dickita15
New member
That is probably sound advice David, I have seen that particular failure.
March FasTrack is up
- Thread starter Bill Miller
- Start date
lateapex911
Super Moderator
What Andy said, and...
re-read the first line. One example from one builder, (and one lacking ECU work, (and if I remember, - Doc, correct me if I'm wrong here- i understand that that engine is tough to control the timing on without getting into a programmable ECU)).
Don't forget, Kirks on the ITAC....
Catch22
New member
You guys are disappointing the shit out of me.
That IS NOT the complaint.
The complaint is that you are willing to take a guess on one car (and it was a guess. I see no evidence otherwise) and saddle it with a 35% theoretical increase, but you don't take that guess on another car.
In this case it is the Civic vs Protege, but I'm guessing there are others.
I can't make it any clearer than that, and the actual results don't matter. Its the (what I feel) bias that appears to be evident in the system.
No. I dont expect it to be perfect. It can't be.
But it will be even less perfect if stuff like this keeps happening.
Andy clearly stated that the ITAC used 25% when they don't know what a car can do. And you guys don't know what a DX can do. Nobody does.
But you used 35%, which isn't a short leap from 25%.
See?
Probably not.
Scott, who was happier 24 hours ago when he was more ignorant on this subject.
Last edited:
gran racing
Super Moderator
Enough reading. 
We'll always want to improve upon the classifications and attempt to make cars more equal. That's not a bad thing. I will also say we're so far ahead of where we were not too long ago. Here I am complaining about the darn Golf III being too lite (although I still think it's a valid argument
) when originally I was getting my ass whooped by ITA cars with a response of "not guaranteed competitiveness" BS.
Scott, when you started this ITB build I can't imagine you didn't consider if the car could win. I'm calling the BS egg if you say you didn't. Sounds like you're familiar with the car but are not totally sure what it's full potential is - no one has ever built a full-out one yet (those are your words) - but you're not silly enough to build a car that doesn't have a shot?
Regarding the Z3, yeah, Matt built the engine but does that mean he's done with the car especially related to the ECU? (Matt built my engine among other things and have the utmost highest regard for his work. He's just that good!)
We'll always want to improve upon the classifications and attempt to make cars more equal. That's not a bad thing. I will also say we're so far ahead of where we were not too long ago. Here I am complaining about the darn Golf III being too lite (although I still think it's a valid argument
) when originally I was getting my ass whooped by ITA cars with a response of "not guaranteed competitiveness" BS. Scott, when you started this ITB build I can't imagine you didn't consider if the car could win. I'm calling the BS egg if you say you didn't. Sounds like you're familiar with the car but are not totally sure what it's full potential is - no one has ever built a full-out one yet (those are your words) - but you're not silly enough to build a car that doesn't have a shot?
Regarding the Z3, yeah, Matt built the engine but does that mean he's done with the car especially related to the ECU? (Matt built my engine among other things and have the utmost highest regard for his work. He's just that good!)
gran racing
Super Moderator
If Matt (http://www.kesslereng.com) did those silly rotary engines, I'm sure he would. I honestly cannot think of anyone I'd rather have my car built by - give him a large Rolex 24 build budget and I know he'd kick some butt.
Bill Miller
New member
Certainly an interesting discussion, but would one of the ITAC members take a shot at this?
I know Andy has said that the Protege may look like a Golf on paper. I'd like to know what exactly is different between these cars (from a standpoint that would impact the race weight). The motors are damn near identical in performance, and they're both FWD strut cars.
Look at it from the perspective of someone that's new to this game. "Gee, our cars have pretty much the same stock specs, and they're essentially the same layout, why does his run in ITC and mine run in ITB?"
I know Andy has said that the Protege may look like a Golf on paper. I'd like to know what exactly is different between these cars (from a standpoint that would impact the race weight). The motors are damn near identical in performance, and they're both FWD strut cars.
Look at it from the perspective of someone that's new to this game. "Gee, our cars have pretty much the same stock specs, and they're essentially the same layout, why does his run in ITC and mine run in ITB?"
Acid dipping to remove all the seam sealer? We can do that? I didn't think that was OK, so I looked & I don't see it.
I'll perger (sp?) myself and admit that I also can't find where it's OK for me to have removed sound deadening materials.
BTW Jake, If you're going to use the big font, you should give us the big version of your avatar too!
Matt
lateapex911
Super Moderator
Matt, join the crowd yearning for a larger avatar allowance. Thats as many pixels as allowed by law, sorry!
The best I can do is offer you a click: (see below)
And I misspoke regarding the removal of seam sealer...I was just using the generic term. However, there has been recent debate regarding the removal of the asphalt sheets of sound deadening. It's been commonly done for years, but a sharp eyed newcomer noted that it's not actually stated in the ITCS/GCR. A revised rule that matches the original intent, is on the horizon, that calls out the material and includes it with other legal to remove items. If not I don't recall the timing of the implementation, but it's in the works, and should be approved in the future.
(Good thing too, it was accepted practice and has been done by the majority of fresh builds...we'd have a lot of illegal cars out there...but, that wasn't the thinking behind the revision...we went to the guys who were around in the begining and determined that it matched the original intent.)
The best I can do is offer you a click: (see below)
And I misspoke regarding the removal of seam sealer...I was just using the generic term. However, there has been recent debate regarding the removal of the asphalt sheets of sound deadening. It's been commonly done for years, but a sharp eyed newcomer noted that it's not actually stated in the ITCS/GCR. A revised rule that matches the original intent, is on the horizon, that calls out the material and includes it with other legal to remove items. If not I don't recall the timing of the implementation, but it's in the works, and should be approved in the future.
(Good thing too, it was accepted practice and has been done by the majority of fresh builds...we'd have a lot of illegal cars out there...but, that wasn't the thinking behind the revision...we went to the guys who were around in the begining and determined that it matched the original intent.)
Last edited:
lateapex911
Super Moderator
If only it were that easy. (I am sorta proud to say that after an "incident" testing at Lime Rock this spring, I did my own build, and took that motor to Ohio, where it ran just fine.)
Dave Gomberg
New member
Did I miss a completely pointless debate somewhere in this forum? 9.1.3.D.9.f says, "Carpets, center consoles, floor mats, headliners, sun roof liner and frame, dome lights, grab handles, and their insulating, attaching or operating mechanisms may be removed."
Those asphalt/rubber sheets are sound insulation; how can anyone interpret they are (or were) not legal to remove? Are you guys assuming insulation means "heat only" versus any kind of insulation (insul-/insulate, as in "to cover, line, or separate with a material that prevents or reduces the passage, transfer, or leakage of heat, electricity, or sound"). Why waste time on a perfectly good rule when there are SO many others we can loophole through?
If so, you guys are/were thinking WAAAAAY too far inside the box. And that's even inside the OLD SKOOL (not "Greg's New Paradigm") box... - GA
Last edited:
That's the way I read it when I spent a week cleaning all that crap off the floor of my car.....
Andy Bettencourt
Super Moderator
Greg,
The clarification request came from a guy who works inside the industry. Reading the rule CLOSELY, it only allows the insulation material OF THE SPECIFICALLY MENTIONED items.
"Melt sheets' are not the insulating material of any of those items. It doesn't say you can remove ALL insulating material, just the IM associated with those items. Yes, melt sheets can be considered sound deadening but it really doesn't say you can remove it.
It was a fresh read from a new member who works in the industry and is familiar with the terminology. The addition of some words was easy.
We 'wasted' the time because a specific request came in to clarify. We also agreed with your request for change/clarification and 'wasted' time on that too!
If people feel there are loopholes that they would like closed, PLEASE send in a request and some proposed wording.
The clarification request came from a guy who works inside the industry. Reading the rule CLOSELY, it only allows the insulation material OF THE SPECIFICALLY MENTIONED items.
"Melt sheets' are not the insulating material of any of those items. It doesn't say you can remove ALL insulating material, just the IM associated with those items. Yes, melt sheets can be considered sound deadening but it really doesn't say you can remove it.
It was a fresh read from a new member who works in the industry and is familiar with the terminology. The addition of some words was easy.
We 'wasted' the time because a specific request came in to clarify. We also agreed with your request for change/clarification and 'wasted' time on that too!
If people feel there are loopholes that they would like closed, PLEASE send in a request and some proposed wording.
Last edited:
Dave Gomberg
New member
More on fuel test ports
With regard to questions raised earlier, let me offer some insight.
Fuel port in a return line: as long as there is sufficient pressure (flow) in the line to provide the sample in a reasonable time, this is fine. So that there won't be questions, we will probably add a new second sentence that will be along the lines of:
"The fuel port may be installed in the return line if there is sufficient pressure to provide the sample without undue delay."
Types of fittings/ports: the major reason for the rewrite of the fuel test section is that there are many setups that squirt/spray/leak fuel when they are opened. The potential danger is too great to ignore. If your setup doesn't meet the new criteria, you will need to change it when the rule goes into effect (doing it sooner is encouraged). If you have a dry-break setup, it might lose a drop or two when opened. That's not what is targeted here.
Dave
With regard to questions raised earlier, let me offer some insight.
Fuel port in a return line: as long as there is sufficient pressure (flow) in the line to provide the sample in a reasonable time, this is fine. So that there won't be questions, we will probably add a new second sentence that will be along the lines of:
"The fuel port may be installed in the return line if there is sufficient pressure to provide the sample without undue delay."
Types of fittings/ports: the major reason for the rewrite of the fuel test section is that there are many setups that squirt/spray/leak fuel when they are opened. The potential danger is too great to ignore. If your setup doesn't meet the new criteria, you will need to change it when the rule goes into effect (doing it sooner is encouraged). If you have a dry-break setup, it might lose a drop or two when opened. That's not what is targeted here.
Dave
lateapex911
Super Moderator
Greg, the key word in that rule was " 'Their' insulating....."
dickita15
New member
yes
Talking about ruleS & what one may do & what one may not do how many of you have read the latest SportsCar article where the one & only editor of the mag while building the "Project Miata" ITA car defeated the steering lock including showing a picture rather than removing the lock as the rule specifies. < That was a run on question I think.
What a nice way to lead people down the wrong path & then he had the balls to e-mail me back saying the INTENT of the rule.
***"Melt sheets' are not the insulating material of any of those items. It doesn't say you can remove ALL insulating material, just the IM associated with those items. Yes, melt sheets can be considered sound deadening but it really doesn't say you can remove it.***
Oh great, I wouldn't race my new Spec Miat untill after the item is in Fastrack. I call the seam sealer insulation. What do you call it?
***It was a fresh read from a new member who works in the industry and is familiar with the terminology.***
Another Oh great, we have a new member who works in the industry therefore the ITAC shall change the rule.
Don't get me started on items that have been sent to the CRB (trickle down to SMAC & ITAC) & to my knowledge NOTHING has been completed & the suggested sentence clean up also has not happened. Maybe this NEW GUY willl make a same suggestion & then someone will see fit to do something.
What a nice way to lead people down the wrong path & then he had the balls to e-mail me back saying the INTENT of the rule.
***"Melt sheets' are not the insulating material of any of those items. It doesn't say you can remove ALL insulating material, just the IM associated with those items. Yes, melt sheets can be considered sound deadening but it really doesn't say you can remove it.***
Oh great, I wouldn't race my new Spec Miat untill after the item is in Fastrack. I call the seam sealer insulation. What do you call it?
***It was a fresh read from a new member who works in the industry and is familiar with the terminology.***
Another Oh great, we have a new member who works in the industry therefore the ITAC shall change the rule.
Don't get me started on items that have been sent to the CRB (trickle down to SMAC & ITAC) & to my knowledge NOTHING has been completed & the suggested sentence clean up also has not happened. Maybe this NEW GUY willl make a same suggestion & then someone will see fit to do something.
lateapex911
Super Moderator
Another Oh great, we have a new member who works in the industry therefore the ITAC shall change the rule.
Don't get me started on items that have been sent to the CRB (trickle down to SMAC & ITAC) & to my knowledge NOTHING has been completed & the suggested sentence clean up also has not happened. Maybe this NEW GUY willl make a same suggestion & then someone will see fit to do something.
David, I can't remember anything you've written us that needed attention. I can't say what you have or haven't written to the CRB or the BoD, but I can't recall anything that was an ITAC item that was ignored. Since you used the term "trickle down" I am led to think that your letters haven't been directed at the ITAC.
Let's not get all upset that a guy wrote a well reasoned letter, and it was attended to. That's the way the system is supposed to work.
If YOU wrote the SAME letter to us, it would have gotten the SAME response.
If you're Po'ed at the CRB, that's another issue, and needs to be addressed to them.