April 08 FastTrack is up

Gotcha. I told Josh S this, I finally (my apologies to Earl and Josh) have the revised ITR spreadsheet done. Will get that to you this weekend after I fill in the last couple of my blocks.

Sorry about the delay, work has been nuts.

thanks again for the hard work.
 
JeffYoung said:
Gotcha. I told Josh S this, I finally (my apologies to Earl and Josh) have the revised ITR spreadsheet done. Will get that to you this weekend after I fill in the last couple of my blocks.

Sorry about the delay, work has been nuts.

thanks again for the hard work.
Click to expand...

Jeff,
Would you please email me a copy too?
Thanks
 
77ITA said:
no mention of RR damper allowance when originally equipped?.... not even tabled for review?
Click to expand...

I'm not sure why that didn't get a mention...it's getting "heavy airplay" over on the ITAC site. We meet again this coming Monday, I imagine there should be a response forthcoming.

If I read the rules correctly, cars so equipped from the factory MAY change their dampers to units that are non RR, with a max of 2 adjustments. Which means that the OEM units may stay.
 
IT – Allow alternate fuel injectors (Ellis-Brown). IT requires stock injectors.​

That's a make sense request to me. Nice smart a** reply stating the obvious. You can change fuel with an FPR and ECU but you can't change injectors? Umm, okay. ​
 
VW Mk IV Golf to ITB @ 2350#. Would seem to make sense, as it's the same layout/drivetrain as the Mk III, which is spec'd @ 2350#. But, the Mk IV starts w/ ~260# more, based on curb weights listed on Edmunds (2771# for the Mk IV, 2511# for the Mk III, both 2dr GL models). Take off another 300# (180# for driver, 120# for cage), and you need to get that Mk IV down to ~2050#. That's over 700# off the curb weight (over 25% of the cars curb weight). Wow.
 
That would actually be great idea Andy. Many times I think people come away thinking their items haven't received any attention and just got no, because I said so respone when in reality you guys have spent time discussing it. It doesn't have to be anything lengthy but it would demonstrate that various items were considered.
 
mbuskuhl said:
IT – Allow alternate fuel injectors (Ellis-Brown). IT requires stock injectors.​



That's a make sense request to me. Nice smart a** reply stating the obvious. You can change fuel with an FPR and ECU but you can't change injectors? Umm, okay. ​
Click to expand...

Because if you allow alternate injectors you allow a total change in injection system on some cars. It is always more complicated than it seems on the surface.
 
Andy,

I would have to concur. The printed answers to items 1, 2 and 4 seem rather curt and dismissive.

Item 1. Is asking for a rule change and the cited reason for denying the request to change the rule is the rule itself.
Item 2. Asking for a change in the rule not a clarification of the rule. The cited reason makes it sound like someone is asking for the placement of a comma to create a subordinate clause.
Item 4. The cited reason may leave the impression that the weight was not even reviewed.

Just MO.
 
I am not sure what we can get through but I was thinking something like this: New in bold

1. IT – Allow alternate fuel injectors (Ellis-Brown). Thank you for your input. The committees do not see a need for this allowance at this time.​

2. IT – Allow ballast in place of the spare tire (Greene). Thank you for your input. The committees feel the current ballast rules are adequet as written.​

3. ITB – Allow alternate gear ratios for the Jetta (Ellis-Brown). Thank you for your input, however no new data has been presented to support the request.​

4. ITS – Review the weight of the 1972 Porsche 911E (Allard). Thank you for your input. The car is weighted appropriately in ITS per the classification process.
*************************************************​

I know that the 'thank you's' will become almost disingenuous to some but just a few more words could help. Anyone need more than this or am I missing the mark completely?​
 
+1... though does anyone out there really think it is even consistent with class philosophy to allow alternate fuel injectors? Maybe I'm missing something, or there's more detail to the request than I'm aware? Sounds (on the face of it) to me like someone wants to run bigger fuel injectors?? Or is it that stock injectors are no longer available??
 
I personally don't need bigger injectors, but if you can already control flow with the ECU and an/or FPR, why is it a big deal to allow different injectors? Maybe it's more complicated than the average mechanic understands as Steve hinted to. Would opening up injectors give any car an advantage that couldn't already be achieved with the current rules? Geez, people are talking about RR shocks right now and standalones are legal, injectors are nothing compared to those.

+1 Andy has the right idea on appropriate responses.
 
mbuskuhl said:
I personally don't need bigger injectors, but if you can already control flow with the ECU and an/or FPR, why is it a big deal to allow different injectors? Maybe it's more complicated than the average mechanic understands as Steve hinted to. Would opening up injectors give any car an advantage that couldn't already be achieved with the current rules? Geez, people are talking about RR shocks right now and standalones are legal, injectors are nothing compared to those.

+1 Andy has the right idea on appropriate responses.
Click to expand...

if you up the fuel pressure your weakest link is still the injector. You can only flow as much fuel as the injector will ultimately allow. Open that up and watch the carb guys scream. Hell, I'm a FI guy and I might have to scream about that one. In a few cases bigger injectors = more power.

I agree with everyone else on the responses to request and how they are posted.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top