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

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 02-15-2019, 03:35 AM
DHRMX5 DHRMX5 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2019
Posts: 5
Default Letter of no confidence in CRB

I have posted the following letter to the BOD to bring their attention to a problem that has been ongoing in SCCA for some time. Those of you who have an opinion should send it to the BOD: Approximately a year ago the competitors in Touring got together and wrote letters proclaiming a loss of confidence in the CRB for the actions of Kevin Fandozzi in particular. We were led to believe that the issue was resolved and Mr Fandozzi would no longer be the liaison for Touring.

Imagine my chagrin when Mr Fandozzi shows up as the liaison for Super Touring, a class that I have a particular interest in seeing be successful as I was on the STAC in the beginning. It has become obvious recently that he is pulling the same BS moves that he engaged in as TAC liaison.
n addition, it has become obvious that he is still engaged in BS when it comes to Touring and now American Sedan.

Has the BOD/CRB somehow come to the conclusion that more of his particular brand of behind the scenes b*llshit and outright dishonesty is good for the competitors and the club as a whole? I would mention that my particular opinion of him is that he is a liar and deceptive person but I don't want to set a mean tone for this letter.

The path that has been set by the CRB is going to breed distrust amongst the drivers and I for one will not be pursuing the path to the Runoffs as we have done for the last 26+years. I will be posting this letter to the people I think are most affected by what I can best describe as a virus that has been set loose on the club for years now.

The impetus for this letter came about when I was informed that several members of the STAC/CRB committees whom I often disagree with but can at least respect the fact that they are honest with me as to their opinions/position on club matters have either been fired or have quit their positions. I respect them for their actions in this matter.

David Mead
333191
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 02-15-2019, 10:22 AM
Danny"TheKid"Richardson Danny"TheKid"Richardson is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Gaithersburg, MD
Posts: 439
Default

David
Thank you for your courage and transparency in your post. Just a friendly heads up. Recently I posted some questions that were raised of me about the person you have mentioned. Afterwards i received a voicemail and email with threats of legal action against me. After a few back and forths i was given the answers to those questions and posted them here as per his request.


"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.



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.

He has informed me that he cannot post on these forums and is looking for permissions to do so. Maybe he will be able to clear the air"
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 02-15-2019, 11:32 AM
PamRichardson PamRichardson is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Rockville, MD
Posts: 776
Default Thank you!

David --

I add my thanks for your posting. This community encourages transparency and posting of letters sent to SCCA leadership so that all community members have access to all views.

Please feel welcome to post at any time, Pam Richardson
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 02-15-2019, 12:53 PM
STUM3 STUM3 is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2019
Posts: 1
Default

I would like to add some facts to set the record straight here.

Some back ground:
I just finished serving 7 full years on the STAC, 5 of those with Dave.

posted above:

" I was recently moved to AS, Formula, and Super Touring. All facing the same fate with weak numbers country wide."

As this relates to Super Touring, this is not an accurate presentation.

The facts are as follows based on SCCA posted Majors participation numbers:

(Year, Runoffs location)
(class, entries, ranking)

2018 Sears Point
STL 273 #3
STU 140 #14

2017 Indy
STL 362 #3
STU 184 #12

2016 Mid-O
STL 274 #3
STU 128 #14

2015 Daytona
STL 285 #4
STU 128 #8

2014 Laguna Seca
STL 346 #3
STU 86 #24

2013 Rd America
STL 270 #3
STU 71 #12

Those are the facts.

Some things to consider:
STU has the potential to be a very expensive build. You can spend $60K on boxes of shocks, electronics, brakes and gearbox and not even have a car or engine yet. As such, participation numbers will always be limited.

2013 was the year the Turbo cars were pulled back in STU.

STU has historically has strong representation in SEDIV, NEDIV and MIDDIV. Not so much on the west. 2014 Runoffs show this. None of the top drivers from 2013 and prior, all from the east, made the trip.

STU was originally intended to be a place for ex-World Challenge Touring cars. Reality showed that there were few left, and most had been sold overseas so the focus since 2011 has not been on ex-pro cars.

STL was made into an actual National class in 2012.

Majors particpation can be found here>

https://www.scca.com/pages/majors-participation-2

Last edited by STUM3; 02-15-2019 at 12:59 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 02-15-2019, 10:21 PM
KFan KFan is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2019
Posts: 8
Default

Mr. Dave Mead is clearly on a mudslinging campaign, so lets see if we can get to the bottom of it.

As background, as I understand it, he put together a program to run a RP Coyote Mustang. It ran at Sonoma. Albeit it not at the pointy end, but we are excited that he is working to find another platform that can compete in AS.

If you are upset about the current balance of that car, its really not my place to weigh in. The committee and liasons are in new hands, and we should all trust that they will do what is in the best interest of the class.

If there is another reason, please post it so that everyone can see the details, not simply your attempt to slander another person.
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 02-16-2019, 11:19 AM
Scott Sanda Scott Sanda is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 459
Default

Just as an FYI, if I were building an RP car today (well, prior to the cambird cam....), it would be a Mustang.

The few times one ran in the hands of pointy end drivers, they blew away pretty much anything. Danny ran one with no debug time and ran faster than track records, and phoenix ran one a couple years ago at the winter nats and crushed everything.

I don't think anyone is looking for more for that car. If I built one tomorrow with my level of budget, and put someone good in it, it would win the runoffs. Thankfully, my mid pack ass isn't ready to be an "owner" yet, with someone else as a "driver".

I had though about putting John Buttermore in my car this season, but alas, he is going to China with a big promotion.
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 02-26-2019, 02:50 PM
DHRMX5 DHRMX5 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2019
Posts: 5
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by KFan View Post
Mr. Dave Mead is clearly on a mudslinging campaign, so lets see if we can get to the bottom of it.

As background, as I understand it, he put together a program to run a RP Coyote Mustang. It ran at Sonoma. Albeit it not at the pointy end, but we are excited that he is working to find another platform that can compete in AS.

If you are upset about the current balance of that car, its really not my place to weigh in. The committee and liasons are in new hands, and we should all trust that they will do what is in the best interest of the class.

If there is another reason, please post it so that everyone can see the details, not simply your attempt to slander another person.

Kevin, this isn't about my 2012 RP Mustang effort. As you are fully aware of due to post Runoffs conversation, I am embarrassed that we didn't go there and kick the living shit out of the AS class. I haven't asked for anything for the car as I believe the car is very competitive at tracks that don't have the letters VIR and RA on them. I am only interested in 1 race a year, and that is the Runoffs. The FP cars will do very well there, and I am not interested in running a heavier car that has to spot them 80ish RWHP. My Tq and transmission aren't going to overcome that deficit. My car had a terminal push that we didn't figure out in time and thus didn't show the true potential of the car. I was, however, told that the data showed the car was fastest off the corner to 90+. My bad. The 4 sessions the car did at Sonoma were the first time it ever set foot on a track.


As far as the loss of trust with you it goes back to you blowing smoke up my ass during the 2014 season. You assured me the T4 Mustang was going to be the bogey for the class and based on that I built and sold multiple cars to people I considered friends, only to find out the Mazda products were going to be allowed to run roughshod over the T4 class. Those friends never drove those cars in SCCA again as far as I know.


As for why I wrote that letter, I had seen on the forums some of what I consider to be your modus operandi going on. The final straw was the STU debacle (aero, S54 BMW) and then receiving calls from adhoc and CRB members whom I rarely agree with (and rarely talk to) but trust completely. I don't care for what I am hearing/seeing and the common denominator is you. I won't build cars for or participate in a class that you are involved in.


I didn't answer your repeated calls to me because I knew what you were going to say. I was also busy fielding multiple calls from other competitors with similar opinions to my own. Right or wrong, if multiple teams and competitors don't trust the adhocs and CRB then that is bad for the classes and SCCA as a whole.


David Mead
333191
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 02-26-2019, 10:35 PM
KFan KFan is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2019
Posts: 8
Default

Dave, Take this for what its worth......
Remember that I reached out to you with great excitement that you were running the RP Mustang at Sonoma. I was in agreement, that it could be a great package in AS. It was a tough track to figure out, and we all took our lumps at the Runoffs in 2018.
As far as the T4 Mustang goes, you must understand that one person cannot tell if a car will be at the front of the class. At the time, I remember committee folks working on getting the FR-S competitive, as no one would build one. Since then, we've watched that car win 3 championships with no changes to its relative balance given by the committee. Just my opinion of course.

Anytime you want to talk, I'm available and always enjoy conversations with you. I'm sorry if you already know what I'm going to say, but I guess I'll have to come up with something new. If I may ask that you carefully consider what people tell you, as they have very specific agendas that can only work if certain people are put in the cross-hairs. I will openly explain any topic or accusations publicly, not on phone calls behind the scenes. If I am a part of the group that makes decisions that you don't like, then lets find a way to lay them out and work through them.

While not everyone agrees with decisions that the committees and CRB make, they are done to keep the classes relevant with the changing times while working to protect the existing members and keeping close parity among platforms.
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 12:55 PM.


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