FOT:
Bob Bennett called me recently and faxed a copy of the following letter
after
we spent quite some time discussing the issues involved. He races an MGB,
and used to race in BP and AP. I feel that this letter is very important, and
hope
that it gets to many SCCA Production racers.
I scanned the fax & OCRd it to avoid a dreaded attachment file, (Hi MJB)
so slight changes may have happened.
Thank You Hardy Prentice
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--
An Open Letter to the S.C.C.A. Competition Board
Serious Questions are being raised as to the methods used to classify the
Caterham 7 into E Production. The car is not a Production car as defined in
12.1.1 B 3 of the General Competition Rules. Neither is it an upgrade of the
Lotus 7, since it's made by a different manufacturer, has a different engine,
has a different suspension, and most of all a different name. This car is a
kit for "home assembly", hardly in keeping with the spirit of production
racing. Next we'll be homologating go-karts or kit Cobras.
Furthermore, I'm more concerned about the steps taken to classify this car.
Steps which makes a prudent racer of the "old guard" ask who's pushing this
through and why? The "7" was initially recommended for classification by the
Customer Service Manager of SCCA Pro Racing, Eric Prill on Sept.9, 1998. He's
an SCCA member, a Lotus 7 competitor, and an SCCA Employee. Before the board
could recommend the subject for member input, the Caterham Company had already
distributed a press release that the car had already been approved on Oct.30,
1998. Why? They advertised in the January edition of Sports Car, that the car
had already been classified in E. Prod. The truth was the motion had been
tabled as reported in the same issue. Not to be defeated, the Comp. Board used
it's errors and omissions power in it's meeting the following month to
classify the car by saying it was now a Lotus 7. (a current E Production car).
These were made from 1959- 73. Go figure.
Do they really expect us to believe this? Let's see, those are the same errors
and omissions rules that allowed Competition Board member, Bob Boig to win the
E. Production National Championship after he was disqualified for running
oversize valves at the Runoffs.
I realize that chairman Philip Creighton feels that the "SCCA cannot survive
on racing 30 to 40 year old sports cars" and they "must get rid of the last
ten years of force feeding cars into restricted slots to appease the old
guard."
You see Mr. Creighton this has nothing to do with allowing newer legal
production cars in racing. All we want is for the performance potential to be
equal and for the Comp. Board to follow the rules. lf that means more
restricted slots (i.e. classes) must be made available, so be it.
Besides, most of the production cars being raced today are being driven by
the "Old Guard" as you call us. The SCCA should still be a club with all the
members interests at heart, this isn't NASCAR. The classification of an
illegal kit car as a production car isn't the handiwork of a member driven
organization
Bob Bennett
I totally agree with Mr. Bennett and request that you do not allow the
Caterham 7 to run in any production class.
Member________________ Member #_______________________
|