October Fastrack

Josh typed what was on my mind, the only difference being in the timing of the change of heart regarding the issue. I came to the conclusion a bit earlier than he, but we travelled down the same road, and have the same reservations. So, thanks Josh, that saved me a bit of typing.

And Bill, your comment above clearly shows your intent to blame the current group, otherwise you wouldn't have included the qualifier that I've boldened. Sidestep not accepted. Can't have it both ways.
[/b]
Click to expand...

Read it the way you want to Jake, you're wrong. I put that in there because I'm tired of the people that use the argument that it's already a done deal (vis-a-vis 'anything in the stock box'). I'll admit that I could have worded it better to avoid some of the confusion, but the blame was not directed at the current ITAC. The "it's already opened up" argument has been used by those in favor of a total swap, saying that the total swap doesn't do anything more than currently exists.

This pooch was screwed by the people that implemented the 'stuff it in the stock box' rule. Again, I apologize that I didn't word it better, but you're wrong in saying that it's directed at the current group. Anybody that's been on here any length of time knows that I don't flip-flop on things. This is no different. You can accept that at face value, or not, your choice.
 
Last I checked the ITAC asked for input on the ECU rule and responded to the wishes of the IT drivers. You always expect them to cower down to your wishes and then say they lack "balls" if it doesn't go your way. Right or wrong Bill you do not run the whole show. Write your letter, get others to see it your way if you can, then shut the hell up and quit your crying and attacking the members of the ITAC every time you don't get your way. Your personal crap hidden behind your continuous accusations get a little old. Grow up man. :dead_horse:
 
Hey Steve,

Pay attention. All I EVER wanted, regardless of the issue at hand, was internal consistency. What warrants when an issue gets sent out for member input and when it doesn't? The proposed new ECU rule went out for member input, but the 'stuff in the stock' box version didn't. Why not send the 7" wheel rule for ITB&C out for member input? Why not send the 1st gen RX7 and AW11 MR2 reclassification issue out? They did it for the Golf III?
 
For something to go out for member input, the ITAC / CRB would actually want to make a change. It's a prelude to a change to get input. In theory, the RFMI would be to 'confirm' what the ITAC thinks is the best way to go.

I believe all rule changes are supposed to go out for member input. Clarifications, errors/ommissions and classifications do not.

...and Bill, I personally don't care if anyone questions anything the ITAC does. It's a committee and we discuss everything so it's not like it happens in a vacuum. It's your confrontational delivery - all while seemingly continuously going back to past mistakes when none of the current ITAC / CRB were on - that has gotten really harsh lately and people are starting to ignore you.
 
"I believe all rule changes are supposed to go out for member input. Clarifications, errors/ommissions and classifications do not."



And then you've got the Technical Bulletin, which IMO was misused and abused re spherical bearings. That was a rule change and did not go out for member input nor was there any notice. :bash_1_:
 
There is a practical issue here. The ITAC is a volunteer committee with limited time and resources. In doing the work that I did on ITR I quickly realized that the work cuts into REAL work, family time and race time. And is for the most part thankless.

So, it is often impossible to do everything that we would like for the ITAC to do. Running ALL cars through the process was one. Some oddballs got skipped -- Andy and Jake would be the first to tell you that -- to be corrected later if the data was there to do it.

I think most rule changes get debated SOMEWHERE and we always have a mechanism to try and change them if we don't like them. But the point is that the ITAC tries to highlight for us major rule changes. They've been asking us to comment on for them and for the CRB the ECU rule change for a long time.

I agree the system has a lot of room for abuse in it. Totally agree with that. And that we need to protect against the abuses. But I don't see those abuses happening with this group.
 
"I believe all rule changes are supposed to go out for member input. Clarifications, errors/ommissions and classifications do not."



And then you've got the Technical Bulletin, which IMO was misused and abused re spherical bearings. That was a rule change and did not go out for member input nor was there any notice. :bash_1_:


[/b]
Click to expand...

I disagree. We had the debate here in this forum and there were arguements on both sides of the issue (I thought they did NOT meet the rule). When a request came in to clarify (Greg Amy IIRC), the CRB was asked specifically what they wanted the rule to encompass because it was grey. We wanted to clarify the rule to say exactly what they wanted it to say. We did just that. A clarification. One that didn't go the way I thought it would (meaning how I read the rulebook) but it is what it is.
 
To add a bit more detail to the spherical bearings...

Greg solicited a number of us to pony up a few dollars to pay the "advisory opinion" ruling fee to the SCCA to get a ruling that sphericals were not legal. We had the money in, and Greg had the letter/request for a decision written, when the tecnical bulletin came out.

I THINK it was in response to the debate here on this board, and questions that had been put to Jeremy, but I'm not sure. But if I remember this right we never actually got Greg's request in before the decision came done. I don't think that changes the substance of Andy's post if I am correct that the SCCA was reacting to a number of concerns that these things were not legal.

Still think they aren't, but they sure are in my car now.
 
I also e-mailed and talked to several people (Maybe even Jeremy) from the Stewards side asking for clarificatins on spherical bearings and the Pistons in anticipation of multiple mechanical protests... Thankfully somehow the word got out and a clarification was made. Job well done!!!

Raymond "Still feel that the wheel rule is perfect as it is written" Blethen
 
...if I remember this right we never actually got Greg's request in before the decision came [down].[/b]
Click to expand...
Correct.

My FedEx letter was minutes from being dropped off when I got a courtesy phone call telling me that the decision had already been unilaterally made by the Comp Board to allow/approve/condone spherical suspension bearings in Improved Touring (versus allowing us to go through the published GCR process). I more than suspect this issue was quickly pushed through in advance, with the knowledge that we were going to bring it through the (more public) GCR review process (ever hear of anything else so quickly "clarified" and published?)

I firmly believe if this issue was put to the membership for feedback - as it most certainly should have given that in my opinion it's a blatant disregard of the original intent of the 1984 IT rules - it would have been slapped down. But - again in my opinion - that process was end-run and the Comp Board made a unilateral decision, as they've been given the power to do.

Next time the process happens in secret, with no advance warning.

So, it's all water under the bridge, settled law, blah, blah, blah...you'll never hear me say they're illegal, but you'll also never hear me say they even remotely meet the original intent of the rules. - GA
 
Im what you would call a "budget minded racer". With that said, because of the budget that I have,(or lack of) I look for ways that I can save money while still being able to race. One of the ways is having an unlimited supply of take off wheels from a friend who once the tires dont feel brand new, are discarded. These tires i could easily run an entire season on. Heres the catch, the tires are 205-50-15. Which means i would have to fork over $299 per wheel for some ssr's in order to take advantage of this opportunity. All that money being spent because in the gcr it states that I can go to a 15" wheel, but it has to be 6" in width. So, that one inch is keeping me from buying a kosei or a kazera at about $109 a wheel(give or take a few bucks). I really would love to come back to racing after sidelining for the past 6 years, but this simple one inch rule is prob gonna keep from re-entering. I'm expecting people to jump on this, saying,"if you dont have the money you shouldnt be racing". Well my answer to that is, I love this sport, and I have such a passion for it that it kills me sometimes to be at the track and not be behind the wheel. My first race I went to I was three weeks old. My younger brother was three DAYS old for his first race. Both of those first races were to watch my father race in the 70's and early 80's. If the rule doesnt change then I guess Ill be stuck doin track days, and instructing for SCDA. That is what I call a tragedy, not only for myself, but for scca.
 
Im what you would call a "budget minded racer". With that said, because of the budget that I have,(or lack of) I look for ways that I can save money while still being able to race. One of the ways is having an unlimited supply of take off wheels from a friend who once the tires dont feel brand new, are discarded. These tires i could easily run an entire season on. Heres the catch, the tires are 205-50-15. Which means i would have to fork over $299 per wheel for some ssr's in order to take advantage of this opportunity. All that money being spent because in the gcr it states that I can go to a 15" wheel, but it has to be 6" in width. So, that one inch is keeping me from buying a kosei or a kazera at about $109 a wheel(give or take a few bucks). I really would love to come back to racing after sidelining for the past 6 years, but this simple one inch rule is prob gonna keep from re-entering. I'm expecting people to jump on this, saying,"if you dont have the money you shouldnt be racing". Well my answer to that is, I love this sport, and I have such a passion for it that it kills me sometimes to be at the track and not be behind the wheel. My first race I went to I was three weeks old. My younger brother was three DAYS old for his first race. Both of those first races were to watch my father race in the 70's and early 80's. If the rule doesnt change then I guess Ill be stuck doin track days, and instructing for SCDA. That is what I call a tragedy, not only for myself, but for scca.
[/b]
Click to expand...


In the past I had a huge supply of 16" take off tires... If SCCA would have let me run those 16" tires, and put on fender flares so that they fit, then I could have saved so much money, shame on SCCA...

Why do they not accomodate every single persons rules/wants???

Simple... YOU CAN'T... I spent thousands of dollors developing the suspension in our Audi's, and they can't possibly fit 15" wheels, nevermind the darn 6" or 7" rule... I didn't bitch when the wheel diamiter changed from 14 -> 15 but enough is enough guys/gals... at what point will some of you people be happy... when we are production???

Raymond
 
going from 14" to 16" is nothing what im talking about. Im in no way bitching either. Production? some of the cars are already there. I guess you dont want another ITB competitor in the northeast
 
I firmly believe if this issue was put to the membership for feedback - as it most certainly should have given that in my opinion it's a blatant disregard of the original intent of the 1984 IT rules - it would have been slapped down.
[/b]
Click to expand...

Do you think open ECUs meets the original intent of the IT rules? I say no, but apparently most people think they should be allowed.

David
 
I'm trying, Scot but I'm still struggling to see past the presentation of what's in it for you.
[/b]
Click to expand...

Kirk, one of the worst behaviors in a discussion is to attack the person rather than the points put forth, based on your own perception of what he is thinking, instead of what he actually is saying.

I have not once said anything to promote my own racing campaign in this discussion. In fact, again, i have just bought custom 14x6" wheels. If i was out for myself, i would leave the status quo, since less people would be able to afford what i already have, and it would protect my investment.

However, i instead am putting this forward so that more people can utilize suitable racing wheels, to support the good of IT in general.

Again, by suitable i mean something w/in 6 or 7 lbs of the big budget racing wheels, which are 8lbs.

Actually, 14x7 options are WAY less common than 14x6. Fact.

Point granted. In fact, 15x6 wheels are clearly a hell of a lot LESS common than 14x6, since they are less common than 14x7. So far, the most common size under discussion - setting aside issues relating to the influence of bolt pattern - is without question 14x6.
[/b]
Click to expand...

Not true. 14x6 is definitely not the most common wheel of the four sizes (14x6, 14x7, 15x6, 15x7). It is by far 15x7.

Take, for example, customwheelsdirect.com, 1010tires.com, wheelsforless.com, wheelsmaster.com and TiresDelivered.com, just because they have a pretty good search engines, allowing us to search via size.

Note, i did not cherry pick these sites, just used the first five i found that allowed me to do a size based search.

Customwheelsdirect.com
14x6: 50
14x7: 18
15x6: 40
* 15x7: 253 ****

1010tires.com:
14x6: 7
14x7: 2
15x6: 19
* 15x7: 27 ****

www.wheelsforless.com:
14x6: 27
14x7: 9
15x6: 45
* 15x7: 150 ****

Wheelsmaster.com:
14x6: 91
14x7: 25
15x6: 49
* 15x7: 100 ****

TiresDelivered.com:
14x6: 54
14x7: 15
15x6: 11
* 15x7: 244 *****

Exact numbers are different, but proportions are similar, w/ 15x7 wheels being by far the most numerous.

However, that is not the end of the story. As i said, this is about a suitable racing wheel. If the big-budget wheels are 8lbs, then i think it is reasonable to say that a suitable wheel is at max 15lbs, preferably 10-13lbs. This all about attempting to allow the normal budget racer to get close to that big-budget racer, by opening up the supply of suitable wheels to the normal budget racer.

Let's use CustomWheelsDirect.com, since they have the largest supply, and thus are more likely to have suitable rims.

Customwheelsdirect.com, 14x6: 50 are returned, w/ the following 15lbs or less:

AmerRacing, Type SR : discontinued, both factory and dealers do not have stock
Maxxim, Oxygen : discontinued, and NOT available
Motegi, MR7, RT5 : discontinued, both factory and dealers do not have stock
TSW, Volcano : discontinued, factory has *one*, 15lbs
AmerRacing, Silverstone 401: none available, but factory custom build, which takes 6 weeks, and is only available in 3 1/4" backspacing, 14.5lbs in 15x7

CustomWheelsDirect.com, 15x6: 40 are returned, w/ the following 15lbs or less:

AmerRacing, Silverstone 401: none available, but factory custom build, which takes 6 weeks, and is only available in 3 1/4" backspacing, 14.5lbs in 15x7

Customwheelsdirect.com, 14x7: 18 wheels returned, w/ the following 15lbs or less:

AmerRacing, Silverstone 401: none available, but factory custom build, which takes 6 weeks, and is only available in 3 1/4" backspacing, 14.5lbs in 15x7
Koniq Rewind Graphite: check avail (13lbs)
TeamDyn, Pro Race 1.2: Available

CustomWheelsDirect.com, 15x7: 253 wheels returned, w/ the following 15lbs or less:
5Zigen, FN01R: Available 13.5lbs
5Zigen, GN+: Available 15lbs
Enkei, RPF1: Available 9.9lbs
Enkei, RPO-j: discontinued
Intro, Emotion: Available, 14lbs (factory will make)
Intro, GT Sport: Available, 14lbs (factory will make)
Intro, Rockman: Available, 14lbs (factory will make)
Motegi, LC5: check avail 12.5lb
Motegi, Trak Lite 1: Available 10.5lbs
Motegi, Trak Lite 2: Available 10lbs
SportMax, type940: Available 15.5lbs
SportMax, type941: Available 15.5lbs
TeamDyn, ProRace 1.2: Available 15.1lbs
TeamDyn, ProRace 1 : Available 13.2lbs
TeamDyn, ProRace 2 : Available 13.2lbs
TSW, Volcano: Available 15lbs

Just for kicks, i also threw in the 6.5 wheels, though i didn't check all the exact weights and availability.

CustomWheelsDirect.com, 15x6.5: 105 wheels returned, w/ the following possibly less than 16lbs:

ADR, Flite 4
AmerRacing, type SR
Enkei, JS+M
Enkei, RS 5
Enkei, RS 6
Enkei, SC03
Konig, Britelite
Konig, Feather
Konig, Helium
Konig, Trouble
Maxxim, Black
Maxxim, Ahead
Motegi, Trak Lite
TSW,Volcano

-Scot
 
going from 14" to 16" is nothing what im talking about. Im in no way bitching either. Production? some of the cars are already there. I guess you dont want another ITB competitor in the northeast
[/b]
Click to expand...


I would love to see another competitor, but if you want this changed, I can only imagine what is next on your agenda... The people that want changes never seem to stop wanting changes, and generally with a few exceptions to help themselves.

I built my car with the expectations that rules would stay the same, and I would imagine that you or someone else on a budget would be doing the same... In the short term you might have to spend some on wheels/tires, but in the long run rules consistancy would maintain a cheeper class for most of us.

Raymond

PS: Scot- Do you think that the budget racer is going that much faster because thier wheel weighs 5lbs less??? I don't buy it. I run the same lap times with heavy wheels or light wheels, I picked my wheels because they look "pimp" not because of weight, but hey, maybe thats why we are top 5 and not top dog...

Anyone ever run a car on a dyno or some other machine to get some factual number differences with wheel weight differences?
 
David, I think there is actually far more agreement on the facts of the ECU situation than on what to do about it.

Specifically:

1. I think that everyone agrees policing ECUs is a difficult if not impossible process.

2. I think everyone agrees that open ECUs are certainly not in conformity with the letter, spirit or intent of the original IT ruleset.

3. I think everyone agrees the "open ECUs in the stock box" rules was a really bad, really bad band-aid.

The question is -- now what do we do?

1. Since we have opened Pandora's box just a crack, should we go ahead and open it all the way to make the open ECU rule accessible to all instead of just those who can spend big bucks to get a new computer in the stock box and make it work with stock sensors?

2. Do we stuff the sh$t back in Pandora's box and require stock ECUs?

3. And if we do that (stock ECUs), do we allow reflashes (which is just another crack in the box that will in some cases give people with the time, money and resources, and the right car, free ECUs)?

It's a tough question, and I'm biased as I am building an FI motor that will need to take advantage of the new rule. Keeping that bias in mind, I just see (a) no way to go back to stock ECUs and (B) the existing rule as silly.

My position is admittedly a "me" position in that the new rule could benefit me greatly. But, I think the consideratioins I lay out above are what we all need to be thinking about.
 
Do you think open ECUs meets the original intent of the IT rules? I say no, but apparently most people think they should be allowed.

David [/b]
Click to expand...

I do NOT think open ECU's meet the original intent of the rule. BUT - it's a situation that has numerous angles and hitches. Now that technology has presented us some 'affordable' options on the market, *I* think the best thing to do from a 10,000 ft view is to open it up. No performance increases at the top end from what we have now, more people can now afford the technology, and the impossible task of policing stock units is gone...and let me tell you - if you go to reflashes and chips - the gap between the have's and have-not's balloons way out of control.

The situation sucks yes, but like I said, I think this is the smallest pile of crap of the 3 piles we have to choose from.
 
1. I think that everyone agrees policing ECUs is a difficult if not impossible process.
2. I think everyone agrees that open ECUs are certainly not in conformity with the letter, spirit or intent of the original IT ruleset.
3. I think everyone agrees the "open ECUs in the stock box" rules was a really bad, really bad band-aid.
The question is -- now what do we do? [/b]
Click to expand...
Well, isn't it a bit too late for that question...? ;)

I never really had a hard opinion on this issue. But the more I think about it, the more I want to lean towards the possibility of someone cheating with a stock ECU versus the probabilities of what someone can do with an open ECU. The performance significance of an cheater with an illegal ECU (visually unmolested but electronically altered) seems far, far less than the performance significance of a legal car with an all-out, no-holds-barred engine management system. The only difference is that one's a cheater, one's not.

Or said differently, I'd rather deal with the possibility (probability?) a cheater than someone with deep pockets...I'm becoming less and less fond of the idea of allowing "unpoliceable" modifications. Just 'cause "it's not detectable" (copyright 2007, SpecMiata.com) doesn't mean it should be approved officially.

But, as noted, it's probably too late for that... - GA
 
Kirk, one of the worst behaviors in a discussion is to attack the person rather than the points put forth, based on your own perception of what he is thinking, instead of what he actually is saying.[/b]
Click to expand...
Again, it's not about you. It's the way I have been trained to look at things:

The term "symbolic interaction" refers, of course, to the peculiar and distinctive character of interaction as it takes place between human beings. The peculiarity consists in the fact that human beings interpret or "define" each other's actions instead of merely reacting to each other's actions. Their "response" is not made directly to the actions of one another but instead is based on the meaning which they attach to such actions. Thus, human interaction is mediated by the use of symbols, by interpretation, or by ascertaining the meaning of one another's actions. This mediation is equivalent to inserting a process of interpretation between stimulus and response in the case of human behavior. (Blumer)

My interpretations are based on my experiences with racers in general, not with you. Policy should really be made based on that kind of perspective - or some similar approach - although I admit that my orientation creates certain biases.

...by suitable i mean something w/in 6 or 7 lbs of the big budget racing wheels, which are 8lbs.[/b]
Click to expand...
Again, the ITAC/CRB has no obligation to any subgroup of racers (make, model, geography, etc.) to help them be competitive. Affording a light racing wheel for less money than might otherwise be obtained IS helping them be competitive. If a rule truly impacts everyone equally, then of course this isn't an issue but that doesn't happen very often, even in cases where arguments are presented as being for the good of the category.

14x6 is definitely not the most common wheel of the four sizes (14x6, 14x7, 15x6, 15x7). It is by far 15x7.[/b]
Click to expand...
Oh, no question! And I didn't mean to imply that I believed otherwise. My point is that arguments for the 15x7 option were based on the much less available 15x6 size, when 14x6 is a still viable solution currently allowed by the rules. I meant what I said (in a roundabout fashion, perhaps) - that the 14x6 is more common than either the 15x6 or 14x7.If the justification for the 15x7 is "can't find 15x6," then the first solution should be to use 14x6s, rather than changing the rules to allow 15x7, since it is ALLOWED to go +1, not REQUIRED.

Now, the New Beetle peeps ARE in deep doo-doo but one assumes that they'd know what they're in for when choosing that option.

K

PS - If any of you camel nose "deniers" are out there, make note of how the recent allowance of increased diameter wheels in IT is being used as justification for an increase in width - not even a year out. THAT'S rules creep at work and it's making me regret taking a pro position on that allowance, after the fact...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top