January 2012 Fastrack

Thanks Dave... I few observations.

On the CRB minutes, under not allowed ST/STU

- Shouldn't Marty Grand first comment be under STU not ST?
- "Bigger turbo on Soltice in STO" listed under STU... ? Shouldn't that say STU, not STO?
- What is a Gulf BMW M3? LOL, caught me off guard. I think we're referencing to JS's car, yet it should referened JS not the Gulf, right? Or was there a real "Gulf" M3 from BMW??

From the peanut gallery...

1) Prod guys can not make fun of IT or ST again:

#6467 (Ted Heinritz) fitting alternate gearbox
In 9.1.5.E.1.n.4 and 9.1.5.E.2.n.4, change as follows: "​
​
​
​
For rear wheel drive cars, Tthe transmission tunnel and tunnel
cover can be altered to allow the installation of an alternate transmission and/or drive shaft. For front wheel drive cars,
the body, unibody, frame, suspension crossmembers/subframes and their components may be altered to the extent​

required to allow the installation of an alternate transmission, transaxle and /or drive shaft."

2) I like the submission page. :)
 
mossaidis said:
- Shouldn't ... first comment be under STU not ST?
Click to expand...
Yes, simepl misatke.
- "Bigger turbo on Soltice in STO" listed under STU... ? Shouldn't that say STU, not STO?
Click to expand...
It was requested for STU, we pointed out it was already allowed in STO.
- What is a Gulf BMW M3? LOL, caught me off guard. I think we're referencing to JS's car, yet it should referened JS not the Gulf, right?
Click to expand...
He's referring to Eric Heinrich's car (JS154 here on the board).
10STU.jpg
 
Isn't that amazing? Such a tunnel view of things that the requester asks for weight on a specific car instead of requesting a categorical change. Ugh.
 
mossaidis said:
1) Prod guys can not make fun of IT or ST again:

#6467 (Ted Heinritz) fitting alternate gearbox​


In 9.1.5.E.1.n.4 and 9.1.5.E.2.n.4, change as follows: "
For rear wheel drive cars, Tthe transmission tunnel and tunnel
cover can be altered to allow the installation of an alternate ​
​

transmission and/or drive shaft. For front wheel drive cars,
the ​
​

body, unibody, frame, suspension crossmembers/subframes and their components may be altered to the extent
required to allow the installation of an alternate transmission, transaxle and /or drive shaft."​
Click to expand...

For a very long time, you've been allowed to install a alt-trans (i.e. dog-box) into a Prod car at a 5% weight penalty. Obviously that's probably not a factory part, so clearancing issues may be evident. The original wording of that rule (colored in black above) to allow that necessary clearancing, obviously only addressed RWD cars. A FWD competitor brought up the issue of chassis clearancing necessary to fit an alt-trans into his car (slight notch in the firewall of an HP Fiesta, IIRC), and really with the way the rule was written, that probably wasn't legal. That's why the extra wording was added (colored in red above), to clear it up for both RWD & FWD vehicles. Really isn't allowing anything new.

Now if your issue is with the allowance of alternate transmissions all together, then that's a totally different subject I guess. It's not something I choose to do, but I don't see it as any more crazy than some of the ST engine swaps I've seen people talk about.
​
 
mossaidis said:
Thanks Dave... I few observations.

On the CRB minutes, under not allowed ST/STU

- Shouldn't Marty Grand first comment be under STU not ST?
- "Bigger turbo on Soltice in STO" listed under STU... ? Shouldn't that say STU, not STO?
- What is a Gulf BMW M3? LOL, caught me off guard. I think we're referencing to JS's car, yet it should referened JS not the Gulf, right? Or was there a real "Gulf" M3 from BMW??
Click to expand...

Damn, that's harsh. Picking on the antique car and not a word about the World Challenge STaSIS/Fall-Line Audi or the World Challenge TecMark/Irish Mike's E46? <shrug>

I better repaint my car if that one ever gets through.

In case anybody is wondering it is not a DTM/Group A car. It's a US, dealer delivered road vehicle with VIN. Pretty much like every other car that gets turned into a track toy in the SCCA and other racing clubs.

"JS154" comes from J-Stock, #154 with BMW Club racing where I started.

The kind folks at GULF Oil International are fond of the car though! Too bad the US is not their market.
 
Last edited:
Marty who wrote the letter is a friend of mine. However when I read the letter in the system I even said, " Really?, No way, Really?"

Sorry for the grief there Eric, those pesky Touring Guys............
 
I had to open it up just to read the Gulf BMW M3 thing with my own eyes... Hilarious!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

MG runs an Evo right? basically a T2 car right? in fact didn't he double up? and he thinks the THRID place finisher needs to be slowed down?! Am I wrong here at all?


edit: I kept reading... looks like MG was busy! Can't blame him for trying.
 
CRallo said:
I had to open it up just to read the Gulf BMW M3 thing with my own eyes... Hilarious!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

MG runs an Evo right? basically a T2 car right? in fact didn't he double up? and he thinks the THRID place finisher needs to be slowed down?! Am I wrong here at all?


edit: I kept reading... looks like MG was busy! Can't blame him for trying.
Click to expand...

Tripled up actually, in STO, STU and T2. Plus the test day. Maybe if he hadn't run the car so much it wouldn't have broken.

It is rather odd that I got singled out like that. At least the request was for weight to be added to my car and not me! I just lost 30 pounds last year - I figured what better way to get the car down to weight and not spend a gazillion$$ on carpet fiber bits and plastic windows and such.

Then again if I have to put weight back on, it's going to be in the form of larger Spherical Cu3Zn2.

[URL]http://a7.sphotos.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-ash2/40779_1566744529324_1256737572_1621514_6429143_n.jpg[/URL]
 
Matt93SE said:
HAHAHA! I need a pair of those...
Click to expand...

LOL no comment :p

JS154 said:
Tripled up actually, in STO, STU and T2. Plus the test day. Maybe if he hadn't run the car so much it wouldn't have broken.

It is rather odd that I got singled out like that. At least the request was for weight to be added to my car and not me! I just lost 30 pounds last year - I figured what better way to get the car down to weight and not spend a gazillion$$ on carpet fiber bits and plastic windows and such.

Then again if I have to put weight back on, it's going to be in the form of larger Spherical Cu3Zn2.
Click to expand...



WOW! hmmm... yea... haha, good point!

and

ha, that's awesome!
 
Touched a nerve here did we:

3. #6760 (Jeff Jorgenson) New submission page is a bad idea

The current letter submission system has been in place for two years. Prior to its creation, member emails were copied and converted to PDF format and sent to each member of the CRB and the various advisory committees; agendas were generated by a staff member. The next system was one of private forums into which the emails were entered; agendas were still generated by a staff member. The current letter submission system is handled with a minimum of staff intervention and automatic tracking emails are sent to the submitter to inform of its current place in the system. This system has increased overall productivity of the advisory committees and the CRB. Unlike the previous systems, letters are almost never "lost" through clerical error. All letters are archived for future reference.

Creating a submission with the letter system takes little or no more effort than sending an email. Yours is the first complaint we have had about this system in the two years it has been in use.

​
The majority of requests or observations are answered with "Thank you for your input". Not this one.
 
that caught my eye as well lol

It is funny to call it "new" tho... and bad idea? really? is Jeff 76? no offense intended...

Ron Earp said:
Touched a nerve here did we:

3. #6760 (Jeff Jorgenson) New submission page is a bad idea

The current letter submission system has been in place for two years. Prior to its creation, member emails were copied and converted to PDF format and sent to each member of the CRB and the various advisory committees; agendas were generated by a staff member. The next system was one of private forums into which the emails were entered; agendas were still generated by a staff member. The current letter submission system is handled with a minimum of staff intervention and automatic tracking emails are sent to the submitter to inform of its current place in the system. This system has increased overall productivity of the advisory committees and the CRB. Unlike the previous systems, letters are almost never "lost" through clerical error. All letters are archived for future reference.

Creating a submission with the letter system takes little or no more effort than sending an email. Yours is the first complaint we have had about this system in the two years it has been in use.

​
The majority of requests or observations are answered with "Thank you for your input". Not this one.
Click to expand...
 
There are CERTAINLY some in the Club who view the inability to "lose" a request as a bad thing. I dubbed it "perma-tabling" a request and it was used as a de facto way to let problems die by neglect, even as I was coming into the ITAC. I actually had to press a couple of folks (ad hoc and CRB members) about how every request *must* have an action - a "straight up or down vote," as they thought that was somehow too demanding.

K
 
CRallo said:
that caught my eye as well lol

It is funny to call it "new" tho... and bad idea? really? is Jeff 76? no offense intended...
Click to expand...

No, he's got to be early 30's or so by now. Jeff and I did the same Super School in '06. I think he drives a F-500, he was the only F500 in our school and one of three in the open wheel session.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top