Jump to content

Resigning as National Director


ianacole

Recommended Posts

Erik,

thanks for the clarity. I was mainly talking about the 944 Cup boys and what happened to them. I do wish you the best in 944 spec. it has not done well here. I think your old 914 COULD keep up with them

 

Fc

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 50
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

  • Snymo

    5

  • Fred Crawford

    4

  • RSCoupe

    4

  • gimpstang

    3

Hello All,

 

I have been following this thread here and the rules change and felt I should give my input as these changes have a direct effect on my plans for next season. Let me first say that I have enjoyed racing with NASA NE and that our regional director, Michael Gershanok, has been great to work with. The competitors seem to really enjoy the race weekends and I haven't heard any grumblings about the need for rule changes. In my particular case, I run in GTS 5 and was planning on a couple of changes to my car that I thought would get me closer to the sharp end of GTS 5. If I do nothing to my car and the rule change sticks I will have to make a number of changes to stay in GTS 5 or make significant changes to be competitive in GTS U. I understand the idea of trying to get the factory built high horsepower cars into GTS U and I believe that's where most of them are. I think this ripples back through GTS as there will be a few GTS 4 cars facing the same decision I am. I am hopeful that the openness of the rules in GTS will continue as I believe that is one of things that makes this series fun.

 

I would like to thank Ian for his service and dedication to NASA and GTS and wish him the best for the future. I would also like to thank all the regional directors for working hard to keep NASA a racers club and not a political one.

 

Best to all,

Kurt

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ian, thanks for posting your side of the story. It's nice to be able to set both responses side by side and compare them to fill in the pieces.

 

I agree with many of things others have said about GTS and to be clear I am joining because of the wide open rule set. I've been fortunate enough to race in many different classes over the last 8 years with SCCA and NASA. Everything from SSC/T2 to ITS to World Challenge and now GTS. When I decided to build my new car, the ability to do anything I wanted (regardless of it is smart, stupid, cheap or expensive) in a German car is what ultimately led me to this series. Like Doug, who races here in the RM region, I wanted to take the time to build a car in my garage that would let me express myself in anyway that I see fit.

 

While I can't afford some of the really fancy stuff at the moment, I liked being able to add them in the future (if I won the lottery or got a nice bonus at work). And, even though I help friends build 944-spec cars (I've helped build two so far) I really don't want to run in a spec series. Yes, that means that sometimes I could be out-built or out-spent but I'm really not worried about that. At this point, it's more about the enjoyment of the build, racing what I have built with my friends in the class and just plain having fun!

 

Sure, the current changes do not really effect me at all, but I respect Ian's opinion (echoed by many other seasoned GTS competitors here) that it's more about the way these changes were implemented at the last minute and seemingly against the general opinion of the series competitors. That's the part that really scares me and makes me wonder "what's next?" What will I find that is illegal next time a rule slips in in a mid-season change or for next seasons rules? When will I have to decide to either undo a mod to my car or switch to another class because I want to keep the mod on my car? That's the part that has me worried.

 

Thanks,

Rick

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sure, the current changes do not really effect me at all, but I respect Ian's opinion (echoed by many other seasoned GTS competitors here) that it's more about the way these changes were implemented at the last minute and seemingly against the general opinion of the series competitors. That's the part that really scares me and makes me wonder "what's next?" What will I find that is illegal next time a rule slips in in a mid-season change or for next seasons rules? When will I have to decide to either undo a mod to my car or switch to another class because I want to keep the mod on my car? That's the part that has me worried.Thanks,

Rick

 

This is the primary reason I chose NASA GTS over SCCA and BMW CR. When I go out to the garage and start tinkering.....I want creative freedom. I want it to stay a Grass Roots type of series where your brain can be used on and off the track. I have read others speak of not having the skills/time/$$$s to build a competitive car. I chose to learn the skills....make the time.....and save the $$$s to be able to make the modifications I believe will make my car competitive. Having an understanding of how the car works and then being able to drive it in such a manner to to maximize it's capabilities is where I personally find great enjoyment.

 

If someone has the means to "Buy" a trophy.....so be it. Why change the rules? It is just an "empty" win in reality. Get over it....or try and get better at what you are doing...

 

Damon in STL

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Back when this series was invented. I think by Mark Barr. The biggest concern was that it lined up directly with BMW club racing and PCA club racing GT series so that anyone racing in those areas would hop over and run with NASA when they got tiered of the political BS in those series. The rule set is as simple as you can make it for a reason. Go out and have some fun.

 

A few years ago I floated the idea of penalizing a few common things found on more modern cars. Like anti lock brakes, traction control, stability management, ....

 

I got totally blasted by EVERYONE. NO ONE agreed with me. The most convincing argument that I can remember (although I can not remember the author) was that I chose the car that I am racing. My fault if it does not have these neat things in it. Who would think that a 30 year old Porsche would be competitive in an unlimited series anyway. If I want to win, go get something better.

 

I will repeat what I said when asked about this rule. (being the GTS1 region champ for Great Lakes this year). I would not support any changes. This is rule creep plain and simple. It is just the first steep towards a full points system. It makes it more difficult for a car to come from PCA or BMW club and race in GTS. No sane individual is going to build a 100k GTS1 car. If you have that kind of money to spend on a car, you will not be competing with 200 Hp. The Hp drug is too addictive if you have the money to go faster.

 

 

 

So I see in this post that the crash boxes were penalized because it is felt that they can take off a second or more in lap time. Really. Probably true. How much time can a really good quality anit-lock brake system take off per lap. I am talking about a Porsche Motorsport system (or the BMW equivalent) that is made for the race drivers. I bet more than a second. After all, I have never heard a racer say: 'Man, if I could only have out shifted that guy, I could have won.'

 

 

 

Thanks Ian. Sorry for your trouble.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Gear boxes make a heck of a difference, there, I said it. Also brakes and everything else. I think my problem and most folks is how the rules changes were handled and implemented by national.

 

fc

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi Fred,

 

My point is that I feel that a sequential gear box does improve the car. So does a big wing, wide tires, short ratio transmissions, big brakes, antilock brakes, cockpit adjustable sway bars, engine tuning, ....

 

There are probably 100 things that you can do to your car within the rules that cost over $10k that will provide you at least 1 second of lap time.

 

Think about it. If I had the time and money, I could build a turbo 911 that would have a completely integrated computer control, drive by wire, and boost control so that on the dyno I would go up to peak Hp and Tq and stay at max Hp from about 6500 to 8000 rpm. It would probably cost me about $15k to do, but it would probably give me more like 3 seconds per lap.

 

I disagree with the way the rule was changed and I disagree with the rules being change. Both. Look at the discussion on the board about the rule. Very few people came out in support of the rule. Still, the rule got change.

 

Thanks

 

Ed

 

Gear boxes make a heck of a difference, there, I said it. Also brakes and everything else. I think my problem and most folks is how the rules changes were handled and implemented by national.

 

fc

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is not the first step along the path of rules creep. A few years ago was the addition of the (HP+TQ)/2 rule; according to what I was told, most everyone at the time was against it. It is interesting to see many people speaking against this new instance of rule creep, but very few speaking against the old instance of rule creep. How can one reasonably be against one, but not the other?

 

Will

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wow, Imagine what I feel as I read all this. I FIND IT PAINFULLY INTERESTING, with a ransid vinegar taste of deja vu!

 

Ian, thanks for your work and keeping the series stable during your tenure.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Y'all remember....NASA is a for profit organization: Therefore, we, as racers, technically have no say, other than with our check books. This is another round such as the hp/tq fiasco, and y'all see how much good all the verbiage did on that subject.

 

GTS started as a good formula with lots of crossover racers. Then the rules makers got involved and more and more crossover racers had to decide what series to run because their cars were no longer competitive in two venues.

 

Speaking of history repeating itself...reference Honda Challenge started by Scott and the SE30 started by Mark, both of whom were pushed out of the series by NASA management. Don't expect any racer friendly changes. Chuck

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Folks,

 

We have collected plenty of data and also drivers who have stated they would leave or have already left the series due to the inability to keep up with some high dollar equipment variables. As of late, we have been in discussions with the regional class leaders and some have advised us to remove 4.1. As such, we are going to do so.

 

The folks that have compared GTS with the inclusion of one or two rule additions as being a slippery slope or becoming a spec class are unfairly assessing the truth of the matter. The honest individual should appreciate a management team that is willing to look at changes that can improve a product. We have become conditioned to the claim that winning should be left to the driver. We hear from people all the time that they want GTS to be a driver’s series but don’t want any rules changes that could improve parity whatsoever. Unfortunately, you can’t satisfy both of those desires at the same time. What is most depressing is the venom that many of the drivers seem to hold for the hard working folks at NASA who wish to offer you a superior product. At the end of the day, we are for profit and need to be so we can still host and environment so you can come and race. Most decent products that you buy as a consumer come from companies that make a profit. In racing, many drivers seem to hold an expectation for the best product but speak about profit as a dirty word. If we didn’t have the desire to do things right and fight for what we believe works, NASA and the race classes would not exist. In a customer service business the mantra is that the customer is always right. Since we are being told this is what the customer wants, your request is being met.

 

Lots of time has been spent on this subject so we hope this will satisfy the majority of the drivers and we apologize to the drivers adversely affected by removing this new rule. I hope we can all focus on putting any bad feelings behind us and move forward without beating this topic to death any longer.

 

Best regards,

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As of late, we have been in discussions with the regional class leaders and some have advised us to remove 4.1. As such, we are going to do so.

Best regards,

 

What is 4.1?....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ryan,

 

I would like to say thank you for listening to the GTS competitors and responding so quickly. I'm sure that the rules submitted by you and NASA National represented an honest intent to make GTS better. And, as a NASA Instructor and former group leader with NASA Rocky Mountain, I very much appreciate the effort it takes to do all of the things you do to make NASA and GTS what it is. I also respect and appreciate the decision to remove 4.1 as I'm sure that was just as hard a decision. For me personally, and I hope for the other existing GTS competitors, I believe this was the right thing to do and I very much look forward to completing my car and racing with NASA GTS in 2011.

 

Thanks again,

Rick

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As of late, we have been in discussions with the regional class leaders and some have advised us to remove 4.1. As such, we are going to do so.

Best regards,

 

What is 4.1?....

 

4.1 was the new rules section that everyone was up in arms about!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What is 4.1?....

4.1 was the provision which penalized factory race cars along with sequential or dog-ring gearboxes, and straight-cut gears. That is no longer in the rules. However, the raised power-to-weight ratios for GTS5 ARE still in the rules.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4.1 was the new rules section that everyone was up in arms about!

 

Correction, Not "everyone" was in arms about 4.1. As a matter of fact there is support for this rule addition. The only thing that has happened here is there is a majority to remove this provision from the rules for 2011. Unfortunately, many post made here and on some of the other threads are made without knowing the facts, or the data collected over the course of a year. Which leads to some readers forming opinions based on what is read here on the forum. What is most interesting is that the majority of post on the forum are, for the most part, made by those who would have not been effected by this provision at all. NASA would not be where it is in the racing community today, if decisions to change/add/remove, rules where not fully supported by facts. Fact is, "currently" there is a small majority that does not support 4.1, so the right thing has been done.

 

SoCal GTS

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4.1 was the new rules section that everyone was up in arms about!

 

Correction, Not "everyone" was in arms about 4.1. As a matter of fact there is support for this rule addition. The only thing that has happened here is there is a majority to remove this provision from the rules for 2011. Unfortunately, many post made here and on some of the other threads are made without knowing the facts, or the data collected over the course of a year. Which leads to some readers forming opinions based on what is read here on the forum. What is most interesting is that the majority of post on the forum are, for the most part, made by those who would have not been effected by this provision at all. NASA would not be where it is in the racing community today, if decisions to change/add/remove, rules where not fully supported by facts. Fact is, "currently" there is a small majority that does not support 4.1, so the right thing has been done.

 

SoCal GTS

 

 

Why weren't there any posts by those that wanted the 4.1 section? Their keeping quiet doesn't help their cause.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Consideration for rules change or additions are to begin as the season is finalized with the NASA Championship. Rules and considerations are to be presented to the National Series Director or to your local Series Director and passed upon to the National Director, so that it can be posted in these forums for all to read and form an opinion. I have not seen, nor many of us, any data collected, discussed or talked about concerning 4.1 until the rules were posted. Unfortunately, many of us on this other coast were not aware that this was even under consideration. Taking that into account, you can maybe better understand the reluctance to "just accept" rules being changed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4.1 was the new rules section that everyone was up in arms about!

 

Correction, Not "everyone" was in arms about 4.1. As a matter of fact there is support for this rule addition. The only thing that has happened here is there is a majority to remove this provision from the rules for 2011. Unfortunately, many post made here and on some of the other threads are made without knowing the facts, or the data collected over the course of a year. Which leads to some readers forming opinions based on what is read here on the forum. What is most interesting is that the majority of post on the forum are, for the most part, made by those who would have not been effected by this provision at all. NASA would not be where it is in the racing community today, if decisions to change/add/remove, rules where not fully supported by facts. Fact is, "currently" there is a small majority that does not support 4.1, so the right thing has been done.

 

SoCal GTS

 

 

Why weren't there any posts by those that wanted the 4.1 section? Their keeping quiet doesn't help their cause.

 

Speaking from a So Cal perspective, they really aren't many cars that this would affect. We only had 1, 997 cup w/sequential that ran with any consistancy all year. There was another that ran 2 weekends, and 2 more that ran once each with us. I seriously doubt that there would have been any impact felt by the implementation of 4.1. Now the revised 7.2 weight/HP factor will most definitely make a difference in GTS5 out West next year....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Speaking from a So Cal perspective, they really aren't many cars that this would affect. We only had 1, 997 cup w/sequential that ran with any consistancy all year. There was another that ran 2 weekends, and 2 more that ran once each with us. I seriously doubt that there would have been any impact felt by the implementation of 4.1. Now the revised 7.2 weight/HP factor will most definitely make a difference in GTS5 out West next year....

 

Yes, most of the dissent over 4.1 was not from car owners who were directly affected by it. The rejection of 4.1 was because it violated the spirit of GTS. Power/weight and slicks/DOT are the only performance limitations. Bring your car, as is, from whatever other series you frequent. 4.1 would have been the first step down a slippery slope eliminating GTS's biggest selling point.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

... Fact is, "currently" there is a small majority that does not support 4.1, so the right thing has been done.

 

SoCal GTS

 

 

small majority? how about taking a look at the poll and seeing how "small" your majority is? Perhaps read the posts concerning this rule addition and see how "small" the majority is. What facts are we not aware of? Lets see if we have the "facts" straight:

- A rule was implemented without input from the majority of the GTS community.

- The rule was implemented without warning or discussion

- the National GTS Director resigned over this rule

- The majority of GTS participants who have voted and who have voiced their opinion of this rule are against it

- The rule will be implemented anyway regardless of our opinion. or in other words "my way or the highway"

 

Missing anything?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Folks,

 

We have collected plenty of data and also drivers who have stated they would leave or have already left the series due to the inability to keep up with some high dollar equipment variables. As of late, we have been in discussions with the regional class leaders and some have advised us to remove 4.1. As such, we are going to do so.

 

It can't have been many people. I have not looked at entrant numbers, but simply browsing through various regions' forums and looking at entrant numbers; I'd say that GTS has, in most instances, done fairly well participant wise over the past year or so. A couple of people leave, but 10 new people show up. How is this a bad thing?

 

The folks that have compared GTS with the inclusion of one or two rule additions as being a slippery slope or becoming a spec class are unfairly assessing the truth of the matter. The honest individual should appreciate a management team that is willing to look at changes that can improve a product. We have become conditioned to the claim that winning should be left to the driver. We hear from people all the time that they want GTS to be a driver’s series but don’t want any rules changes that could improve parity whatsoever. Unfortunately, you can’t satisfy both of those desires at the same time. What is most depressing is the venom that many of the drivers seem to hold for the hard working folks at NASA who wish to offer you a superior product.

 

who did the study? Who did the work? The (former) National Director has already stated he wasn't involved and he didn't support the rule change. He has already stated that he wasn't aware of it prior to the release of the the ruleset. Many regional directors have also said that they were not involved and were not in favor of the rules. Who, then, worked so very hard determining that this rule change was for the better of the series?

If the series directors weren't involved in the new rule making, what is their job? Or, more importantly, who was doing all this research when they should have been doing their own job?

 

At the end of the day, we are for profit and need to be so we can still host and environment so you can come and race. Most decent products that you buy as a consumer come from companies that make a profit. In racing, many drivers seem to hold an expectation for the best product but speak about profit as a dirty word. If we didn’t have the desire to do things right and fight for what we believe works, NASA and the race classes would not exist. In a customer service business the mantra is that the customer is always right. Since we are being told this is what the customer wants, your request is being met.

 

yes indeed, NASA is for profit. And based on how quickly it has grown, there are plenty of "customers" who are pleased with the product. However, one must definately consider why people are leaving other series and coming to race with NASA. Again, there have been several people who have said they grew tired of political "issues" with other series and came to NASA for its lack of politicking. Others have said that they grew tired of constantly trying to keep up with changes in the series and they wanted a simple stable series to build a car for and to race with. Both of these attractions are now in danger of being eliminated. How many people are going to look at this and be turned off by it? What incentive will people have to switch to NASA if they are going to be subject to the same things as they get with their current racing series? Several people have already named this as their reasons for starting to race GTS with NASA. How many more people started racing for the same reason but haven't said so publicly? How many more people are considering the switch?

Now compare those numbers to the number of people who have said that they have left GTS because some car was more expensive than theirs? Or had more expensive parts? I cannot see a claim where the profit loss from the second group exceeds the profit gain from the first group.

 

Lots of time has been spent on this subject so we hope this will satisfy the majority of the drivers and we apologize to the drivers adversely affected by removing this new rule. I hope we can all focus on putting any bad feelings behind us and move forward without beating this topic to death any longer.

 

If I were one of these drivers adversely affected I would be furious. If I had just spent that much money to prepare my car according to the ruleset at the time and then had that ruleset changed on me against the GTS community's wishes, you can make a safe bet you wouldn't see me at another event. The reason why most of us who are not affected are speaking out about this is that most of us realize its not a great leap from penalizing certain gearboxes to penalizing something else. And that something else just might be on our cars.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...