November FasTrack is out

Interesting SM proposed changes. Give 'em inch, and all that...? Interesting how such seemingly pointless items as the plastic bump spacers hae to be spec'd to +/- 0.01" ... Sorry, kids, you brought it on yourselves. And the R888 tire from now on? Not surprising, I suppose.

And the Court of Appeals on the ITB Alfa? WITF was that guy thinking? 'I've been running for four years this way, and other cars race this way, too!' is not even CLOSE to a reason to appeal. I'm pleased to see his appeal fee was retained...what a tool. Well done, Mr. Bitterman, we need more like you.

Unfortunately, given no further notice, it appears our request for rules interpretation on the CAI intakes will not happen prior to the ARRC. This should make for an interesting situation come November... - GA
 
Dang, I guess they still didn't have time to think about the Pony Car proposal for ITR. I'm sure they will get to it one day.....

Lighter flywheels for 1.6L SMs? Holy opening a can of worms.....
 
Unfortunately said:
Easy guys. I spoke with one of the letter writers regarding this and we HAVE NOT recieved a letter on this. It was apparently sent correctly to the CRB but as the letter appears to be asking for a rules interpretation it WOULD NOT come to the IT Committee. I told the person this and they were going to check with SCCA on the status of the letter.
Click to expand...
 
1stGenBoy said:
...as the letter appears to be asking for a rules interpretation it WOULD NOT come to the IT Committee.
Click to expand...
That is correct.

A GCR 8.1.4 interpretation request goes directly to a convened Court of Appeals (with consultation to the CRB for rules interpretation, just as did the one in this month's Fastrack in regards to Formula Continental (page 7, the reason our CAI issue came to mind when I read the Fastrack...)

On that note, I cannot EVER remember seeing a GCR 8.1.4 result published in Fastrack. Glad to see it happen; personally, I think they should all be published for the benefit of the membership, regardless of result. - GA
 
planet6racing said:
Dave:

Thank you. I'm sorry if I'm coming across as an unappreciative idiot. I'll look forward to next month, then.
Click to expand...
I didn't mean to imply you were unappreciative or an idiot (or both :)). FYI, what was intended was that the SL2 be classified as Level 2, at 2235 lbs. base weight, with 450 cam lift, 11:1 CR and track 61 inches front, 60.2 inches rear.

Dave
 
Greg Amy said:
A GCR 8.1.4 interpretation request goes directly to a convened Court of Appeals...
Click to expand...
I received some corrected info via email. An 8.1.4 request goes to a "first court" (not a Court of Appeals), itself comprised of 3-4 Executive Stewards, who will make the initial ruling on the request. The Court of Appeals comes in if you wish to appeal the first court's decision.

In either/both case(s), the CRB may be contacted for input.

Greg
 
***Interesting how such seemingly pointless items as the plastic bump spacers hae to be spec'd to +/- 0.01" ... Sorry, kids, you brought it on yourselves.***

Greg, do you think it would be any different if the IT classes went National? Being that your being harsh towards Spec Miata what would you make the tolerance of this spacer for IT cars? Everything has a tolerance.:D

I could make a comment about the delrin spacer .03 +/-.01 except that the comment would fall with the other comments I'v made that as long as there is no lower shock bushing to allow compliance for the shock rod to the shock hat the crap will continue to fail.
 
Greg Amy said:
On that note, I cannot EVER remember seeing a GCR 8.1.4 result published in Fastrack. Glad to see it happen; personally, I think they should all be published for the benefit of the membership, regardless of result. - GA
Click to expand...

There is a rationale for not publishing a positive rules interpretation. If someone comes with a better mousetrap which is compliant, then his preparation secret is maintained by not publishing.

Negative interpretations (ie. the proposed gizmo is not compliant), such as the one in the current Fastrack are published in order to save others from making the same error.
 
Dave Gomberg said:
I didn't mean to imply you were unappreciative or an idiot (or both :)). FYI, what was intended was that the SL2 be classified as Level 2, at 2235 lbs. base weight, with 450 cam lift, 11:1 CR and track 61 inches front, 60.2 inches rear.

Dave
Click to expand...

Well, I can be a little bit of both... :D Thank you for the information. Any hint on the wheel size? The published one said 15X6, but a comparable car (CRX Si) has 15X7. I'm really hoping for the 15X7s...
 
planet6racing said:
... Any hint on the wheel size? The published one said 15X6, but a comparable car (CRX Si) has 15X7. I'm really hoping for the 15X7s...
Click to expand...
I think that was just overlooked and it will probably happen. Someone else wrote about that and some other items. When the PAC looks at it, we'll get it all straightened out. Watch for this in the December Fastrack.

Dave
 
***Don't see how being "National" or not makes it OK (or more likely cheat...***

***Especially patience. And Spec'ers found that limit pretty quickly...***

No one said it's ok to cheat. As you well know things change in a hurry when a class becomes National. The cheating going on in IT Regional don't make headlines just like the cheating going on in Regional SM don't make the headlines.

EDIT: When things in IT are found in the gray are the rules get revised. I could start a list of rule revisions or shall I say cheat revisions.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top