Anybody @ Sebring and see the SpecMiata start?

racerfink said:

AutoTechnik is a race car prep business, run by Jeff LaBounty.  He prepped my very low budget SM to several top five finishes in 60 car fields at Sebring.  He DOES NOT sponsor any cars other than his own.  He has a fleet of cars a available for rental, and most likely, that’s the case here.  Some of you on this thread need to calm the berk down

Well... someone needs to tell them this guy is (or someone made the mistake of) claiming to be sponsored by them, according to this listing:

https://sedivracing.motorsportreg.com/index.cfm/event/event.status/uidEvent/9A9A3AFC-9CE9-2C89-B21B23545C95F18E

I certainly don't agree with an internet lynch mob, but I see this as more of the result of one of those stickers on a work car / truck that says "how am I driving call..."

I would certainly think this shop would want to know this asshat (or someone) is claiming to be sponsored by them.  I also suspect, they would also want to know someone like this is renting one of there cars (with there name associated with the car in at least some way).

alfadriver (Forum Supporter) said:

Tom1200 said:

In reply to alfadriver (Forum Supporter) :

Not sure if anyone protested or not but the driver in question should be banned for 12 months. We'll have to see if this pops up in Fastrack or not.

Our region was fortunate in having a no nonsense Chief Stewards but not every region has this. 

So how do you go about doing that?  

What if the sanctioning body does not do that?  Or just as bad, there are multiple sanctioning bodies who don't communicate or maybe not agree?

Many moons ago I brought this up at the SCCA National Convention and wasn't fully satisfied with the answer. If the stewards aren't going to address it one has to protest, if that goes nowhere then you have to appeal it. I have seen two cases where the SOMs have not done anything and people successfully appealed.

Barring that the group has to get together and approach the sanctioning body as a whole and lobby for change. I've seen this work as well. 

SM is a fantastic class but in my opinion they really need to decide whether or not they want to be the sports car version of banger racing.

Tom1200 said:

In reply to nocones :

The guy in question is dangerous and shouldn't be allowed on track but suggesting people call a business sounds an awful lot like cancel culture to me. 

I won't want to be on the same track as the #46 but I wouldn't cancel him either. Folks who do Cancel Culture are POS and need to be dealt with accordingly.

CptMiata said:

For what it's worth, it's not a sponsorship, AT maintains the car and transports it to the track, he pays them to fix it and bring it there and keep it running. It isn't up to AT what happens inside that car, if you want to call anyone call him? With this logic we should call VP racing fuel and yell at them for providing fuel to the car, and SCCA for providing a place to race, and Hoosier for providing a tire to race on. Right?

Given that the SCCA is responsible for enforcing the rules and penalizing bad behavior and licensing the drivers - yes, you should yell at the SCCA. This is pretty much their job. If 46 is a danger to others, he should be brought under control or asked to leave. That's not cancel culture, that's in the rules. Saying he should be kicked out because he likes to eat babies or whatever - that's not actually against the rules. See the difference? 

Now if enough people decide that SM as a whole is out of control and VP and Hoosier start asking themselves why they're associated with it other than the fact that it sells a lot of tires and fuel, then the big series sponsors could indeed decide to lean on the SCCA to clean up the class. But they're not sponsors of this individual, so it would be foolish to yell at them beause of the actions of the individual. 

If AT gets paid to fix this car, they're doing very well out of the deal :) 

Tom1200 said:

alfadriver (Forum Supporter) said:

Tom1200 said:

In reply to alfadriver (Forum Supporter) :

Not sure if anyone protested or not but the driver in question should be banned for 12 months. We'll have to see if this pops up in Fastrack or not.

Our region was fortunate in having a no nonsense Chief Stewards but not every region has this. 

So how do you go about doing that?  

What if the sanctioning body does not do that?  Or just as bad, there are multiple sanctioning bodies who don't communicate or maybe not agree?

Many moons ago I brought this up at the SCCA National Convention and wasn't fully satisfied with the answer. If the stewards aren't going to address it one has to protest, if that goes nowhere then you have to appeal it. I have seen two cases where the SOMs have not done anything and people successfully appealed.

Barring that the group has to get together and approach the sanctioning body as a whole and lobby for change. I've seen this work as well. 

SM is a fantastic class but in my opinion they really need to decide whether or not they want to be the sports car version of banger racing.

So then what?  I'm serious.  If sanctioning bodies don't do what the population wants them to do, what's the next step?

If you want to race, but don't want to race with this guy, what do you do?

Keith Tanner said:

Given that the SCCA is responsible for enforcing the rules and penalizing bad behavior and licensing the drivers - yes, you should yell at the SCCA. This is pretty much their job. If 46 is a danger to others, he should be brought under control or asked to leave. That's not cancel culture, that's in the rules. Saying he should be kicked out because he likes to eat babies or whatever - that's not actually against the rules. See the difference? 

Keith this is the part that mystifies me about the SCCA; this person is a danger to other drivers and I have no idea how any official would allow this person to continue. If we have an in person National Convention come January I was planing to attend, I will likely pose this question either privately or publicly.. 

chada75 said:

Tom1200 said:

In reply to nocones :

The guy in question is dangerous and shouldn't be allowed on track but suggesting people call a business sounds an awful lot like cancel culture to me. 

I won't want to be on the same track as the #46 but I wouldn't cancel him either. Folks who do Cancel Culture are POS and need to be dealt with accordingly.

Someone needs to explain to me how suggesting that a driver should not be allowed on the track isn't the same cancel culture that is 1) protesting them, or 2) calling their sponsors.  The desired outcome is exactly the same- the guy is kept off the track.  

If you REALLY think a driver needs to be kept off the track, some action is required by somebody- sanctioning body, sponsors, teammates, friends, spouses, relatives- somebody has to do something.  Can't just wish this away.

alfadriver (Forum Supporter) said:

Tom1200 said:

alfadriver (Forum Supporter) said:

 

So then what?  I'm serious.  If sanctioning bodies don't do what the population wants them to do, what's the next step?

If you want to race, but don't want to race with this guy, what do you do?

Sadly I think one is left to vote with their feet. If you have an NA Miata you could switch to vintage events or you could switch classes within the sanctioning body. I have a friend who went to STL or STU (can't remember which) as he finds that group less frantic.

I've been the bad guy at events and gone and spoken to a driver; most of the time it's well received but I've also been told to go screw myself, at which point I went to the stewards and or event organizers. If that hadn't worked I would and have found a new place to play.

In reply to Tom1200 :

What about the person who has invested pretty much all of their budget in SM, can't get it back and needs the seat time to honestly pursue a racing career?  Someone who has nowhere else to go at this point.  

IMHO, walking away just lets the bad drivers be bad and dangerous to someone else.  Not really a solution other than kicking the can down the road for someone else to deal with.

So OTHER than walking away, what are the options?  SM is popular for a reason, and asking every single driver but the crappy ones to leave isn't an answer.

aircooled said:

racerfink said:

AutoTechnik is a race car prep business, run by Jeff LaBounty.  He prepped my very low budget SM to several top five finishes in 60 car fields at Sebring.  He DOES NOT sponsor any cars other than his own.  He has a fleet of cars a available for rental, and most likely, that’s the case here.  Some of you on this thread need to calm the berk down

Well... someone needs to tell them this guy is (or someone made the mistake of) claiming to be sponsored by them, according to this listing:

https://sedivracing.motorsportreg.com/index.cfm/event/event.status/uidEvent/9A9A3AFC-9CE9-2C89-B21B23545C95F18E

I certainly don't agree with an internet lynch mob, but I see this as more of the result of one of those stickers on a work car / truck that says "how am I driving call..."

I would certainly think this shop would want to know this asshat (or someone) is claiming to be sponsored by them.  I also suspect, they would also want to know someone like this is renting one of there cars (with there name associated with the car in at least some way).

For SCCA entry forms, there is a driver entry, and for about 5% of the cars entered, an entrant form.  The majority of the drivers ARE their own entrant, so they just need the driver entry.  Having filled out MANY of those over the last 29 years, I can tell you you can put whatever you want for a sponsor there.  A few list “wife” or “wallet” as a sponsor.  I listed AutoTechnik as my “sponsor”, even though the flow of money went one direction.  If Charles is renting the car, there’s a good chance AutoTechnik IS the entrant, so Jeff would definitely list his company as the sponsor.

In reply to alfadriver (Forum Supporter) :

If it were me I'd attempt to get the drivers to band together and work towards improvong the driving standards. Preferably one would work with drivers and stewards. 

If I were a steward (once upon a time I did the steward in training program) I sure wouldn't put up with what I saw. Note I've been an event organizer (stage rally) and I have had to talk to a couple of drivers about their driving. 

Regarding the orange 46 car - do "we" know for a fact nothing has been done (yet) by either the Sebring SOM, or other drivers or anyone else? Also, do "we" know for a fact, if the same guy has been disciplined prior to the Sebring video? 

Tom1200 said:

In reply to alfadriver (Forum Supporter) :

If it were me I'd attempt to get the drivers to band together and work towards improvong the driving standards. Preferably one would work with drivers and stewards. 

If I were a steward (once upon a time I did the steward in training program) I sure wouldn't put up with what I saw. Note I've been an event organizer (stage rally) and I have had to talk to a couple of drivers about their driving. 

That should work in the long run.  But not for the next race.  And while I don't know the specifics of this situation, seeing the flow of this situation, it seems safe to think that this driver was talked to. probably more than once.

If the need is to get a driver off the grid, and the sanctioning body doesn't do something- I would like to hear a good alternative to talking to their sponsors.  There's a lot on the line to next person they crash out.

SVRA is letting NB Miata's run with NA's now.  If you touch another car or even bump draft, you are told to leave for the weekend.  Tony Parella has made that clear and that's where I choose to run my Spec Miata. 

I've not touched or been touched by another car in the 3 years I've been running with them.  Seeing that video just makes me want to stay away from SCCA SM racing.  Last year's SM June Sprints race had several instance where there was side contact from guys blocking each other going down the straights...  at Road America triple digit speeds.  No thanks.

In reply to alfadriver (Forum Supporter) :

The guy really doesn't have a sponsor, they are a business that preps a car for a customer. It also appears they prep several cars, you're asking a business to turn away a customer. Something they'd likely be unwilling to do, they're existing customers aren't likely to. So I don't see calling a prep shop or even a sponsor has a viable alternative. Even if a sponsor dropped a driver at this level, the person would likely still show up at the next event.

I too am curious to know if the SOM has already done something.

DeadSkunk (Warren) said:

I think some driving standards need fine tuning. Here's an in-car from yesterday's afternoon race. There are four wrecks and one car was involved in three of them.......Cabin Fever 14 Feb 2021. Sebring. SAARC RACE Spec Miata Wreck Fest - YouTube

Having now had a chance to watch this video, I see one instance where the 46 missed the braking point for T17, and that’s the only incident I place solely on him.

The incident on the front straight is what happens when two cars run side-by-side really close at high speeds.  The air rushing between the two cars creates a low pressure point and sucks the cars together.  If anything, the car in the left should have given him a little more room instead of squeezing him to the wall.

The third incident, at T10 is simply the white car braking too late.  The white car even locks up before plowing into 46.

In reply to Tom1200 :

I'm trying to not be specific in this example- but asking what should be done if contacting the name on the side of the car is such a bad idea.

If the name is a prep shop- perhaps they wil think twice before giving him support.  The idea that they would not turn away a dangerous customer seems kind of crazy to me- all they are doing is enabling horrible driving behavior- one that is dangerous both financially and helthwise.  

Seems to me that if you lost your sponsor/support, the odds if the driver being able to show up at the next event goes down considerably.

I'm still interested in realistic alternatives to contacting their support structure.  

I *really* think contacting his "sponsor" about getting this guy some driver coaching (as per their services) is the way to fix it. Especially if all the concerned parties call to try and book it for him.

alfadriver (Forum Supporter) said:

In reply to Tom1200 :

I'm trying to not be specific in this example- but asking what should be done if contacting the name on the side of the car is such a bad idea.

If the name is a prep shop- perhaps they wil think twice before giving him support.  The idea that they would not turn away a dangerous customer seems kind of crazy to me- all they are doing is enabling horrible driving behavior- one that is dangerous both financially and healthwise.  

So not knowing the shop or whether or not one customer makes or breaks them they may choose to sever the relationship but if they're just scraping by they may choose to continue to prep the car. Small businesses frequently find themselves between a rock and a hard place. I'm not saying it's right but it is often the reality.

I'd have no problem with people who know and are known to the business talking to them. Random strangers on some forum contacting the business isn't going to change a thing. The business may have already talked to the guy for all we know. 

If this prep shop turns him away he'll simply find a new mechanic. 

End of the day the stewards need to park the guy, that's the only sure way to stop his banging into people.

The bigger issue is the SM community tolerates way more than they should as does SCCA. Drivers like this will continue to be a problem as long as people continue to tolerate this behavior. The Sebring incident is at least the 2nd time SM has had a session scratched because drivers. What I've seen on the FB page and SM forums after both incidents is drivers railing against the SCCA, as if the SCCA made them bounce off of each other. Hence my initial comments about the drivers talking a hard look in the mirror. Due note I also have no idea why the Stewards don't or haven't cracked down in this..................SCCA has let this fester for far to long.    

Sadly I see this nonsense continuing as no one seems to have the appetite to fix it.

In reply to Tom1200 :

Funny thing- airlines share their no-fly lists, and I hear cruise lines also share lists of people who they have had to ban from ships.

None the less, what alternatives do people have when stewards either don't do anything, or just are not aware?

BTW, competitors should be calling the sponsors, not random people.  I'm just pointing out that calling the sponsors should be an effective path to get this guy off the track when other methods are not working, and that's not some kind of "cancel culture" what so ever.  It saves other people a lot of money, and possibly major injuries doing that.

There are SM people who are on this board, if they want to elevate it to save THEIR resources, they should fully be able to.

alfadriver (Forum Supporter) said:

In reply to Tom1200 :

Funny thing- airlines share their no-fly lists, and I hear cruise lines also share lists of people who they have had to ban from ships.

None the less, what alternatives do people have when stewards either don't do anything, or just are not aware?

BTW, competitors should be calling the sponsors, not random people.  I'm just pointing out that calling the sponsors should be an effective path to get this guy off the track when other methods are not working, and that's not some kind of "cancel culture" what so ever.  It saves other people a lot of money, and possibly major injuries doing that.

There are SM people who are on this board, if they want to elevate it to save THEIR resources, they should fully be able to.

We are sort of in agreement; if I were running in that group then I might very well talk to the business, especially if the normal channels fail (my work often entails refereeing between suppliers and end users) Done properly, talking to the prep it could be effective in resolving the issue. Due note that what was suggested in some of the other posts sounded more like retribution than resolution, hence my objections.

Maybe banger racing with paint swapping is what a majority of these guys want to do, or at least they don't have problem with it. The races keep drawing large numbers of entries and the class has been known as Spec Piñata for a while. 

Then the vintage groups are offering an alternative venue with stricter rules at least for the earlier cars so there is somewhere else to go if you don't like what the SCCA is doing.  

Snowdoggie (Forum Supporter) said:

Maybe banger racing with paint swapping is what a majority of these guys want to do, or at least they don't have problem with it. The races keep drawing large numbers of entries and the class has been known as Spec Piñata for a while. 

Then the vintage groups are offering an alternative venue with stricter rules at least for the earlier cars so there is somewhere else to go if you don't like what the SCCA is doing.  

If you don't like what spec Miata is doing there is always ITA, STL, STU, name your soup.

Do people understand that he is not sponsored by AutoTechnik, but by his own bank account?  He’s paying ~$2,000 to arrive and drive a rental.

In reply to racerfink :

At the very least I assumed they prepped his car; if they are getting 2K a weekend I don't see them turning him away. I also assume he's paying for any damage to the car as that is usually standard with a rental.