Questions to the new BoD Nominees.

[riche30]

I've been sitting quietly watching, waiting to see who would step forwards to run for the Board this year so I could figure out where to cast my vote and my largest concern is that we're posed to vote in a board of directors that thinks first about a rulebook, and not a business.  I'd love to hear some thoughts on the following issues:

1.  As a possible new board member, what are your thoughts on how to attract new teams to CCES?
2.  Do any of you have business leading backgrounds?  Who here has experience dealing with banks, accountants, corporate insurance brokers, attorneys, etc?
3.  What are your thoughts on West Coast expansion?  Should CCES continue to try to reach that market?  If so, why?

4.  You're signing on for a 3  year term.  What do you hope to accomplish in the 3 years to further the BUSINESS of CCES, not the rulebook?

5.  It's my belief that the Board has been weighed down by its own desire to keep its hands in the rule book.  Do you think its time for the Board to have oversight controls only?

 

[hotrod]

Rich I'm hoping to run for the Board of Directors. Waiting to see the final nominees then I'll be happy to answer any & all questions from the members.

Thanks, Bernie Myers 

[frankrehnelt]

1. I think Champcar was on the up swing before COVID. We had a disadvantage in 2020 against the other “budget” endurance series. Lemons loses 20% participants out of 100 and they still can put on a race without losing their shirt. The higher priced stuff has larger margins and can survive fine on lower volume for a time. I think it will bounce back but if it doesn’t our biggest strength is word of mouth. We need to encourage members to talk us up. If we can get new people to just show up to a race to watch and see how great these weekends are we’d increase participation. Forums and social media “buzz” does not represent what really goes on at the track. 
2. I’ve owned some sort of small business since I was 19. Some times two at once. Yes yes yes and yes. 
3. I hate losing money but that market has so much potential you can’t ignore it. We might be better off concentrating on our best events out there and offer incentive. Make the races we keep be automatic qualifiers for the Natl championship might be a way. I have other ideas on how to utilize a championship race to build participation in general. Simple low to no cost stuff.
4. Grow participation and stability. I think one of our most attractive qualities is our large diverse fields. We always have someone to race front to back.  
5. I like the rule book. It might need some tweaks but the end product is pretty dang good. Our current National campion is an A car. The latest controversy is a B car. The scourge of the series is a C car and the D cars sound awesome, go really fast and blow up. I’d use the TAC guidance to make any decisions on rule changes. Those people are much smarter about that stuff than I am. If the BOD only has oversight I’d think we’d need to elect the people serving on TAC as well. We have a hard enough time getting people elected to the BOD without someone being accused of low morals or an internet fist fight breaking out. I’d hate to do that to another group of members. I trust the system we have.  

Edited November 1, 2021 by frankrehnelt

[riche30]

This question is specifically for Frank and Enginerd or any other board nominee fielding or driving an E30.  I'd also appreciate a response from Chris Huggin and Tyler Pederson as car owners as well as Rodger Coan as a rental driver fielding BMW E30s as well.

In the event Frank and Enginerd were voted to the board we would have 5 of 7 sitting board members tied to the BMW E30 chassis.  What are your thoughts on removing any potential bias when it comes to rules that may heavily affect that specific chassis?  

[frankrehnelt]

I can’t see any possibility or want from me to lower the VPI of the e30. Too many are successful to justify it. Raising it I’d need to see the numbers compared to other cars in its VPI range. I’d doubt raising it would pass the internet chit storm either. We don’t need that. I could run our car about the same at 475 (903 is at 495 and 901 is 499 but I’m probably going to take off the header). Is there anything on the table other than VPI that’s e30 specific? Hadn’t heard. We take 10 points for offset bushings. If I needed to I’d have the strut towers bent in to save the points. Racers always find a way to make their cars faster. We are building another 902 but it’s only difference will be weight. 

[Chris Huggins]

9 hours ago, riche30 said:

This question is specifically for Frank and Enginerd or any other board nominee fielding or driving an E30.  I'd also appreciate a response from Chris Huggin and Tyler Pederson as car owners as well as Rodger Coan as a rental driver fielding BMW E30s as well.

In the event Frank and Enginerd were voted to the board we would have 5 of 7 sitting board members tied to the BMW E30 chassis.  What are your thoughts on removing any potential bias when it comes to rules that may heavily affect that specific chassis?  

 

Its a question that I really don't understand.  Particularly from an ex-board member who is familiar with how things work(ed?).  Your tenure ended under the Chisek era so maybe things have changed, as discussed in another thread?  The BOD will be following up on roles/responsibilities/procedures at the monthly meeting next week.

 

When you were on the BOD, it was either 2 or 3 people on the BOD with E30 associations besides yourself(Doc, Tyler, not sure when Jer disassociated with STS)

This has really only seemed to come up since the BOD members with E30's (continued to) succeed.  We both did well before being on the BOD, and we continued to do so after being on the BOD.  Not sure what else would have been expected.  I suppose we could choose not to race, but the BOD was unanimous in saying that we would resign if that was a requirement, as all of us enjoy competition.

 

The most recent fracas about "bias" was two members, one sitting on the bod and one running for the bod, both associated with the specific (non E30) car being debated about, accusing another member on the BOD of bias.  The member on the BOD being accused of bias didn't and doesn't own, drive, or have any other association with the car that caused the fracas.

 

It would follow from that that regardless of what car you own, drive, wrench on, or whatever, if you have an opinion on a car and participate on the BOD you can be accused of having bias.

If thats the case, does it really matter what car the BOD members participate with?

 

If said BOD members participate with multiple teams/cars, does the one they "own" have a higher standard than the one(s) they drive or wrench on?  What if they are paid to wrench on a car, is that different than being a team member? 

 

Does the same follow for TAC members, who have also recently been drawn into the maw with attacks on integrity being dished out?

 

 

The e30 hasn't been up for "debate" or adjustment in a good while, sans the past few days.    Although it hasn't been seen as the 500 point "par" car that the E36 or SC300 were supposed to be, its been a steady performer that generally doesn't set FTD but can go 2hr at most tracks and has a good mix of reliability, handling, and acceleration.  The suggestion recently is that a new swapped e30 is too fast, and I haven't looked at any data from that car yet, but my personal experience is that a M20 Aero e30 is faster than a swapped one.

 

 

One thing that has become apparent based on the questions and answers this week is that the members and board nominee's potentially don't understand the (current) roles of the Staff, BOD, and TAC.  Some of the things suggested would massively change the way things have worked in the past year, and it isn't clear if that was what was intended or just a misunderstanding.  I.E. Increase the responsibilities of the TAC and/or BOD, or staff.

The other thing that is really hard to convey is that, while many of the suggestions have merit and are good ideas, they just don't "work" in the real world, or require a significant investment of (time, people, money, equipment, software) that may or may not be the right thing for the company. 

We don't want to be Blockbuster and fail to adapt, but we also don't want to be USFA, so its a fine line to walk. 

 

Lets all try to remember that Guenther Steiner, Rodger Penske and Richard Hendrick aren't in the stands taking notes on who to hire next.  There isn't any payout for winning or podiuming in a champcar race.  There are a few people making money at champcar by building/renting cars, but thats pretty rare, most of us are spending discretionary income.  We are doing this for fun and to spend time with our friends and families.

[DEE DEE]

9 minutes ago, Chris Huggins said:

 

Its a question that I really don't understand.  Particularly from an ex-board member who is familiar with how things work(ed?).  Your tenure ended under the Chisek era so maybe things have changed, as discussed in another thread?  The BOD will be following up on roles/responsibilities/procedures at the monthly meeting next week.

 

When you were on the BOD, it was either 2 or 3 people on the BOD with E30 associations besides yourself(Doc, Tyler, not sure when Jer disassociated with STS)

This has really only seemed to come up since the BOD members with E30's (continued to) succeed.  We both did well before being on the BOD, and we continued to do so after being on the BOD.  Not sure what else would have been expected.  I suppose we could choose not to race, but the BOD was unanimous in saying that we would resign if that was a requirement, as all of us enjoy competition.

 

The most recent fracas about "bias" was two members, one sitting on the bod and one running for the bod, both associated with the specific (non E30) car being debated about, accusing another member on the BOD of bias.  The member on the BOD being accused of bias didn't and doesn't own, drive, or have any other association with the car that caused the fracas.

 

It would follow from that that regardless of what car you own, drive, wrench on, or whatever, if you have an opinion on a car and participate on the BOD you can be accused of having bias.

If thats the case, does it really matter what car the BOD members participate with?

 

If said BOD members participate with multiple teams/cars, does the one they "own" have a higher standard than the one(s) they drive or wrench on?  What if they are paid to wrench on a car, is that different than being a team member? 

 

Does the same follow for TAC members, who have also recently been drawn into the maw with attacks on integrity being dished out?

 

 

 

 

There isn't any payout for winning or podiuming in a champcar race.  There are a few people making money at champcar by building/renting cars, but thats pretty rare, most of us are spending discretionary income.  

Race credits translate into money and some team have  brought in sponsors but for the most part it is all about the fun factor.

[riche30]

2 hours ago, Chris Huggins said:

 

Its a question that I really don't understand.  Particularly from an ex-board member who is familiar with how things work(ed?).  Your tenure ended under the Chisek era so maybe things have changed, as discussed in another thread?  The BOD will be following up on roles/responsibilities/procedures at the monthly meeting next week.

 

When you were on the BOD, it was either 2 or 3 people on the BOD with E30 associations besides yourself(Doc, Tyler, not sure when Jer disassociated with STS)

This has really only seemed to come up since the BOD members with E30's (continued to) succeed.  We both did well before being on the BOD, and we continued to do so after being on the BOD.  Not sure what else would have been expected.  I suppose we could choose not to race, but the BOD was unanimous in saying that we would resign if that was a requirement, as all of us enjoy competition.

 

The most recent fracas about "bias" was two members, one sitting on the bod and one running for the bod, both associated with the specific (non E30) car being debated about, accusing another member on the BOD of bias.  The member on the BOD being accused of bias didn't and doesn't own, drive, or have any other association with the car that caused the fracas.

 

It would follow from that that regardless of what car you own, drive, wrench on, or whatever, if you have an opinion on a car and participate on the BOD you can be accused of having bias.

If thats the case, does it really matter what car the BOD members participate with?

 

If said BOD members participate with multiple teams/cars, does the one they "own" have a higher standard than the one(s) they drive or wrench on?  What if they are paid to wrench on a car, is that different than being a team member? 

 

Does the same follow for TAC members, who have also recently been drawn into the maw with attacks on integrity being dished out?

 

 

The e30 hasn't been up for "debate" or adjustment in a good while, sans the past few days.    Although it hasn't been seen as the 500 point "par" car that the E36 or SC300 were supposed to be, its been a steady performer that generally doesn't set FTD but can go 2hr at most tracks and has a good mix of reliability, handling, and acceleration.  The suggestion recently is that a new swapped e30 is too fast, and I haven't looked at any data from that car yet, but my personal experience is that a M20 Aero e30 is faster than a swapped one.

 

 

One thing that has become apparent based on the questions and answers this week is that the members and board nominee's potentially don't understand the (current) roles of the Staff, BOD, and TAC.  Some of the things suggested would massively change the way things have worked in the past year, and it isn't clear if that was what was intended or just a misunderstanding.  I.E. Increase the responsibilities of the TAC and/or BOD, or staff.

The other thing that is really hard to convey is that, while many of the suggestions have merit and are good ideas, they just don't "work" in the real world, or require a significant investment of (time, people, money, equipment, software) that may or may not be the right thing for the company. 

We don't want to be Blockbuster and fail to adapt, but we also don't want to be USFA, so its a fine line to walk. 

 

Lets all try to remember that Guenther Steiner, Rodger Penske and Richard Hendrick aren't in the stands taking notes on who to hire next.  There isn't any payout for winning or podiuming in a champcar race.  There are a few people making money at champcar by building/renting cars, but thats pretty rare, most of us are spending discretionary income.  We are doing this for fun and to spend time with our friends and families.

 

Chris,
just to be clear I'm not accusing anyone of bias.  And I'm well aware of there being three e30 Board members during my tenure.  However, 3 of 7 doesn't constitute a majority.  Even if we failed to recuse ourselves from an E30 specific vote (of which there were very few) there was still opportunity for the rest of the board to out vote us if we did get biased.  With a potential for 5, the rest of the board could not out-vote you.

I'm merely pointing out for everyone's benefit that any changes to the E30, especially to its benefit, will automatically come with a perception of bias should that happen.  I would like your thoughts on how to prevent such burning at the stake.

[Chris Huggins]

22 minutes ago, riche30 said:

 

Chris,
just to be clear I'm not accusing anyone of bias.  And I'm well aware of there being three e30 Board members during my tenure.  However, 3 of 7 doesn't constitute a majority.  Even if we failed to recuse ourselves from an E30 specific vote (of which there were very few) there was still opportunity for the rest of the board to out vote us if we did get biased.  With a potential for 5, the rest of the board could not out-vote you.

I'm merely pointing out for everyone's benefit that any changes to the E30, especially to its benefit, will automatically come with a perception of bias should that happen.  I would like your thoughts on how to prevent such burning at the stake.

 

I didn't think you were.

 

My thoughts are that there is no possible way to prevent such burning at the stake.  People will find reason to burn at the stake just as they have done since the first stake burning.

Changes (or non changes) that have nothing to do with the E30 will also be somehow tied back to bias also.

 

For candidates participating with successful champcar teams it will be worse, because no-one accuses the guy finishing 20th of cheating.

 

 

[Rodger Coan-Burningham]

14 hours ago, riche30 said:

This question is specifically for Frank and Enginerd or any other board nominee fielding or driving an E30.  I'd also appreciate a response from Chris Huggin and Tyler Pederson as car owners as well as Rodger Coan as a rental driver fielding BMW E30s as well.

In the event Frank and Enginerd were voted to the board we would have 5 of 7 sitting board members tied to the BMW E30 chassis.  What are your thoughts on removing any potential bias when it comes to rules that may heavily affect that specific chassis?  

 

These are cars I drive, as I have mentioned on this forum before but maybe you missed it.

• Primary: Lexus SC300
• Other regular cars:
• Chris's E30's
• John's SC300
• Scott and Rich's 944
• Scotty K's Maxima
• My cousin Perry's E36
• Vince's Integra
• Some others I have driven:
• Mike Coppola's Ford Focus
• Elon's E30

Point is my bias is spread among a lot of cars.  I think if Nate and Frank came on the board I would hope and expect they take into consideration what is best to maintain good competition among all cars based on their experiences.  They both seem like level headed folks who can make good decisions based on the information available regardless of the car they field personally.

 

I am not running for a board position this time, not sure why I am being asked to respond in a thread meant for board candidates, but hope this helps.

[riche30]

13 hours ago, Rodger Coan-Burningham said:

I am not running for a board position this time, not sure why I am being asked to respond in a thread meant for board candidates, but hope this helps.

 

I roped you in to it because as a sitting board member with an affiliation (or two) to an E30 team you also need to be aware of the potential blowback from the torchbearers when they come.  Reinforce the walls and batten down the hatches.  They're going to coming.  LOL  

Seriously though, board members and candidates as well as those voting all need to look at the broader picture that comes with each and every vote.  If I were an E30 hater, which i'm obviously not, this information would be important to me.  I'm doing my best to play devil's advocate on any potential issues.

[Rodger Coan-Burningham]

On 11/3/2021 at 1:20 PM, riche30 said:

If I were an E30 hater, which i'm obviously not, this information would be important to me.  I'm doing my best to play devil's advocate on any potential issues.

If somebody is an E30 hater, or any particular car hater for that matter, it probably won’t matter what someone says to convince them otherwise. 

[Jer]

After thinking about this, the E30 is about as stable as any car in the series.  I do not see any changes coming along for e30s (that I've heard of).  The issue then would be e30 owners potentially knocking down any challenger to their thrown.  That is a small concern, but I still believe the Board members and potential Board members would not put the financial health of the series behind their personal want to dominate the series in an e30.  While a factor, potentially, I do not think it's a BIG factor.  

[veris]

I don't think there is a bias on the board for e30s. I also think any of the 6 members running would make good additions to the board. It is nice to see such a great line up of potential board members. 

 

Transparency solves most of he bias concerns. The series has gone a very long way in that regards and just has a little further to go.