September Fastrack is out...

Banzai240

Banzai240

New member
The September Fastrack is out:

http://scca.org/_Filelibrary/File/04-09-fastrack.pdf

A couple of items of note to IT:

1) Alternate Main Pullies: The CRB/ITAC are seeking membership input on allowing Alternate crank pullies for all IT cars. We basically went through the same iterations on the ITAC that we went through here, and came to the same draw as far as a conclusion. So, we decided that we'd let you guys have an opportunity to convince us one way or the other. Please send your thoughts on the matter to the CRB as soon as possible so we can get this matter resolved.

[email protected]

2) We've classified the 1998-99 VW Beetle in ITC. This should be an interesting discussion point!

3) Wheels: As mentioned, the ITAC/CRB is recommending that the rules be changed to allow all cars currently classified with 13 or 14" wheels to use up to a 15" wheel.

4) Ballast: Should PCAs be implemented, the maximum ballast rule is being recommended to be removed. Since IT is the only class that has this maximum limit, this shouldn't really be an issue...


There may be a couple more, I just skimmed it and those were the highlights for IT that stuck out in my mind...

One interesting thing for E-Production... a Street-Port has now officially been defined for rotaries, which I think is going to be a BIG DEAL... Apparently, the description and associated diagrams are on file with the SCCA National Office...

Feel free to write/post if you have any questions...

Enjoy!


------------------
Darin E. Jordan
SCCA #273080, OR/NW Regions
Renton, WA
ITS '97 240SX
DJ_AV1.jpg


[Edited to correct for fat fingers and wandering mind!!]

[This message has been edited by Banzai240 (edited July 20, 2004).]
 
Minor correction with item # 4.

It is the maximum allowance that is being discussed.

------------------
Dave Gran
NER #13 ITA
'87 Honda Prelude
 
Originally posted by Banzai240:
... 2) We've classified the 1998-99 VW Beetle in ITC. This should be an interesting discussion point!
Click to expand...

Does this mean that the MkIV 2.slow Golf will end up there, too? Errr...

K
 
Question? In the Fastracks there are reclassing of cars, cars being added & whatever else. What is being done for the 1st gen RX-7 in ITA/IT7 to get the car back in contention with the newer technology cars in ITA? IMHJ it's only fair to let all the cats out of the bag 6 months before the new season. If a bone is being thrown to the 1st gens what is it ? If no bone for the 1st gens say that there is no bone.

David Dewhurst
CenDiv Milwaukee Region
ITA/7 # 14
SCCA 250772
 
Originally posted by ddewhurst:
If a bone is being thrown to the 1st gens what is it ? If no bone for the 1st gens say that there is no bone.

David Dewhurst
CenDiv Milwaukee Region
ITA/7 # 14
SCCA 250772
Click to expand...

David,

At this point, there is no bone... Without PCAs in place, there isn't much we can agree on. Just about everyone believes the car needs help, but just about everyone also believes it's too much car for ITB...

We're working on it, but we just don't have all the tools yet...



------------------
Darin E. Jordan
SCCA #273080, OR/NW Regions
Renton, WA
ITS '97 240SX
DJ_AV1.jpg
 
Here's your bones:

2. Reclassify the 1979-85 Mazda RX7 to ITB. (Siolund) The car fits within the performance parameters of the ITA classes.
6. Reclassify the 1986 Toyota MR2 to ITB. (Glover) The car fits the performance parameters of the ITA class.

This one cracks me up (considering that I can't even get to the SPEC weight of 2370 with my MR2)

3. Adjust the weight of the Toyota MR2 to 2270lbs. (Watney) Competition adjustments are not permitted under our current
rules.
 
Originally posted by Jake:

This one cracks me up (considering that I can't even get to the SPEC weight of 2370 with my MR2)

3. Adjust the weight of the Toyota MR2 to 2270lbs. (Watney) Competition adjustments are not permitted under our current
rules.
Click to expand...

If you can't get to 2370, how can you get to 2270?

Why can't you get down that low? It's not the driver. How far are you over and is anyone running one at the spec weight?

Or should I not be thinking this hard at this time of night? (if that's the case I'll just edit this clean in the morning
biggrin.gif
)

I know we're not at spec weight either but we haven't killed ourselves trying.

Diane
 
Originally posted by Jake:
3. Adjust the weight of the Toyota MR2 to 2270lbs. (Watney) Competition adjustments are not permitted under our current
rules.
Click to expand...

Jake,

According to the author of that letter, that's what his "legal" ITA MR-2 weighs...
confused.gif




------------------
Darin E. Jordan
SCCA #273080, OR/NW Regions
Renton, WA
ITS '97 240SX
DJ_AV1.jpg
 
Wow - I'd love to take a look at that "Legal" MR2. Unless the guy is a jockey.

FWIW, with my 200lb carcass, I'm at about 2410 dry on my car and I have taken it to the limit of legal. For weight, I've done such things as remove the radiator cooling fans, evap core, and emergency brake. The cage is the legal minimum. The only thing I haven't done is acid dipped the tub.

I could probably loose another 10-15 lbs if I got some ligher wheels than my Revolutions. (fancy pants Volks or other)

FWIW - I drive a 1987 MR2 which do start a little heavier than the 85-86 models.
 
Originally posted by Jake:
Wow - I'd love to take a look at that "Legal" MR2. Unless the guy is a jockey.
Click to expand...

Mr. Watney is on the lean side of 200, if I had to guess. A really nice guy, too.



------------------
Lesley Albin
Over The Limit Racing
Blazen Golden Retrievers
 
Interesting stuff, I'll have to read it more closely, later.

Darin, Question for you about the New Beetle being classified in ITC. I see that the weight is spec'd at 2760#. A quick review of the ITC specs shows this to be over 400# (actually 405#) heavier than the current heaviest cars in the class ('90-'93 Geo Storm 1.6, 2355#). The next heaviest car is another 75# lighter still (2380#).

The NB also has the same engine that the recently moved to ITB, Golf III. I'm a bit confused how the 1.8 Rabbit GTI w/ a stock HP rating of 90, could be deemed 'too fast' [sic] for the class, yet a car that makes 25 more hp, stock, and has a similar counterpart in ITB (and ITA), is not.

I am also concerned that you now have a car that is 600# - 800# heavier than the majority of the class.

If anything, I would think ITB would be the more appropriate class for this car (albeit at a lighter weight).

I am genuinely curious as to the thought process that went into classing this car in ITC.

------------------
MARRS #25 ITB Rabbit GTI (sold) | MARRS #25 HProd Rabbit
SCCA 279608
 
Originally posted by OTLimit:
Mr. Watney is on the lean side of 200, if I had to guess. A really nice guy, too.
Click to expand...

If he is really skinny, and he's gone all out, I suppose it could be possible. I don't want to start calling people illegal without knowing anything about him and his car. However, lowering the spec weight may only help him.
smile.gif
 
I'm baffled by the Beetle in C, too. It might come down to how light it can be legally made in IT trim. They are heavy from the factory and if they just can't get light enough to compete in B, it might be immaterial how heavy they end up in C.

That said, it doesn't make sense at face value. It might be time to request that the Golf IV 2.0 be listed.

I wonder if it comes without ABS?
smile.gif


K
 
<font face=\"Verdana, Arial\" size=\"2\">just can't get light enough to compete in B</font>
Click to expand...

Interesting comment Kirk.

I noticed that the Golf III was able to lose 330# going from SSC to ITA/B (150# actual, plus the 180# driver wt. std., since SS weights are w/o driver and IT weights are w/ driver). Not to mention that there have been several comments here about cars that can't make the min. spec. wt.

------------------
MARRS #25 ITB Rabbit GTI (sold) | MARRS #25 HProd Rabbit
SCCA 279608
 
Originally posted by Knestis:
I'm baffled by the Beetle in C, too. It might come down to how light it can be legally made in IT trim. They are heavy from the factory and if they just can't get light enough to compete in B, it might be immaterial how heavy they end up in C.
Click to expand...

I wasn't present for this con-call (had family emergency that night...), but the weight the car could actually achieve in IT trim, due to the unique cage requirements and initial weight, was a main issue.

The car makes 115hp stock, so if you believe it can make an increase of 25% with IT prep (143.75hp), then the weight works out just right for ITC. Otherwise, it would have to weight in at 2450lbs or so for ITB, something which the committee didn't think was possible.

It's pretty much a straight up "calculation", and ITC is where it made the most sense. I'm supprised you guys are questioning this so much... We are using the same process we've been using for all these other cars... cars whose classifications you guys seem to praise... You can't have it both ways, and, from a non-biased, strictly numbers standpoint, it does make sense... on the surface or otherwise. Compare it to the other cars in ITC and I think you'll realize the same.

Cars in other classes are just going to have to wait until the tools are in place to make some strategic moves...

Hopefully, this move will breath some new life into ITC...

------------------
Darin E. Jordan
SCCA #273080, OR/NW Regions
Renton, WA
ITS '97 240SX
DJ_AV1.jpg
 
1. I trust your math, Darin.

2. I'm pretty glad that we are actually DOING math now.

3. I'm VERY glad that, since we ARE doing math, we are admitting as much in public.

4. I hadn't done the math so was surprised by the announcement - that's all.

K
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top