June Fastrack

More Devils Advocate:

So for all those who don't want 'two prep levels'***, would you be including in your letter to the CRB a request to recind the Limited Prep rules in Prod and the IT cars in DP rules already on the books or is this issue only applicable to the world we live in? I would think that if you are against it fundamantally and catagorically, you would be against it 'globaly'. Not sure, just guessing.


[/b]

Andy,

Please read at least my comments again. It's not about people not wanting multiple prep levels w/in a given category, it's about the lack of internal consistency coming out of Topeka. On one hand they'll shoot down requests because it creates another level of prep, even though it might help car counts. On the other, they'll blow something like this through. Come on dude, you're sharper than that.

Yes, I can disagree. A rule change is defined as a change to the verbiage of (in this case) the ITCS, and is subject to the process of member notification and discussion, and ratification by the BoD. OTOH, car classifications are authorized, and are done directly by, the CRB without going through those additional steps. This happens all the time, including other cars in the latest Fastrack (see the two Hondas immediately above the SMs...).

And now back to your debate in progress... 024.gif[/b]

Stan,

The term 'strained and tortured' comes to mind after reading your post. BTW, is that an easy transition from racer to politician? As the old saying goes, "same whore, different wig". :puke:
 
...is it such a big deal to allow for simple and easy cross-over of a huge pocket of cars that allows car counts to rise and regional revenues to fill out?[/b]
Since I started this shitstorm, allow me to respond.

OF COURSE NOT, Andy. Of course not. But there are multiple levels to this "situation" that you are glossing over. The reason you are not "buying" what people are offering here is because you are trying to nit-pick the "good" stuff while overlooking the big picture and its long-term effects. Said differently (and clumsily), you are trying to approve specific trees while ignoring the forest. The vast number of people that have expressed disagreement with you should be a major clue-by-4!

When I was reading through those three seemingly innocuous lines, here was my thought process:

"Ok, let's zip over to Technical Bulletins, see what's up effective 6/1/07...GCR, uh huh...GT cars, blah, blah, blah...Ah, ITA. Huh, a VTEC in ITA...first one, I think, that'll cause some shit to fly; gotta check the specs out on that one...Miatas 90-93 can run SM spec...?...Don't they already do that...?...Wonder why the separate line...huh, did it for the 1.8L too...must be something incompatible with the IT specs, I should research what that's all about [editor's note: I had NO CLUE that they are starting to allow alternate final drives and stuff like like in SM...here we go on the SM letters for comp adjustments "welcome to prod racing"... ANYWAY...] ...WTF??? CLASSIFY THE '99 in ITA??? OK, what in the hell is really going on here with these changes???"

That's when the gears started turning, and my first post to this thread. Why is one group of cars getting special treatment that others do not? Why are we creating a discrete level of prep for specific cars? How far can this be taken, given our history of rules creep? I slept on it overnight and came up with a HOST of reasons why this is a TERRIBLE idea, thus my third post. Then, Andy, you came out of the gates defending what I consider indefensible and attacking the messenger while ignoring the message, and the rest, as they say...

I've described my issues with this situation, ad nausea, on multiple levels, so I won't go into excruciating detail. But, had the CRB simply wanted to include Spec Miata within the existing structure/classification while allowing some SM mods that are currently IT-illegal - i.e., stopped after items #3 and #4 - it would have still caused a squeek from me simply because it should go out for membership feedback and consideration, but the general idea is a reasonable one -- on the surface. If instead of cramming it down our throats the CRB had published it for membership input while explaining its purpose it would have gone a LONG way towards avoiding this showdown. But that process wasn't followed.

But it didn't stop there, did it? The CRB careened down the rules creep road and went overboard with classifying the '99, creating a dual-classed vehicle, allowing it to run two different Improved touring classes with SIGNIFICANTLY different prep levels.

Problem is, Andy, it's a package deal now: take it all (but no leave it all). We won't have the opportunity for review and feedback, we won't have the opportunity for further consideration. We won't have the opportunity to let the CRB understand what a bad precedent this is (not just the '99s, but the whole ideal as previously argued), and how it can be misused and abused to "create" a situation that's untenable, especially given our lax attitudes towards self-enforcement. We got slapped in the ass, told, "this is happening, we decided it, it's not open to debate."

Unacceptable, and indefensible.

So, do I care that Spec Miatas race in ITA? OF COURSE NOT! Come on down and sign up! As far as I was concerned prior to this week, they were a good fit -- and, within the spirit of the rules, LEGAL. Sure, I knew that they could cap off their power steering and remove the vent windows, but WHO CARES? NOBODY of any consequence in Improved Touring cares (any IT competitors complaining to you about Miatas removing their vent windows?)

C'mon down, you're welcome to run with us. But don't ask us to change our culture, philosophy, and rules set just to accommodate you. You are welcome to compete with us under our existing rules structure(s) any time you wish, as long as you abide by our rules. That's REALLY not an unreasonable request. To expect otherwise is self-centered and narcissistic.

Finally, there's the "Miata" aspect of the whole thing. Find for me one other make and model that gets so much compromise and allowances, that has so many places to play now, and is competitive in so many places (Doc, you missed D Prepared on your list)? Do we REALLY need to change our rules to accommodate them in yet ANOTHER category? It's like the spoiled kids that barge their way to the front of the food line in the cafeteria; where does it stop? I say it stops here.

To directly answer your question: would I prefer "what is already happening...under the table instead of trying to proactively avoid issues should someone decide to throw weenie-paperwork"? Well, when given the choice between a fundamental change in philosophy versus the minimal risk for someone tossing weenie paperwork, I'll ABSOLUTELY take the risk of weenie paperwork ANY DAY, EVERY DAY (someone actually protesting a competitor's car in IT? Hah!) Then we'll drum that weenie figuratively out of the track, just as if they'd protested a washer bottle.

Come play with us, we're glad to have you. But you're using our rules, not yours.

Greg

P.S. Andy, please don't bother parsing out this post and hitting it point-by-point. You just CANNOT defend this action in any manner to convince me otherwise. You're wasting time trying.


(Non sequitor: I'm getting a load of laughs out of the responses to my post on specmiata.com...I was told to "sit and spin" by one person and called a "troll" by another...these guys have absolutely no clue to the effects of this change - this time in their favor, unlikely so next time - and that SCCA existed long before Spec Miata was developed...they truly just "don't get it". But they will. Some day.)
 
P.S. Andy, please don't bother parsing out this post and hitting it point-by-point. you just CANNOT defend this action in any manner to convince me otherwise. You're wasting time trying.
[/b]

Then don't post at all Greg. I don't agree with some of the stuff you say. It isn't FACT. For instance:

The reason you are not "buying" what people are offering here is because you are trying to nit-pick the "good" stuff while overlooking the big picture and its long-term effects.[/b]

I am tired of this one. Same arguement some people use to hold back the ECU rule. WHAT EFFECTS? I would like some specifics. To tell me the sky will fall is fine - as long as you tell me WHY it will fall, not 'it could fall because you just opened up pandoras box'. Can't these things be taken on a case-by-case basis? It's how it works. This isn't case-law. You could be 100% correct, but I want to know WHAT to look out for.

As far as the action is concerned, please everyone, re-read post #58. I have already talked with CRB members. This can be modified and/or turned around. From what I can tell from meeting notes and talking with ITAC members, this was NOT an official recommendation. We will address it specifically on the next call for the next FT.

The 'special treatment' issue. Sigh. If we want to limit ourselves on priniciple, fine. That's the old SCCA. Same reason S2000 hasn't been relegated to Regional status yet. This isn't about allowing anything that isn't happening already. I just hope when we pull this back and examine all the feedback, people have included tangible upsides/downsides.

As far as who it helps? IT car counts (not every region is as 'successful' as some on the East Coast). The perception of SCCA maybe. Increased regional revenue. SM retention. This kind of thinking may help YOUR class in the future - but if we cut off our nose to spite our face, we may not get the help WE need in the future, should we need it. Maybe we won't but to say no on principle limits our future success IMHO. Some will justifiably say that it limits our future EXPOSURE for failure - and it does. I just see people blocking for the sake of blocking. No quantifiable and definate outcomes - just Chicken Little stuff. It's also very possible I am too new to the Club (only a 17 year member) to remember how issues like this have backfired. Some examples would help us grab ahold of the possible outcomes.

Action for me: Pull it all back, put it out for member comment. Please write in when you see it next month.
 
still no reply to my comment...

Let me ask it in another way... I have no time right now to be looking through the GCR, but others that strongly feel SM shouldn't be in ITA can probably answer this quickly without a GCR.

1) What rules does a fully prepped SM car have that would make it not be legal in IT?

1a) Should we adopt some of those SM rules into IT?

2) Why do you care if a car has a dual IT classification (99+ Miata ITS/ITA), one class with the car has a restritor plate and one class it doesn't? (We already have this with the BMW in ITS/ITR.)


Raymond " Not supporting anything yet" Blethen
 
Hmmmm, am I the only one selfesh enough to wonder about the size of the run groups?? In the NE, our IT groups are very close to max..........I can see groups getting over prescribed......Are they going to have to add a run group because 20 Miata's are running in three run groups? Will our 12 minute qualifying sessions turn into 6??
 
Ray - it's been said in the thread.
[/b]

Deleted post...

not worth my time to read through all the posts I only saw window vent and exhaust not exiting away from the car... Let em Race and quit bitching... Lime rock will be fun again as more miatas will challenge for the win

Raymond

Hmmmm, am I the only one selfesh enough to wonder about the size of the run groups?? In the NE, our IT groups are very close to max..........I can see groups getting over prescribed......Are they going to have to add a run group because 20 Miata's are running in three run groups? Will our 12 minute qualifying sessions turn into 6??
[/b]


Jeff... its been said in prior posts. Not everywhere has good turnouts in IT. We have a good fields here on the East Coast, but other tracks/races are not as fortunate :)
 
More Devils Advocate:

So for all those who don't want 'two prep levels'***, would you be including in your letter to the CRB a request to recind the Limited Prep rules in Prod and the IT cars in DP rules already on the books or is this issue only applicable to the world we live in? I would think that if you are against it fundamantally and catagorically, you would be against it 'globaly'. Not sure, just guessing.[/b]
At minimum all safety regulations should match for the cars in a given class. Of course getting the overall cage rules in order will help in this regard. But guess what - DP is not my class, so I do not feel compelled to protect the 'sanctity' of that ruleset. The powers that be made this decision to help force a pet class into runoffs qualification. I don't know why, since they could have simply pulled a 'T3' and put them there. It is part of a larger effort to eliminate classes without making the tough decisions, but rather making it the drivers fault for not 'showing up' enough.

Considering the fact that Production ostensibly will not be classifying new cars in any prep level outside of LP, I don't see any problem with suggesting that IT cars be classified as LP in Production. Allowing IT cars with a different level of prep is not ideal IMO, again need to have consistent safety regulations for a given class.

***Again, I am NOT for the inclusion of the 99+, that to me really creates a new prep level that would require policing. But the 90-97's? Come on here. We are talking about 3 nitpicky little items that nobody cares about anyway for cars ALREADY IN THE CLASS. SM's are UNDERPREPPED for IT. This is happening NOW. Does it make sense that with a one-sentence rule, that everyone can be legal? You don't have to worry about policing it because any performance-enhancement would be already legal.[/b]
You can already build a car that meets both rulesets at one time. Who exactly needed this allowance? If your goals are to be supremely competitive in SM, then focus on that, if your goals are to get more sessions in your SM, then build and ITA/SM/SMT etc. legal car. There is no reason to add a separate prep level to IT to accomodate SM drivers who don't get enough track time. I welcome them into our midsts (although grudgingly because some of them always seem to hold up me and my ITB competitors everywhere but the straight away) as IT competitors, but they should prep to IT rules.

My impression from most of you is that you would rather allow what is already happening to just happen under the table instead of trying to proactively avoid issues should someone decide to throw weenie-paperwork. That is a valid position I suppose as well.[/b]
This impression came from the one post making that statement in this thread? Hardly representative of the collective 'we'. There is an easy way for Miata competitors to avoid weenie protests - prep the car to IT legal specs. Use the right differential carrier (heck change rear ends between sessions if you have to), configure the exhaust properly - is there anything else?

Other than the proceedural issues, and the 99+ policing issues, is it such a big deal to allow for simple and easy cross-over of a huge pocket of cars that allows car counts to rise and regional revenues to fill out? I just don't see the doom and gloom...I see guys running every weekend getting huge track/dollar ratios and seeing VALUE in the SCCA.

Trying to start a civil debate on why this is a bad thing (90-97) because I am not buying what I have read so far...but I could be 'off' as I have not seen much support although I have had 3 PM's wondering what the fuss is about and not wanting to get flamed for saying so.

Read Post #58
[/b]
The big deal is the fact that the halmark of IT in it's current state is a single, stable set of rules for all competitors. This may only be a 'minor' allowance for the Miatas, but an allowance is an allowance. Next step will be all the VW guys asking (again) for different front hubs, since they break (isn't this the reasoning behind the Miata differential rules - one option is short lived, so they allow later parts on older cars?), E36 guys asking for rear sub-frame reinforcements because they crack, 944 guys asking for alternate lower control arms because they break catastrophically if not monitored appropriately. These are all the same type of reasons to allow one of the bigger changes that the SM is allowed to make.

I don't care if the car is supposed to be a winner or not - special rules for one car in IT is counter to the philosopy of the class, and may lead to other more dangerous decisions in the future when a whole different set of names is on the ITAC and/or CRB.
 
Finally, there's the "Miata" aspect of the whole thing. Find for me one other make and model that gets so much compromise and allowances, that has so many places to play now, and is competitive in so many places (Doc, you missed D Prepared on your list)? Do we REALLY need to change our rules to accommodate them in yet ANOTHER category? It's like the spoiled kids that barge their way to the front of the food line in the cafeteria; where does it stop? I say it stops here.

[/b]

I'm following your logic, right up until you get here ^^^^. Then....CLUNK....right into a brick wall. Huh ???

Over the last ~15 years, we've noticed that a certain 2-seat roadster is quite worthy of 'race car' status. First in Showroom Stock, then in IT, then in SM/SSM/SMT/LSMFT/etc. That's not a bad thing, and it's certainly introduced new racers to the Club. Not really that different from the sea of leaky British crap that has infested the Club for the last 50 years (and kept an active market for helmet tear-offs for guys in open sports racers who have to share the damn track with them, like ME).

It's not Mazda's fault that nearly everything domestic/imported built in the last 20 years is complete crap and unraceworthy.

This part of your argument goes sour, and makes you sound like a crazed conspiracy theorist, which I don't think you are.
 
I am glad I am building an S car and did not buy that A car that I was considering.

Another thing that needs to considered.

Rules for handling a full run group. If ITA drivers get bumped because SM drivers is running in two classes, I have a hugh issue with that. It would be to the detriment of the class and the club for this to happen.

If this rule stays, and I don't think it should, any driver entering a ITA car in the ITA group should be give preference up until the close of registration at the track. If someone has a car that is fully legal in ITA and SM then they should have to declare which class is there primary class and risk getting bumped from the other if it fills.

My 2 cents.
 
I'm following your logic, right up until you get here ^^^^. Then....CLUNK....right into a brick wall. Huh ???[/b]

John, would you feel the same way if this allowance was made for "...leaky British crap that has infested the Club for the last 50 years..." rather than the Mazda Miata?

If so, then good for you. If not, you make my point for me...
 
Rolling eyes....

lots of misinformation here, but, just to hit a point or two...

SCCA is obviously tries to make as many people happy as it can, and sets up rules to do so, but in a fair way. Sometimes, the regions are responsible for utilizing those rules and ensuring the fairness aspect.

Now IF (a big IF, ) this were to go down, the regions will be tasked with creating a system that allows the Matas to "double dip" as long as it's not at the expense of the IT regulars. And thats the way it should be for any car that fits multiple classes.

In the bigger picture, regions are seeing things like one car being entered into three different classes on one day by as many as three different drivers. I think, in the SF Region, one Miata could be driven by 4 drivers in four seperate classes. (ITX, ITA, SM and SMT) Obviously, it could also be "quadruple dipped" if the classes aren't in the same group. Its really up to the regions to decide how to utilize the situation. Of course, at this point, the Miata isn't a "real" ITA car, but at a recent Regional at Sears Point, there were 5 "real" ITA cars, and 50 Miatas, and none were dedicated ITA Miatas as far as I could tell.

Now, I'm not saying any of this as a defense or as a position statement, just as information.

Obviously, there are costs to such changes, and it's seems that the cons outweigh the pros in this discussion.
 
Andy, you say you want specific consequnces, okay what about this. What happens when the SMAC decides to modify there ruleset further? Maybe they allow alternate flywheels, or maybe it is a brake upgrade or maybe they just go ahead and take weight out of the 90-97's and the restrictor off the 99+'s to meet the next generation of faster miata's. The point is we don't control their rules and this puts ITA at the mercy of someone else's ruleset. So what happens when SM spec cars start being the class of the ITA field? Who is going to stand up and turn away those driver's then? That money will already be in the regions budgets by then and the ITA driver's will be the ones suffering and leaving to run somewhere else.
 
Wow, came late to this discussion but had fun reading a lot of posts.

Seems like a bad idea. Doesn't really solve a problem and results in a fundamental change in IT with respect to allowance for the SM cars.

If I were in the Southeast running ITA I'd be concerned (and I assume in other regions too). The top flight SMs are in general faster than the top ITA cars at a lot of tracks.

Shouldn't have sold that Miata.

Ron
 
Post #58

So why is anyone surprised that the CRB did not follow prescribed policy and send the issue to public comment before making the rule change? That has been their action on at least three major items in the last 2 years; IT weight process, station wagon allowance, and now SM in IT. Those are the three that come tomind quickly. I am sure there are others. This is also the second time that the CRB has implemented a rule change which the ITAC has stated was discussed but not approved or sent to the CRB. The first time it was also called an error in the minutes of the ITAC.

I give up. The ITAC and CRB will continue to do as they choose and I have just gotten used to being kicked around.
 
Andy, you say you want specific consequnces, okay what about this. What happens when the SMAC decides to modify there ruleset further? Maybe they allow alternate flywheels, or maybe it is a brake upgrade or maybe they just go ahead and take weight out of the 90-97's and the restrictor off the 99+'s to meet the next generation of faster miata's. The point is we don't control their rules and this puts ITA at the mercy of someone else's ruleset. So what happens when SM spec cars start being the class of the ITA field? Who is going to stand up and turn away those driver's then? That money will already be in the regions budgets by then and the ITA driver's will be the ones suffering and leaving to run somewhere else. [/b]

Matt,

Excellent point. I think the answer is that one group governs all the rules. The CRB. If there was a major shift 'up' in the performance envelope for SM, I would EXPECT the rule to change. They control BOTH ends of teh issue. Not only do I not see SM's rules expanding, they are in effect getting more restrictive. If they added a performance component outside the IT ruleset, the allowance doesn't 'work'.



If I were in the Southeast running ITA I'd be concerned (and I assume in other regions too). The top flight SMs are in general faster than the top ITA cars at a lot of tracks.
[/b]

Only because they are underprepped and/or underdriven. There is no other good reason otherwise. The math doesn't add up. Add hp, better shocks, better springs, better bars and better tires to an SM and you have an ITA car. At least ITA potential.



Post #58

So why is anyone surprised that the CRB did not follow prescribed policy and send the issue to public comment before making the rule change? That has been their action on at least three major items in the last 2 years; IT weight process, station wagon allowance, and now SM in IT. Those are the three that come tomind quickly. I am sure there are others.

I give up. The ITAC and CRB will continue to do as they choose and I have just gotten used to being kicked around. [/b]

Sigh. When the ITAC was developing the IT weight process, member comment was solicited. We got examples of formulas, we got peoples ideas. Almost 4 years ago now. Station wagon exclusion being recinded? You REALLY have a problem with that?

If you want the chance to weigh in on every tweak and change, you will be reading the FT for a week. There ARE certain things members should have imput on but to mandate it all would slow the system down to a dead stop. The SCCA has never been more nimble - maybe to a fault as some have pointed out. Blame market pressure, new 'management', whatever - but there aren't many who will tell you thet IT sucks. They will tell you that it has never been better and never have they had as many solid choices in each class.
 
I'm taking some IT popcorn to the garage for eating while I work on my Spec Miata. You folks continue doing something useful :cavallo:
 
Andy,

Don't sigh at me! Yes, I have previously stated that I had a problem with the CRB not following the process and comment period on the station wagon allowance in IT. As to the rule change, I could care less but the process should be preserved.

Yes, I want member input and comment on every rule change. No more rule changes made or changed without member review.
 
Back
Top