March 09 Fast Track

shwah

shwah

New member
Fast track is out.

http://www.scca.com/documents/Fastrack/09/03/09-fastrack-march.pdf

I didn't ask for 'clarification' of the air dam rule. I asked for it to be changed. But either way - status quo rules. Yes I still think its dumb to allow any air dam, but require stock ones to remain in place. No you can't convince me that there is any additional gain being prevented, simply because tons of cars have no air dam to begin with. And yes I'll stop talking about it now.

:eclipsee_steering:
 
Technical Bulletin:

"2. Add to Appendix B: Traction Control – Any system that employs electronic signals to reduce wheel spin, independent of direct driver inputs. To achieve their goal, such systems may, for example, reduce engine speed, reduce fuel flow, selectively apply braking, or modify differential output."

Ergo, if it doesn't use "electronic signals" - e.g., sensors - it's not "traction control"...

Where's that damn popcorn icon...?
 
ITS – Clarify Neon ACR move to ITA (Gulick). Tabled for further research

I am cofused by this one? Jake, do you care to coment?


 
Ron Earp said:
Ok.

And does this figure into the moving it into S request?
Click to expand...

Sure it does! Only from the requestors standpoint. The RX-8 is an ITR car in the opinion of the ITAC. The weight is what is currently being hotly debated. Either way, it just may not be the best car for the class. A shame too.
 
Andy Bettencourt said:
The weight is what is currently being hotly debated. Either way, it just may not be the best car for the class. A shame too.
Click to expand...

Call me an outcast, but if there is no apparent "best car" for a class then to me it means the ITAC has done a good job in classing the cars. If there is a "best car" for the class something is wrong.
 
Ron Earp said:
Call me an outcast, but if there is no apparent "best car" for a class then to me it means the ITAC has done a good job in classing the cars. If there is a "best car" for the class something is wrong.
Click to expand...

i think what he's saying is that it may be at a disadvantage, and there's nothing they can do about it.
 
tnord said:
i think what he's saying is that it may be at a disadvantage, and there's nothing they can do about it.
Click to expand...

Unfortunately, that viewpoint sort of depends on who you ask - the folks wanting to build them or the folks racing against them.
 
Ron Earp said:
Unfortunately, that viewpoint sort of depends on who you ask - the folks wanting to build them or the folks racing against them.
Click to expand...

if no one is willing to build them, i think that gives you a pretty strong signal towards your answer.

i'm not super knowledgeable on the cars, but i look at it the same was as the S2000. awesome car that i'd love to compete with, but at 3000lbs i think they're too heavy, and i'm not going to be the $20,000 guinea pig.
 
i'd be interested to know what his thought process is and expected outcome of that request.....for the sake of my own curiosity.

Q; What's worse than a 3000lb RX-8?
A; A 3250lb RX-8.
 
I can only speak for myself personally, but I don't see it as an S car even with the issues related to stock hp rating and potential gain (or lack thereof) for the Renesis.

It's clearly an R car (to me).
 
The car you are talking about belongs to Buzz Marcus. He is a past pro driver and plenty quick in his older ITS Speedsource RX7. His car is a 10/10ths build by Speedsource and was a total waste of time and money. He had the car built when he thought it would get classed properly. Not going to kick that wounded horse again but the proof for a lot of ITR cars is the lack of builds. Time for the ITAC to take a leap of faith and fix it later if they were wrong. He was just tweaking you guys with the ITS request to show the insane logic that has a car with 25% less torque, and less HP classed 200+ pounds heavier than other cars in the class. As my sig says--RIP.
 
seckerich said:
He was just tweaking you guys with the ITS request .....
Click to expand...

Steve, that's too bad.

Here's why. For anyone who might want to try and rectify the situation, his request served as a problem.

The ITAC is in a constant process of trying to be better. Trying to be responsive, consistent transparent and accountable.

That's much different than the way committees in the club have operated in the past.

because he wrote us requesting an action, we are bound by procedure to respond to the action he requests. IF he had written another type of request, we would be bound to respond to THAT request. The CRB is going to get accountability from the ITAC, and we want the same from the CRB and the BoD.

We might "know" (wink wink) what the requester wants, but, we have to act on what he writes. It's our duty to the club.

(I'll be honest here that there is considerable "discussion" regarding that car, and other procedural factors that affect how that car, and cars like it are handled. We need to make sure that we are consistent. fair, transparent, and accountable in how we handle that case, and similar ones. It IS being worked on.)
 
lateapex911 said:
Steve, that's too bad.

Here's why. For anyone who might want to try and rectify the situation, his request served as a problem.

The ITAC is in a constant process of trying to be better. Trying to be responsive, consistent transparent and accountable.

That's much different than the way committees in the club have operated in the past.

because he wrote us requesting an action, we are bound by procedure to respond to the action he requests. IF he had written another type of request, we would be bound to respond to THAT request. The CRB is going to get accountability from the ITAC, and we want the same from the CRB and the BoD.

We might "know" (wink wink) what the requester wants, but, we have to act on what he writes. It's our duty to the club.

(I'll be honest here that there is considerable "discussion" regarding that car, and other procedural factors that affect how that car, and cars like it are handled. We need to make sure that we are consistent. fair, transparent, and accountable in how we handle that case, and similar ones. It IS being worked on.)
Click to expand...

I have not spoken with Buzz, just guessing myself:D, A lot of people are just frustrated, for lack of a better term, that cars they would like to build have no real chance against good builds of other makes. Glad to hear there is ongoing discussion. We really need more cars if ITR is to survive. ITR builds are way too expensive to build an underdog of any make. The poster child of the process will hopefully get more refined. You have some good blood on the ITAC now with a more open mind so it might happen.Should I change my sig to "on life support" instead of RIP???
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top