The IsuzuWeb; Elan SCCA Calssification Effort
In the November 2001 issue of Resurgence, the continued efforts of the
IsuzuWeb Car Club to get the 1989-94 Lotus Elan M100 was discussed, and specifically the
statement issued to us by Steve Johnson, President and CEO of the Sports Car Club of
America, in which he indicated that our next appropriate action in this matter was to
bring our dissatisfaction with the actions of the Solo Event's Board in banning the Lotus
Elan M100 from participation in Stock class SoloII autocross competition, and intentional
misclassification by same of same in Street Prepared classes, to the attention of each
of our SCCA Area Directors.
Our concerns with the actions of the SEB and specifically Howard Duncan who oversees the
actions of the SEB, are as follows:
- Mr. Duncan denied that any classing decisions had ever been made based on press
releases, which directly conflicts with a letter from SEB member Paul Brown dated May
9, 2000, in which he states that the Acura Integra was classed based on press releases.
- Mr. Duncan stated that the SEB's refusal to accept the production numbers published
by Lotus Cars USA, Inc., which we provided to them, was based on the experience and
knowledge of their board members which disagree with the published numbers of Lotus
Cars USA, Inc. Clearly the distributor of the automobile has the most accurate
information on this topic and if their members are in disbelief, perhaps they should
step down.
- Mr. Duncan reiterated his belief that the word "produced" means "imported".
Webster's Dictionary disagrees with him, and he is clearly guilty of misinterpreting
the rules as written in the SoloII Rule Book.
- Mr. Duncan indicated that the SEB will not apply the rule that he is using to
exclude the Elan from competition evenly and equitably by removing cars that were
previously classified despite the fact that they fall short of fulfilling the same
requirements. This clearly indicates that, even with their misinterpretation of
the rules, the SEB is singling out the Elan and holding it to a higher standard
than other cars they readily accept for classification, though were produced and
sold in smaller numbers than the Elan.
- Mr. Duncan readily admits that the Elan was misclassified against V10 and V12 cars
in A Street Prepared class, but attributes this to the fact that the SEB made their
class determination based on the reputation of Lotus instead of the specifications
and performance of the vehicle.
- Mr. Duncan ended his statements by myopically stating that he does not believe
there are any Elans in the United States, because he, personally, has never seen one.
Clearly, this man's attitude and actions indicate that he is unfit for his position
and that he should be immediately removed for this reason.
We ask each and every IsuzuWeb member, Isuzu enthusiast, and Lotus Elan enthusiast to
print out the following letter and mail it to their SCCA Area Director:
__________________________
__________________________
__________________________
__________________________
Area Director, Area #_________
__________________________
__________________________
__________________________
RE: Classification of the Lotus Elan M100
Sir or Madam:
I am a member of the Sportscar Club of America as well as a member of the IsuzuWeb car club.
For several years now, the IsuzuWeb and its members has requested that the SCCA formally
classify Isuzu, Geo Storm, and Lotus Elan cars for SoloII competition, because IsuzuWeb
members had complained that they would be assigned different classes from region to region,
as well as members complaining that other club members in a different region with the same
model car had been assigned to a different class than they had in their region.
In order to expedite this action, the IsuzuWeb provided full model specifications as well
as vehicle sales numbers as requested by the SCCA Solo Events Board, and corresponded with
Howard Duncan and Paul Brown of the SEB. While the SEB did classify all of the Isuzu and
Storm models, they have refused to classify the Lotus Elan M100 competitively in Street
Prepared classes, and have in fact formally excluded the car from Stock class competition.
In following correspondences, numerous inconsistencies indicating questionable actions,
decisions, and motives by the SEB have been found:
With regard to the requirement of 1,000 units of production per year for Stock and Street
Prepared classes of racing as indicated in sections 13 and 14 of the Solo Rule Book, Howard
Duncan has stated that in his interpretation, word "production" means "imported and sold
within the US", despite the lack of any definition in the rule book and an obvious
disagreement with Webster's and any other dictionary. Regardless of this, the SEB was
provided with documentation from Lotus Cars USA, Inc., indicating they sold 1,286 in 1990
and 2,060 in 1991, more than fulfilling that requirement. Mr. Duncan refuses to accept
this documentation, stating that his experts disagree with the numbers reported by Lotus
Cars USA, Inc., and finally stating that the fact that he has never seen a Lotus Elan
confirms to him that there were not as many sold as reported by Lotus Cars USA, Inc.
Paul Brown stated that, in the past, cars had been classed based on press releases (citing
specifically the Acura Integra Type R). He also stated that the SEB has, in the past,
knowingly classified cars that did not meet the number requirement described above (these
cars include TVR, Audi V8 Sedan, Audi S4, Audi 200, Audi 200 Quattro, Audi Coupe Quattro,
Porsche 911 Turbo, Porsche 928, and 1995-2001 Acura NSX). Mr. Duncan has stated
emphatically that this is not the case, but has also stated that even though we have
provided the SEB with proof that these cars do not meet the number requirement as indicated
in the rule book, he has no intention of misapplying the rule he is using to exclude the
Elan to exclude these cars which are, in fact, illegal for competition.
Howard Duncan has stated that the Elan was misclassified against V10 and V12 cars in A
Street Prepared class, but attributes this to the fact that the SEB made their class
determination based on the reputation of Lotus as a car manufacturer, instead of the
specifications and performance of the vehicle. What they have done is knowingly place a
vehicle with the power to weight ratio and handling ability of a Acura Integra into a
class against Dodge Vipers, large displacement turbocharged Porsches, BMW M Series models,
and Mazda RX-7 Turbo.
In light of these facts, it is obvious that the SEB and Howard Duncan have engaged in
unethical and unsportsmanlike actions in order to refuse to classify the Elan M100 for
Stock class competition and grossly misclassifying it for Street Prepared competition.
The SEB has in effect excluded owners of these cars from competitive participation, if
not totally excluded them from any participation, in autocross in North America. This
is particularly sad in that owners of Elan M100s are, like all Lotus car owners, more
inclined to be interested in motorsports and racing competition, and most of these owners
regularly attend track days and driving schools. However, the actions of the SEB would
indicate that the SCCA has decided that they are not wanted.
I would like to file a formal complaint concerning this matter, and as per the instructions
of Steve Johnson, President and CEO of the Sports Car Club of America, I am bringing this
matter to your attention and ask that you act upon it, and ask that you, as my area
director, take action to force the SEB to fairly and equitably classify the Lotus Elan M100.
Thank you,
__________________________
We have placed this letter in Word Perfect and Microsoft Word formats:
We have provided the following list of SCCA Area Directors and ask that you locate your area director and mail the above letter to your director askig them to take action in this matter:
Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont, Lower New York, Northern New Jersey
Area 1; Northeast Division North
Kathy Barnes
653 Shenipsit Lake Road
Tolland, CT 06084
KBarnes@scca.org
Pennsylvania, Southern New Jersey, Washington DC, Deleware, Maryland, Northern Virginia
Area 2; Northeast Division South
Steve Limbert
1560 Old Mountain Road
Wellsville, PA 17365
BHoltz@scca.org
Upper New York
Area 10; Northeast Division West
Tom Campbell
3 Pinehurst Drive
Saratoga Springs, NY 12866-5943
TCampbell@scca.org
Florida, Southern Alabama
Area 3; Southeast Division
Phil Mellor
P.O. Box 151
Carnesville, GA 30521
kjones@scca.org
Southern Virginia, North Carolina, Eastern Tenessee, South Carolina, Georgia, Northern Alabama
Area 12; Southeast Division
Phil Mellor
P.O. Box 151
Carnesville, GA 30521
PMellor@scca.org
Lower Michigan, Indiana, Kentucky, West Virginia, Ohio
Area 4; Central Division East
Peter Hylton
6331-B Moroso Court
Indianapolis, IN 46224
PHylton@scca.org
North Dakota, South Dakota, Minnesota, Wisconsin, Northeast Iowa, Northern Illinois, Michigan Upper Peninsula
Area 5; Central Division West
Ken Patterson
223 Bergstrom Blvd.
Cedar Falls, IA 50613
KPatterson@scca.org
Southern Illinois, Missouri, Western Tenessee, Northern Mississippi, Arkansas, Oklahoma, Kansas, Nebraska, Southwestern Iowa
Area 6, Midwest Division
Ron Franklin
3513 Edgewater Drive
Enid, OK, 73703
cclark@scca.org
Louisiana, Texas
Area 7; Southwest Division
Dan Sherrod
1207 Horizon Trail
Richardson, TX 75081
dsherrod@scca.org
Eastern Montanna, Wyoming, Colorado, Utah, New Mexico, West Texas
Area 8; Rocky Mountain Division
Robert Schader
908 Main St., Ste. 205
Louisville, CO 80027
rschader@scca.org
Central and Northern California, Northern Nevada
Area 9; Northern Pacific Division South
Gary Pitts
11858 Mile Drive
Nevada City, CA 95959-9110
GPitts@scca.org
Alaska, Washington, Oregon, Idaho, Western Montana
Area 13; Northern Pacific Division South
John Martinsen
13328 SE 44th Pl
Bellevue, WA 98006
JMartinsen@scca.org
Southern Nevada, Arizona, Southern California
Area 11; Southern Pacific Division
JoAnne Jensen
1763 W. Springfield Way
Chandler, AZ 85248
JJensen@scca.org
In the April 2001 issue of Resurgence, the 2001 classifications for Isuzu and Isuzu
powered cars was discussed, and the glaring omission of the Lotus Elan M100 from
Stock class racing, and gross misclassification of the Elan in A Street Prepared
(running against Dodge Viper, Mazda RX-7, and other vehicles which seriously outgun
the Elan). The omission of the Elan from Stock class was seen as effectively banning
the car from racing Stock classes of Autocross. Well, the Solo Events Board went one
step further this summer, placing the Elan M100 on an "Exclusion List" of cars that
are not allowed to participate in Stock class autocross. The Elan M100 has been
formally banned from Autocross competition.
This action has been orchestrated and executed by Howard Duncan who was reported to
have been promoted out of the SEB to be director of Program Development, where, it
was felt, he could interfere with and mismanage some other aspect of SCCA motorsports
activities, and we Isuzu enthusiasts could look forward to more fair and impartial
governance and decision making by the SEB. However, to our dismay, Howard Duncan
continues to misinterpret and misapply the rules of autocross as he remains as the
head of the SEB.
To recap, the efforts of the IsuzuWeb in getting all Isuzu cars classified for Solo
II or autocross competition, we provided full vehicle specs for all Isuzu cars to
the SEB and requested formal classification of Isuzu cars, Geo Storm and Spectrum,
Asuna Sunfire, and Lotus Elan M100. All Isuzu cars and Geo Storm and Spectrum were
accepted and classified. Asuna Sunfire fell under the equivalent model rule, meaning
that though it is not listed by name, as the identical car to the Isuzu Impulse, it
is eligible for competition in the same class as the Isuzu Impulse. The Lotus Elan
M100 was flatly refused by the SEB, their claim that it was never sold in the United
States of America and that all cars in the USA were private imports. We reviewed the
rules and found that they state "A vehicle must have been produced in quantities of
at least 1,000 in a 12 month period to be eligible for Stock Category". For Street
Prepared classification, this sentence reads verbatim changing only the word "Stock"
for the words "Street Prepared". We provided documentation directly from Lotus Cars
USA Ltd., stating that their records show they produced and sold 3,855 Elans, with
1,286 in 1990 and 2,060 in 1991. Documentation from the US distributor of the car
clearly showed the car not only qualified for classification, but in one year, doubled
that minimum requirement. The SEB has refused to respond and has indicated their
refusal to classify the car in their listing of the car on the "Exclusion List" in
their August 2001 newsletter.
Repeated letters reaffirming that the Lotus Elan M100 does in fact meet the production
requirements as stated in the rule book have been ignored. Meanwhile, the SEB has
classified a number of cars that do not meet this very rule that they have twisted in
their reasoning for refusal to classify the Lotus Elan M100. At this time, we believe
the next appropriate action for the IsuzuWeb is to take two steps. First, to formally
request, no, demand, the removal of vehicles which have been classified for autocross
competition despite the fact that these cars do not meet the number requirement for
classification and competition. The second is for each and every IsuzuWeb member to
write to the SCCA and demand that the Lotus Elan M100 be classified, and classified
correctly, in classes that it can race competitively.
The IsuzuWeb will file a request with the SCCA to declassify the following vehicles
which the vehicle manufacturers themselves have indicated and reported annual numbers
of less than 1,000 units in their reports to Ward's Automotive Index, the automotive
industry year book:
Audi V8 Sedan
Audi S4
Audi 200
Audi 200 Quattro
Audi Coupe Quattro
Porsche 911 Turbo
Porsche 928
1995-2001 Acura NSX (model changes effectively make this car a different vehicle from
previous years which do qualify for classification)
We would ask that each and every IsuzuWeb member mail the enclosed letter found
at the end of this page, to the SCCA at the address indicated to request
that the SCCA classify and correctly classify the Lotus Elan M100 and also declassify
the vehicles listed which do not qualify for competition because they do not meet the
requirements that are being misinterpreted and misapplied to exclude the Lotus Elan
M100 from competition.
Letter to the SCCA:
__________________________
__________________________
__________________________
__________________________
Solo Events Board
Sports Car Club of America, Inc.
9033 E. Easther Place
Englewood, CO 80112
Attn: Solo Events Board
Howard Duncan
RE: Classification of the Lotus Elan M100
Sirs and Madams:
I am an IsuzuWeb member and also a member of the SCCA. I would like to bring to
your attention my dissatisfaction and disagreement with your actions in classifying
the Lotus Elan M100 for Solo2 competition.
You have refused to classify this vehicle for Stock classes and have placed it on
an exclusion list despite having been provided with documentation from Lotus Cars
USA indicating that this car was manufactured and sold in a quantity that exceeds
the requirements in the Solo Rule Book.
You have placed this vehicle in A Street Prepared class despite having been provided
with vehicle specifications indicating the other vehicles in this class are of
drastically different power, weight, and layout than this vehicle, and are in no
way comparable, leading to the obvious conclusion that this car has been misclassified.
I request that you classify this vehicle for Stock class competition in a class
with comparable vehicles and that you also reclassify this vehicle for Street
Prepared competition in a class with comparable weight, power, and layout vehicles.
Also, in light of the board's continual contention that it is refusing to classify
the Elan M100 based on numbers, I would like to formally request that the following
vehicles, which are currently classified for Solo2 competition, be declassified and
excluded from competition, because their numbers do not meet the requirements as set
forth in the Solo2 Rule Book and their classification is a violation of the rules
governing Solo2: Audi V8 Sedan, Audi S4, Audi 200, Audi 200 Quattro, Audi 80 Quattro,
Audi Coupe Quattro, Porsche 911 Turbo, Porsche 928, and 1995-01 Acura NSX. The
IsuzuWeb has already provided you with documentation that the numbers of these
vehicles do not meet the requirements as indicated in the Solo Rule Book.
Thank you,
__________________________
Download the above letter in a
Word Perfect File.
Download the above letter in a
Microsoft Word File.
Please mail a copy of this letter to the SCCA at the below address:
Solo Events Board
Sports Car Club of America, Inc.
9033 E. Easther Place
Englewood, CO 80112