May 2012 Fastrack

So did I read that right about JDM/EDM motors being approved on a case by case basis for ST? I'm assuming that would apply to STL.


Any chance at getting the aero package in STL closer to ST and not IT? Front splitter with the STU allowances would be nice.

I sent letters in on aero, denied for rear wing and no word on front yet.
 
2. #6947 (Jerry Hooten) Dissolve IT classes
Thank you for your input. The CRB has no plans to change the IT rules or philosophies in the directions you are suggesting.

Who pissed off Mr. Hooten? B)
 
coreyehcx said:
So did I read that right about JDM/EDM motors being approved on a case by case basis for ST? I'm assuming that would apply to STL.
Click to expand...

It's a recommended rule change for next year. :happy204: PLEASE write your local congressman and express your support. :023:
And yes. It says ST. It doesn't say STO or STU-- it says ST.
 
red986s said:
2. #6947 (Jerry Hooten) Dissolve IT classes
Thank you for your input. The CRB has no plans to change the IT rules or philosophies in the directions you are suggesting.

Who pissed off Mr. Hooten? B)
Click to expand...

Seriously, I would love to hear the back story.
 
Probably something to do with all of us with IT cars on on a straight to hell road to Production now that we can remove washer bottles, pumps and lines.
 
Andy is right. He was making the argument that others have made that IT has "become Prod." If I recall it correctly he wanted to dissovle the existing IT classes, start over and move IT to LP in prod (or something, I don't remember).

Ship ....... sailed......

And all that.

Input is always appreciated but sometimes spending time on a request that just gets e-submitted one night when someone doesn't like something IT chews up a lot of our time, and we are getting more and more of that.
 
mossaidis said:
Seriously, I would love to hear the back story.
Click to expand...


Ok, here you go. We were having a discussion about the IT classes, the class philosophy, rules creep, how IT cars today are more race prepared then the Prod cars of a few years ago, so on, and so forth. It was suggested that a letter be written in such away to get the CRB to elicit a written reply as to if the continued rules creep and productionifacation of IT was in the spirit of the class philosophy. I drew the short straw.

You are free request any and all performance enhancing rules changes you so desire, the precedent has been set with the ECU, motor mount, and other allowances, and the CRB has given its blessing.

While I believe IT should be the place for retired SS/T cars and a place where beginners can build a lower cost entry level car that can be competitive, I now formally withdraw all my former objections to IT rules creep. And since my work in progress ITS Supra was destroyed in the labor day wildfire I don't have to worry about building another copy of the EP Supra (Also lost in the fire) to keep up with the other ITS cars. Oh, wait, I was building the ITS Supra because ITS, as a class, had all but died off in SOWDIV.

Any who, It is now on record that the CRB is fine with what IT is becoming and that was the purpose of the exercise. And now you know the rest...
 
Last edited:
Huh interesting! I can see that, some what. Some folks are 5 or less mods away from being Prod so....

Bet the Prod guys would love that. A bunch of wild-ass IT guys jumping in the mix! :rolleyes:
 
Last edited:
Funny how we always hear how IT has become Prod.
Then I hear the Prod guys threaten death to the guy who put the Prod and IT classes in the same group at a Regional.
"The cars can not race together! The IT cars are crude, and have heavy bodywork which will crush out carbon fibre fenders in any body to body contact! And the IT cars will hold us up in the corners, because they are crappily suspended and....and...and.."
Appears the Prod guys don't think IT cars have become Prod cars at all......
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top