Dec. FasTrack is out!

B

Bill Miller

New member
http://www.scca.org/_Filelibrary/File/04-1...12-fastrack.pdf

Some IT reclassifications, formation of T3, and PCA's are referred to as Competition Adjustments.
eek.gif


------------------
MARRS #25 ITB Rabbit GTI (sold) | MARRS #25 HProd Rabbit
SCCA 279608
 
Who cares about Kirk being bummed out...

Looks like the Accord goes back to ITB, righting a stoopid wrong, and the early Civic/CRX Si goes to ITB where it belongs (with a good bit of weight, but still better off than it is in ITA).

Good things are happening. The wheels could come off later, but I prefer to be optimistic.

Now where's that lead for the E36???
 
Oh no ITB is being invaded by Jap cars!!!

Bring it, we German and Sweden tanks will keep you in line
wink.gif


Raymond "So far I like it" Blethen
 
Originally posted by Bill Miller:
formation of T3, and PCA's are referred to as Competition Adjustments.
Click to expand...

Great - just what we need in SCCA - ANOTHER friggin class. Maybe SCCA should take the true PCA (Porsche Club of America) approach of a class for every car and a car for every class - that way no one cries or complains (except the workers and officials).
 
biggrin.gif
biggrin.gif


Now I just have to come up with the $$ to buy that soon-to-be ex-ITA CRX Si I've had my eyes on for months......

------------------
Richard Floyd
'86 Acura Integra LS #90
SCCA ITA / NASA ECHC H5
 
Originally posted by mgyip:
Great - just what we need in SCCA - ANOTHER friggin class. Maybe SCCA should take the true PCA (Porsche Club of America) approach of a class for every car and a car for every class - that way no one cries or complains (except the workers and officials).

Click to expand...

Seems like a logical move to me... another Touring class, that is...

Might be a good idea for IT as well... You can't just keep lumping 190+ stock hp cars in with 150hp cars and expect them all to just get along...

Personally, with SS talking about opening up their ECUs, I think what you'll see in the end is an END to SS, and an expansion of the Touring program, which is essentially SS with open ECUs...

All of these are moves that would make sense, and should result in larger fields with more competitive racing overall...

Seems like a good thing to me...

DJ

[This message has been edited by Banzai240 (edited October 27, 2004).]

[This message has been edited by Banzai240 (edited October 27, 2004).]
 
Thats one thing that I never understood...how can the say that a SS ECU has to be stock but an IT ECU not...IT was too hard to police, I guess that the ECU's in SS are easy to police...whatever. Say one thing to one group and another to another and no real way to enforce the rules. If they do change the computer rule it will be the right thing to do in the long run, it's the right thing to do in the long run for IT, even though I don't agree with it.

Time marches on...I was born 30yrs too late.

The other thing that I think is cool is that AWD and Turbos in T3. Audi and Subaru WRX..the Scooby is Turbo don't know about the Audi, but AWD is here. If it works in T3 I wonder if it will ever come to IT...that would be too cool.

[This message has been edited by cherokee (edited October 27, 2004).]
 
One noted item of concern:

"3. Allow cars that are only 4 years old to be classified. (Baggie) The philosophy of IT is to classify cars that may be purchased at a significant savings from their original sales price in order to keep the class costs down. Additionally, 4-year-old cars would still be eligible for Showroom Stock competition."

It's that last part that bothers me. If we are going to use SS eligibility to determine IT eligiblity, then we were ultimately limiting Improved Touring to encompassing only 10-year-old or newer cars...

I think it's time to consider totally replacing the two remaining SS classes with T4 and T5, and then making an easy transition from there to IT. Just as we used to have with SS and IT.
 
I’m totally disillusioned…I don’t really understand why the SCCA has decided to “not recommend” my request to reclassify the ’91 Toyota MR2 from ITS to ITA at this time. Maybe I just don't understand the process well enough. I had thought my request seemed to be a no brainer!
frown.gif


I just don’t understand how anyone in good conscience would think a 2550 lbs car with 130HP is properly classified in ITS.
rolleyes.gif


---
Rod Strub
SCCA 286987
1991 Toyota MR2 (ITS)
rolleyes.gif
 
Originally posted by Catch22:
... and the early Civic/CRX Si goes to ITB where it belongs (with a good bit of weight, but still better off than it is in ITA).
Click to expand...

I don't know, I kind of liked being the only sub-2,000-pound car in ITA
biggrin.gif
. Looks like I sold my '87 CRX Si a little too soon.

-noam
..now trying to figure out how to make a greater than 2,600 pound ITA car handle
rolleyes.gif
 
Originally posted by Soflow1:
I’m totally disillusioned…I don’t really understand why the SCCA has decided to “not recommend” my request to reclassify the ’91 Toyota MR2 from ITS to ITA at this time.
Click to expand...

Rod,

Where did you see "not recommeded" anywhere in there???

Some of these cars needed further information gathered before we could discuss properely. This has been tabled for a month while we did some research...

Look for future Fastracks for further info...

Also, just a note... There are items mentioned in the beginning of this Fastrack that are on the agenda to go before the BoD for implementation for the 2005 Season... Most likely, anything else listed won't be taken care of by that time.

We are looking into who ultimately has the authority to authorize a reclassification, and what the timing might be for such things. I'm not sure, in other words, if a reclass can occur in the middle of the season (I would think not... HOW would you do points, etc???)...

Anyhow, some recent things may not be in place until 2006 if they are of this nature...

Stay tuned...



------------------
Darin E. Jordan
SCCA #273080, OR/NW Regions
Renton, WA
ITS '97 240SX
DJ_AV1.jpg
 
Originally posted by Soflow1:
I don’t really understand why the SCCA has decided to “not recommend” my request to reclassify the ’91 Toyota MR2 from ITS to ITA at this time. Maybe I just don't understand the process well enough. I had thought my request seemed to be a no brainer!
frown.gif


I just don’t understand how anyone in good conscience would think a 2550 lbs car with 130HP is properly classified in ITS.
rolleyes.gif

Click to expand...

You forgot the GCR rule about MR2's needing to be classed poorly. :P

Jake
87 ITA MR2
 
Originally posted by GregAmy:
One noted item of concern:

"3. Allow cars that are only 4 years old to be classified. (Baggie) The philosophy of IT is to classify cars that may be purchased at a significant savings from their original sales price in order to keep the class costs down. Additionally, 4-year-old cars would still be eligible for Showroom Stock competition."

It's that last part that bothers me. If we are going to use SS eligibility to determine IT eligiblity, then we were ultimately limiting Improved Touring to encompassing only 10-year-old or newer cars...

I think it's time to consider totally replacing the two remaining SS classes with T4 and T5, and then making an easy transition from there to IT. Just as we used to have with SS and IT.
Click to expand...


That hit me too Greg. Sometimes I wonder if the people think about the arguements they make, before they make them. Didn't they do away w/ T3 5 or 6 years ago (SSA)? I agree, T1 - T5.

Darin,

While T3 is probably good for Club Racing, is trampling all over the rules to implement it?


------------------
MARRS #25 ITB Rabbit GTI (sold) | MARRS #25 HProd Rabbit
SCCA 279608
 
Did item #5 just double the cost of our fuel? Can we still run pump gas or does it have to be one of these brands of expensive racing gas? Will they allow my BP 93 that I can buy locally at the pump?
 
Originally posted by Soflow1:
I’m totally disillusioned…I don’t really understand why the SCCA has decided to “not recommend” my request to reclassify the ’91 Toyota MR2 from ITS to ITA at this time. Maybe I just don't understand the process well enough. I had thought my request seemed to be a no brainer!
frown.gif


I just don’t understand how anyone in good conscience would think a 2550 lbs car with 130HP is properly classified in B]
Click to expand...


Get in line.. The MKI MR2 and Corolla GT-S were never really competetive in IT/A, yet here we still are.... At least they eventually got reclassified in Solo II, but in IT?

OTOH, Dunno if I want to be in ITB... May be time to give up 12 years of driving the only Corolla in Cendiv and move to the E36...
 
This made me laugh:
"Use power to weight ratios to classify cars. (Baggie) There is more than just the power to weight ratio to consider when classifying cars in IT. Using only those figures would be too limiting."

That's a pretty bold statement to make considering that they haven't tested the concept. It sure beats the method or lack there of that they use now.

After a full season of administrating a series that is based solely on power to weight ratios, I can tell you that it works pretty darn good. We held 20+ events with over 100 different entrants. Cars with 120 HP and cars with 600+ HP. Rear drive, front drive and AWD. Sure, it's not perfect, but it works very very well.

[This message has been edited by zracer22 (edited November 12, 2004).]
 
As a PCA regular, I can tell you three things:

- The classes are set up according to power/weight ratio, and then if some car is out-classing or out-classed they will consider moving it after soliciting member input. They are very democratic in this sense.
- It works. All classes are extremely competitive. Agreed, there are some very slow cars that make the range of lap times in any given class look pretty wide, but remember that there are many who only race 1-2 times per year, and on a limited budget.
- The 13/13 rule, as implemented by PCA, sucks!

Timo
 
i looked at the fastrack but if there was mention made of ballast, i missed it. i will have to have about 150 to 175# of ballast to my crx to make the 2130# minimum weight.

is the 100# maximum ballast still hold? 75# of additional rollcage seems excessive.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top