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2019
Posts: 9
Default

Nice try Mr White.

I’ve learned to enjoy your rants about my role in the decisions that have negatively affected your racing in the club.

The fact is that even if I was the terrible person that you are trying to paint me as, I’m still only one vote of 8 in any decision that’s made by the CRB.

I’m also surprised at your tactics now that you are RE. I wish you nothing but success building your program, and I will continue to support any positive effort that you put forward for the club.

I also will tolerate your jovial rendition of my time building PWC from 16 to 104 cars in the grid. Clearly it was the work of a good team of folks, but I’m proud knowing that I played a key role. The same can be said about my following assignment in IMSA

I won’t walk through all of your history, and won’t go onto the details of your behavior that led to your second removal from the committees, the last one by me as the liaison. I had high hopes when you and I finished on the podium at Road America Runoffs when I humbly asked for you to help by joining the Touring committee (against Much advice not to).

I will also clarify that I am not the AS liaison. The changes that are in place for 2019 went through overwhelming positive support by the committee, and I watched on the sidelines as the new leaders of the class shape the future. I will support their work in any way that I can.

Take care. Be well. See you in Atlanta.
Reply With Quote
  #85  
Old 02-18-2019, 11:40 AM
Scott Sanda Scott Sanda is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 460
Default

Soctty B's story is similar to what I have heard from the various WC teams I know, but it is all he said, she said.

All we know that are actual facts are:

1. Current CRB chair and Kevin called previous CRB chair and the then members of the AdHoc idiots, and disparaged them all on an open conference call line.

2. Current AD Hoc was fired immediately after new CRB chair took over.

3. SMG was put into AS by direct action of CRB, with no input from the current Adhoc, and against the specific multiple wishes of the fired adhoc and the AS current drivers.


We all draw our own conclusions from all of this. The appearance of conflict of interest and rules manipulation for personal gain is a pretty big elephant in the room.

I think we are beyond clashing visions and disagreements on specific adjustments, and into the realm of star chamber decisions.

Scott
Reply With Quote
  #86  
Old 02-18-2019, 01:26 PM
mlanglin2007 mlanglin2007 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2014
Posts: 35
Default

The way this forum has devolved from honest debate about how to better the class to the current back-biting and recriminations, I think the forum as it has been used is now useless. I'm afraid that the class as it has been known and understood for years is now dead.

The "New management" may be successful at jacking up the name and moving a whole new class in underneath it, but maybe not. I have a hard time imagining anyone looking at the class from the outside deciding to spend $50-$100k to build a "new-model" AS car. I foresee a wholesale dropout of existing participants. Good luck building new fields fast enough to avoid decertification.

Last edited by mlanglin2007; 02-18-2019 at 05:50 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #87  
Old 02-19-2019, 09:20 AM
KFan KFan is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2019
Posts: 9
Thumbs up

Scott Sanda,

I donít know who is leaning on you, but tell me, how are you in a position to state the facts? Here are my edits, which you can agree or disagree with.

1. Current CRB chair and Kevin called previous CRB chair and the then members of the AdHoc idiots, and disparaged them all on an open conference call line.

Incorrect. I never said ANYTHING disparaging about a single person. I may have disagreed with the decisions that were made or how the group took a direction that was, in my opinion, protecting their garages.

2. Current AD Hoc was fired immediately after new CRB chair took over.

There are 10 commmittes for the clubs 28+ classes. The term is usually 3-5 years. I know of three that had chairs and members that were timed out this year, including AS. With the AS committee tenure of some over 10 years, Blanchard now has a good mix of old and new committee members to update the class. He even brought in some young guys. Three or four of the members were tenured from Pam committee, Iím not sure exactly though.


3. SMG was put into AS by direct action of CRB, with no input from the current Adhoc, and against the specific multiple wishes of the fired adhoc and the AS current drivers.

At the convention, the AS liaison said that the committee had overwhelming strong support for the Spec Mustang. I thought the ABS would concern current drivers, but itís no different of a car than the already classed 4.6 RP car, other than that. In fact itís got a ton of limitations compared to the RP car, so perhaps current drivers will see the balance. Otherwise, they can deal with it in any way that they think is best for the class. Iím less concerned with its allowances that I see on the top cars in the class

I think your CTS-V is still a good package at 400hp/400tq compared to 330/350. I think the committee is trying to get the engines with less power a little help to run competitively with the clear front runners, but we will see.

I also agree with the above post. I have complete confidence as John B has run the committee for years before this past group and knows the cars that are the core of the class. I think he has a dozen of them. Letís give him some time and see how things shake out. Key metrics will be how many new cars are being built and how many cars sitting in garages are being brought back to the track.
Reply With Quote
  #88  
Old 02-19-2019, 11:07 AM
nomics nomics is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 119
Default

There's no confidence in the new people making the rules. It is clear that they don't want input and are doing things to give advantages to certain people. There is also not a lot of time to wait around while the class dies. Who is going to build a new car when they don't know what the rules will do later? Their new car could be obsolete with a wave of the wand by the new wizard(s) running the show. Discouraging at the least, I still don't know what I'm going to do but it seems like nothing is being done to remedy the current Imbalance.
__________________
Matt
Reply With Quote
  #89  
Old 02-19-2019, 11:31 AM
Rotaryracer Rotaryracer is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2016
Posts: 19
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by KFan View Post
At the convention, the AS liaison said that the committee had overwhelming strong support for the Spec Mustang.
Kevin, can you clarify who was the AS liaison at the convention that stated there was "overwhelming support" for the SMG addition? Since no WDYT was offered to the AS class in advance, and this exact same decision has been voted down twice previously, I'm unclear how the committee or the liaison could make that assumption.
Reply With Quote
  #90  
Old 02-19-2019, 01:44 PM
KFan KFan is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2019
Posts: 9
Default

Matt, if you donít like the decisions being made, in that they are favoring certain cars, you can use social media, letters, and any other form of communication that we all take part in. I do know that the process set up club wide to maintain close racing between equal drivers is in place, and the people running that program are good at what they do. I also believe that unless new cars get built, any class will fall the part of the 4.0 rule and potentially lose out.

The classes that have committees focused on getting racers to the track.....and forums/Facebook pages that build positive energy will succeed, the negative ones will fail.
Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 06:54 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.