May Fasttrack is out

[dickita15]

my understanding is that the bod has to vote gcr changes by august in order to make it into the next gcr without hassel so don't get to upset if they don't vote this right away.
while i am happy for those that got early reclassifications like dave and greg, the most important thing is that the CRB signed of on the whole concept of working to balance that competition in IT. we may live to regret this but at least we have a chance to make IT even better racing.
I would like to publicly thank the ITAC for all the work you guys have done so far.
dick patullo

 

[Knestis]

Said it before and will probably say it again: The PCA thing will be fine right up until the first instance when one of those annual re-assessments is triggered by someone lobbying another someone with clout.

That out of the way, I'd like to congratulate the ITAC folks for their hard work shifting this ungainly operation into what amounts to the most significant change in IT rules since they were created. I REALLY hope that it works out positively.

Now, how about that ITA BMW Z3?

K

 

[ITSRX7]

Thanks Dick. While the ITAC (and Darin inparticular) is working real hard on some of these issues, I personally hope that everyone sees a new undertow at the CRB level. So far, so good.

AB

------------------
Andy Bettencourt
06 ITS RX-7
FlatOut Motorsports
New England Region
www.flatout-motorsports.com

 

[gran racing]

Now I'm confused...
So these are only proposed changes? Got by the first round, but still have more to go?

And we'll have to wait till Aug. to know for sure? Hmmm. To buy 6" wide rims or 7" wide rims...

------------------
Dave Gran
NER #13 ITA
'87 Honda Prelude

 

[RSTPerformance]

My dad says that he wants to run the 3,000 lb Stratus...

The "old schooler" (hates change) also thinks that the changes will make IT a better place. He says Thank you

Raymond

[This message has been edited by RSTPerformance (edited March 24, 2004).]

 

[Guest]

Kirk wrote "Now, how about that ITA BMW Z3?"

that is a topic that deserves its own thread, ill start it with some thought and concerns over the "new ITA" class.

 

[Geo]

Originally posted by JohnRW:
Edit - fingers not connected to brain.

Gee John, I thought through the nose was the shortest distance.

Hehe.


------------------
George Roffe
Houston, TX
84 944 ITS car under construction
92 ITS Sentra SE-R occasionally borrowed
http://www.nissport.com

[This message has been edited by Geo (edited March 24, 2004).]

 

[Geo]

Originally posted by gran racing:
Now I'm confused...
So these are only proposed changes? Got by the first round, but still have more to go?

Dick is correct. These are proposals from the CRB to the BOD. The BOD must vote them into reality. This traditionally occurs at the August BOD meeting.


------------------
George Roffe
Houston, TX
84 944 ITS car under construction
92 ITS Sentra SE-R occasionally borrowed
http://www.nissport.com

 

[lateapex911]

Wow...this is HUGE!!!

See guys?? A year ago, (or less) there were a lot of naysayers, grumbling and whining, but lo and behold.....many prayers have been answered. I knew this was coming, but seeing it in print was still a shock!

This amounts to the biggest philosophical change that IT has ever seen.

A TON of behind the scenes work has gone on here, and both the CRB and the ITAC show that there have been major changes made in the "old school" way of thinking.

Indeed, the biggest concept I see here is that both boards listened to reason, and adopted a big picture view.

To respond to some thoughts:

-Yes, the Board of Directors needs to vote this into existance, so contact your favorite BoD person, and tell them what you think. The majority of these things pass, in my experience.

-So Dave, you lucky dog, go out and get 6".

-Sorry Jake, every time I had the chance when talking to anyone official, or just pontificating in general, I mentioned the MR2 as a candidate for reclass. Perhaps we have only seen the first round?

Congrats, Greg...

(but hey, that's a personal agenda comment, as in, "Great, Gregs here!...now I can get my butt kicked by 11 guys rather than 10! (Unless some Neons or SE-Rs show up too...)
Yea, yea, yea, welcome to ITA shheeesh!

-The restrictor item was indeed placed by a sharp eyed CRB guy who has been around for a while, and thought that if there was going to be a change such as PCAs, why not think and allow for unforseen circumsatnces. Well, that's the party line at least! Word on the street has it that that specific line was added as a possible tool for the E36. Some have said that the cars is so fast that it would need a ton of weight...too much actually, so the restrictor could be used. Not sure if it will go down that way or not..

Which brings up my only question. These proposals create the need for some possible and possibly significant ballasting. What is the status of the ballast rule, is it being reconsidered?

Finally, another item caught my eye: the rejection of a open computer rule request. They turned it down for two reasons, the second being the possibility(!) that the change would benifit some more than others.
Well, at least they have learned form the errors of their ways on that one!!!

All in all, the most significant day in IT history since 1984.

Good job guys.

PS.....Funny how the earlier thread about the RX-7 class change never materialized into an actual change.

------------------
Jake Gulick
CarriageHouse Motorsports
ITA 57 RX-7
New England Region
[email protected]

[This message has been edited by lateapex911 (edited March 24, 2004).]

 

[ITSRX7]

Originally posted by lateapex911:
What is the status of the ballast rule, is it being reconsidered?

The ballast rule was one of the first issues that the ITAC considered within the development of the PCA proposal. We have asked the CRB to look at different ways to increase the amount of ballast while retaining, and even improving, safety.

AB

------------------
Andy Bettencourt
06 ITS RX-7
FlatOut Motorsports
New England Region
www.flatout-motorsports.com

 

[Banzai240]

Originally posted by ITSRX7:
The ballast rule was one of the first issues that the ITAC considered within the development of the PCA proposal. We have asked the CRB to look at different ways to increase the amount of ballast while retaining, and even improving, safety.

AB

I think I recall seeing some notes to the effect that the CRB was considering eliminating the ballast limit all-together, but don't quote me on that...

IT is the only class in the SCCA that has a limit on the amount of ballast, so safety, at least as far as the lead coming loose, really shouldn't be an issue. I think the real issue was making it possible for people to remove just about everything, then add the weight back... Not sure how this one will go yet, but I imagine it will be something workable that some will like, and that some won't!

------------------
Darin E. Jordan
SCCA #273080, OR/NW Regions
Renton, WA
ITS '97 240SX

 

[Bill Miller]

My hat's off to the ITAC folks, they've obviously been very buys. Haven't gotten a chance to fully digest the new information yet, but it looks like a quantum change for IT. I'm looking forward to going through it all more thoroughly, tonight.

I do have one question though. Maybe Darin or one of the other ITAC folks can speak to this. Two months ago, the request to reclassify the 1.7 Scirocco from ITB to ITC was shot down, because the 'car would be too fast'. Now there's a recommendation to move it to ITC in '05. I can only assume that they mean the 1.7 liter cars (even though the 1.7 never came in the '84 cars, and I don't believe it came in the '83 cars, but need to research this further). I'm curious as to why only the Mk II cars would be candidates of reclassification and not the Mk I car w/ the 1.7 ('81 Scirocco). They are essentially the same car. They are both built on the same chassis, and have the same engine/driveline. And, they are both spec'd at the same weight (2210#) in ITB. And why would they move the Sciroccos w/ the 1.7 and not the Rabbits w/ the same motor?

Again, this is under the assumption that they were only talking about the 1.7 cars. How does a car go from being too fast one month, and 2 months later it gets recommended for reclassification?

More, later, once I get to digest everything more.

Wait, a couple of last comments.

Shock rule - Good thing that is long over due!!! Nice job gang!

PCAs and ballast - Would seem to necessitate a change to the ballast rule

PCAs and the IT PP&I - Will the 'no guarantee' clause be removed, in light of PCAs? If not, PCAs are really in conflict w/ the PP&I.

------------------
MARRS #25 ITB Rabbit GTI (sold) | MARRS #25 HProd Rabbit
SCCA 279608

 

[joeg]

HEY GUYS--IF YOU LIKE THE NEW RULES, WRITE A LETTER TO THE BOARD.

Showing support is not done (officially)through an Internet forum, no matter how neat this site is.

 

[Banzai240]

Originally posted by Bill Miller:
Again, this is under the assumption that they were only talking about the 1.7 cars. How does a car go from being too fast one month, and 2 months later it gets recommended for reclassification?

With a lot of long discussions and convincing, that's how!

The other 1.7L cars are on the agenda to discuss tonight. I'm assuming that we'll have that settled shortly. The short answer as to why this happened this way is that, after the previous letters were shot down by the CRB, further letters came in, and in that time, we've had further discussions and they've changed their position.

PCAs and ballast - Would seem to necessitate a change to the ballast rule

We're still working on this one...

PCAs and the IT PP&I - Will the 'no guarantee' clause be removed, in light of PCAs? If not, PCAs are really in conflict w/ the PP&I.

It is the opinion of many on the ITAC that there will still be no "guarantee" of competitiveness. We can't possibly guarantee that you will have the ability to drive and prep a car.

What I think you will see (details still pending) is some wording added to the ITCS that will, in effect, say something along the lines of "we'll do our best to group cars with like mechanical potential", which is really the best we can do. There is no way to take into effect a driver's tallent, financial position, or prep-skills... We can, however, do a better job of getting cars matched as far as the CAR'S potential goes, and I think this would be the goal.

PCAs, then, would be a tool to allow for adjustments to the weight of a vehicle in the event of a fairly obvious mis-calculation or if we (the SCCA) miss the mark, which... let's be honest... is BOUND to happen from time to time. NO one intends for PCAs to be used to apply nit-picky weight adjustments to an Acura, just because it beat a VW on some specific day at the ARRC. HOWEVER, if there is a pattern of this happening (i.e.: Acuras all over the country consistently finish ahead of the VWs...) then perhaps that would be a case where some evaluation needs to take place...

These are just my opinion on how things are designed to work... The basic idea is that the CRB needs a tool to be able to adjust the weight of classifications that have missed the mark. PCAs allow for that.

Hopefully this answered your immediate questions... Feel free to follow-up if you need further clarification...



------------------
Darin E. Jordan
SCCA #273080, OR/NW Regions
Renton, WA
ITS '97 240SX

 

[ITSRX7]

Bill,

Thanks for the nice words - and I know this is going to kill you - but we all wark hard on this stuff, but Darin has really busted his nuts to cross the I's and dot the T's. My thanks to him and the CRB.

The VW question would have to go to the CRB. Most of the time, we hear their thoughts, post-recommendation but not always.

As far as PCA's and the no guarantee rules goes, they are mutually exclusive. We hope to have both. PCA's are not intended to be Production-style comp adjustments where every car is considered equaly.

I know that may sound harsh to some, but that truely is Pandora's box for IT. If PCA's are a resounding success and at some point there is a groundswell to expand their scope, I am sure the CRB would consider it.

AB

------------------
Andy Bettencourt
06 ITS RX-7
FlatOut Motorsports
New England Region
www.flatout-motorsports.com

 

[gran racing]

Darin,

I realize that Fas Track is not official till the first day of the month, but wanted to point out that this information needs some correction...(since you said you have yet another meeting tonight).

The ITA Honda Prelude (2nd generation) is really 1983 - 1987. The 1988 - 1991 Honda Prelude is the one being considered for reclassification to ITA from ITS. (Item 7)

I left Jermey at SCCA tech headquarters a message to clarify. Anything else need to be done? Also, both are the si models.

Item 6. Based on the performance
potential of the 1987-91 Honda Prelude,
the IT Advisory Committee and the Club
Racing Board is recommending that the
car be reclassified from ITA to ITB, effective 1/1/05.

I know others have said it, but we really do appreciate all of your effort (and I'm not just saying this because of how it impacts me directly). I really think this is the direction SCCA needs to move. Thanks again!

------------------
Dave Gran
NER #13 ITA
'87 Honda Prelude

 

[gran racing]

Jeremy called me back and provided clarification. Will correct minutes. (Also forwarded an e-mail to him and his supervisor about how helpful he has always been with my various questions - well deserved)



------------------
Dave Gran
NER #13 ITA
'87 Honda Prelude

 

[Bill Miller]

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">As far as PCA's and the no guarantee rules goes, they are mutually exclusive. We hope to have both.</font>

You lost me on that one Andy. And, I know Darin's been working hard, there was never a question of that.

Darin,

As I stated above (and have on previous occasions), the '84 Scirocco did not come w/ a 1.7 motor. No such animal. Came w/ the same 1.8 that the Rabbit GTI did. Also, interesting that there's a spec line in ITB for the '82-'84 Scirocco 1.7 and the '83-'88 Scirocco 1.8. Unlike the Rabbits in '83 and '84 (and subsequently the Golfs), where there were different models, w/ different engine/driveline configurations, in the same year, the same is not true for the Sciroccos in question(w/ the possible exception of an optional automatic tranny). I need to research it a bit more, but I don't even think the '83 cars came w/ a 1.7. But, I'm not 100% on that one, so I need to dig more. I'll be happy to give you more info offline, if you'd like.

------------------
MARRS #25 ITB Rabbit GTI (sold) | MARRS #25 HProd Rabbit
SCCA 279608

 

[Banzai240]

Originally posted by Bill Miller:
I need to research it a bit more, but I don't even think the '83 cars came w/ a 1.7. But, I'm not 100% on that one, so I need to dig more. I'll be happy to give you more info offline, if you'd like.

Bill and others... The data we work with is sometimes scarce, and it passes though many hands before getting back to being printed in Fastrack, so there are bound to be errors in Years, etc... If you see a descrepancy, by all means bring it to our attention... We try to get these things right, but you have to admit, VWs and Hondas can be a little confusing as to model years, engine combos, etc...

The general intent is to get the VW examples with 1.7L engines, currently lumbering in ITB into ITC where they (in my opinion) belong... Whatever information you have that could help us clarify which ones that is would be most useful and gladly accepted...




------------------
Darin E. Jordan
SCCA #273080, OR/NW Regions
Renton, WA
ITS '97 240SX

 

[lateapex911]

Bill, look at it this way...there is still no guarantee!....but they now have the means to try harder.

So, some things will be better, some will be worse. Hopefully the net will be an improvement, and I think it will.

People refer to this as the opening of Pandoras box, and I see their concept. But it doesn't apply here. In the fable the world was perfect until the box was opened right? Well, is IT perfect? Don't think so.

I think that we will have the mechanism to improve things, and if we have some integrity in the positions of power, we will see it applied fairly.

Kirks point is understood, but remember, this is a checks and balances system. At least this way we have a shot at correcting any politically influenced intital classings and weight settings.

I also like how they spelled out the fact that they set the initial weight with the intent of making the car copetitive within its class. Thats new, and while thats the way it's actually been happening, it is good to see it in black and white.


------------------
Jake Gulick
CarriageHouse Motorsports
ITA 57 RX-7
New England Region
[email protected]

[This message has been edited by lateapex911 (edited March 25, 2004).]