December Fastrack

G

Greg Amy

Administrator
Staff member
http://scca.com/documents/Fastrack/07-fastrack-dec.pdf


A few things of note:

- SFI 3.2A/1 or higher certification label or FIA 8856-2000 homologation are REQUIRED now. Underwear required unless FIA or SFI 3.2A/5 or higher.
- On-board fire systems minimums changing 1/1/09
- FIA belts must have expiration date (no more 5 years, as I read it)
- 2-inch shoulder harnesses for HANS deleted?
- ECUs free as described prior.
- Dodge Shelby Charger to ITB

- (Proposed)VIN rule NLA, effective 1/1/09 (why not 08???)
- (Effective 12/1/07) Triumph TR6 to ITA
- (Rejected) Publish the weight process (Miskoe)
- (Rejected) Allow jacking points (Miskoe)
 
I'm all for changing the VIN rule - but isn't this going too far:

Improved Touring
Item 1. Effective 1/1/09, change section 9.1.3.C by deleting the fifth paragraph as follows:
The Vehicle Identification Number (VIN) shall correspond with the automobile classified, and will determine the model and type
for competition purposes. A minimum of two (2) VIN plates and/or stampings is required.


It would appear to me that we now have no formal method of discerning one vehicle from another - or is this covered elsewhere?
 
It would appear to me that we now have no formal method of discerning one vehicle from another...[/b]
Click to expand...
You're assuming the VIN provides an easy method of discerning the vehicle now.

We police it as we always do: inspecting the equipment appropriate for the car/class. If it's an Integra, we make sure that they don't have a GS-R engine and trans in there, just as we do now. The VIN requirement doesn't change that, nor does it currently stop people who want to from cheating.

We have well-vetted this discussion in the past, and there are two distinct camps on this. Here's but a few.

http://itforum.improvedtouring.com/forums/...?showtopic=6525
http://itforum.improvedtouring.com/forums/...showtopic=12640
http://itforum.improvedtouring.com/forums/...showtopic=10012
http://itforum.improvedtouring.com/forums/...?showtopic=9788

I'll start a new topic on this, so this one doesn't get muddied up. - GA
 
Seriously? So my 3.5 layer Nomex III, PBI, Nomex batt, 3.5 oz. Nomex tricot suit isn't safe enough now?[/b]
Click to expand...
Best I can tell, yes. New rule reads as follows (effective 11/1/07, which means if someone used something else at the ARRC they were illegal...any typos are my own...)

Effective 11/1/07: Change section 9.3.19.A as follows:
Driving suits that effectively cover the body from the neck to the ankles and wrists. One piece suits are highly recommended. All suits shall bear an SFI 3.2A/1 or higher certification label or FIA 8856-2000 homologation. Underwear of fire resistant material shall be used except with suits carrying FIA standard 8856-2000 or
SFI 3-2A/5 or higher (e.g., /10, /15, /20) Certification Patch.
 
the only patch I can find on my barely used suit is as follows..... FiA NORME 1986/1986 STANDARD
04.257.CSAI.99

Someone tell me that my suit is up to standards?!
 
Thank you Miskoe for trying on the jacking points. This has been debated on here before as to whether or not you can fab something that may or may not be legal. We need jacking points in the GCR. It is a necessary item to keep from destroying your undercarriage. A jack, even the low profile aluminum one I have, will not get to my front crossmember or rear differential. Expecting me to roll onto some 2 x material each time I need to lift the car is a bit much.

There are 16 new glossary terms, including the words "metal", "removal", "addition", I guess we may need shift knob defined after all.
 
(Two posts moved to VIN Rule discussion...thought they were good points and should be added there...)
 
Triumph TR6 in ITA! Woohoo baby!

I see Spec Triumph as the next big thing! [/b]
Click to expand...



I can see it now...a 10 lap race at VIR with 30 Triump's racing and not a one makes it to the finish line. :D Of course Jeff you weren't entered. ;)
 
Sorry for the threadjack....

I ran an "All Triumph" Vintage Race (the Gold Cup) at VIR in 05 I think. ABout 40 'Umphs of all types. Race was six laps. I think maybe a 1/3 of the field did not finish. I turned out of Oak Tree and went down the back stretch on the last lap with some TR4 or something running like 15:1 compression. Car's motor exploded in front of me. It looked like the nascar in car stuff, so much smoke I couldn't see, couldn't tell where he was or even where I was.

Spec Triumph, probably not a good idea......

Back on topic.
 
http://scca.com/documents/Fastrack/07-fastrack-dec.pdf
A few things of note:

- ECUs free as described prior.
[/b]
Click to expand...
Let the games begin.

- (Rejected) Publish the weight process (Miskoe)
[/b]
Click to expand...
Glad I'm not the only one. Maybe if people keep requesting this they'll get the message.

- (Rejected) Allow jacking points (Miskoe)
[/b]
Click to expand...
Open ECUs, but no jacking points? Whatever. I'm having my cage modified to have the plate extending down on the inside that touches the floor, but isn't welded to the floor so therefore isn't considered an attachment point.

David
 
"The engine management computer may be altered or replaced. A throttle position sensor and its wiring may be added or replaced. A MAP sensor and its wiring may be added. Other existing sensors, excluding the stock air metering device, may be substituted for equivalent units."

OK, calling all rules experts (Andy, Greg, et al). Does this mean I can replace the stock AFM in my '94 Miata with something else that is "equivalent", but has less flow resistance? I.e., is the definition of "equivalent" as ambiguous as it appears? (depends on what your definition of "is" is?) :unsure:
 
Lea,

Re-read your bolded point out loud.

To add (but not pertaining to your question because the answer is IN your post)

equiv·a·lent
1: corresponding or virtually identical especially in effect or function
 
Lea, read that again:

Other existing sensors, excluding the stock air metering device, may be substituted for equivalent units. - GA
 
Let me make a statement on the publication of the 'process'. Since it is not a formula, it is very hard to get it into a written format that can be digested without creating the need for additional questions and answers. The baseline for the process has been published on this site multiple times. The subjective nature of the final steps in determining minimum weight are such that it is impossible for individuals outside the system to 'plug in' their specs and come up with the same numbers on a consistant basis.

I have run people through the process on their cars and all becomes well, but it takes some 'spainin. Couple that with the fact (also well documented here) that if a car was not 100lbs or more 'outside' the process when we evaluated the category, it did not get adjusted up or down. THEN there are the cars that we didn't WANT to correct based on, for lack of a better term, fear. Not enough info, not enough participation etc. We would address those as members requested a look.

Bottom line? We think it would create more confusion than contentment, even if it could be done in one writing. Matt sent me an e-mail about the 'rejection' and I offered to explain what he needed me to at an event or over the phone. It's not rocket science, it's pretty cool actually, but making it 'readable' is not a great idea - because it can't be done IMHO.

I know this may be difficult to understand but I can't write it any better. Maybe Jake can.
 
the only patch I can find on my barely used suit is as follows..... FiA NORME 1986/1986 STANDARD
04.257.CSAI.99

Someone tell me that my suit is up to standards?!

lookin for help here.......
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top