Terry, why must you get so mad? you wrote a letter asking for clarification and the board gave you a response you didn't like and now you're blowing up all over the internet at people because it somehow proved them right? i know it takes a while in the SCCA to get thing done, but you seem to totally ignore the fact that they asked for member input for allowing aftermarket covers, that would take into account the watts link diff cover. maybe it'll be next year until it passes, but so what? no one else can use the parts in question for the rest of the year. Equal footing for all.
It is
not equal footing for all. People that had used what everyone (except a very small minority) that didn't use one of 2 or 3 brands of Watts Links now has to remove their formerly legal parts and go build or buy an all new unit. For what? Did the old unit have some unfair performance advantage? Was it lighter? Was it benefiting the car in some other way?
NO.
The problem I have is that there never should have been a question, because the rule as written had more than enough room to include alternate diff covers. Because the mounting was UNRESTRICTED. See the rule below...
=============
15.8. I. Solid axle suspension allowances:
1. Addition or replacement of suspension stabilizers (linkage connecting the axle housing or De Dion to the chassis, which controls lateral suspension location) is permitted.
2. Traction bars or torque arms may be added or replaced.
3. A panhard rod may be added or replaced.
4. The upper arm(s) may be removed, replaced, or modified and the upper pickup points on the rear axle housing may be relocated.
5. The lower arms may not be altered, except as permitted under Section 15.8.C, or relocated.
Methods of attachment and attachment points are unrestricted, but may serve no other purpose (e.g.
chassis stiffening). This does not authorize removal of a welded-on part of a subframe or bodywork to accommodate the installation.
=============
See where it says "methods of attachment points are unrestricted"? Well a whole lot of people, myself included, took this at what was written.
Then this week the SEB changed that to mean something completely differently. So this is a TAKE BACK. And TAKE BACKS suck.
And this isn't the first issue I've had with a bad call by an AC or the SEB. This is like the 500th. I've been getting more frustrated every year for the past 25 years. I've just had enough. Enough of the clueless rulings, illogical calls, and ulterior motives behind some committee members.
First you complain about the SCCA changing the rules every month then you say you are taking your car and going home because they don't rule in the manner you like, but are trying to accommodate your parts next year.
While it seems inconsistent that I bitch about constant rules changes, then bitch that they don't do them fast enough. But you don't understand the situation here. This was a request for a simple clarification. On one word. Which has a very simple definition. Now they say they agree with me, but... it'll take 1-2 years to "fix the rule". When it never needed fixing, it just needed a simple clarification. That they screwed up for no reason.
The problem is they are NOT consistent in their rulings. The use the same arguments to both defend or strike down rules (airbags can be removed from seats in ST cars... but not steering wheels?). They take FOREVER to fix a blatant screw-up or mis-typing. Then other times they make wholesale changes or new classes without following their own guidelines. It is baffling.
Just don't think that I'm the "bad guy" here, or that the SCCA is always innocent in all of their dealings. The SCCA has been shown to have some very dirty dealings in the past and it cost them dearly. They had closed budgets for many years - until they were sued and lost. Ulterior motives and personal gain have bit the SCCA in the ass before. They've paid out huge fines and settlements on court cases in the past where they were doing some unscrupulous things (Formula Renault).
I understand your business revolves around whiteline or you wouldn't be pushing it so hard, but it makes me wonder if you have signed some sort of non-compete clause saying you can't use another product. (or just protecting your supplier like you accused Sam of)
No, business reasons are not why I'm so upset. I don't have a non-compete with any other company, but that is immaterial. I'm so upset because this was a really bad call on the part of the SPAC and the SEB. They flubbed it, royally. The
only reason I asked for a clarification was to silence Sam Strano, as
he was whining online to protect the parts
he sold to other ESP competitors (Fays2).
I am so upset because I bought a brand new freagin car to build a dedicated ESP Mustang with. I have already spent thousands of dollars on parts and labor to prepare it for ESP. And now that plan is totally f*cked because these SEB members don't understand what the definition of "unrestricted" means.
You've been condescending to the point of name calling to Dave, Sam (who both have been on the SEB and knows how it works and what they look for, unlike you), the SCCA, parts made by other manufactures which work and meet the rules
I have ZERO respect for Sam, as a competitor or a businessman. I am sure that spills over into my posts. But there's history there. Sam Straro is a devious little man who's been saying slanderous and unprofessional things about me, barely indirect enough to not look like a total douche bag to some (but many have noted it), saying unfair and untrue things about my employees and my business, on this forum for months. I've had some PMs with him and the site owner about his childish comments and behavior many times. Virtually
every other vendor on this forum has had the same problems with Sam. Even most of his customers cannot stand him. Ask around.
Now SEB Dave is calling me a cheat, a liar and is himself changing the facts on things, which I also have no respect for. I've sent him a nice PM letting him know what I think about him as well. I've always had a smouldering disdain for the SCCA rules and I don't mince words when the committees make stupid call after stupid call. I've sent HUNDREDS of letters to the SEB over the past two and a half decades, even back when we had to hand write and to snail mail them in. Over these many years I have seen so little logic in the rules, and lethargically slow change when problems were noted and obvious and needed fixing. When you have spent more than half of your life fighting within one group it can become
frustrating beyond belief.
And lets look at some "other facts" the Fays2 can be had new for $650. the whitelines i have seen from $900 and up. cortex is $900+, steeda$1000+, Lakewood $650+. so it doesn't cost the same as the rest unless you want to give me a really nice discount. Not only that, but rod ends are much better at keeping things in place than any poly/rubber/magic bushing that isn't metal and allow for less binding.
Great, the Fays2 is cheaper. $250 cheaper on a car we'll likely spend $50K on is a drop in the bucket, really. But my problem is that the Fays2 uses rod ends, which are
are terrible for street use. Anyone that tells you otherwise is lying or completely ignorant. Sorry, but that's the truth. Ride around in a car on the street with a Fays2 and you might be singing a different tune. You'll want to drive it into a tree. Its a pretty crazy set-up the way it clamps to the axle tubes... as a suspension designer and engineer myself I'd say it is pretty a terrible design. But hey, whatever floats your boat.
And there's one thing the rule about solid axle allowances that the Fays2
explicitly violates... "may serve no other purpose (e.g. chassis stiffening)". The Fays2 unit has a massive lateral chassis brace as part of its design. It bolts into the chassis laterally. It is clear as day to anyone that sees it. So
I would argue that the
Fays2 unit is the one that is
actually illegal, to the letter of the rule, without question. But did that come into the discussion? Of course not.
I don't expect everyone to "like me", and I've got a lot of SCCA higher ups that don't like my input. If I would shut my mouth and "take it" I would probably make more SCCA people happy. But as a competitor, when I see something that
stinks I'm going to point it out. And when they make a bad call I'm not going to back down. I'm going to re-submit the request over and over and over. I've argued some points about certain rules for 5-10+ years, but I never let up. Every once in a blue moon they make a logical call or update. Its rare, but it happens. If everyone just rolls over and plays dead things will
not improve. If we say nothing they will meddle and crap-up the rule book to no end. I don't expect you to like that about what I'm doing, but some people get it and do appreciate it.
This isn't FUN for me, fighting over rules changes. It stresses me out to no end. I now have a brand new 2013 Mustang that now serves no purpose for me whatsoever.
I buy these cars to develop new parts and to showcase parts that we sell. Now they just pulled the rug out from under almost all of the Whiteline bits, including a huge part of the rear suspension. I'm damn sure not putting the jankified Fays2 mess on my car. So I'm not going to participate in SCCA Solo for a while. People can say "he's taking his toys and going home." I guess that's fine. The fact is I'm taking my thousands of dollars spent annually sponsoring SCCA events away, and also not giving them many many hundreds of dollars in entry fees as a competitor to dozens of regional and National events each year. I'm not going to spend the $50K+ it would take to build what we felt would be a very competitive ESP Mustang with our 2013 GT. It is pointless now. This little "re-clarification" this week totally screws my build, it will cost me a LOT of money, and makes me sick.
Yay, nobody wins.
Cheers,
Come back and play as I like chatting with you about your toys! 
