December 2011 Fastrack

[GTIspirit]

Rules passed for 2012:

#3193 – Add a new 9.1.3.D.9.n as follows: “Windshield washer systems, rear windshield wiper systems, cruise control systems, horns and the wiring associated wiring with any of these may be removed. Any holes left in the body must be covered or plugged.”

Wheel rules changed:

#3426 – In 9.1.3.D.7.a.1 change as follows:

Cars may not fit wheel diameters larger than those listed on their spec line. Knockoff/quickchange type wheels are prohibited. Wheels must be made of metal.

[All ITS/ITA/ITB/ITC cars currently listed in the ITCS with a wheel size less than 15 inches would be changed to 15 inches. All ITR cars currently listed in the ITCS with a wheel size less than 17 inches would be changed to 17 inches. The heading on the wheel size column would be changed to “Max Wheel Diameter”.]

#3749 - In 9.1.3.D.9.c, add the following at the end: “Switches to activate the ignition, the lights, the windshield wipers, the starter and other accessories located within the passenger compartment may be replaced and their location changed.”

(multiple) - In 9.1.3.D.1, add a new subsection s as follows: “To allow commonly available engine mount aftermarket inserts, replacement units, or “window weld” like solutions without allowing solid metal or rigid materials or bearings that could result in the driveline becoming a stressed member of the chassis, the following is permitted. Engine, transmission, differential or any other driveline mounts may be replaced. Mounts may use only stock mounting points, must maintain stock location and orientation of the mounted component, and must be non-rigid.Rubber or other inserts in stock mounts may be replaced with any other non-metallic material.”

In 9.1.3.D.2, add a new subsection e as follows: “Alternate mounts are permitted as in 9.1.3.D.1.s.”

Good thing I read this thread because when I perused the prelim copy of the Dec 2011 Fastrack I missed these rules changes.

Washer bottle isn't a big deal to me, was a silly rule to those new to IT but didn't have much benefits or detriments, for my VW Golf. Horn(s) on the other hand, those suckers are heavy and didn't work with the quick release steering wheel so that will be a nice weight reduction opportunity.

Wheel diameter rules needed to change to accommodate newer cars with factory wheel larger than their respective IT* class allowance. It's not like the width was changed. What I don't agree with is the implementation of the rule that allowed smaller wheel diameters for certain cars, smaller diameter than was presently allowed. There is a definite advantage here for those who want to spend the money.

Motor mount rule seems like a good compromise between making an allowance for poly inserts and such and inhibiting solid mounts of different geometry than stock.

 

[Andy Bettencourt]

Yeah, the old one had a loop-hole, but it was the same loophole for everyone.

Not true at all. At the time, you have to remember the technology available. The MoTec system was able to fit in SOME OEM housings. AEM stuff didn't fit in anything.

So while the loophole was THERE, only certain cars could take advantage of fully programmable units. THAT is a huge inequity. HUGE. Horrible for the class. Leaving it alone was the worst idea of the 3.

 

[chuck baader]

I understand how/why NASA attracts younger drivers. The perception of their ruleset is one of low entry cost. If you want to drive around rather than race, you can do so at a very reasonable cost. However, if you want to be competitive, that is another story.

GTS, for example, is strictly money classes. People are starting to realize that and are looking hard at alternatives.

Spec E30 is a great class with a very restrictive ruleset. Racing is very good but, other than Skeen, I don't see a skill level necessary to run up front in IT. Either way, you have to build a real race car to run up front, just like SCCA, and the perceived costs are lower in NASA....which is not necessarily the case. Chuck

 

[Z3_GoCar]

The Dark Prince of STL has lured away another one. Damn you Dark Prince!

K

ITR peaked in 2010 for So-Pac, this year it's dead. The class to race in '11 and '12 is STU. I left because of a combination of the motor mount rules, a lack of my car being correctly classed, and the ease and cost of a motor swap vs rebuild the 2.8.

 

[Knestis]

ITR peaked in 2010 for So-Pac, this year it's dead. The class to race in '11 and '12 is STU. I left because of a combination of the motor mount rules, a lack of my car being correctly classed, and the ease and cost of a motor swap vs rebuild the 2.8.

How competitive are you?

K

 

[Ron Earp]

So while the loophole was THERE, only certain cars could take advantage of fully programmable units. THAT is a huge inequity. HUGE. Horrible for the class. Leaving it alone was the worst idea of the 3.

No doubt. And with newer ECUs being cracked in some cases and being fully programmable, while most of the old ones were non-programmable, folks with newer ECUs could have a huge advantage.

 

[downingracing]

I understand how/why NASA attracts younger drivers. The perception of their ruleset is one of low entry cost. If you want to drive around rather than race, you can do so at a very reasonable cost. However, if you want to be competitive, that is another story.

GTS, for example, is strictly money classes. People are starting to realize that and are looking hard at alternatives.

Spec E30 is a great class with a very restrictive ruleset. Racing is very good but, other than Skeen, I don't see a skill level necessary to run up front in IT. Either way, you have to build a real race car to run up front, just like SCCA, and the perceived costs are lower in NASA....which is not necessarily the case. Chuck

The one thing people seem to forget about cost is the potential cost to run with a group. Come to Mid-Ohio and run an SCCA weekend. If you have a big off and oil the track, trash a guardrail and tire wall bundle and maybe even get a few fire bottles emptied on your car - That sucks! Your car is probably trashed and you are having a bad weekend. Now make that another club (like NASA) and have the same off. Not only are you having a bad weekend because of your car being trashed - you've got a bill coming for the damage to the facility. I know what the cost for those items is from the track to repair/replace/use... Some groups (MVPTrackTime) have things like this in their rules: "Track Damage: Accidents can happen, should you encounter one while at an MVP Track Time event you will be responsible for paying any damages you cause that may occur to the track facilities or your automobile. Any damage between cars is between the owners of the vehicles.". I read that to say: if you hit my 911 in your Neon - you are responsible for the damage to my car. Good luck getting your insurance to pay - that one is coming out of pocket.

Just something else (one of many) to consider when picking an organization to run with.

 

[Knestis]

... "Track Damage: Accidents can happen, should you encounter one while at an MVP Track Time event you will be responsible for paying any damages you cause that may occur to the track facilities or your automobile. Any damage between cars is between the owners of the vehicles.". I read that to say: if you hit my 911 in your Neon - you are responsible for the damage to my car. Good luck getting your insurance to pay - that one is coming out of pocket. ...

Track damage $$ is - I think - a function of the terms applied by any given track and the contract between the track and the club. Re: the "damage between cars" clause you cite, I do *not* take that to be at all prescriptive; that drivers must split costs or determine fault so financial responsibility. That's just the organizers saying, "It's not OUR problem."

K

 

[Z3_GoCar]

How competitive are you?

K

In which class?

 

[downingracing]

Track damage $$ is - I think - a function of the terms applied by any given track and the contract between the track and the club. Re: the "damage between cars" clause you cite, I do *not* take that to be at all prescriptive; that drivers must split costs or determine fault so financial responsibility. That's just the organizers saying, "It's not OUR problem."

K

I agree that track damage is an issue between club and track. The club I run with does not pass that expense back to the drivers. It is taken care of by the club or by insurance.

The whole quote is:

"Track Damage
Accidents can happen, should you encounter one while at an MVP Track Time event you will be responsible for paying any damages you cause that may occur to the track facilities or your automobile. Any damage between cars is between the owners of the vehicles. MVP Track Time is not responsible for any damage to any vehicle or the track facilities caused by any attendee."

The last sentence is them saying "It's not our problem". I read the one before it as saying "It is between the owners to figure out who owes who for what". Just my .02¢ on what their rules say. I know I wouldn't want to be in an incident during one of their weekends and then try and figure out what that means.

 

[Knestis]

In which class?

...in STU?

The club I run with does not pass that expense back to the drivers. It is taken care of by the club or by insurance.

Sure they do. They HAVE to, as those costs can't just disappear and the club's revenues come from the members/drivers. Heck, the club IS the members. EDIT - They may of course not be itemized to the individual driver responsible for bending the rail, but instead be apportioned out to the entire program as subsidized by all participants.

K

 

[downingracing]

...in STU?

Sure they do. They HAVE to, as those costs can't just disappear and the club's revenues come from the members/drivers. Heck, the club IS the members. EDIT - They may of course not be itemized to the individual driver responsible for bending the rail, but instead be apportioned out to the entire program as subsidized by all participants.

K

Sorry - when I said the 'club', I meant the region. I know my region covers the cost for some track damage. It comes from any profit the event might have or comes from the treasury. Other track damage expenses are covered by the insurance policy paid for by the region for the event.

And I'm very happy to pay a few bucks more (entry ee) to not be socked with a bill for thousands of dollars for an incident that I may get involved in. The loss of the car is bad enough and I can afford to write it off if needed. It gets harder when you are writing off the car AND writing a check for a few thousand dollars for the damage to the track.

 

[Z3_GoCar]

...in STU?

K

Ha ha, you mean to Run-Offs 2nd place finishing Marc Hoover? Not bloody likely. However, I did finish 2nd in STU regionally. Unlike IT, STU gives me options when my cars incorrectly classed. If I'm getting beat up buy 2.5liter's because they've got a better intake manifold, and can be had for $500 less than the IT legal 2.8liter motor. Then I'll bolt one of those in, easy.

BTW, I noticed that Marc will be at the 25hrs at Thunder Hill next weekend with a team of 5 cars. Now that's some cubic dollars.

 

[Knestis]

So, by "place to race," you might mean "place to go get stomped on by someone spending a gajillion dollars." New classes tend to be interesting to folks early on because a lot of the early adopters can have some success without making big $$ commitments. When (if) they get popular, competition drives spending, the cost to be competitive goes up, and people get less happy.

K

 

[Z3_GoCar]

So, by "place to race," you might mean "place to go get stomped on by someone spending a gajillion dollars." New classes tend to be interesting to folks early on because a lot of the early adopters can have some success without making big $$ commitments. When (if) they get popular, competition drives spending, the cost to be competitive goes up, and people get less happy.

K

Doesn't matter if I get stomped buy the gajillion dollar spending guy in STU, or have a totally non IT legal car that's still not competitive because asuptions are made and there's no way to prove a negitive.

 

[Knestis]

Sorry, James - I'm not following...

K

 

[Z3_GoCar]

Sorry, James - I'm not following...

K

They're both places to race from my perspective. With my budget, might as well use the class that allows me to use the less expensive solid flywheel, the solid motor mounts instead of replacing the stock ones every few months or money shift the motor, and swap to a less expensive motor that my competition is using. Then there's the fact that anything other than ITA is dead, there are zero ITR regional champions this year, one each in ITS and ITC, two in ITB, and three in ITA.

 

[jumbojimbo]

Sorry, James - I'm not following...

K

Near as I can tell he's making the point that if his car is classed wrong in IT (due to some percieved injustice that just can't get corrected no matter how obvious it is) that even if he cheated he couldn't keep up. IE, IT is too fricking restrictive.

Whereas in STU he can just slap on some cheap go fast part and be as fast as anyone. Well, except the guy who slapped on two go fast parts and actually developed his car. A point which he is conceeding. So I guess the point is he'd rather be outclassed by someone spending more money than by someone who chose a more appropriate car for the class.

 

[JeffYoung]

We addressed the 2.8 power issue.

We have a 2.8 Z3 roadster here in the SEDiv that is very competitive; it's won the regional championship each year since we started ITR.

 

[JS154]

So, by "place to race," you might mean "place to go get stomped on by someone spending a gajillion dollars." New classes tend to be interesting to folks early on because a lot of the early adopters can have some success without making big $$ commitments. When (if) they get popular, competition drives spending, the cost to be competitive goes up, and people get less happy.

K

That is what has killed a bunch of major racing series over the decades....off the top of my head, Can/AM, early DTM, and recently World Challenge once GM got involved with cubic d,000,000,000llars