This change was posted here
http://www.scca.com/about/?cid=44415
May 2012 Release - Club Racing

I obviously don't get it. SRF has grown into a recognized brand by those that follow racing. If you have an opinion about this I suggest you send a communication to the CRB like I did.

Jim Regan
#862

Hope it is ok for a new guy to comment, (have done marketing, product mgmt, and other things): Mentioned this to my wife, first comment "everyone will still call it SRF", SR1-3 is nice reading for a tech manual, from a high level quick comment, what SCCA needs is maybe to move in the other direction so classes, namees, etc. are more descriptive, public/fan/new member oriented, etc. could go on,, If out of line don't yell at me.

GSR00 wrote:Hope it is ok for a new guy to comment, (have done marketing, product mgmt, and other things): Mentioned this to my wife, first comment "everyone will still call it SRF", SR1-3 is nice reading for a tech manual, from a high level quick comment, what SCCA needs is maybe to move in the other direction so classes, namees, etc. are more descriptive, public/fan/new member oriented, etc. could go on,, If out of line don't yell at me.

For a new guy, you grasp the situation very well. As is often the case, the SCCA is moving in the wrong direction.

Having been in these cars since 1985 I have seen many different names. Started as Sports Renault - then Spec Racer (hated that) - then SRF. I usually still refer to the cars as Sports Renault out of habit and old age and memory imprint. SR3 doesn't seem too bad to me.

looks like an answer to a question no one asked! Things that need to get done, don't, but they bother with this!
More importantly, we now have dates with a disc grinder due to the tail weight reduction. Taking 3# off is a lot of work.
Clay, you gonna come out and play? TMS in a couple weeks - how bout it?

I have a feeling there is a push by certain powers to get the ford out of our name since we aren't getting any money from ford.

Krsamer - maybe TMS but definately TWS - see you then. Joe may be on the right track.Renault name was dropped after Renault was no longer involved - I don't know if it was at Renault's request or not - maybe a liability thing as Renault was involved in the building of the whole car not just the engine.

You know what? Let's not screw around with this. I just sent a pretty blunt note to the CRB (thanks Jim for the link) essentially saying I take a lot of pride racing in the most competitive club racing class there is, one that people even outside of the ever diminishing world of the SCCA know and recognize, and will not appreciate having that be devalued for what looks like some indecipherable and/or arbitrary notion.

Why do ideas like this take root? It sure ain't clear from the FT solicitation for comment, but thanks again Jim for the heads up (hey, we race in a spec class so we never read Fastrack).
tony

Anthony Tabacco wrote: (hey, we race in a spec class so we never read Fastrack).
tony

Does that mean nobody noticed this:

SRF
1. #7657 (Mike Davies) Rear/Tail minimum weights
Change Minimum Rear weight requirement in 9.1.9.C.5: Rear 30 27 lbs.

?

Anthony Tabacco wrote:You know what? Let's not screw around with this. I just sent a pretty blunt note to the CRB (thanks Jim for the link) essentially saying I take a lot of pride racing in the most competitive club racing class there is, one that people even outside of the ever diminishing world of the SCCA know and recognize, and will not appreciate having that be devalued for what looks like some indecipherable and/or arbitrary notion.

Why do ideas like this take root? It sure ain't clear from the FT solicitation for comment, but thanks again Jim for the heads up (hey, we race in a spec class so we never read Fastrack).
tony

I think you are absolutely right. This is more than a name change. I think it is pretty clear that the Board does not understand this class. It is not a feeder series. It is a spec series that attempts to control costs. People migrate here and stay here because they like close competition at reasonable cost.

The thinking that we are a feeder series for the faster spec racer groups may have been part of the reason that the Board decided it would be ok to put us together with s2000 at the 2011 RunOffs.