May Fastrack Posted

[ed325its]

So what is the deal with the change to no longer exclude automatic transmissions and station wagons?

Why would that be good for IT?

Where was the member input on this?
[/b]

So does no one care that the CRB is not following their defined process flow requesting member input before making any recommendations to the BOD?

 

[JoshS]

Ed, is your concern with the process, or with this specific decision?

 

[ed325its]

Fortunately, the decision is not yet made.

Yes, I am extremely concerned about the consistent deviations from the process!

 

[mom'sZ]

Maybe I never really looked for it, but I don't remember any FSM I have owned having a section on rust repair, crash damage or basic body repair(other than some which have measurements to aid in having the "frame" pulled).[/b]

I have worked (in my youth) for VW, Mazda, Chevy, Isuzu, Subaru, Jag, Caddy, MB, Porsche......
Dealers. I went through college under a GM training program, part time in school part time at a dealer. I have never seen a FSM talk about rust repair, or repair to jack points, I still have a zillion Olds FSM books in my shed somewhere.
[/b]

Isn't there something somewhere in the good book that speaks about industry standard repair procedures? (specifically in reference to the chassis structure?)
As a former factory employed bodyman (Chrysler) I remember all kinds of factory issued info on proper unibody repair, including a manual with the weld locations (illustrations) for all the major structural elements of all the current models. Standard procedure for repairing mangled unibody structures (such as your jack points) involves panel replacement. If new is not available LKQ (like kind quality - in otherwords used) is used.

 

[JoshS]

Fortunately, the decision is not yet made.

Yes, I am extremely concerned about the consistent deviations from the process!
[/b]

I remain confused. The first line makes it sound like you are concerned about the decision (are you worried that allowing station wagons is going to upset equality in the classes?)

Your second line makes it sound like the concern is about the process (no one asked you), rather than about the specific decision. If someone had asked you, what would you have said?

Which is your concern?

 

[mlytle]

I hope they get this station wagon/automatic tranny stuff straightened out. I have a buddy that's selling his wife's old Accord wagon with an automatic that would be the perfect sleeper for ITA. (lol) People already think my Civic is a wagon!
[/b]

nothing to work out...wagons will be in...automatics will be still out, that did not change.

time to go find a 325it for ITR!!!!!

 

[Knestis]

Station wagon, available with a really cool automatic

K

 

[ddewhurst]

***Station wagon, available with a really cool automatic***

Thats a COOL name for a grocery getter..............



Now, back under the rock

 

[gran racing]

The question of SCCA not allowing automatics unless under special circumstances came up over on Honda Tech. So why are automatics not allowed in general?

 

[joeg]

Possibly some ancient concerns about ATF spills and leaks morphing into a rule that has simply survived forever.

Either that or there was some real hot car ( a Vette with a 2 speed?) that only had an auto ages ago that would have demolished all competition...

 

[Knestis]

Back before the national IT ruleset came out, we were debating this - it was part of the CA rules from which all of IT evolved - and the primary argument was, "Real racing cars don't have automatic transmissions. Drivers should learn to shift."

That same rationale is at the heart of a lot of the allowances that have since been made, I think.

K

 

[lateapex911]

Or lack of allowances, as it were. Such as "Real race cars don't have ABS, Drivers should learn to brake"