ITAC News.

In response to Jeff's question - I see IT as #2, it's prod-lite.

everyone FAST explots loopholes, pushes definitions, or flat out cheats if they can't reach the front honestly, which only a few cars per class can do. then some of those guys do the same. there's no enforcement that is easy to do, so much of it goes under the radar even though it fails the sniff test, smelling alot like a $15k SS build.

as for ABS - keep it out, way out. I don't want to rely on the same engineering prowess that suggests a chain is a perfectly good torquing limiter / engine stay rod to defeat a modern stability / traction control / ABS system correctly so that it works as ABS only. until megasquirt has an ABS module, I will continue to think this way. probobly will after. if we need to move away from stock brake master cylindders, I say why not? we already allow open hydraulics from the MC to the caliper/wheel cyl. might as well allow a pedal and twin tiltons - it's not much more expensive. do it on a line by line basis. and yes, I know this adds to prod-lite.

wheels - stock should be fine. I don't give a rats posterior if car X came with super-secret limited edition 3.5lb 17x10" magnesium superwheels from mars. if it's STOCK (not dealer installed and referenced in the appropriate service manual) then it's legal. if someone just wants a cheap source of 6.5" wheels they can popund sand, though - this is an expensive game, deal. if we worry about trim levels, call out the allowed trims on the spec line (and/or use the term "standard" and define it as NOT special or limited edition equipment):dead_horse:

IT is already allowed to run in ST (a very good, clean rules set, I think). might as well start looking that way gentlement - it's the inevitable future of this snowball unless we stop it with a BIG rewrite that's bound to bunch a lot of panties.
 
Eagle7 said:
I don't have an opinion one way or the other on this issue, but why doesn't SS suffer from the safety concerns that are raised here?
Click to expand...

All I was trying to say, was, more or less, go somewhere else where you don't need to know about the impact of such changes - since you're not allowed to make them.

Kinda like allowing just anyone to slap together some tubes of metal and call it a cage. Safety systems, both of 'em, and a certain basic level of understanding is necessary if you're gonna start messing with them.
 
GKR_17 said:
Certainly not the 911 or 911SC. What about the early Cameros, Mustangs, and Firebirds?

This has similar ring to the RR shock issue. It is a bad deal for those of us who built all the initial cars (and ripped out the ABS systems) and then change the rule later? I know, in some cases there is no good answer, but please be careful here.
Click to expand...


Write this day down, I agree with Grafton.:D It would have been great to allow ABS in ITR from the beginning. Now it would not be fair to those that built cars in good faith and now have to add it back. We are a long way from having to allow it to race the car. It will suck to disable it on the RX8, but it is the right thing to do.

Fix the weights of all cars fairly, and leave the class the hell alone for a while.
 
Summary of the June meeting:

We went through our tabled items, all concerning specific car specifications and were able to address most of them. We do still have some outstanding letters due to lack of detailed information. It's not always easy to get. Please, if you submit a request to classify a car, please attach a VTS sheet along with copies of the service manual pages that contain the referenced specs. The VTS form is right there on the site where you submit a letter (crbscca.com).

We then talked about the rule allowance questions. The ITAC reached agreement on four of the five items in that category and although there are still some things to be done, you should some information about those published in the next Fastrack, including some more opportunities for you all to weigh in.

We spent the longest discussing the structure in which we would adjust the weights of older listings and there is a lot of support. Some more discussion will be done over the course of the next month, and I am relatively optimistic that we'll be able to take the proposal to the CRB at large within the next couple of months, after which that would also go out for member input.

We did not have time to reach closure on some of the new car classification requests. But it's a great list of cars for IT and I'm looking forward to getting them listed next month if we can hunt down some VTS sheets!

If you have a pending letter in the system, you should have already received an automated notice indicating that either your letter was acted upon and sent to the CRB, or it was tabled. A couple of you (and I know you read this forum) had letters tabled at last month's meeting and if you didn't receive a notice about those, then they are still tabled. In these cases I believe we are waiting for input from you in order to move forward, although we are also chasing our own leads. There is still hope for at least one of these letters that we can close it out in the next week with some missing data and get it into the agenda for the next CRB meeting.

As always, please feel free to contact me directly to get any deeper into anything we've discussed. Happy to talk about it.
 
Thanks for the update Josh. The IT drivers at The Heart of Dixie race at Nashville Superspeedway on June 19th and 20th got to meet with our rep Lee Graser. We much appreciated the opportunity to discuss issues of interest to the drivers.

Spike
 
It was very good to speak with Lee at the Nashville event, and even better for him to solicit comments on some of the current issues. I even think I made him understand why a stay rod will not solve the motor mount problem. Chuck
 
Chuck, if you did, you have done what many have tried to do for months and months, and you are a miracle worker! (Did you vex the chain as well!?)
 
Jake, did not vex the chain. However, made him understand that if you restrain the motor side to side, you still have the forces of the lump applied under braking, which is way above the design load for the mounts, and it (in my car) puts the mounts in shear. If you restrain the motor front to rear, you have overturning forces on the motor. This puts the mounts in tension/compression at forces above which they were designed. Here's hoping it takes. Chuck
 
Hey, I understand that~ you're selling ice to an eskimo! (Plus, in some cases, the forces are more convoluted even than that) Suffice to say a friggen chain aint the solution for every one of the 300 cars in the category.....:shrug:
 
All you have to do is say "ITB Honda Prelude" and it'll have the same effect on him. LOL Correct me if I'm wrong here Jake.
 
Lee and Les? No, while I disagree with those guys on a lot of stuff, they are as above board on car classification as it comes.
 
Daves not suggesting a car classification issue, he's just talking about a dealio down at the ARRC. I'm sure things have calmed down and probably been forgotten by now...
 
JeffYoung said:
Lee and Les? No, while I disagree with those guys on a lot of stuff, they are as above board on car classification as it comes.
Click to expand...

That's the joy of the Process Proceedure...no room for monkeying around. I'm not saying that any on the ITAC would monkey around, but, we only have to say "Honda civic.." before Kirk comes in reminding us of the negotiations that took place on a certain ITB Civic, before we nailed the Process down. And I'm not implying anyone did anything for personal gain, but I AM saying that if we were given that same car a couple months later, even the same guys on the call would have likely come up with a different weight, just because of the Process not being as repeatable a procedure as it could have been back then..
 
lateapex911 said:
....... but I AM saying that if we were given that same car a couple months later, even the same guys on the call would have likely come up with a different weight, just because of the Process not being as repeatable a procedure as it could have been back then..
Click to expand...

variation is the cause of problems and dissension everywhere. at work, at home, etc. repeatable, transparent, predictable are all good things.

i am still optimistic about the method/process.

i did receive an email that my ITB weight request had been reviewed and forwarded with a recommendation to the CRB for discussion at their con-call. no idea what teh recommendation was but procedurally i think that makes sense. waiting is still the pitts......... but i am glad to hear that progress has been made.

whether or not i like the outcome, i at least feel more like i had "my day in court" and there will be a formal response. :023:
 
lateapex911 said:
That's the joy of the Process Proceedure...no room for monkeying around. ..
Click to expand...

I am a proponent of the process, but we need to be honest and admit that there is plenty of room to monkey around. It just happens when determining the inputs to the process rather than adjusting the outputs.

We have inconsistent application of the process based on things we "know" but do not have a published criteria for what we know, or even a record of what we know, while in cases where we do not know enough, and a car is classed light, we rely on competitors to graciously share data that will correct a car that is classified light.

The process is the best approach, but it is not flawless, and not immune to manipulation, intentional or otherwise.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top