So, the individual on the CRB who submitted the request, if his motives are pure, then he should be glad to submit the topic for consideration to the STAC. He didn't. Instead, he went around the exact body charged with making recommendations to the CRB about "what prep rules should be" for that category.
Only because I "opened my mouth " above, I want to clarify this above post to correct an inaccuracy.
Letter #15577, submitted by a CRB member, was originally a request to detail/allow head machining allowances - basically, "plunge cuts" (stupid term) - for all cars in STx, under the premise that everyone is already doing it as part of the blueprinting allowances (which is compliant) and that, if seen, could cause a lot of cars to get tossed out. The request was also a response to (rumored) threats from (implied) Spec Miata drivers who were going to begin wholesale protesting of cars in many different categories for non-compliant head work (I'm inferring to demonstrate the 'absurdity' of their situations at the Runoffs).
This letter was submitted directly to the CRB, bypassing the STAC. However, when we (STAC members) discovered that and pointed it out we were told it was unintentionally submitted to the CRB "in error", and the letter was subsequently sent to the STAC queue for committee discussion.
The STAC discussed this letter in significant detail via email, the internal forum, and in the last conference call. During that correspondence the idea of "well then let's just let everyone port so there's nothing to scrutineer" was advanced as an option, in my opinion completely as a "straw man/reductio ad absurdum" argument. While there were a limited, minority group of members that took the idea of open porting in STL as a good idea, the STAC as a body forwarded the letter to the CRB as "Not Recommended" due to (primarily) being against the philosophy of the class, with a suggestion to the CRB to improve/clarify the GCR definitions of blueprinting such that all categories can benefit from the clarification.
It was the CRB's decision to forward the letter to the membership as a "What Do You Think?" of porting in Super Touring Light.
Let's put aside the whole idea of philosophy for a moment, and address the basic idea. Problem #1 is that this suggestion as presented
does not resolve the issue at hand. If the base premise for advancing the idea of allowing porting in Super Touring Light is to end run potential cheating - i.e., we can't scrutineer porting properly so let's let them do it for a 1% penalty - then
how are we going to scrutineer when someone is supposed to be properly applying the 1% adder?
But Problem #2 is that in the end we cannot put aside the whole idea of philosophy. And the current philosophy of Super Touring Light - and Improved Touring and Limited Prep Production and yes even Spec Miata - does not support open head porting.
I will, as an SCCA member, be submitting a letter to the CRB opposing this suggestion, noting to the CRB that this does not resolve the compliance issue and again stressing that if this is a problem with blueprinting in general then it needs to be addressed at the GCR level, potentially with a significant re-write of the regs regarding blueprinting. This is not a Super Touring issue, this is a Club issue that should be addressed at that level.
And most importantly, as per post #2 above it is my position that this is not within the philosophy of the class, or that of IT, LP Prod, or Spec Miata.
And with that, I'm cutting out of this discussion except to correct any facts that may pop up...
GA
