Recieved this in my inbox not too long ago from my club's president:

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">There not secret that Kumho has had a hard time this year and has done everything to correct the problems they have had ahead of schedule and to make things more than right for their customers.

The warehouses are stocked with new 710's ready to be released but yet another politcal situtation has come up. Kumho has passed all the D.O.T. tests and independant SCCA tests and are ready for use again. However, the SCCA Solo Events Board has decided to take a vote tonight to ban the tire for the remaining of the season even though the road racing aspect of SCCA has no problem with the tire.

The only logical explantion of this last second decsion by the S.E.B. is because all of the members are Hoosier drivers. If the S.E.B. had issues with the tire, they could have made it know months ago instead of waiting till days before the re-release. It sounds as though they were keeping this in their back pocket and were waiting to see if Kumho passed all their tests before playing their final card.

If Kumho is banned again, there is a very strong possiblity that they may pull out of Solo because of all the politcs involved. If that happenes, that means we will all be paying much higher prices for the Hoosiers to be competivie or else we run Hankook or Toyo and dont stand a chance at winning till their tires come up to speed. This can have a bad trickle down effect from the national level to the local level and hurt solo as a whole.

What I'm asking is that everyone that can, email the Solo Events Board seb@scca.com, Tasha Goodale tgoodale@scca.com, Doug Gill dgill@scca.com, Howard Duncan hduncan@scca.com, and Steve Johnson president@scca.com. Let them know what you think. Even if it is a quick 1 sentance email, anything will help. They vote today on this so please be quick about sending out your comments.</TD></TR></TABLE>


Modified by Sean O'Gorman at 3:13 PM 6/30/2004

 

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by Sean O’Gorman &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">If Kumho is banned again, there is a very strong possiblity that they may pull out of Solo because of all the politcs involved.
</TD></TR></TABLE>

I would be interested to see what evidence there is to back up this statement.

*Mr. President needs a spell check.

 

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by Sean O’Gorman &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">There not secret that Kumho has had a hard time this year and has done everything to corre..................&lt;big snippage&gt;..............om, and Steve Johnson president@scca.com. Let them know what you think. Even if it is a quick 1 sentance email, anything will help. They vote today on this so please be quick about sending out your comments.</TD></TR></TABLE>

The above is major league B.S. written by someone that doesn't have a clue.

Much of it comes from a SCCAForums thread that has posts from Rudy C. stating a what if they chose to pull out scenario, closing by saying he was "just venting". Also adding to the debate are K-brand contract drivers and a SEB member.

The 710 ban was a BOD decision made for club-wide activities. Don't waste your keystrokes emailing every SCCA staffmember from the receptionist on up. The only debate the SEB has if the tire happens to be reinstated is to waive the April 30th deadline for tire introductions. And from what I understand, there are enough construction changes in the revised 710 for it to be considered that.

Kumho rolled out a DOT tire that wouldn't pass DOT testing, that also came apart when used as intended. It's a good thing nobody got hurt or killed with that charade. Now it is everybody else's problem to roll over nad make good on "fixing" the rules for them because they f'ed up?

 

As with so many things in this organization, if there is a problem with a decision by a governing board then the first thing that you do is to whip our the "conflict of interest" accusations. Certainly one shouldn't actually approach the board itself and ask why the ruling was made to see if it was based on a real rule. Instead, find a reason to try to undermine them like what products they might use. Why talk fact or truth when an fine innuendo is easier and more fun?

I'll bet those Hoosier driving SEB members are all oxygen breathers too so certainly the "pro-oxygen breathing" lobbyists are pulling their strings and telling them what calls to make. They are probably all vertibrates as well and we know good and well that people who have spines all think the same. By god, we need to get spineless people elected to our boards in the future before those dreaded "spinies" take over.

Go to the SCCA Production Racing discussion boards of you want to see more "us vs. them" and "black helicopters are following me" claims. We're all being held down the The Man!

 

Here is the original thread from SCCAForums.com:
http://www.sccaforums.com/cgi-.../688?

It covers the conspirarcy theory themes brought up by your club president, but by their originators (SEB members, Kumho contract drivers, Kumho motorsports manager, pro-Kumho drivers, pro-Hoosier drivers, grassy knoll spectators, etc.). It also has both sides of the arguments. I'd suggest people interested who haven't seen it, read that before making any judgements based on that one captioned email.

Having actively followed that thread and then seeing this, I'm kinda reminded of that game you play in school when someone tells a story and it's passed along from kid to kid, each time its retold it becomes grander and grander...

 

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by preparedcivic &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">
Kumho rolled out a DOT tire that wouldn't pass DOT testing, that also came apart when used as intended. It's a good thing nobody got hurt or killed with that charade. Now it is everybody else's problem to roll over nad make good on "fixing" the rules for them because they f'ed up?

</TD></TR></TABLE>

If it weren't for the S.C.C.A. "deadline" to have tires out maybe the 710 would not have been rushed to market, and this never would have been a problem.

Just an alternate P.O.V.

 

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by Safir &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">

If it weren't for the S.C.C.A. "deadline" to have tires out maybe the 710 would not have been rushed to market, and this never would have been a problem.

Just an alternate P.O.V.</TD></TR></TABLE>

Not a valid argument. The deadline has existed for as long as I've been involved with the SCCA. It serves a very important function - it stops tire companies from releasing "uber tires" to contract drivers the day of events (which would effectively make all non-contract drivers uncompetitive).

Kumho should have know this deadline existed and planned accordingly.

 

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by Safir &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">If it weren't for the S.C.C.A. "deadline" to have tires out maybe the 710 would not have been rushed to market, and this never would have been a problem.

Just an alternate P.O.V.</TD></TR></TABLE>


Well, the 4/30 rule was in place last year, and the year before, and........

The point is, nothing new and unpublished and sprung on a poor unsuspecting tire company. When the V700 was first introduced, the scam that got pulled was tire were air-freighted from the far east to the SCCA office, arriving on like 4/29. Ultimately, Kumho voluntarily yanked the tire eligibility because they couldn't manage to get very many more into the country that year.

Hoosier introduced the S04 at the 2002 Runoffs. They were not Solo II legal until this year, due to ramping up of different production processes than the S03 and having enough available sizes. No great hue and cry over that situation. There is now a new Avon tire. That was played by the rules too, which is in place so a ringer doesn't come out on 8/30, available only to a select few, mere days before Nationals.

I was always taught that rules are made to be followed, not broken.

 

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by XrcR6 &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">Having actively followed that thread and then seeing this, I'm kinda reminded of that game you play in school when someone tells a story and it's passed along from kid to kid, each time its retold it becomes grander and grander...</TD></TR></TABLE>

Hmm, that must explain why the second time I recieved an e-mail on the subject, it said "V710s to not be allowed in 2003 purple monkey dishwasher!" (Simpsons reference for anyone who didn't get it).

 

The tire will be legal for the rest of this year.

http://www.scca.org/garage/for...&PN=1