Thanks to everyone that has responded, there’s a lot to digest here on the subject.
First-off, I want to make a plea to everyone, not to mount a campaign to rescind the rear bearings (and brakes) from the Olds and Pontiac guys. In my opinion this would be a terrible thing to do to them, essentially legislating dangerous parts back onto their cars, inviting much anger among their ranks, and possibly losing some great competitors within a club that desperately needs them. It’s an unwarranted vengeance. This was not my intention with the request.
I do though find myself questioning this particular premise of the class. I question that it is outdated to reject some wider updating of parts for limited reasons, in the same manner that the original IT premise of a “dual purpose” vehicle became outdated. (the concept of a class where its competitors desired to drive to the track, put numbers on the car and race, then drive home and use their cars as a family vehicle, has surely passed, and that verbiage and concept are therefore no longer cited in the rules). So too may the strict concept of updating and backdating of parts only within a single specification line, be outdated, and that no allowances for NLA parts be a premise of the class.
I have built and raced Datsun 240Z’s for 20+ years now. The true situation with the cars as they sit, is that because of improvements in tires and brake pad materials through the years, the cars when driven hard surely have some brake limitations. I no longer for instance, race at Blackhawk farms, Road America, or Summit Point because of this. This is primarily as Lance Loughman outlined, because the front solid rotor no matter how well ducted or what brake fluid or pads you are using, cannot reject the heat under some conditions. This is of course a limitation on a lot of racecars, but it’s pretty severe on the 240’s.
In this particular Comp board request case we are hitting another kind of limitation that is pretty real. If I cannot get a rear brake drum, then I cannot race the car. My opinion is that the cast iron drums would be less able (than a finned aluminum drum with steel insert), to dissipate the heat from the latest brake pad friction coefficient capability. And there seemed to be a reasonably simple configuration available from the same type car, that would alleviate the problem.
I fight the concept in this class, that I need to simply move over, build another car, go vintage, quit racing, or move to another class , when a key consumable becomes NLA, without questioning the current IT class philosophy.
Before I get flamed here, I’ll submit that I hadn’t planned on becoming an old racing fart, but that seems to have occurred, and I want to keep racing the old car that I have. It’s just something I want, a desire. If I request for my club to do something that makes this possible for me and those like me, and it is rejected by the persons who represent the collective will of the club in making the rules, then so be it I’ll move on. I want as much possibility as I can have, to continue to race this ITS classified vehicle. That’s my club member input/request.
Maybe an answer to the problem here, with respect to the situation we have with the one rogue alternate drum-to-disc rule that exists, and with the situation with older cars with drums, would be to permit any drum brake to be replaced with a disc brake. Possibly the Committee could draft a rule that globally permitted this within some guidelines that would suit the concept.
I think that I request from the Committee, that wider considerations be given to updating of parts where NLA situations can be reasonably demonstrated, and/or where safety can be improved, without significant alteration of a car’s competitive capability (as was surely the case with the Olds/Pontiac SS ruling). To not simply invoke the “beyond class philosophy” verbiage, for all such requested changes.
