Russ Myers
New member
just wait till i get around to dropping a cosworth bda into my focus...
Russ
Russ
August 2010 Fastrack
- Thread starter GTIspirit
- Start date
Kirk, are you aware the only requirement to "qualify" for the Runoffs is to "finish" four races in the class you're entering...? And that no classes are being excluded from the Runoffs, all get to go (the lesser-attended groups are combined)?
QUITE a departure from "the old days", when you had to finish top-3 in your Division (and were REQUIRED to run at least one race out of Division) to be guaranteed a slot in Da Big Race... - GA
X
xr4racer
Guest
Kirk, if you mean "competing" in the truest sense of the word, no one is competing this year to go to the runoffs. When there are people going to the runoffs by running half distance of 4 races done over just 2 double national weekends, that is not competing.
matt
matt
I'm submitting a response to the CRB supporting the acceptance of STL, with the following prep changes to the proposed rules:
- Allow alternate control arms (continue using stock pickup points);
- Allow alternate outer ball joint and outer tie rod relocation;
- Allow alternate brakes;
- Consider slightly lighter weights so the larger-displacement cars (primarily, the 2-liters) do not have to add a lot of ballast.
GA
- Allow alternate control arms (continue using stock pickup points);
- Allow alternate outer ball joint and outer tie rod relocation;
- Allow alternate brakes;
- Consider slightly lighter weights so the larger-displacement cars (primarily, the 2-liters) do not have to add a lot of ballast.
GA
I like those rules/ideas.
FYI it would not be hard to get a 94-00 integra to ~2200lbs with everything that is allowed.
Butch Kummer
New member
It didn't make it to the latest FasTrack so I guess it's gone back for more tweaking, but there was SUPPOSED to be a serious modification to the Runoffs eligibility requirements starting in 2011. Rather than just show up and run four races you would have to actually outrun someone (actually half the people in your class and division) in order to earn an invitation. I expect to find out more at our SEDiv Mid-Year meeting tomorrow (7/24), but I CAN tell you that if stays the way it is right now Atlanta Region may not schedule any National races next year.
The Run-Ons needs to return to a "Best of the Best" format. Inviting everyone that can fog a mirror didn't work and destroyed the local Nationals this year.
I dunno, Butch; given some of the Production fields I've been grouped with this year (I've been running STU) I'd say it's quite an accomplishment for them to make it halfway through any race, let alone four times a year...
GA
Before Prod guys off on a tear, please notice the "winky, winky"....
lateapex911
Super Moderator
So, that means we'll all be fabricating arms. And brakes , means some will be spending $$ to have the parts made for their model. $$$$. Why not just allow new uprights to, to save those guys the money of having to have parts made to fit their particular up right?
What makes this different than other prep categories?
How is this different than Low Prep prod? (for example?)
lateapex911
Super Moderator
This. To carry the thought further, I think the swap thing is mostly a street thing. And yea, it's gets carried into racing. But the number of guys who do the swap AND develop ...really develop...the swapped motor, (and the whole package) are, I think, few and far between. Certainly the top dogs in Honda Challenge have a handle on the concept, but nationwide, how many is that? (Jimmy will know) I suspect we're not talking numbers that require two hands to count. Some will blame NASA for killing HC with the Toyo spec tire rule. I'd suggest thats a red herring...a reason many people cite in lieu of other more personal reasons, which might include inability to prep and run at the pointy end due to finances and talent. Or it was a straw that broke the camels back.
I fear that while it seems like a good way to encourage swappers to play, the longer term outlook is bleaker, and sets up people for disillusionment.
I don't know if the whole thing can be put in Bob's lap. I know Peter Keane is very high on this concept. I like that Peter is enthusiastic. I worry that the bigger policy issues haven't been thought out. This is, first and foremost, a policy decision.
Kolin Aspegren
New member
+1 to what Greg Amy said.
I'm not adding over 100 hundred pounds to my (2.0) car, more than my ITA or
SSC race weight in order to run in STL.
Other than fixing some of the cough cough Acura,crx, miata weights everything looks
great for 2011. Hats off to PK,CC,RM and company.
See everyone at the Runoffs, roll me over if you find me face down in the mud.
k
I'm not adding over 100 hundred pounds to my (2.0) car, more than my ITA or
SSC race weight in order to run in STL.
Other than fixing some of the cough cough Acura,crx, miata weights everything looks
great for 2011. Hats off to PK,CC,RM and company.
See everyone at the Runoffs, roll me over if you find me face down in the mud.
k
No it won't, Jake, 'cause I'm assuming you'll keep your RX-7 in Improved Touring where you can't do that. It will only affect people that choose to run in this class.
I, on the other hand, will purchase aluminum rear lower arms to reduce weight and easily add sphericals; adjustable upper rear arms to replace the fixed links so I can easily adjust camber; replacement upper front arms with adjustable ball joints so I can adjust camber easily; and a pair of adjustable rear toe links to allow quick and easy rear toe changes without dealing with those f*****g slots.
And best of all, it's all available off-the-shelf for the Integra (in fact we're done almost all of those already). I could even buy it off eBay... "Warts and all", I think we call it...?
And alternate brakes? That's a given.
I like your idea of the uprights, though... (juuuust kidding.)
Uh, different rules? Or is that a trick question? I never had any interest in Production, even Limited Prep, so I can't tell you. But I encourage you to look it up...I am a bit disappointed that the rules allow alternate windshields; I've often thought that one thing really philosophically separates "rational" mods from "all-out too far" ones...
What's really funny about this whole thing is that it reminds me a lot of the "Modified Touring 2" ruleset I wrote almost a decade ago...imagine that, me being ahead of my time...
GA
Russ Myers
New member
Why not just build a GT car? all of this is perfectly legal there. seems to me there ain't a whole lot of difference.
Russ.
Russ.
Andy Bettencourt
Super Moderator
All of those changes are very FWD-centric in practical application if not on paper. You still want all that weight break too?
I'm glad someone like TGA is on the same side of the fence as me. makes me feel less insane.
ST is a neat class. the differences between the proposed STCS and PCS are small - slicks, fenders, roof, swaps, brakes. the speclines will come to ST, most likely listed by motor, but they will come. there is absolutely no reason for there not to be brake, suspension link material, and alignment adjustments more like the "big" ST classes. if you think it's expensive, don't run there. you don't run prod or gt, do you? they're expensive...
I personally think the IT rule set is great in general, and I don't want to see it die or be injured. I see 2 real problems though - 1: the book keeping is very difficult due to the large list of spec lines and the amount of crossover. 2: the balance issue - we've all read knestis' dispositions on various thread sbaout that, and I would check with him about the sanity of anything as I generally LIKE the guy's ideas. when I say there's prejudice in the PTB about changing the old and the wrongly classed, I don't think I'm wrong. I don't want to rebalance everything necessarily, but I do think there has to be either a break in the damn or a rewrite to force something like a real process to be appliead accross the board.
I think people are wrong about ST hurting IT long term. it might hurt car counts for a couple of years, but all you need is a rule to forbid regional-running of IT cars in ST. done. go play in SPITOUE land if you want to double dip.
and I still think swaps are cool AND CAN BE WORTHWHILE!!! I'll never stop thinking so. having them in IT is a mere flight of facny and I'm sorry I mentioned it.
ST is a neat class. the differences between the proposed STCS and PCS are small - slicks, fenders, roof, swaps, brakes. the speclines will come to ST, most likely listed by motor, but they will come. there is absolutely no reason for there not to be brake, suspension link material, and alignment adjustments more like the "big" ST classes. if you think it's expensive, don't run there. you don't run prod or gt, do you? they're expensive...
I personally think the IT rule set is great in general, and I don't want to see it die or be injured. I see 2 real problems though - 1: the book keeping is very difficult due to the large list of spec lines and the amount of crossover. 2: the balance issue - we've all read knestis' dispositions on various thread sbaout that, and I would check with him about the sanity of anything as I generally LIKE the guy's ideas. when I say there's prejudice in the PTB about changing the old and the wrongly classed, I don't think I'm wrong. I don't want to rebalance everything necessarily, but I do think there has to be either a break in the damn or a rewrite to force something like a real process to be appliead accross the board.
I think people are wrong about ST hurting IT long term. it might hurt car counts for a couple of years, but all you need is a rule to forbid regional-running of IT cars in ST. done. go play in SPITOUE land if you want to double dip.
and I still think swaps are cool AND CAN BE WORTHWHILE!!! I'll never stop thinking so. having them in IT is a mere flight of facny and I'm sorry I mentioned it.
Hmmm...well, if one were to take that idea of "no guarantee of competitiveness" to its illogical conclusion, maybe the SCCA only needs three classes: GT-1, ASR, and Formula X (whichever is the fastest one).
But no, some people like the idea of "appearance of competitiveness." So, we as a Club break down our competition into smaller chunks based on level and type of preparation, such as Showroom Stock, Touring, Improved Touring, Production, GT; we even break out cars based on make and model (Spec Miata, Spec RX-7). All of this is done categorized in such as way to at least give opportunity.
And, even within those categories we further classify cars based on performance potential within those categories based on prep level. Thus instead of just "Improved Touring" we have ITS, ITA, ITB, and ITC; now we have ITR to let more cars play and regionally we have IT-7/Spec-RX7 to let more people be competitive (how come I haven't heard anyone complain about those classes diluting the fields? Instead I heard how "groovy" those ideas were...?) We also break down our SS, Touring, and GT categories, too.
And that's only within the tin-tops...
If your argument is - as Jake's seems to be - that the difference in prep level between Improved Touring and Production is not large enough to warrant a separate class, I'll grant you that debate; it's a reasonable one to argue (though I may not necessarily agree). However, the way the club is structured now, it's not a debate of "what is between IT and Prod", it's a debate of "what's between Touring and Prod" because in the National scheme of things Improved Touring is wholly irrelevant (sad to say). And that "IT going National" debate has been argued for each of the nearly-three-decades I've been in the Club, and it's been consistently rejected. And what I'm seeing here with the STx proposal is the Club taking IT National with an attractive "step up" rule set from GCR 9.1.3.
So to use the argument of "why not just [enter] GT" just makes me laugh, because to me it indicates that you are unsatisfied with the current structure of multiple categories and classes; if not, then maybe you're just trying to protect your own situation (like when the Irish used to tell the Italians to go home -- or was it the other way around...?) Let's not forget that STO/STU, and its predecessors BP/DP, has been around at least 4-5 years, and in fact many IT competitors have been consistently using it for extra track time. Yet this argument is one that never came up vis-a-vis BP/DP or STO/STU until the moment IT cars had a prayer of appearing competitive.
But in the end, it really, really doesn't matter. If you guys find the STL category a threat to Improved Touring, then maybe IT is not as strong as we think it is (I, personally, don't believe that). You'll find very few people "leaving" Improved Touring to race STL exclusively, and those that do were probably not seriously considering IT to begin with. And, whatever you think of the rules, you know the drill...
- GA
Andy Bettencourt
Super Moderator
The problem I have with a class like this is that EVENTUALLY, someone is going to find a magic combination (lets say the S2000) that is unbeatable because of the ruleset.
Couple things could then happen. The CRB will then handicap that car with a competition adjustment OR people will lose interest very quickly.
Couple things could then happen. The CRB will then handicap that car with a competition adjustment OR people will lose interest very quickly.
not exactly legal.. not a USDM motor. IF that was legal.. Toyota Atlantic motor here I come!.. well I would have to sell my truck and one of my other cars.. and probably the canoe.. the smoker... bicycle..
