April Fastrack

Here's what my letter to the CRB said:

Sirs:

I would like to comment on points listed in the both the March and April 2005 editions of Fastrack regarding pump fuels and mandated fuel lists
I disagree with the mandated use of specific fuels for Improved Touring class cars.
Many of the cars in these entry level classes see no improvement whatsoever in using anything beyond standard 89 octane pump gas that is available at an affordable price on nearly every street corner with a gas station. Mandating that expensive "track" fuels be purchased puts added burden and cost upon the racers, many of which within the IT classes are running on restricted budgets.
Another area of burden will be upon the Regions themselves to make sure that the approved "track" fuels are available in quantity at their local track and that they do actually pass the fuel testing requirements. Having been witness first hand to an event where the on-site "track" fuel failed testing (and I have read of this same issue at other events), this is nothing but an additional burden upon the Regions.
Keep mandated fuels at the Runoffs Championships level where it belongs. Do not penalize the Regions and their racers.
The concerns of maintaining a fair and level field in regards to the use of fuels should be addressed through the testing procedures.
Fix the testing rather than mandate "spec fuels" at the Regional and Divisional level.

Thanks,
Steve Linn
Indianapolis Region
Member # 274451
 
Can anyone honestly tell me what SCCA is trying to accomplish? Be nice to me...remember I am unfamilier with additives and the advantages of them. I have heard of Nitros (sp) but that's about it. Can't things this extreme be tested for? Who cares if people mix different gasses and add additives. I would like to see how much it costs (If that's the reason for this) for the additives added per gallon including the gas. I would be somewhat suprised if any additives would cost more than $4.00 per gallon to add to my fuel which is about $1.89 at the gas station next door (today) That leaves me at less than $6.00 per gallon. It costs $7.00 per gallon at LRP for 110 octane. I am still saving money by using additives. I don't get it what is the point of no additives? Now lets look at the cost to the region!!! wow I have no idea where to start with the time/ hassle/ and monetary costs associated with this. I can see if they want to eliminate a few things like nitros but I'm sure extreme additives like this must be able to be tested for, right?

Can anyone enlighten me on what SCCA is affraid of?

Stephen Blethen

PS: David, I apologize I thought you were in favor of a gas rule.
 
The additives are known to cause cancer. Some of the stuff that has been used over the years is some of the worst cancer causing stuff known. The benefit is HP and a fair amount of it.
 
Originally posted by Joe Harlan:
The additives are known to cause cancer. Some of the stuff that has been used over the years is some of the worst cancer causing stuff known. The benefit is HP and a fair amount of it.

like how much more than the 110 octane that I can buy at Lime Rock. Is it like 10-15HP?
 
Originally posted by apr67:
It's fine to base the decision on a Rabbit GTI on the fact that it is too much car for ITC.

It's also fine to use the knowledge and expertise of an Adhoc member.

But what was orginally stated was not accurate, and that was all I had a bone to pick with. And yes, I goofed up by taking your statments to mean that some fast Rabbit GTI's existed.


Alan,

Get used to it, that's Darin's style.

Darin,

With all due respect to Chris, how can he judge the car to be a mid-pack car now, w/ all the recent cars that have been moved down?

As far as the weight correction goes, like I said, I asked for that, and it was thrown in the trash w/o so much as an acknowledgement. And on top of that, you tap dance around being able to correct the weight of cars downward. You got the tool to fix some of the mistakes, yet now you're saying that you can't use it, or that's not what it was for. Talk about bait and switch!

As far as the Rabbit GTI not being an ITC car, how about gathering a little supporting data. Get Chris' fast lap times in his ITB Rabbit GTI, as well as lap times from other people that run the same car. Now, compare those lap times to the current ITC record at the respective tracks the lap times are from. Show me cars that are running under the ITC record, and you'll convince me that it's not an ITC car. Until then, it's all just speculation.

------------------
MARRS #25 ITB Rabbit GTI (sold) | MARRS #25 HProd Rabbit
SCCA 279608
 
Think of the advantage as a percent gain which would be under 5 percent. So for a 150 horse car you would see maybe 7.5 hp gain. Someone else on here may have some actual dyno tuning experience and can offer some hard numbers but the anecdotal eveidence I have seen is in the 3-4% gain range.

Keep in mind these type of gains are huge in a spec class where everyone is running the same combination. It's also nothing to be laughed at when running in class with competition adjustments where again the rules are designed to even things out. Then take a look at IT where competitiveness is not guaranteed. All of the high dollar fuel in the world is not going to make a mid pack ITA car run at the front.

I won't buy a spec fuel if it's going to cost me more than a 20% increase in cost. It would easily make the differences in the number of races I could attend and the difference in compliance with a flawed test standard isn't worth the loss in seat time, which is why I spend all this time and money. I also won't support a rule that would requiring lengthy and senseless flushing process just to be sure that I have the fuel du jour in my tank when I go out on track. Having to flush a system that passed two weeks ago at the last race at the same track because I know it won't pass doesn't make sense to me.

The people I have to talked to that do testing all say they can't accurately certify the same fuel sample will be good if tested 24 hours later under the tight standards we are talking about. If they can't prove that how are we going to have a meaningful test of whats in a tank? Furthermore the chemists I talk to have all said that if you're wallet is big enough they can blend something that will pass all the current tests and still give an advantage.

The simple fact as many people have stated is the current fuel testing can not accurately seperate the pump gas from specially blended race fuel. I for one don't care if someone wants to spend that kind of money to win a REGIONAL class. If the issue is health related than we need to come up with testing to monitor harmful additives, not additional band aids to slap on a testing process that is limited to begin with.

Finally, has anyone out there heard of any issues in IT with expensive race gases? Or are we, CRB and the BOD making something out of a non-issue?

------------------
~Matt Rowe
ITA Shelby Charger
MARRS #96
 
Dave,

As a member of the "Frugal Racing" team, I understand your viewpoint. I was only using Hoosiers or that tire budget to highlight the absurdness of getting tossed because I tried to save a few bucks on fuel when I already have so much invested.

Kirk,

Presenting your cost argument the way you did supports your position (I am sure that is why you did it). However, if something used to cost $1 and then the price goes up to $5, the fact that it went up 400% appears much worse than the price went up $4. Especially in the volume we are talking about.

Of your entire racing (season) budget, what percentage would an increase of $4/gal in fuel represent?

The Enduro is an abnomally (another reason you probably chose it to support your argument). I would argue that your fuel budget for that race was a much larger slice of the pie than a normal race. Where else are you going to have that kind of entry fee to fuel cost ratio?
 
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Finally, has anyone out there heard of any issues in IT with expensive race gases</font>

Yes, oxygenators(sp?) benefit low compression engines in a big way.

Bill, I remember when the PCA concept was first pitched it was to slow cars down not speed them up. You can't fix every car and you certainly can't fix them all at one time. Little adjustments and see what happens.
 
Originally posted by Bill Miller:

You got the tool to fix some of the mistakes, yet now you're saying that you can't use it, or that's not what it was for. Talk about bait and switch!

As far as the Rabbit GTI not being an ITC car, how about gathering a little supporting data.

Miller,

Again, just so the rest of those here know... you have NO idea what you are talking about... You couldn't possibly...

The request to reclassify the GTI was rejected.... the car is in the correct class...

The request to reduce the GTIs weight is tabled at the time being, along with several other requests for reclassifications/weight adjustments...

We are not about to start making adjustments just because YOU think we should... Joe is correct in that PCAs were NOT intended to speed cars up... I tried to tell you guys that all along. That's not to say that some adjustments aren't warrented.

The ITAC is working as we always have, and will continue to do so, for the betterment of IT.

That's about all I can tell you at this time...

------------------
Darin E. Jordan
SCCA #273080, OR/NW Regions
Renton, WA
ITS '97 240SX
DJ_AV1.jpg


[This message has been edited by Banzai240 (edited March 02, 2005).]
 
Just in case you missed it.

Originally posted by Daryl DeArman:
Gregg Baker,

Any update from Topeka?

Were you the "Gregg Baker" seeking credit on WindTunnel for a photo? (I read the other post and saw that you were that Gregg Baker)

 
Originally posted by Bill Miller:

As far as the Rabbit GTI not being an ITC car, how about gathering a little supporting data. Get Chris' fast lap times in his ITB Rabbit GTI, as well as lap times from other people that run the same car. Now, compare those lap times to the current ITC record at the respective tracks the lap times are from. Show me cars that are running under the ITC record, and you'll convince me that it's not an ITC car. Until then, it's all just speculation.


One more thing... You are making two assumptions...

First, you are assuming that the current situation in ITC is equitable...

Second, you are assuming that the ITAC is working from a standpoint of using on-track results to make decisions...

I've told you all, (much to Kirk's approval, I believe), that we are concerned with matching the cars from a mechanical perspective to the best of our ability... The only time that "results" matter is as a validation of our model. You show me the top cars in each class and I'd better be able to show you on paper why they are the top cars... At this point, I can...

The best we can hope to do is to match the cars on a mechanical performance basis. The rest is going to be up to you guys...



------------------
Darin E. Jordan
SCCA #273080, OR/NW Regions
Renton, WA
ITS '97 240SX
DJ_AV1.jpg
 
I took a little different tack in my e-mail to the CRB regarding fuel:

"Gentlepersons - I am writing to add my input regarding fuel requirements, particularly for vehicles not-too-far removed from their original production specifications (Showroom Stock, Touring, Improved Touring).

I race in Improved Touring A and also use my race car in high-performance driver education (HPDE) events. In many cases, track fuel pumps are not open during HPDE events, so an "approved" grade of fuel may not be available at all times.

If a specified fuel other than commercially available pump gasoline were to be mandated, I would either have to obtain, store, and transport said fuel for use in my race car at all times - even for HPDE events, or be required to flush my fuel system prior to every race, requiring a method for disposal of any leftover fuel. In addition to the inherent safety concerns with storing and transporting fuel, I would anticipate issues with my homeowners insurance if I were required to store any quantity of fuel in my garage (located under my house). Similarly, disposal of any unused "pump" fuel that I may have used in an HPDE event poses both safety and environmental risks.

Additionally, "track" fuel carries a price premium that could significantly add to a race-weekend budget. In an "entry-level" class such as Improved Touring, this extra expense is unnecessary.

I urge the board to consider allowing vehicles that still remain relatively close to their production configurations (Showroom Stock, Touring, Improved Touring) to continue to use commercially available pump gasoline.

Thank you for time in consideration of my input.

Best regards,
Noam Levine
Member # 166382"
 
Originally posted by Daryl DeArman:
... Presenting your cost argument the way you did supports your position (I am sure that is why you did it). ...

I'm beginning to wonder what's going on around here recently.

You sound like you believe that I'm commiting some kind of crime - twisting words to make untruthful statements sound right, to some evil end.

The whole point of thinking of things in terms of percentage changes is to put them in a common metric, so they can be effectively considered against other things.

Installing a New Beetle exhaust manifold on my Golf didn't just save 4.5 pounds - it reduced the weight of that part by more than 30%. That's pretty significant. Save "only" 10% on every part of the car and that's damn near all of the weight that the car was over the ITB limit last year.

It's NOT just "a few bucks" if it represents a tripling or quadrupling of a budget line item cost. People go broke racing all the time because they just think of each little expense as "only $50" so isn't it perhaps smart to think of reducing - or not increasing - each in terms of relative amounts? By as much as 400%??

Don't want to look at it like that? Don't. Don't want to hear to this point of view? Ignore it. Think $7.00 for a gallon of stuff that does the same thing in most of our engines as the $1.90 stuff is a good use of your dough? Totally within your right.

You aren't wrong. I'm not saying you're wrong. I don't think you are a bad person.

Spend your money exactly the way you want but it's my right to think about it in a way that works for me and to advocate for that position in public discourse, about a member-driven organization to which I've paid dues for two plus decades.

K

EDIT - the NASA 3.5 might be viewed as an anomoly because it was short. We are planning on two, 55-gallon drums of fuel (per car) for the Summit 12 hour race. The difference between $209 and $770 is significant either as a percentage increase OR as a total impact on the cost of running that event.

[This message has been edited by Knestis (edited March 02, 2005).]
 
Originally posted by Banzai240:
One more thing... You are making two assumptions...

First, you are assuming that the current situation in ITC is equitable...

Second, you are assuming that the ITAC is working from a standpoint of using on-track results to make decisions...

I've told you all, (much to Kirk's approval, I believe), that we are concerned with matching the cars from a mechanical perspective to the best of our ability... The only time that "results" matter is as a validation of our model. You show me the top cars in each class and I'd better be able to show you on paper why they are the top cars... At this point, I can...

The best we can hope to do is to match the cars on a mechanical performance basis. The rest is going to be up to you guys...



Darin,

The note in FasTrack said based on performance. How would you interpret that? As far as the weight correction being tabled, there was nothing in there about it, and when I asked John Bauer about it, he said there was nothing on the agenda for it. His suggestion was to write another letter. How would you interpret that?

The point here is that the GTI is NOT an ITC car... and my "justification" for my opinion on this is that Chris Albin raced one of these cars and says that, today, they are a middle of the ITB pack car. We have a couple of other ITB drivers on the ITAC who agree...

The bottom line here is that the GTI needs some help, but belongs in ITB...

We'll have to see if there is something that can be done about that...


Here's a news flash Darin. Most, if not all of the top ITC cars are mid-pack ITB cars. And, while it's only one track, I looked at the '04 MARRS results from the Summit Point races (6). There's a pretty solid ITB and ITC contingent there, and the cars happen to run in the same group. In all but one of the races, there were multiple ITC cars in the top 10, overall, w/ fields in excess of 30 cars, a dozen and a half of which were ITB cars.

As far as your model goes, IIRC, both you and Andy said the car would be in ITC at 2250 - 2275#. You seemed much less concerned w/ the New Bettle upsetting the ITC apple cart than you do this car (which is hardly a match for a NB).

The comments about the equity in ITC and PCAs not being used to speed cars up are both disingenuous. You can't 'speed cars up' by reducing the weight, but you can speed them up by dropping them down a class? What a crock!

BTW, this isn't really about speeding the car up, it's about correcting the weight so that it's in line w/ what your classification model predicts. That's been done before, but now it's not ok? Yet another crock.

[This message has been edited by Bill Miller (edited March 03, 2005).]
 
K,

No crime. It is smart. Just not the best terms to accurately portray the impact on ones' racing budget. I choose to spend my energy and budget worries in dollar$, not percentages.

My wallet doesn't care if it is has 10% of nothing or 90% of nothing.

If the price of rain-x tripled, I wouldn't much care because its' overall impact in my budget is minimal. However, if my entry fees or tire costs only doubled...I'd have a problem.

Weight savings on the car. Would you rather spend $100 to reduce the weight of a 2 pound non-rotating, sprung widget by 1 pound (50%) or $100 to reduce the weight of a non-rotating, sprung 20# widget by 5# (25%)?


Some draw the line at $1.98/gal fuel, I am okay with paying $6/gal if it means that guys can't use the $30/gal stuff.

ON EDIT--I race a Vee where almost the entire grid has between 58-61HP...As pointed
out above when all the cars are so 'equal' minor gains are all that is needed and the race fuel does make a difference. These motors don't even have 9:1 compression. There are more fuel attributes to consider than its' octane.

I have never said that pump gas shouldn't be allowed...it should be included as one of the approved fuels, therefore included in the control sample lot. If you only spec a dc the chemists out there will create a fuel that is an advantage that passes the test. I don't see any indication that the list of approved fuels will be short.



[This message has been edited by Daryl DeArman (edited March 03, 2005).]
 
Originally posted by Bill Miller:

BTW, this isn't really about speeding the car up, it's about correcting the weight so that it's in line w/ what your classification model predicts. That's been done before, but now it's not ok? Yet another crock.

We've got it handled Bill... that's where I'll end my part in this... You are free to continue thinking what you wish, but as I said before, you don't know the facts of what is happening/has happened, except from your point of view, and you really haven't paid attention when I've tried to explain, so discussing this further seems pointless...

Again, the ITAC and CRB have things well under control as far as IT is concerned...

------------------
Darin E. Jordan
SCCA #273080, OR/NW Regions
Renton, WA
ITS '97 240SX
DJ_AV1.jpg


[This message has been edited by Banzai240 (edited March 03, 2005).]
 
Originally posted by Knestis:
I'm beginning to wonder what's going on around here recently.

I think it's called cabin fever. Here lately I've taken to wearing my Isaac when visiting it.com, the head shaking was just getting too violet. Does make for some funny looks around the office though.

Earl

[This message has been edited by erlrich (edited March 03, 2005).]
 
Originally posted by erlrich:
I think it's called cabin fever.

Definitely cabin fever. It happens every year about this time.

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Here lately I've taken to wearing my Isaac when visiting it.com.... Does make for some funny looks around the office though.</font>

Why? I think it's a stylin' accessory ya got there.
smile.gif


------------------
Gregg Baker, P.E.
Isaac, LLC
http://www.isaacdirect.com

[edit: spelling is good]

[This message has been edited by gsbaker (edited March 03, 2005).]
 
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">As far as the Rabbit GTI not being an ITC car, how about gathering a little supporting data. Get Chris' fast lap times in his ITB Rabbit GTI, as well as lap times from other people that run the same car. Now, compare those lap times to the current ITC record at the respective tracks the lap times are from. Show me cars that are running under the ITC record, and you'll convince me that it's not an ITC car. Until then, it's all just speculation.</font>

OR - you could have included this information in your request.
rolleyes.gif


We have yet to make a change that INCREASES a cars performance WITHIN it's current class. THAT is what is on the table. We are trying to do the right thing without going down the road of CA's.

There have been plenty of cars/requests that we have put in a holding pattern in order to make sure the CRB and the BoD are in full support of these types of one-time changes. We think they will be - but we must be patient. We are turing the ship a significant amount here and it needs a little time to circle around.

Be patient Bill. I understand your concern but I would understand your sense of urgency if you actually raced in IT.

Andy

------------------
Andy Bettencourt
New England Region, R188967
www.flatout-motorsports.com
 
Anomaly, anomaly, anomaly, anomaly. As much as I feel it weakens an argument when people present data from an anomaly to support their stance, I feel it weakens an argument just as much when someone uses words they can't spell to support theirs. DOH!
 
Back
Top