April Fastrack

C

CRallo

New member
http://www.scca.com/documents/Fastrack/11/april/11-fastrack-april-club.pdf

Have at it kids!

Time to send letters in about wipers and such? Is it actually gonna happen? what's next? Is it part of the 2012 end of the world?!

Still have to laugh about some of the things they let happen in SS and Touring...

I like the proposed brake allowance for STU! I feel this is very appropriate for the class!

Sups for the runoffs for anyone planning to make that pilgrimage...

and more!
 
Last edited:
the new minutes certainly took the thunder out of this fastrack.

good to see the STU brake propsal in there. the other STU and L proposals are also good additions. the oil drain plug thing was always the catch for a "run it in STU" car.

I like that we are discussing the removal of the washer bottles etc... in IT, but haven't decided if I'm for it (they are totally unneeded and free to remove) or against it (there's no REASON to remove them if they may be deactivated, the plumbing and asociated cabling removed, etc..). on the one hand it makes for a more presentable package with less crap to worry about (potentially) and some more real estate under the hood for working or allowed mods (headers, intakes). on the other, it's a bit of rules creep and while I don't think it (the proposed rule) in itself is dangerous, the precedent MAY be.

one thing I'm affraid of is that the proposed washer removal rule needs to better define "holes in the body" because all I can think of are those left by removing washer jets on the hood. I think the intent may be to have any cold air source through an inner fender (etc) exposed by such removal covered over, and the GCR technical glossary already disagrees with that reading through the definition of body. if the intent IS in agreement with the GCR definition of body - then this rule will have irregularly beneficial results for performance (all modification allowances do, based on inherant differences in the cars).
 
Chip42 said:
one thing I'm affraid of is that the proposed washer removal rule needs to better define "holes in the body" because all I can think of are those left by removing washer jets on the hood. I think the intent may be to have any cold air source through an inner fender (etc) exposed by such removal covered over, and the GCR technical glossary already disagrees with that reading through the definition of body. if the intent IS in agreement with the GCR definition of body - then this rule will have irregularly beneficial results for performance (all modification allowances do, based on inherant differences in the cars).
Click to expand...

Actually, the intent was for outside holes, such as those left from removing windshield washer jets and any holes left in the rear from removal of a rear wiper assembly. Was trying to keep it simple but if it's not clear enough, we're definitely open to alternate wording. That's one reason it goes out for member input.
 
dj10 said:
Oh gee, you mean we need winshield bottles in our IT race cars !!??
WTF....over
Click to expand...

dude, where have you been?

Josh - the rule as proposed and your stated intent are in agreement. I was under the suspicion that you meant for potential sources of cold air to the engine created by the allowance to be blocked.
 
Wait...now I'm confused..and will stick my foot in my mouth...

You mean if I remove my washer bottle, and I now have a hole in my header (radiator) support, I'm free to use it for a nice big whopping cold air inlet?

Ummm, I hope that's not the case.....
 
lateapex911 said:
You mean if I remove my washer bottle, and I now have a hole in my header (radiator) support, I'm free to use it for a nice big whopping cold air inlet?
Click to expand...
Rule as proposed - yes. all allowances benefit each car or engine differently, this is no exception.

this is SO much more likely to have an irregular benefit than, say, the charcoal canister. in a way it's a bit of a correction, most FWD IT cars' air boxes pass into the fender ahead of the wheel, and do the same on the other side with the washer bottle (by most I mean everything I can remember looking at except a few VWs). so they already have a nice big port for colder air. this gives the other cars another shot at it - some will still have no benefit, some will have greater benefit than others. que sera

does nothing for my MR2, and doesn't help any of the hondas, so I've no dog in the hunt. I think the rule's time has come, but I don't care one way or the other to send a letter in on it.
 
Unintended consequences...?

unpossible.jpg


:D

K
 
lateapex911 said:
You mean if I remove my washer bottle, and I now have a hole in my header (radiator) support, I'm free to use it for a nice big whopping cold air inlet?

Ummm, I hope that's not the case.....
Click to expand...

Does this mean I can reroute my washer nozzles to spray onto my air intake and fill my washer reservoir with methanol?
 
robits325is said:
Does this mean I can reroute my washer nozzles to spray onto my air intake and fill my washer reservoir with methanol?
Click to expand...

its simpler if you just plug the lines to the nozzles and add a "tee" in the line and route the new line to a port on the throttle body in front of the thottle plate.

don't ask me how i know.....
 
tom91ita said:
its simpler if you just plug the lines to the nozzles and add a "tee" in the line and route the new line to a port on the throttle body in front of the thottle plate.

don't ask me how i know.....
Click to expand...

I think Mark Donohue mentioned using the same concept to put diesel into the exhaust system for a smoke screen...
 
Chip42 said:
good to see the STU brake propsal in there. the other STU and L proposals are also good additions. the oil drain plug thing was always the catch for a "run it in STU" car.
Click to expand...
I assume you guys mean STL on the brakes? Submit quick letters of support for both, it could make a difference in their approval with the CRB/BoD.

GA
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top