March FasTrack is up

ddewhurst said:
Jake, I'd like to pm you if you would keep it to yourself. How does the pm work on this new site? :shrug: Some stuff don't need to be beat to death on this site. Or ask Andy.:D
Click to expand...
David,

IIRC, you wrote a letter asking for a certain cage design to be specifically called out as illegal. It is not the job of the Ad-Hoc's to determine legality. In this case, it's the local inspectors job.
 
Geeze guys, didin't mean to make aeveryone mad. I saw Jake's comment about dipping & didn't think it was OK, so I actually read the parts about removal (novel concept to actually read the GCR). While I was reading it I recognized that I didn't actually see where sound deadening (melt sheet or otherwise) was called out. All the other crap on the interior is pretty well defined, but melt sheets & other under-carpet flotsum is not.

When I read "and their insulating materials" I hear stuff like the foam attached to the headliner. Fiber insulation that is adheared to the fire wall w/ metal clips is not an insulating material directly associated w/ the carpet since there is no carpet in that area. It is sound deadening material. Nothing else.

So check 1 for the CRB/ITAC for spotting & closing a potential question.
 
Bill Miller said:
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?"
Click to expand...

I wonder the same thing. What differentiates the cars to such a degree? I can buy that the VW has the potential to be a small amount off of 'process' weight, but even considering that how does the Mazda come out at such a low ITB weight? That thing just seems like a natural B car to me. What specifically makes it lose to the VW in the process?
 
The sound deadening issue was discussed in November. Here was the thread...

http://www.improvedtouring.com/forums/showthread.php?t=22914

Read it for those who missed, see who stood where.

I call BS and still do, but heck if some think the GCR needed a clarification so be it. Here's why...


TAR removal is LEGAL.

9.1.3.D.9.f. "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."

Break it down, remove the other components for a minute... "Carpets and their insulating mechanisms may be removed"

Everyone agree what carpet is? What is "their insulating mechanisms"? The GCR does not define any of these words, so I did here. The answer is below. Look like the stuff you took out?

http://www.jcwhitney.com/autoparts/Product...0002668/c-10101


http://www.ioportracing.com/instruct...m3-rollbar.htm
"remove the sound insulation material from the floor to achieve the best fit although this is not always necessary. This tar-like material can be chipped away using a wood chisel."

http://www.autoatlanta.net/action.lasso?-d...ords=10&-search

Call the stuff what you want but what deadens sound? Insulation. What is the insulation made of? Tar. What's under your cars carpet to insulate? Tar. Insulation is NOT limited to a synthetic fiber like pad.
 
shwah said:
I wonder the same thing. What differentiates the cars to such a degree? I can buy that the VW has the potential to be a small amount off of 'process' weight, but even considering that how does the Mazda come out at such a low ITB weight? That thing just seems like a natural B car to me. What specifically makes it lose to the VW in the process?
Click to expand...

What happens is that the cars are run through the base process. You throw adders onto the base weight number and evaluate it for 'doability'.

What that means is taking a look at the curb weights and making an esitmate on if the car can either make weight - or if it would be too heavy to make sense to build.

Given the estimation on the cars ability to make ITB weight, it was deemed a much more realistic classification in ITC.

Now it's really tough to compare with just any car classed in the ITCS. First, some cars are legacy listings that have not been reset vis the process. All have been 'checked' and the ones that were outside 100lbs 'off', were reset. Some went up, some went down.

A few things are possible when looking at this VW question: 1. It's a legacy car that could be 'off'. 2. It may be prohibitively light for ITB and should be considered for ITC - again somthing that some legacy cars may exibit because they all haven't been 100% evaluated. 3. The power multiplier (like the Honda example in this thread) may dictate a different weight, making two cars that look similar on paper, fall into two categories at vastly different weights just because one stepped over that line.

Remember, we only have 5 classes to fit cars into so when one has to move, it looks like a big jump.

I am guessing we have people trying to compare a 'legacy' VW to a new classification which will often not look like the two apples people want to see.
 
mbuskuhl said:
Call the stuff what you want but what deadens sound? Insulation. What is the insulation made of? Tar. What's under your cars carpet to insulate? Tar. Insulation is NOT limited to a synthetic fiber like pad.
Click to expand...
The point Mark is that 'sound' isn't listed as an item for which IT'S insulating material may be removed. We have all fallen into the trap of thinking that rule says 'all insulating meterial can be removed', when that is not what it says.

It was pointed out to us that these 'melt sheets' are not carpet insulation and hence, can not be removed as per the written rule.

It is obvious that this is the intent, so the wording was added to say so.
 
Been following this thread. Basically, we are having a fight over:

1. A rule that everyone agrees with?

2. One car potentially being 65 lbs out of whack?
 
Jeff - not sure if you are referring to the Honda-Mazda discussion or the VW-Mazda discussion. My question was just with which class the Mazda landed in. At this point I think my question has been answered.

If some Proteges are built down the road and the racers find that they are carrying lots of ballast to fit in C, then maybe the question of whether it should move to B could be raised by one of those racers. Otherwise - I'm fine with it.
 
Andy Bettencourt said:
Come on Greg, if you have a problem with this one, then you will never be happy.
Click to expand...
It all goes back to that loooong thread we had in regards to using common sense interpretations and enforcement via saying "no" to twisted/weenie interpretations.

Rules interpretations that require input from "a guy who works inside the industry" (whether you accept that line of reasoning or not) don't - by their very definition - use common sense. By clarifying this rule in such a manner, you are validating the "letter of the rules" interpretation of those who say common sense/spirit of the rules is not what counts, it's the verbiage you choose to use to describe it, good or bad.

That, my friend, is a tail-chasing game you will never win.

On the other hand, as to your comment in regards to "[my] request for change/clarification" (for those that don't know, I was the one that wrote in requesting verbiage change on ITCS 9.1.3.B "Intent"), I had two very real telephone discussions as a Tech Inspector with two very real, very new, "Joe Schmoe's" (not on this board, as far as I know, or at least they weren't back then) who each, independently, pointed out to me that the IIDSYCTYC rule says - in black and white and right up front in the main Intent section - you can do anything you want to the car as long as it's not for the purpose of obtaining a competitive advantage. And, in black in white, it sure does say that. Thus, my RFC.

Ergo, comparing a change to an allowance rule that has been common-sensely accepted and enforced the same way for nearly a quarter-century based on a "requiring industry insider" clarification, to a very generalized "Joe Schmoe" reading of a disallowance rule that says you can - that, while generally accepted one way is in an ever-growing age of competitors taking advantage of The New Paradigm - is disingenuous. The only true comparison argument one can rightly make is that both clarify/illustrate their original intent, though from opposite sides of the spectrum, and at least are not a "rule change" in its true sense.

I'd personal prefer that my request not be directly compared to a "weenie protest" type of correction. If you disagree - or fail to understand the difference - maybe you'd like to remove my request from the table and put the verbiage back the way it was? Possibly in the future expect I'll choose to take advantage of such glaring loopholes well before I pass the info along for others to use...?

Just sayin'.

:shrug:
 
Andy Bettencourt said:
What happens is that the cars are run through the base process. You throw adders onto the base weight number and evaluate it for 'doability'.

What that means is taking a look at the curb weights and making an esitmate on if the car can either make weight - or if it would be too heavy to make sense to build.

Given the estimation on the cars ability to make ITB weight, it was deemed a much more realistic classification in ITC.

Now it's really tough to compare with just any car classed in the ITCS. First, some cars are legacy listings that have not been reset vis the process. All have been 'checked' and the ones that were outside 100lbs 'off', were reset. Some went up, some went down.

A few things are possible when looking at this VW question: 1. It's a legacy car that could be 'off'. 2. It may be prohibitively light for ITB and should be considered for ITC - again somthing that some legacy cars may exibit because they all haven't been 100% evaluated. 3. The power multiplier (like the Honda example in this thread) may dictate a different weight, making two cars that look similar on paper, fall into two categories at vastly different weights just because one stepped over that line.

Remember, we only have 5 classes to fit cars into so when one has to move, it looks like a big jump.

I am guessing we have people trying to compare a 'legacy' VW to a new classification which will often not look like the two apples people want to see.
Click to expand...

Andy,

I am sure you are familiar w/ the phrase 'perception is reality'.

And one of the problems you have w/ not adjusting 'legacy' cars if they were w/in 100# of their process weight, is that you create a case where you have a potential 200# differential between two cars. One is 100# high, and the other is 100# low. That's a very real difference in any class, and even more so in lower hp classes like ITB and ITC.

I would suggest that if you're shooting at a 100# 'window', then you should narrow your range on the legacy cars to +/- 50#, not +/- 100#.

And out of curiosity, what is the process weight for the Mk II Golf/Jetta 1.8 8v for ITB? Also, what is the cutoff that you guys (ITAC) use when deciding if a car can't make its process weight for the higher class?
 
Greg, thank's for the Sunday giggles.:smilie_pokal:

Mark, I'm with you, any of the insulating stuff what ever Andy & his new best industry friend want to call it gets taken OUT. Mark, you to.:smilie_pokal:

Andy, ya going to send out a message to ALL local tech inspectors to DQ the cars that don't have this insulating stuff?

Andy, you people fcuk around with whatever the hell you want to call that stuff that's under the carpet but your not capable of straightening out the illegal roll cages in Spec Miata, Showroom Stock & Improved Touring cars. Then it all gets shoved to the local tech inspectors when the written rules at the get go provide loop holes for illegal roll cages.


***IIRC, you wrote a letter asking for a certain cage design to be specifically called out as illegal. It is not the job of the Ad-Hoc's to determine legality. In this case, it's the local inspectors job.***

Andy, below is a shortened version of the letter I sent to a CRB member. He forwarded the letter to the SMAC & IMHJ should have sent the letter to the Showroom Stock folks & the Improved Touring folks. Most of what I left out of this copy below is the pictures with captions for clarification to the CRB. My quest was for the CRB to determin the leaglity of the Spec Miata, ITA Miata & Showrom Stock roll cages. Silly ME, I thought they would carry through to completion. I guess I'll need to write another letter which will spoon feed everyone who will be involved. It is not hard to figure out why SCCA members don't get involved. It is just flat out way to much bull shit dealing with people while they are high up on their soap boxs. If you viewed the pictures I forwarded to the CRB do you beleive there are some illegal Spec Miata & ITA Miata roll cages out there? A fact for you Andy, the CRB member e-mailed me that he would advise me of the out come. I'M STILL WATING. Not an issue because I'm going to write a second letter that will be as straight forward with all the correct requests that I am able to write.

Through my understanding of the written rules for the Spec Miata class & the written rules for the Showroon Stock roll cages the above identified items which have been modified are all illegal.

I don't know the following to be factual but I will presume the following item Spec Miata Specification rule 9.1.8.C.8.e. (Second sentence, Italicized to present my premumed point. Other than to provide for the installation of required safety equipment or other authorized modifications, no other driver/passenger compartment alterations or gutting are ppermitted.) may be one of the flyers that people use to conclude that tourching & moving Miata OEM items as indicated within this letter & the include picture attachments is legal. I do not buy into the prusumed thought that one may do whatever they want when installing a roll cage.

Please confirm or deny that the roll cage for a Spec Miata described within this letter is illegal. Out of my request for a determination of these type modifications being legal or illegal my solution to eliminating these illegal roll cages is to close the loop holes within the existing written rules.

Also people in the Improved Touring world use two similar ITCS rules (9.1.3.D.9.c. the second sentence & 9.1.3.D.9.f. the third sentemce) to declare open season on whatever gets in their way while implementing a roll cage.

 
Greg,

I underderstand your point fully. Unfortunately, we do not have the culture to work within the common sense barriers. As soon as I see the curriculum that is training all our tech inspectors nationwide on said system, we can enforce the rulebook as such.

In other words, I agree with you in principle - but in practical application, it's not possible right now. Especially if the foundation of the ITCS is IIDSYCTYC.

The question is how do we change the culture?

re: your letter, we thought it too had merit. Different foundation but stuff I am sure many would agree wasn't needed. We made the change because we thought it made sense. Clarifying a rule is just not a bad thing IMHO - whether it's nuts and bolts, or philosophy. Sorry, I don't classify either as 'wasted time'.

David,

'Best industry friend'? Are you serious? A fresh read of the rule from someone who ACTUALLY KNOWS what stuff is, made a request to clarify. It was done because we agreed with his statement. Simple. Same thing with the current front sway bar rule. Upon reading it, it doesn't say you can remove it. We changed it to match up with what we ALL thought you could do already. Same thing...if you don't like it, fine. Send a letter in requesting we don't clarify stuff like that, and our con-calls might not have to go 3 hours.

As far as your letter, I read in in full. You are asking the SMAC to make a ruling on a specific cages design. That is simply not in the scope of what they do. It's not what the CRB does either. There are official channels to get those rulings.

Let's say you do go through the correct channels and it's determined those cages are ILLEGAL. Then what? It's still up to the local tech guys to be good at what they do, no? You're barking up the wrong tree with the SMAC / ITAC.

Bill M.,

You and I have become unproductive in debate so I have decided to not answer your questions/provocations at least for the forseable future for the benfit of both of our sanity and IT.com's benefit.
 
Last edited:
Dave,

I hear what you are saying, but based on my little experience with SCCA, the only real way to resolve that issue is to protest the car(s) in question. I can't send pictures and specs of a cam to the ITAC and ask them if it is legal. I can ask for clarification from Topeka (which for some dumb ass reason is not a binding response), or I can protest a car with said cam, and watch it go through the appeal process - which is the only way to verify legality of anything as far as I can tell.

I don't think that is a great place to be in, but I think that is where we are on issues like that.
 
Just speaking in generalities because I don't have any actual letters in front of me:

Chris is right. If you don't know whether something is legal or not, you have to ask someone in rules enforcement, not legislators. The CRB and its ad-hocs are legislators -- they write law. They don't rule on individual examples. The "judicial branch" would do that, and assess penalties.

If you already know the answer, and think the rules need to be changed, then THAT'S what you need to say to the legislators (CRB and ad-hocs).

Your letter should say: Cages of this particular design are legal by the current rules. They should not be legal for the following reasons. Please change the rule to read xxx instead of yyy.

That way you are asking them to do something that they have the authority to do. They may still choose not to do it, but at least it's something they COULD do.
 
To come here and ask a member of the ITAC to make a ruling on legality of a vehicle or compenent, or even to ask the ITAC formally, is out of order. GCR 8.1.4 describes the process for this determination. It was modified by the January Fastrack under Item 1 of the GCR section.
 
****As far as your letter, I read in in full. You are asking the SMAC to make a ruling on a specific cages design.****

Andy, you are wrong. I sent the letter to the a CRB member (he sent the letter to who ever) whom I had talked to in detail at the 2007 Runoffs. I asked just as you viewed the pictures & read in the letter that about three sentences within the rules be cleaned up to eliminate the loop holes. In short for those that don't know, when some people are installing front side hoops/ down tubes in Miatas they are tourching out some metal box members between the cowel & the A pillar among relocating other items. NOT LEGAL correct Andy.................................In Spec Miata, Showroom Stock or Improved Touring.

***Let's say you do go through the correct channels and it's determined those cages are ILLEGAL. Then what? It's still up to the local tech guys to be good at what they do, no?***

Andy, if the three sentences are cleaned up in the rules then the builders/owners do not have any excusses. Eliminating the holes starts with the people who write & control the rules.

Writting this post is about as funny as the sentence I just sent to JAWS (DW) through Fox Sports who stated on the NASCAR race today that his crew change a motor in his NASCAR car in 11 minutes. Easy to figure how he got the name JAWS.

By, Nascar is staring back up after a red flag.
 
Well then your note to the CRB member wasn't clear that you wanted to keep it between you guys. It hit the SMAC agenda and got a 'no action required'. You seemed to be complaining to me in your post that we are willing to make a correction to something as miniscule as the melt-sheet letter but not your cage issue.

Neither the ITAC nor the SMAC are responsible for ANYTHING to do with cage rules, so willing or not, it's not part of the charter.
 
***It hit the SMAC agenda and got a 'no action required***

Andy, IMHJ the CRB should have made the SMAC aware, the ITAC aware & the SSAC aware & also IMHJ either the CRB or the other commities should have found enough interest to request more action by me the letter write or is that also outside the box.

Andy, per your own words you had/read my complete letter. Is the information I forwarded correct that the practice of tourching the box members between the cowel & the A piller ILLEGAL?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top