June 2011 Fastrack

erlrich

erlrich

Super Moderator
You guys are slipping, these have been out for a few days:

Minutes here
Tech bulletin here


IT highlights:
  • Wheel diameter proposal goes to BoD.
  • ITB Golf gains 45 lbs.
  • Letter both for & against "inconsequential items" removal...hmmm.
  • ITAC wants you.
  • Lots of ST clarifications, etc.
  • Nobody wants their class combined with another at the Runoffs. (I'm shocked)
 
erlrich said:
You guys are slipping, these have been out for a few days:

Minutes here
Tech bulletin here


IT highlights:
  • Wheel diameter proposal goes to BoD.
  • ITB Golf gains 45 lbs.
  • Letter both for & against "inconsequential items" removal...hmmm.
  • ITAC wants you.
  • Lots of ST clarifications, etc.
  • Nobody wants their class combined with another at the Runoffs. (I'm shocked)
Click to expand...

Not me they don't. :happy204:

It took what, three years of me agitating to get the MkIII adjusted...? I don't even remember now when I started on the ITAC.

K
 
No offence but WAHOO!!! "ITB Golf gains 45 lbs." :happy204:!!!!! Can they add a few to ITB volvo's also? LOL... Rabbits may have a chance!
 
Guys so we are all clear this is not a competition adjustment. This car got a 50 lb deduct for a beam axle it should not have when it was processed and weighted.

This is simply a correction.
 
I appreciated that you're still working on aftermarked motor and transmission/transaxle/powerplant frame bushings. If there were any way to help the discussion let us know.
 
There is. It's called patience. Don't mean to be rude, but trust me this thing has gotten a ton of discussion, has been contentious as hell, and is not easy to get "right" -- meaning a solution that most are happy with rather than just a small group.

I think you guys just think sometimes it's easy to make a change that seems so clear and logical -- to you. Trust me this one is not so clear and logical and there are a number of legitimate viewpoints on it.
 
Remember that, even though it's important to try to avoid leaving any glaring loopholes, you can't foresee every opportunity for creep or intorturation, Jeff. And it won't ever be self-policing. You just have to accept that risk when the barn door gets opened, essentially deciding if it's worth the risk.

K
 
chuck baader said:
And still nothing on motor/trans mounts?? Chuck
Click to expand...

chuck i'm going to say this as politely as i can;

you and everyone else need to quit you're bitching. it's a rule change that won't be in effect until 2012, so it doesn't make a lick of difference if it's in fastrack today or 3 months from now. no amount of nagging from you or anyone else is going to make it go any faster.
 
so it doesn't make a lick of difference if it's in fastrack today or 3 months from now.
Click to expand...

It kind of does in their eyes, whether it REALLY does or not. Hell, I've submitted a few requests and it's a bit tough seeing "not yet reviewed" even if at the end of the year the results are the same.
 
Travis, I will say this as nicely as I can. If something is being discussed it should be indicated in the minutes. Otherwise it does not exist in the minds of those who are following (trying to follow) the topic. Chuck
 
Is the discussion about mounts happening at the CRB level, or ITAC only right now (I assume the latter)? do they post ITAC minutes? I think the committee members are being prety upfront about the topic. we've seen that crafting a bad rule with good intentions can have ramifications, so I for one understand the desire to craft a language that allows what many desire - firmer or more available mounts - without leading to undesired relocation or stiffening of the chassis whiel also not overly limiting the options for achieving the mount such that everyone has equal access to the benefits of the rule. if you think about the breadth of engineering in IT, this is not a small task.

I'm glad to see that there has been movement on the wheel size changes, and I like the rule as written in the minutes - good clear changes to the wording and the speclines make it a clean transition. well done ITAC:023:
 
chuck baader said:
Travis, I will say this as nicely as I can. If something is being discussed it should be indicated in the minutes. Otherwise it does not exist in the minds of those who are following (trying to follow) the topic. Chuck
Click to expand...

really chuck? because every time you've asked about it, you've been told it's under discussion, so you can't claim ignorance. all you've accomplished by nagging is just being an annoyance. i think we've covered the topic in some regard every single call i've been on.

putting every painful detail of every call in the minutes isn't only unreasonable for the minute taker to document, it's totally pointless.
 
Chip42 said:
...
I'm glad to see that there has been movement on the wheel size changes, and I like the rule as written in the minutes - good clear changes to the wording and the speclines make it a clean transition. well done ITAC:023:
Click to expand...

While this helps clear up the wheel diameter issue, is there any progress on changing the wheel width issue to allow ITB/ITC cars to take advantage of the multitude of good lightweight wheels that are on the market at reasonable prices, but we can't take advantage of because they are greater than 6"? I think that there are not as many new builds in B and C because of this restriction. Not nagging, just asking.
 
Bill, I haven't heard of any ITB cars not being built due to a lack of 6" wide rims. Is that really happening or just not as convient as some might like? Yeah Travis, it's been discussed and the change sure would impact a large number of folks.
 
I would support this if requested and there was significant member support behind it.

BUT -- it is a can of worms. To run up front, it maybe you guys would have to spend the $$$ to get lightweight 15X7s (and run 275/35/15s! on the front tires!).



RacerBill said:
While this helps clear up the wheel diameter issue, is there any progress on changing the wheel width issue to allow ITB/ITC cars to take advantage of the multitude of good lightweight wheels that are on the market at reasonable prices, but we can't take advantage of because they are greater than 6"? I think that there are not as many new builds in B and C because of this restriction. Not nagging, just asking.
Click to expand...
 
RacerBill said:
is there any progress on changing the wheel width issue to allow ITB/ITC cars to take advantage of the multitude of good lightweight wheels that are on the market at reasonable prices, but we can't take advantage of because they are greater than 6"?
Click to expand...
JeffYoung said:
To run up front, it maybe you guys would have to spend the $$$ to get lightweight 15X7s (and run 275/35/15s! on the front tires!).
Click to expand...

I bet you'd find the lighter, lower powered cars are super happy on 205s and 225s. big torquey things like Accords and volvi might like the bigger stuff.

either way - it would be great if someone would make a good, light, affordable 15x6 (like a kosie k1TS or something). allowing use of Hoosier SM R6s and much wider tire availability in general. it would preserve the investment of the existing field and make the 6.5 and 7" arguments more or less moot.

14x6" wheels are widely available in low weights and costs and 14" tires are out there, though never in numbers like the 15s, and from fewer manufacturers, and recently there have been avaialbility problems (even before Japan's troubles).

FWIW SSR makes a lightweight 15x6 if you have the scratch, 2 and 3 piece options exist too, and panasport/revolution/etc... will run them if there is sufficient interest (units and $$$), but all of these are costly compared to a $500 set of kosies at 15x7. I'm looking for a deal on 15x6s myself so I sympathise with the problem but I personally think x6" is still a resonable size and I wouldn't want to "force" all of the existing entrants to find new, wider wheels.
 
Last edited:
There are custom race wheel options that are far more affordable than the high $$$ 3 piece stuff out there. I don't see the need for changing the x6 spec in B or C. Of course I also have 4 or 5 sets of x6 wheels, only one of which could be converted to another width, so I have a bias.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top