New Classifications

Originally posted by madrabbit15@Aug 27 2005, 01:40 PM
Banzai240,

Who can I talk to and find out if you guys still have the original documention that allowed this transaxle?  Since it was submitted to SCCA for the change, should you guys not still have that?  Or, does it need to be dug up again?
Derek
[snapback]59105[/snapback]​
Click to expand...

You can talk to Jeremy at SCCA Tech... everything would have come through him... or at least that department...

The ITAC has never seen anything related to this (since I've been here anyhow), and with the move from Denver, a lot of documentation is no longer available...

Again... this sounds like "G-Grind Cams" all over again, which SUCKS!
 
Darin,

This documentation was sent to denver for approval and WAS APPROVED (which is why it was added) 3-4 years ago. So what you are telling me is that, you guys may have lost it now and it may be recended after I have this shinny car in my garage? :bash_1_: Not to mention the money I have put into it this year? No wonder Bill doesnt like you guys.............


Derek
 
Originally posted by madrabbit15@Aug 27 2005, 04:00 PM
Darin,

This documentation was sent to denver for approval and WAS APPROVED (which is why it was added) 3-4 years ago.  So what you are telling me is that, you guys may have lost it now and it may be recended after I have this shinny car in my garage? :bash_1_:  Not to mention the money I have put into it this year? No wonder Bill doesnt like you guys............. 
Derek
[snapback]59110[/snapback]​
Click to expand...


Hey Derek... .... ... No, I won't go there....

NO, that is NOT what I am saying... what I SAID is that the current ITAC has NEVER seen any documentation of this nature, which would make sense since we've only been around for a couple of years.... and we've never had cause to look for it... Would make it pretty tough for us to have lost it now, wouldn't it... :rolleyes:

AND, I also said that IF you want to find out if the SCCA still has it, you need to contact Jeremy or John at SCCA Tech... I also said that some documentation is no longer available since the move from Denver... There was nothing in there about THIS piece of documentation being lost... Since this is the first I've heard of it, I would have no idea if it is or isn't, or even if it existed in the first place...

Your spin doesn't reflect anything I said... so how about paying attention to the text..

Also, how about finding out the facts before you start attacking...


Again, just like the G-Grind cam... I don't give a rip if it was approved... There is WAY more official information available that refutes it's existance than supports it, and, in fact, the slight amount of information that does is so obscure, it's questionable as to whether it can be considered official... This sounds like exactly the same deal...

Speaking offiically, since this is now an official matter that must be researched and reconsidered, the ITAC will take whatever the appropriate action is in resolving this... If that means you need to provide the information again, then so be it...
 
Darin,

No one is spinning anything here. Notice I used the word "MAY" regarding the loss of documents. Ya, I appologize I might be a litte UNSETTLED right now when docs where sent to Denver and were approved which is why it was added to the GCR in the first place, and now there is even a POSSIBILTY that it MIGHT be changed after a car has been built and a lot of my money has been spent. I think anyone would be a little concerned if they were in my position right now. Surely you can appreciate that. I will contact Jeremy or John and find what needs to be or can be done.


Thanks,

Derek
 
Originally posted by madrabbit15@Aug 27 2005, 05:53 PM
I think anyone would be a little concerned if they were in my position right now. Surely you can appreciate that. I will contact Jeremy or John and find what needs to be or can be done.
[snapback]59115[/snapback]​
Click to expand...

Derek,

I appreciate your position, but attacking the ITAC isn't going to solve anything...

As for being unsettled, if the car was actually made, then I don't think you should be worrying... If you put together a combination that has never existed (like a 240SX with 295mm brakes.... Hey, it was on the spec line for two years until I brought it to the attention of the CRB and provided factory spec sheets showing the correct sizes for each of the years...), then you KNEW what you were doing and that it was not legal... was against the IT rules and the intent of IT... and that the spec line was in error...

If you build a car like that, then you're taking your chances... You guys ALL know that alternate tranmissions are not allowed, and that the specs are prone to an occasional error...

NOW, since you provided information that got this ADDED to the specs... and this wasn't a case of this being put on the spec line inadvertantly during classification, Then I think that actually bodes well for this being OK... We'll have to see...

Again, since this is now officially a problem, we'll deal with it as we do every other issue... as fairly as we can... In the meantime, go race and let us worry about the specs... The most you can do about it at this point is to provide any information that might support this...
 
I have a 2000 GCR, and it was in there, so it was added at least 5 years ago.

Derek,

Don't put words in my mouth. And don't make it seem that I "don't like" someone. I've already proven you wrong on a couple of counts. I'm sorry if you don't like that. As I've said, and Darin reiterated, if you build a car based on questionable specs, you are on your own. And think how the guys w/ the HT motors in the ITB Sciroccos felt. You're essentially looking at having to use a different trans. That's about a $600 hit, at most. And you can probably sell the one you have to someone in ITB. So, it's not like you're going to be out a ton of money. Now, if you built the car, because you thought you had an advantage, based on those questionable specs, well, I've already made my case on that one.
 
Derek,
Let me apologize if I started or stirred up a pot that I didn't know existed. I'm a Honda guy...racer, builder, lover, etc. Of course I look at any other car with caution. Frankly, I consider Scott to be a great friend and competitor, but I'd just as soon both of you guys with you new fangled fuel injection were in another class away from us guys with crappy carbs! lol Fact is, you're not really faster than anyone else in the class. You just came onto the scene in a scary way...real fast "out of the box".
From what I've witnessed, every car has an advantage and a disadvantage. My carb, your weight. Even Gary has the slippery CRX, but I have the better handling Civic. Many of us forget how the Hondas came along and made the 510's, Corolla's, Rabbits, etc. virtually obsolete.
That said, everyone searches for an advantage. Some find a legal one and others try to pass one off as legal, knowing it really may not be. I'm not making accusations, we have enough spoiled brats in racing, but if someone is playing the dark side of the gray area, then they deserve to get burned.
Your arguments that you have supplied the necessary info to the "powers" shouldn't be worth schredding your robe about. What's happening is the best thing...you've made the comp board, etc. look at your stuff. If you've given them everything you've said, then they will validate you and everyone else will have to live with it.
Best of luck to you. Of course, I hope we whoop your ass at the ARRC. You are, however, invited to gumbo, jambalaya, etc. Come early, it goes faster than your car.

:023:
 
I am NOT taking sides on this one but it could be a case study in what does't work in the Club Racing rules process. (Also, not picking on the ITAC, here.)

** Racers who want a car classified submit its specs in the first place - urban legend, wishful thinking, and downright sneakiness get injected from the outset: "Yeah - I heard that few of the last of these came with the big front brakes from the next generation." Note here that Derek is NOT the one who requested that the 1.7 2nd-gen Scirocco with the tight box be classified.

** (The ITAC has been interposed here, which is a good thing - checking among themselves and others to see if there's anything that seems goofy.)

** Pre-ITAC (as was the case with this Scirooco, it sounds like), the CRB placed the car in a class. My sense is that they didn't look very hard at what they were signing off (no surprise, they're busy), given some of the wacky stuff that gets into the ITCS that doesn't look like typos. "Yeah, yeah, yeah - whatever."

** Ah, yes - those typos. There doesn't appear to be enough critical, pre-publication reading of the ITCS. Perhaps because folks figure that problems can be chased out through E&O? I like the ones that transpose "in" in for "mm." "Hmm - that 5th-gear ratio doesn't exist so I can obviously use whichever one I want."

** If a car is classified such that it has only a snowball's chance of being competitive (like this car in ITB, a bunch of Hondas in S), nobody every builds one. The rules get enshrined by history. "It's been in the book for years, so it must be right."

** When a car gets MOVED - since this is a relateively new phenomenon :P - it just gets moved as whole cloth. "Now, if they would just move those Toyotas to B, dagnabbit."

Through all of this, racers are racers. If they see something in the specs that they think is hurting their competitiveness, they will fight to get it changed. Equally, if they see something that seems funny but gives them an advantage, 8 of 10 will smile and nod, and not lift a finger to correct it.

Derek and his dad have been doing this for a while so it's not a surprise that his car is competitive. It would also not be a suprise that if - and I say IF - they have been handed a "gimme" by the system, then they would take full advantage.

K
 
First off, the competitive side of me would love to see an crappy gearbox in Dereks car. But I have to admit that if he was forced to do this it would bother me.

The whole "You probably knew you were building a car that never existed" argument doesn't fly with me because it assumes a person bought a complete stock vehicle and turned it into a race car.
Now, how often does this happen?
And how often does it happen that an IT car is built from a chassis that came from x, a motor that came from xx, and a tranny that came from y?
Well, ALOT of Hondas are built this way because they are plentiful in junkyards and back yards everywhere. Its just cheaper to do it like this.

Now, take my car for example. I got a 91 civic standard, dropped in a D15B1 motor (the "standard" motor), and bolted up a 4 speed from an 88 Civic. I did all of this because it matches up to what THE RULE BOOK says I can do.
I'm assuming Derek has done the same thing, and now theres a possibility that the rulebook is wrong.
That really sucks if you are Derek.

Now, I know I won't have this problem because the Honda documentation is pretty clear. But as already mentioned in this thread the VW stuff can be a mess (I dunno first hand, I'm a Honda guy). I can see how this could become shitty.
 
Originally posted by Catch22@Aug 28 2005, 11:19 PM
I did all of this because it matches up to what THE RULE BOOK says I can do.
I'm assuming Derek has done the same thing, and now theres a possibility that the rulebook is wrong. 
That really sucks if you are Derek.
[snapback]59150[/snapback]​
Click to expand...

Damn... I KNEW I should have found some 295mm front brakes for my 240SX... The darn rules said I could.... :rolleyes:

In all seriousness... NOWHERE in the rulebook does it say that you can CREATE a model, OR use an alternate transmission, etc...

As rare as this transmission/engine combo sounds at this point, only a concious effort could have brought them together, so I don't buy the ignorance scenario you present here...

Either way, if the car was actually made, then there isn't a problem...
 
I did not "create" a model by putting an 88 drivetrain in a 91 car. I did a legal up/back date. The rulebook says what I did is legal.

And if we can't count on being legal by following whats written in the rules...
 
Originally posted by Catch22@Aug 28 2005, 11:31 PM
And if we can't count on being legal by following whats written in the rules...
[snapback]59152[/snapback]​
Click to expand...

I agree... However, we are not really talking about the "rules" here, but rather a spec line... I know it may be a matter of semantics, but it is clear in the rules that creating a model is not legal...

Look, I am as sorry this is an issue as the next guy, but it is, so let's deal with it the best we can... I don't KNOW if this car existed, or if this is even a problem... So until we have all the facts in front of us, let's not bicker too much about it... It doesn't help anyone...

Personally, I don't know Derek at all, but I don't want to go making enemies over speculation... If he winds up pissed at me, I'd rather have it be over something more substantial...
 
Scott,
We've been told by Pruett and company that it a car is listed in the ITCS as a certain model built within a set number of years, that any items built for those cars within those parameters is legal. As confusing as that statement sounds, that doesn't mean you use a cam from one head in a different head if it's more cool...that's covered in the rules in a different area. But if your car is listed on one line as 88-91, and it is, all the goodies built for that car with in those years can be used. If a transmission is more pro, you can use it.
I'm covered by '84-87 as is the CRX. The CRX can be an HF or whatever as it is listed as a blanket Honda CRX 1.5 just like yours and my car can either be HB or Sedan. If you got a trnsmission form one year model, an engine from another, and put it in a chassis from another year, as long as the some of the parts was not taken from a model or year not listed...you're cool. That said, there are specific rules that forbid certain things from taking place, but as long as you don't violate those rules, no foul.
That's what we were told by the official guru of that moment in time.
That being said, you know your car's illegal...you're too damn fast! HeHe ;)
 
I understand Darin, if the car is incorrectly listed you guys MUST correct it. But that is an extremely unfortunate situation.
I guess if that happens Coffin will get his wish and us SE ITC guys will be short one fast and clean driver.
I hate that.

That being said, you know your car's illegal...you're too damn fast! HeHe
Click to expand...

And yet I keep finishing behind your guy. Therefore he must be MORE illegal than me :rolleyes:
 
Originally posted by Catch22@Aug 28 2005, 11:19 PM
First off, the competitive side of me would love to see an crappy gearbox in Dereks car.  But I have to admit that if he was forced to do this it would bother me.

The whole "You probably knew you were building a car that never existed" argument doesn't fly with me because it assumes a person bought a complete stock vehicle and turned it into a race car.
[snapback]59150[/snapback]​
Click to expand...

Scott,

Did it bother you when the ITB Mk II Scirocco 1.8 8v's lost the HT engine w/ the hydraulic lifters?

And, it doesn't matter if you bought the car whole or not. If you're building a race car, you need to do your homework and find out what came in the car. Anybody that's been in this game for any amount of time, should know better than to depend on the ITCS as the only source of information. Go look at the specs for a '91-'92 Saab 900 16v in ITA. Tell me how you'd build that car!

And not to muddy the issue, but do you think it's fair that the same car, w/ the same motor/suspension/brakes, should get to weigh the same, if it runs a close-ratio box vs. a wide-ratio one, especially in this day and age of a classification process that takes various factors into account when setting specs?
 
Originally posted by Bill Miller@Aug 29 2005, 03:07 AM
but do you think it's fair
Click to expand...

"Fair" is not the question and has nothing to do with my point.
And I don't know a damned thing about Saabs or VWs, so I guess I'd be SOL if I were a newcomer building a VW and relying on my big fat rulebook to build my car.

When its all said and done, see Kirks post above.
 
Originally posted by Catch22@Aug 29 2005, 03:33 AM
When its all said and done, see Kirks post above.
[snapback]59170[/snapback]​
Click to expand...


I think I'll deal with all this by taking off for the rest of the week and hanging out in Seaside, Oregon at the beach...

ENJOY the week, boys! Make sure you post something interesting for me to read when I get back! ;)
 
All this ITC talk is making me want to build a car....hmmmmm lets see what can be done for a small budget racer...try to keep under 5 grand.......less tire wear and brake useage hmmm :P
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top