June Fastrack

I have been thinking all weekend what started this idea of amnesty of SMs in IT ( great analogy by the way). I am pretty sure this was not thought up by the IT community or even the SM community. I heard no chatter about anything like this before fastrack came out. Contrary to some people’s reactions I do not believe that that Mazda cares enough about this to have a position.
My guess is that this may have come from the stewards at some level. One of the things stewards are taught is that a non compliant car should never finish higher than a compliant car. It has become common practice for some Miatas to run in ITA with insignificant non compliant issues. For a steward who is charged with making sure the rule book is followed to the letter this can cause some discomfort.
Given that a full prep SM is not as fast as a full prep ITA, I can see the leap of logic to think this proposal is a reasonable way to solve the problem.
What I believe was not taken into consideration is how much some of the IT community cares about the integrity of our rule set. Despite all the assurances that any SM changes will likely be more restrictive rather than less, the huge problem is this introduces a level of prep into IT that we, the IT community, and the ITAC have little or no control over. To use an absurd illustration if the SMAC approved turbos for SM next year we would have little recourse.
Now that the wheel rule has changed so the 15” wheels are legal there is very little preventing someone from building an SM car that is ITA legal as well. The only issue I can see is that the 1.8 cars have a restrictor that some may think a hassle to remove that is technically illegal in IT. So here is my proposed solution. Remove the 99’s provision to run in A and on the spec line in ITA and ITS put a note that the 1.8 Miatas can run in IT with or without a SM legal intake restrictor. This should allow simple legal crossover without compromising the IT rule set. Thoughts?
[/b]
Click to expand...


Actually I think that it is a good/proper solution, and you may be right about the stewards issue, although I can say that I do not think that it came from the northeast, if it did I am unaware of any gossip/rumblings/cincerns that lead to the change.

Raymond "Rash" Blethen
 
What I believe was not taken into consideration is how much some of the IT community cares about the integrity of our rule set. Despite all the assurances that any SM changes will likely be more restrictive rather than less, the huge problem is this introduces a level of prep into IT that we, the IT community, and the ITAC have little or no control over. To use an absurd illustration if the SMAC approved turbos for SM next year we would have little recourse.[/b]
Click to expand...

My only correction here is that the CRB is the center of the rules consistancy. They preside over BOTH categories so they COULD maintaion cohesiveness. This concern is very prevelent with the new CRB.
Now that the wheel rule has changed so the 15" wheels are legal there is very little preventing someone from building an SM car that is ITA legal as well. The only issue I can see is that the 1.8 cars have a restrictor that some may think a hassle to remove that is technically illegal in IT. So here is my proposed solution. Remove the 99's provision to run in A and on the spec line in ITA and ITS put a note that the 1.8 Miatas can run in IT with or without a SM legal intake restrictor. This should allow simple legal crossover without compromising the IT rule set. Thoughts?
[/b]
Click to expand...

I would think that ANY allowance compromises the ruleset. They question is, by how much? How much is enough for you - for me - for any of us? I would assume that those who want to preserve the integrity of the IT rules would be against any allowance.
 
My only correction here is that the CRB is the center of the rules consistancy. They preside over BOTH categories so they COULD maintaion cohesiveness. This concern is very prevelent with the new CRB.
[/b]
Click to expand...

Andy while my default position is trust the judgment of the CRB, for which I have much respect, they obviously misjudged the reaction of the IT community this time so I am not give much comfort by their oversight in this situation.


I would think that ANY allowance compromises the ruleset. They question is, by how much? How much is enough for you - for me - for any of us? I would assume that those who want to preserve the integrity of the IT rules would be against any allowance.
[/b]
Click to expand...
Single car anti performance allowances such as I am suggesting may be a slight irritation to some serious rules purist but I think it would be viewed by most as a whole lot better that the second level of prep that has just been foisted on us.
By the way it is kind of funny to hear you say that after the last 12 pages.
 
Single car anti performance allowances such as I am suggesting may be a slight irritation to some serious rules purist but I think it would be viewed by most as a whole lot better that the second level of prep that has just been foisted on us.
By the way it is kind of funny to hear you say that after the last 12 pages. [/b]
Click to expand...

I am just saying that given the reaction in this thread by many, I would think that NO allowances be made would be the stance.

By 'second level of prep' are you talking about the 99+? I don't see any support for that anywhere, including my posts. I guess I take it a little further thinking that the allowances for the 90-97's are also a slight irritation. You think 1 allowance is ok, I think 3 are ok, some may think more are ok - but most have stated NONE are OK...

And for the record, as an ITAC member voting on an issue WRT IT, it won't matter how many letters come in from SM guys on this topic. This is an IT issue and should be treated as such. If 'we' don't want it, the CRB needs to know. I don't see the doom and gloom, but the message is loud and clear here, we shall see what it is when the RFC comes out.
 
I have been thinking all weekend what started this idea of amnesty of SMs in IT ( great analogy by the way). I am pretty sure this was not thought up by the IT community or even the SM community. I heard no chatter about anything like this before fastrack came out. Contrary to some people’s reactions I do not believe that that Mazda cares enough about this to have a position.
My guess is that this may have come from the stewards at some level. One of the things stewards are taught is that a non compliant car should never finish higher than a compliant car. It has become common practice for some Miatas to run in ITA with insignificant non compliant issues. For a steward who is charged with making sure the rule book is followed to the letter this can cause some discomfort.
Given that a full prep SM is not as fast as a full prep ITA, I can see the leap of logic to think this proposal is a reasonable way to solve the problem.What I believe was not taken into consideration is how much some of the IT community cares about the integrity of our rule set. Despite all the assurances that any SM changes will likely be more restrictive rather than less, the huge problem is this introduces a level of prep into IT that we, the IT community, and the ITAC have little or no control over. To use an absurd illustration if the SMAC approved turbos for SM next year we would have little recourse.
Now that the wheel rule has changed so the 15” wheels are legal there is very little preventing someone from building an SM car that is ITA legal as well. The only issue I can see is that the 1.8 cars have a restrictor that some may think a hassle to remove that is technically illegal in IT. So here is my proposed solution. Remove the 99’s provision to run in A and on the spec line in ITA and ITS put a note that the 1.8 Miatas can run in IT with or without a SM legal intake restrictor. This should allow simple legal crossover without compromising the IT rule set. Thoughts?
[/b]
Click to expand...

Dick, Here is the real issue. A SM maybe not as fast as a full on ITA car but by allowing a non-spec car into the class you allow that car to finish in front a people that are trying their level best to get better and be a part of our rules set. So now you may not take 1st place away but you are taking positions away from legal cars by allowing no-compliant cars to beat them. I say the same thing to customers that are mid packers when they say to me that cheating a little is ok cause I am not competitive anyway....That's a wrong headed way of thinking.
 
Dick, Here is the real issue. A SM maybe not as fast as a full on ITA car but by allowing a non-spec car into the class you allow that car to finish in front a people that are trying their level best to get better and be a part of our rules set. So now you may not take 1st place away but you are taking positions away from legal cars by allowing no-compliant cars to beat them. I say the same thing to customers that are mid packers when they say to me that cheating a little is ok cause I am not competitive anyway....That's a wrong headed way of thinking.
[/b]
Click to expand...
Whoa Joe,
I agree, maybe I did not make myself clear. I was trying to understand the reasoning of those that foisted this on us and why they thought this would not be a problem. I am one of those midpackers. I usually only beat about half the double dippers. Sorry if I was not clear.


By 'second level of prep' are you talking about the 99+? I don't see any support for that anywhere, including my posts. I guess I take it a little further thinking that the allowances for the 90-97's are also a slight irritation. You think 1 allowance is ok, I think 3 are ok, some may think more are ok - but most have stated NONE are OK...
[/b]
Click to expand...
No that is absolutely not what I am saying. I know no one has supported the 99 inclusion publicly. I am saying that allowing a SM to compete in IT using the SM rule set is a second level of prep that I find unacceptable.
 
So, now I'm starting to understand why people are against this...
It's because they may get beat by a better driver in a slower car. :o

Come on, this is a competition. We are RACING to COMPETE for the win. We should be welcoming more competition, not less. Who wants to win in a race with three or four cars?

I think some are worried about the depth of talent in the SM field, and perhaps would have some hurt pride if beat by a lower level of modified car? I would hope I'm not right on this one.

Dont you want to race against the best competition you can find? Certainly not the worst you can find...I would hope.

On another thread on here, it was said that the worry is these slower cars will be getting in the way (such as getting lapped)....

Now, I'm hearing something completely different.

I hear the arguements about how "they dont fit into our ruleset".... IT IS A MORE RESTRICTIVE RULESET THAT THEY COMPLY WITH !!!!! The arguements against just dont seem to be very rational. Just my opinion.

Now, I'm not in ITA. But if I was, I would welcome more competition...from some of the best drivers in the nation...

just my opinion.
 
It's because they may get beat by a better driver in a slower car.[/b]
Click to expand...
From whose butt did you pull this one?

You may have had something useful to say after that, but I quit reading...
 
So, now I'm starting to understand why people are against this...
It's because they may get beat by a better driver in a slower car. :o

[/b]
Click to expand...

Thats a pretty gross exageration of the comments I've read here....

As a matter of fact, please go back and pick out the quotes you've read and show us, because I can't remember anyone saying that.

There are two sides to the issue:

I think that those "for" the concept think that:

- It could help car counts for struggling regions, and HQ is charged with looking after the big picture.

- It would removes a quandry that faces officials who know of cars competing with obvious illegalities

- They also point out that concerns over cars running without restrictors (the 99 for example) are red herrings, policing is still the competitors job.



I think that those 'against" feel that:

- It's a different ruleset, and if these particular cars are allowed certain mods, like diff carriers, then it's only fair that the rest of the category be allowed such. What if, down the road, the SMAC sees a large number of transmissions breaking third gears, and allows an alternate gear? Should all of IT be allowed alternate third gears? Whats good for the goose is good for the gander, and so on. Those who drive cars like the MR2, which many consider to be not capable of running at the front will cry foul when the arguement "SMs are a lesser performance level, so alternate parts aren't a concern to the rest of the IT class/community".

-The IT community fears that if such a change is made, the precedence has been set that other rulesets, that are not strictly IT could also be let run. Maybe the "Spec E30" class is showing good numbers in two years and HQ is concerned about the competition from NASA. WIll Spec E30 be an ITA car?

- Some feel that track time is being lost as more and more SMs double and triple dip...costing the average racer precious time and money.

But I haven't herad one guy state that they don't want to be beat by a lesser car.

Lets stick to reasonable arguements.
 
So, now I'm starting to understand why people are against this...
It's because they may get beat by a better driver in a slower car. :o

Come on, this is a competition. We are RACING to COMPETE for the win. We should be welcoming more competition, not less. Who wants to win in a race with three or four cars?

I think some are worried about the depth of talent in the SM field, and perhaps would have some hurt pride if beat by a lower level of modified car? I would hope I'm not right on this one.

Dont you want to race against the best competition you can find? Certainly not the worst you can find...I would hope.

On another thread on here, it was said that the worry is these slower cars will be getting in the way (such as getting lapped)....

Now, I'm hearing something completely different.

I hear the arguements about how "they dont fit into our ruleset".... IT IS A MORE RESTRICTIVE RULESET THAT THEY COMPLY WITH !!!!! The arguements against just dont seem to be very rational. Just my opinion.

Now, I'm not in ITA. But if I was, I would welcome more competition...from some of the best drivers in the nation...

just my opinion.
[/b]
Click to expand...

Dude yo are so far from right its not funny. It's about people that look at a set of rules and build a car with certain expectations of one day being competitive in a class based on those rules. When the rules get bastardized to satisfy a group of cars that already are getting their own run group in most regions and have already a couple of places to run in most regions its bullshit. If you want to run IT then have SM change the rules to meet all the IT specs then you can come kick the ass off all the midpackers you want. Until then run the car in SPU or DP or some other class that it fits in its current state but don't make this group just accept your wishes cause you think your waggin the big wallet in most regions. The arguments are plenty rational.

As far as officials pushing this then they should loose their license for not stopping it until there is a rule change. If you allow a non-compliant car to run knowing full well its not compliant then you shouldn't be an official...Its BS! Lets all cheat and then will write a rule to cover our asses...WRONG.
 
As far as officials pushing this then they should loose their license for not stopping it until there is a rule change. If you allow a non-compliant car to run knowing full well its not compliant then you shouldn't be an official...Its BS! Lets all cheat and then will write a rule to cover our asses...WRONG.
[/b]
Click to expand...

Thanks Joe, you saved me the trouble of typing it.

It has become common practice for some Miatas to run in ITA with insignificant non compliant issues. For a steward who is charged with making sure the rule book is followed to the letter this can cause some discomfort.[/b]
Click to expand...

Dick, if stewards are 'uncomfortable' [sic] enforcing the rules, as Joe said, they shouldn't be officials.
 
Bill & Joe, then I assume you are in favor of protests for "chicken s&*%" stuff such as exhaust turndowns or having a restrictor that is not required or allowed. what is next washer bottle protests.

seriously I have no problem with these guys running in A as long as a reasonable effort is made to meet our rules. making it okay to leave the restrictor plate in place I thought was not much of an accomidation.
 
Bill & Joe-

I respect your views, however I am with the old guy on this one...

We (SCCA Members) are here for fun, and any steward who doesn't recognise that I don't want to work with, nor do I want to race when he/she is running the event. I agree that stewards certainly have an obligation to prevent illigal cars from racing, but that is not all they do (they also run the event, and many don't have time to look for/investigate cars that knowone makes a protest on). As a Steward or a Driver I wont be an @$$ and DQ someone for not using a turn down, or a window vent or any other non safety or non performance modification that made it so they could beat the next guy. If YOU the competitor protested the person, well then we would talk. Stewards are not out to examine every part of every car (we have enough to do already). All that would do is piss off perfectly good people (members) looking to simply have a good time. Basically we don't look for trouble, we try to resolve issues as fair as possible while continuing to run the event.

I for one never looked at a SM miata running in IT to see if it was legal or not while in IT, and I am sure most others also havn't (If you have a problem with that then tell me what is or isn't legal on a FA off the top of your head??? I know I don't know those rules. IT & SM is not the main or only concern of a steward believe it or not). If a driver had come to me about any car I certainly would have/will investigate, but I have never herd any at track complaints.


Raymond "If drivers are 'uncomfortable' [sic] enforcing the rules, they shouldn't be complaining. :014: " Blethen

PS: I bet 90% of the cars that run at an SCCA event are non-compliant...
 
Bill & Joe-

I respect your views, however I am with the old guy on this one...

We (SCCA Members) are here for fun, and any steward who doesn't recognise that I don't want to work with, nor do I want to race when he/she is running the event. I agree that stewards certainly have an obligation to prevent illigal cars from racing, but that is not all they do (they also run the event, and many don't have time to look for/investigate cars that knowone makes a protest on). As a Steward or a Driver I wont be an @$$ and DQ someone for not using a turn down, or a window vent or any other non safety or non performance modification that made it so they could beat the next guy. If YOU the competitor protested the person, well then we would talk. Stewards are not out to examine every part of every car (we have enough to do already). All that would do is piss off perfectly good people (members) looking to simply have a good time. Basically we don't look for trouble, we try to resolve issues as fair as possible while continuing to run the event.

I for one never looked at a SM miata running in IT to see if it was legal or not while in IT, and I am sure most others also havn't (If you have a problem with that then tell me what is or isn't legal on a FA off the top of your head??? I know I don't know those rules. IT & SM is not the main or only concern of a steward believe it or not). If a driver had come to me about any car I certainly would have/will investigate, but I have never herd any at track complaints.
Raymond "If drivers are 'uncomfortable' [sic] enforcing the rules, they shouldn't be complaining. :014: " Blethen
[/b]
Click to expand...


whaooooo there raymond with ropse colored glasses.....Fun is racing against other cars that are legal and having a certian amount of competition in a weekend....What is not fun is having to learn ever set of rules and guess if a competitor is legal or not. What is not fun is leaving the track at the end of a weekend with a second place trophy knowing that you may have mmoved up if you were willing to put up a bond on another guy that was just having fun.

I am more than will to protest chicken shit stuff if need be Dick because it is the right thing to do if the rule is in print. I have refused to work on customer cars that weren't legal so its not a question. The fact is the washer bottle is callled for and you better have it....I am very black and white about these things and rthere is no room foor just having fun when it comes to major violations of the rules. As stated before if its so simple them SM can just use all the IT rules to fit in.
 
Raymond has a good point. To paint all Stewards as "Stewards not worthy" because thay don't proactively DQ cars for sometimes subtle issues is unfair.

We are a member driven organization, and we race as gentlemen. Pro racing is different, where the Stewards job is to catch cheaters, and enforce the rules...but in club racing, we self police, with the officials assistance. WE write the papers....

Now Stewards DO have the right to write "Requests for Action" (RFAs), but they are not duty bound to do so in every single suspected situation.

My take on Dicks point was that currently we have, in some cases, large numbers of cars that aren't true ITA cars and they can be taking trophies and finishing positions away from cars that meet the full letter of the class rules (Presumably)...and, perhaps they think, "is this an issue?" and ..."Are the IT guys OK with this??"

Because, in many regions, guys seem to be OK with it. The guys I talked to in SF (5 IT cars, almost 50 double dippers), had no complaints they were willing to share with me. But Stewards may be uncomfortable with it, as on one hand people seem Ok with it, but maybe in reality they aren't...tough for a Steward to know. It's definately a weird situation.

But throwing the Stewards under the bus for not making mass DQs is rather unfair.
 
whaooooo there raymond with ropse colored glasses.....Fun is racing against other cars that are legal and having a certian amount of competition in a weekend....What is not fun is having to learn ever set of rules and guess if a competitor is legal or not. What is not fun is leaving the track at the end of a weekend with a second place trophy knowing that you may have mmoved up if you were willing to put up a bond on another guy that was just having fun.

I am more than will to protest chicken shit stuff if need be Dick because it is the right thing to do if the rule is in print. I have refused to work on customer cars that weren't legal so its not a question. The fact is the washer bottle is callled for and you better have it....I am very black and white about these things and rthere is no room foor just having fun when it comes to major violations of the rules. As stated before if its so simple them SM can just use all the IT rules to fit in.
[/b]
Click to expand...

Joe-

I definatly respect your view, and your concerns, but I am telling you it is completely IMPOSSIBLE or UNREALISTIC for any Steward to know all the rules of each specific class. If you expected that then we would not have ANY stewards. It is just way to much info and to much to understand. Like I said before thier is more to SCCA events than just SM and IT.

For the first year that NER had SM as a national class they had a specific Steward assigned for the year to the class to ensure compliance and good racing. With that setup I think you should and can expect the Steward to be responsable for the rules. The reality is though that we don't have enough stewards to assign to each class. If you or someone else wanted to volunteer to be an IT steward in your region then I am sure that you would be welcomed with open arms. Until people volunteer to do that then you can't expect someone else to do it, thus the reason the organization is designed how it is with competitors self policing the individual classes.

I have been an SIT and/or Steward at 20+ events and I have never had time to walk around and check cars, not even IT cars with which I am familiar with the rules. I don't know how to make it so you can understand that it just isn't feasible for a handful (maybe two handfulls) of volunteers (Stewards) to operate an event and nit pick 200+ cars.

Raymond "What is not fun is dealing with people who set expectatins to high and having to learn ever set of rules and having the responsability to proactively determine if a competitor is legal or not in EVERY SCCA CLASS" Blethen
 
You and jake both don't read, I said if the Stewart KNOWINGLY lets a car run that is illegal for the class then they shouldn't be stewarts....If a competitor knowingly lets a car run illegal then they are almost as guilty as the party running the car.....Sorry boys but if your gonna kiss the tip you may as well take the whole thing you still smoked it....Cheating is cheating period.

Oh and BTW Jake as I stated in most regions there are plenty of opportunities for a SM car to double dip legally with no issues and in the regions that don't have that then if the numbers are there I am sure it could be done....It again bothers me to think that you are pushing an agenda that will alter IT from what has and continues to be the best multi-marque set of racing classes in SCCA.
 
You guys for sure don't get it. One thing is for sure, if I were still racing w/ the SCCA, I'd worry about stewards and guys involved in the rules making process that have such a cavalier attitude about rule compliance.

It's pretty easy, either you're legal or you're not. If you feel that a rule is BS (e.g. washer bottles), there are defined ways to get it changed. IIRC, our gracious host put in a request a couple of years ago to allow for the removal of all the extraneous plastic in the engine bay. Pretty sure that one was approved and the rule was changed. That's how it works. Doing it any other way is situational ethics.

There are plenty of ways to spin these things, and several people have given examples in this thread.

And if the SM's want to double dip, let them run in ITE. But they probably don't want to do that, because they don't have a shot at a $10 trophy. If it's all about having a good time, how is it any less of a good time if they run ITE? Too many regions are catering to the SM's because they bring $$$. Never knew the SCCA was for sale.
 
A few thoughts from the last page or so...

A "second level of preparation" isn't an entirely accurate description of what we're talking about. It's actually an entirely different set of rules being wedged into an existing category. It's not just about the Miata, or even ITA since an allowance like this is the camel's nose under the tent flap of the entire IT rule set. Before you know it, you've got the hairy beast in your bedroll.

If Dickita's hypothesis (cha cha cha) proves out and this change is the result of someone wanting to make SMs legal in IT simply to eliminate a bunch of cheating ex post facto, then it REALLY does stink. However, I disagree with Joe that the stewards should be the genesis of all actions against illegal cars. Under the CURRENT system and culture, it's up to us as the entrants but we COUNT ON the stewards to uphold the rules as written - not interpretations that make their lives simpler. We've had conversations about this issue manifesting itself in other ways in the past, and THAT should be a point of criticism for those in charge.

The flip side is that I also don't buy the suggestion (Jake?) that a lack of protests is evidence that we "seem to be OK with [noncompliance]." Who could have read the Protest Story and not been discouraged from participating in that process? It IS supposed to be fun and being the rules cop isn't. But it should NOT be about enforcement: The point has been well made here that if we really wanted to change the rules, we could try. And I dare say that if the weight of category entrants was behind it, pretty much any change could make it through the process.

MOREOVER, Dick's further suggestion that puts washer bottle protests on the same level with codifying the inclusion of non-IT cars in IT classes falls way short in my book.

There's a lot to disagree with here tonight.

Another opportunity for reflection: Would you prefer a system that classes cars based on their on-track performance, considering all factors including driver skill? It would be like run-what-you-brung bracket drags, where you could race your mid-pack ITA car against the most poorly piloted Formula Ford and the best ITC package in the country. Or do you want the classes defined by the mechanical aspects of the car, as has been the case for so long?

Please, ITAC'ers - just help make this issue go away.

K
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top