April Fastrack

[erlrich]

I'm surprised no one else has brought this up yet:

"The following items are NOT RECOMMENDED for implementation at this time…

3. Allow the Isaac device (Loesch). The CRB addressed this last year and found that the device does not comply with GCR section 20.4 (single release). Further, there now exists FIA and SFI specifications for head and neck restraints. Major sanctioning bodies including the SCCA are considering adopting the specifications, and both preclude the use of the Isaac."

I guess now would be the time to start writing those letters, huh?


------------------
Earl R
Aspiring 240SX pilot

[Knestis]

I'm on it. I was waiting for some official word rather than giving in to rumor-milling but this is not OK.

K

[Matt Rowe]

This is exactly what has kept me sitting on the fence about a H&N device. And now as I have a place set aside in the budget to buy an Isaac device I see this. I can't place the blame solely with SCCA since the presence of a spec probably makes the lawyers nervous to go against it. So maybe it's the SFI's fault for writing basically a single solution spec.

Either way, maybe it's because I've listened to Gregg too much, but it feels like the SFI spec has done more to limit a racer's choices than it's done to get good devices into the hands of every competitor.

Well, if the miata thing has taught us anything, everyone with an interest should be typing away on a letter to CRB.

------------------
~Matt Rowe
ITA Shelby Charger
MARRS #96

[gsbaker]

Why don't you guys hold off for a few days, until some people get back to their offices in Topeka. This FasTrack is completely counter to what we have heard from the horses mouth, so to speak, since the issue was resolved at the annual convention. We have been told by Topeka that there is no change in the Club's position regarding any head and neck restraint product between 2004 and 2005. The Isaac system was legal in 2004 and it's legal in 2005.

Expanded interpretations of GCR Section 20.4, dealing with single-point release of harnesses, as offered in the August 2004 FasTrack were not incorporated into the 2005 GCR.

Relax guys. It is a paperwork SNAFU. We will get yet another confirmation ASAP.

(Wow, what a great group of racers.)

------------------
Gregg Baker, P.E.
Isaac, LLC
http://www.isaacdirect.com

[Banzai240]

Wouldn't Cool Suits, Radios, etc., go against the "single point of release" as well??? Any one of them could hold you in the car in the event that an egress was required and they aren't disconnected...

------------------
Darin E. Jordan
SCCA #273080, OR/NW Regions
Renton, WA
ITS '97 240SX
http://home.comcast.net/~djjordan/Web/DJ_AV1.jpg

[Bill Miller]

Hey, was there some kind of server crash that required a restore of a backup? Seems like several posts have been lost.

------------------
MARRS #25 ITB Rabbit GTI (sold) | MARRS #25 HProd Rabbit
SCCA 279608

[Joe Harlan]

So it also looks like no downsizing of wheels also..

[Speed Raycer]

Originally posted by gsbaker:
Why don't you guys hold off for a few days,

Gregg... please keep us updated. I've got a race in two weeks and if they're not going to let me run because of my choice of H&N Restraint, then I'll save my entry fee for another organization that will



------------------
Scott Rhea
It's not what you build...
it's how you build it
http://www.izzyscustomcages.com/images/IzysLgoSm.jpg (http://www.izzyscustomcages.com)
Izzy's Custom Cages (http://www.izzyscustomcages.com)

[gsbaker]

Originally posted by Speed Raycer:
Gregg... please keep us updated. I've got a race in two weeks and if they're not going to let me run because of my choice of H&N Restraint, then I'll save my entry fee for another organization that will

Scott,

No one is going to refuse your Isaac and then let you on the track without a H&N restraint. Can you imagine the liability? You die of basilar skull fracture because the SCCA takes away what is arguably the best H&N restraint in the world? Some lawyer would own the SCCA.

Topeka knows this, but it is obviously not getting communicated. We'll try to fix it ASAP.

Any lawyer racers want to volunteer the paperwork the tech has to sign accepting responsibility for injury? We'll post it for download.

------------------
Gregg Baker, P.E.
Isaac, LLC
http://www.isaacdirect.com

[erlrich]

Originally posted by gsbaker:
Why don't you guys hold off for a few days, until some people get back to their offices in Topeka...


Gregg -

I'll keep my pointer away from the send button for now, but have already started drafting just in case. In the mean time I've been meaning to ask, is there anyplace I could find more info on 38.1, e.g. details of the spec, the process used to develop the spec, etc., or is that proprietary info?

Thanks,
Earl

[Banzai240]

Originally posted by Joe Harlan:
So it also looks like no downsizing of wheels also..

Yep... I guess "up to" really doesn't mean "down to" after all...

------------------
Darin E. Jordan
SCCA #273080, OR/NW Regions
Renton, WA
ITS '97 240SX
http://home.comcast.net/~djjordan/Web/DJ_AV1.jpg

[gsbaker]

Originally posted by erlrich:
Gregg -

I'll keep my pointer away from the send button for now, but have already started drafting just in case. In the mean time I've been meaning to ask, is there anyplace I could find more info on 38.1, e.g. details of the spec, the process used to develop the spec, etc., or is that proprietary info?

Thanks,
Earl

Earl,

Thanks for the help.

You can contact SFI and request a copy of Spec 38.1. I called and they e-mailed me a PDF. I had it within an hour.

We would be happy to distribute it, but it is copywritten. I'm sure they wouldn't mind if individuals passed it around (saves them from sending out copies), but as a company we can't go there. It may be posted for download by now.

We don't know how the spec was developed. We were never contacted. In fact, we heard about it from a reporter who was seeking comment. Kinda funny actually; he was passed to me and my comment was, "Huh?"

Rumor has it it was written by a HANS salesman. http://ITForum.ImprovedTouring.com/wink.gif

------------------
Gregg Baker, P.E.
Isaac, LLC
http://www.isaacdirect.com

[HBennett]

I heard through the grapevine that SFI used to the NASCAR test as a baseline. NASCAR tested several restraint systems a year or so ago.

HBennett

[apr67]

Do not hold off on writing your letters.

You do not know what is really going on, because we are not dealing witht he BORG, we are dealing with commitees and boards.

If it's a mistake, a barrage of letters MIGHT just make the powers that be think before they publish. If it's not a mistake, then you are ahead of the curve.

[gsbaker]

Originally posted by HBennett:
I heard through the grapevine that SFI used to the NASCAR test as a baseline. NASCAR tested several restraint systems a year or so ago.

HBennett

Yes, it's the Delphi sled configured for upright seating position.

------------------
Gregg Baker, P.E.
Isaac, LLC
http://www.isaacdirect.com

[Wayne]

Alright, that's it! I've had enough of the SCCA and their shenanigans, I'm going to run with NASA!!!


Oh, sorry, we are only 14 posts into this thread. It's probably too early for the I'm leaving posts? Sorry, I'll come back in a few days... http://ITForum.ImprovedTouring.com/wink.gif (j/k)

[Knestis]

Gregg hasn't steered me wrong yet so I'm going to trust him when he says to hang on. Please do let us know if anything new develops, G.?

However, it is NOT a stretch to my mind that some enterprising tech guy might in the coming weeks decided to ride his one-release hobby horse and tell someone that they can't use their Isaac. They're going to need to notify me in writing if it's me they pick for me for that test.

K

[Banzai240]

Originally posted by Wayne:
Alright, that's it! I've had enough of the SCCA and their shenanigans, I'm going to run with NASA!!!


Oh, sorry, we are only 14 posts into this thread. It's probably too early for the I'm leaving posts? Sorry, I'll come back in a few days... http://ITForum.ImprovedTouring.com/wink.gif (j/k)


LOFLMAF!!! Nicely Done!!



------------------
Darin E. Jordan
SCCA #273080, OR/NW Regions
Renton, WA
ITS '97 240SX
http://home.comcast.net/~djjordan/Web/DJ_AV1.jpg

[gsbaker]

Originally posted by Knestis:
Gregg hasn't steered me wrong yet so I'm going to trust him when he says to hang on. Please do let us know if anything new develops, G.?

K

Yes sir.

We were told yesterday that the powers that be will not be in until Monday. These are the same people who told me (verbally) that we are good to go.

Once we get this verified we will request a simple e-mail confirmation and post its contents on our site.

------------------
Gregg Baker, P.E.
Isaac, LLC
http://www.isaacdirect.com

[lateapex911]

Bill...you are correct...my post seems to have vanished...

basically, it said, that the person I want telling what H&NR I wear is an engineer, NOT a lawyer!!!

The day somebody on grid tells me..."Nope..can't go out until that Isaac is off" is the day the car gets turned around and a "For sale" sign placed on it, as I call every big wig I can find at HQ..

------------------
Jake Gulick
CarriageHouse Motorsports
ITA 57 RX-7
New England Region
[email protected]

[ShelbyRacer]

Originally posted by Banzai240:
Yep... I guess "up to" really doesn't mean "down to" after all...



Just remember that we've got a bunch of interpreters here (and out there). I for one would've interpreted it as any size "up to" 15" (as a limiting term), rather than "sizing up" to 15" (as a directive). I would tell ya how I'd have written it, but we've already armchair quarterbacked that thing to death...

So hey Darin, George, or Andy- can you tell us about these mystical "proposed changes to the ECU rule" that were mentioned in the CRB minutes? Or at least, can you tell us if the ITAC is in on the discussion? It would really be nice to know some of this stuff in being discussed, even if we don't know what the discussion is...



------------------
Matt Green
"Ain't nothin' improved about Improved Touring..."

[Banzai240]

Originally posted by ShelbyRacer:
So hey Darin, George, or Andy- can you tell us about these mystical "proposed changes to the ECU rule" that were mentioned in the CRB minutes? Or at least, can you tell us if the ITAC is in on the discussion?

We've talked about everything that we've talked about here, and the conclusion works out about the same...

The only changes to the ECU rule that I believe we've recommended is the re-institution of the wording to allow the variance to resistance values of sensors feeding the ECUs fuel mixture circuits, just like it was in 2001 or 2002... prior to the current form of the rule...

------------------
Darin E. Jordan
SCCA #273080, OR/NW Regions
Renton, WA
ITS '97 240SX
http://home.comcast.net/~djjordan/Web/DJ_AV1.jpg

[This message has been edited by Banzai240 (edited February 26, 2005).]

[Greg Amy]

Another disturbing issue, one that I've brought up before, is the new fuel requirements. The April Fastrack pretty much put a hole in the brain of using regular fuel bought from "down the street":

GCR change request:

"Allow pump gas (Cohen). Pump gas
would be inconsistent due to blending
and seasonal changes, and a number of
pump gases do not pass our current fuel
testing procedures."

...and...

"...the 2005 Runoffs supplemental
regulations will require a spec
fuel for all competitors in all classes." (Including Showroom Stock - GA)

Finally, from the 2005 Runoffs Supps:

"9.12 All cars shall use fuel purchased from the track as follows:
* All SRF, rotary engine cars, SSB, SSC, FSCCA and SRSCCA cars shall use Sunoco/CAM2 93 Octane Unleaded."

So, what we have here is the apparent total inability to buy fuel from our local retail outlet, instead being forced to buy "approved" fuel only from the track. I know most tracks offer street fuels, but has anyone found a track selling street fuel for anything less than 50% markup over what it costs down the street?

I love that first reference, that "a number of pump gases do not pass our current fuel
testing procedures." Uh, wasn't those tests supposed to be designed to verify that we're using straight-up street fuel? So now you're saying that our tests can accurately verify this, so instead of changing the tests we specify a fuel that meets the bad testing procedures?

<sigh>

[Bill Miller]

Well, since my post was one of the ones lost in the server move, I'll ask the question again.

Darin/Andy/George,

Can you shed some light on the Rabbit GTI issue? I see that the reclassification request was denied. Was that the ITAC position, or did the CRB overturn you recommendation?

Based on the reason given for the denial of the reclassification, it seems that individual, on-track performance is being used to approve/deny reclassification/adjustment requests. So much for an objective process.

Also, it appears that the request to correct the weight, should the car not be reclassified, was ignored. You folks encourage us to write letters, yet when we do, sometimes we get no response. The response I got from John Bauer, was that I could write another letter (and wait another 3 - 4 months).



------------------
MARRS #25 ITB Rabbit GTI (sold) | MARRS #25 HProd Rabbit
SCCA 279608

[ShelbyRacer]

Originally posted by Banzai240:
We've talked about everything that we've talked about here, and the conclusion works out about the same...

The only changes to the ECU rule that I believe we've recommended is the re-institution of the wording to allow the variance to resistance values of sensors feeding the ECUs fuel mixture circuits, just like it was in 2001 or 2002... prior to the current form of the rule...



Thank you very much, I appreciate the response. I do kind of giggle at the concept of passive resistors as this is a very "stone age" concept. I guess however it does offer an increased range of methods to make adjustments, versus changing the whole ECU...

------------------
Matt Green
"Ain't nothin' improved about Improved Touring..."

[Banzai240]

Originally posted by ShelbyRacer:
I do kind of giggle at the concept of passive resistors as this is a very "stone age" concept.

Matt,

The reason this was added back is because it was brought to our attention that there are some cars out there that were made "illegal" by this sections elimination... Many out there still use a variance in resistance from the water temp sensor to help control/correct their fuel mixture on ECU controlled cars...

As for Bill's question, which as everyone here knows is a no-win to try to answer here, the ITAC does not deny that the GTI is not the most competitive car in ITB... HOWEVER, it's TOO much car for ITC. Let's not forget that one of the ITAC members is a VERY successful and well respected ITB Rabbit GTI driver, so it's not like we are making this stuff up...

There are some cars that some of us on the committee feel should have some in-class adjustments, and this may be one of them. However, it hasn't been decided as to whether or not these kinds of adjustments are part of the "strategic plan" for IT. Again, I am meeting with the CRB shortly to discuss this very issue...

Freak out if you must, but realize that you don't know everything that is going on behind the scenes, so draw your conclusions with an understanding of that...



------------------
Darin E. Jordan
SCCA #273080, OR/NW Regions
Renton, WA
ITS '97 240SX
http://home.comcast.net/~djjordan/Web/DJ_AV1.jpg

[Bill Miller]

Originally posted by Banzai240:
Matt,

The reason this was added back is because it was brought to our attention that there are some cars out there that were made "illegal" by this sections elimination... Many out there still use a variance in resistance from the water temp sensor to help control/correct their fuel mixture on ECU controlled cars...

As for Bill's question, which as everyone here knows is a no-win to try to answer here, the ITAC does not deny that the GTI is not the most competitive car in ITB... HOWEVER, it's TOO much car for ITC. Let's not forget that one of the ITAC members is a VERY successful and well respected ITB Rabbit GTI driver, so it's not like we are making this stuff up...

There are some cars that some of us on the committee feel should have some in-class adjustments, and this may be one of them. However, it hasn't been decided as to whether or not these kinds of adjustments are part of the "strategic plan" for IT. Again, I am meeting with the CRB shortly to discuss this very issue...

Freak out if you must, but realize that you don't know everything that is going on behind the scenes, so draw your conclusions with an understanding of that...



Darin,

All well and good. You keep bringing up Chris' prowess w/ a VW, which I agree, is top notch, and to be commended. And not to get into a pissing contest w/ you, but when was the last time he ran a Rabbit GTI as his main ITB car? He moved from the A1 to the A2, and now to the A3. But that really doesn't matter. But hey, why not let Chris speak for himself?

As far as it being 'too much' car for ITC, you folks (ITAC) had no problem dropping the NB in ITC. IIRC, you, George, and Andy have all indicated that the 'process' puts the Rabbit GTI in ITC at ~2250#. That's 70# over its ITB weight. Put another 100# on the car (2280#), and move it to ITC and see what happens. If it's too fast, add some more weight.


<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">There are some cars that some of us on the committee feel should have some in-class adjustments, and this may be one of them. However, it hasn't been decided as to whether or not these kinds of adjustments are part of the "strategic plan" for IT. </font>

Darin,

I'm really confused by this comment. Isn't that what PCA's were for? PCA's were approved, and put in place, now you're saying that using them is not part of the "strategic plan" for IT??? Or, are you only going to use them to slow cars down?

And I go back to part of the original post. I sent in a request, and it essentially got thrown in the trash, w/ no response. What's up w/ that?

/edit/ I guess you just can't resist editorializing, can you?

------------------
MARRS #25 ITB Rabbit GTI (sold) | MARRS #25 HProd Rabbit
SCCA 279608

[This message has been edited by Bill Miller (edited February 26, 2005).]

[gsbaker]

Originally posted by GregAmy:
Finally, from the 2005 Runoffs Supps:

"9.12 All cars shall use fuel purchased from the track as follows:
* All SRF, rotary engine cars, SSB, SSC, FSCCA and SRSCCA cars shall use Sunoco/CAM2 93 Octane Unleaded."

So, what we have here is the apparent total inability to buy fuel from our local retail outlet, instead being forced to buy "approved" fuel only from the track. I know most tracks offer street fuels, but has anyone found a track selling street fuel for anything less than 50% markup over what it costs down the street?...

<sigh>

Greg,

Agreed. However, there may be reason behind such a rule although, ironically, not that which was stated.

There was a thread a few months back at specracer.com concerning a fuel additive that was good for, IIRC, 2-3hp in that small motor. Apparently this stuff is undetectable by field-grade equipment and sells for about $30/gal.

Of course, there's nothing keeping the unscrupulous racer from buying fuel at the track and then juicing it back in the trailer.

Just a thought.

------------------
Gregg Baker, P.E.
Isaac, LLC
http://www.isaacdirect.com

[Geo]

Originally posted by gsbaker:
Of course, there's nothing keeping the unscrupulous racer from buying fuel at the track and then juicing it back in the trailer.


Well, while technically there is no way to keep someone from doing this, there is a way to make it worthless and to make sure everyone gets the same fuel. It's call a pump-around. The WKA uses these in their 4 cycle classes. You must show up to the pump-around with a full tank. It siphons out your tank and refills it from the large drum or tank that it siphoned your gas into (or alcohol in the case of WKA).

However, I'm not proposing this. What a PITA, especially for folks running a light tank to make weight.


------------------
George Roffe
Houston, TX
84 944 ITS car under construction
92 ITS Sentra SE-R occasionally borrowed
http://www.nissport.com

[pgipson]

So call me paranoid about this fuel thing, but to me this has the ability to be a major hassle factor for "casual racers". You know, guys like me that run a car that doesn't benefit from exotic fuels and that don't have storage for dedicated race fuels. I throw everything in my truck and go to the track. I don't want to tote around a drum of Sunoco (or some other racing fuel), and it can be a hassle getting avgas. My car (a rotary) uses 87 octane and is very happy with it. I've tried higher octane and unleaded racing fuel with no noticeable change. If maintaining a supply of race gas becomes a major PITA I may have to re-think racing. If I have to buy avgas, I would rather put it into an airplane.

And I have sent two e-mails to the CRB, and on the last one I copied my division BoD member, Jeremy at HQ and our region Tech Chief. And all the other drivers in the class that I have e-mails for.

------------------
Spec RX7 #11
Scottsdale AZ

[ShelbyRacer]

Originally posted by Banzai240:
Matt,

The reason this was added back is because it was brought to our attention that there are some cars out there that were made "illegal" by this sections elimination... Many out there still use a variance in resistance from the water temp sensor to help control/correct their fuel mixture on ECU controlled cars...

Yup, I understand completely. I still giggle though... (I can't even say the work titmouse without giggling... Hee hee... hee hee hee...)


Originally posted by Banzai240:

but realize that you don't know everything that is going on behind the scenes, so draw your conclusions with an understanding of that...



Ah yes, and I was just disucussing this the other day with my best friend. I think it would be easier to swallow some things if we knew there was something going on. Not necessarily what exactly was going on, but just that there was *something*... I think that you guys on the ITAC are doing a good job, but I'm sure I'd think even more of you if I knew half the crap I never got to hear about... I wish I could talk about some of the stuff I'm involved in too, so I know what you're dealing with. I think we as a group need to work to change the old SCCA mentality of secrecy.

If you go first, I'll be right behind you http://ITForum.ImprovedTouring.com/smile.gif

------------------
Matt Green
"Ain't nothin' improved about Improved Touring..."

[Banzai240]

Originally posted by ShelbyRacer:
I think we as a group need to work to change the old SCCA mentality of secrecy.

If you go first, I'll be right behind you http://ITForum.ImprovedTouring.com/smile.gif



Matt,

I can tell you that, from my perspective, it's not a matter of keeping things "secret", it's a matter of getting through all the details before information is released... This world is full of people (the news media outlets being the worst offenders) who take a little bit of information and run with it, making it snowball into something it was never meant to be...

We on the ITAC are working to be straight forward, open, and honest in our communications with the community we represent... But you have to give us time to figure out what it is we are trying to be honest and open with...

Otherwise, I think we've been doing a good job of discussing these things in public... Believe me... the discussions on our con-call sound a lot like what you read here! http://ITForum.ImprovedTouring.com/eek.gif

Stay tuned...



------------------
Darin E. Jordan
SCCA #273080, OR/NW Regions
Renton, WA
ITS '97 240SX
http://home.comcast.net/~djjordan/Web/DJ_AV1.jpg

[apr67]

Where are these ultra fast ITB Rabbit GTI's?

Are they like the one in the classifieds here with an illegal cam?

[Geo]

Originally posted by apr67:
Where are these ultra fast ITB Rabbit GTI's?

Who said anything about any ultra-fast ITB Rabbit GTIs?


------------------
George Roffe
Houston, TX
84 944 ITS car under construction
92 ITS Sentra SE-R occasionally borrowed
http://www.nissport.com

[apr67]

Read about 10 posts up.

[Geo]

Originally posted by apr67:
Read about 10 posts up.

Well, I guess you're going to have to supply a quote because I don't see any mention of an ultra fast Wabbit GTI.


------------------
George Roffe
Houston, TX
84 944 ITS car under construction
92 ITS Sentra SE-R occasionally borrowed
http://www.nissport.com

[apr67]

"As for Bill's question, which as everyone here knows is a no-win to try to answer here, the ITAC does not deny that the GTI is not the most competitive car in ITB... HOWEVER, it's TOO much car for ITC. Let's not forget that one of the ITAC members is a VERY successful and well respected ITB Rabbit GTI driver, so it's not like we are making this stuff up..."

[Andy Bettencourt]

Alan,

Your reaching...

[Banzai240]

Originally posted by Andy Bettencourt:
Alan,

Your reaching...

To say the least...



------------------
Darin E. Jordan
SCCA #273080, OR/NW Regions
Renton, WA
ITS '97 240SX
http://home.comcast.net/~djjordan/Web/DJ_AV1.jpg

[nlevine]

Originally posted by pgipson:
So call me paranoid about this fuel thing, but to me this has the ability to be a major hassle factor for "casual racers".


I agree. It's got the potential to be a major PITA for those of us who use our race cars at HPDE events. In some cases, the track fuel pumps aren't open on HPDE days, so if specific fuel is mandated I either need to carry my own, or flush my fuel system between HPDE days and races. I don't like either alternative. I also think my homeowner's insuarnce would have a problem with me storing quantities of fuel in my garage (which is under the house - I have a problem with fuel storage there even if my insurance doesn't).

Maybe if an entire IT field is DQ'd after a fuel check that would send some sort of message..

-noam

[This message has been edited by nlevine (edited March 01, 2005).]

[Knestis]

The 100 unleaded Sunoco at VIR tested illegal at the National last spring. THAT created a scramble, I can tell you.

K

[Campbell]

I'm not sure about moving the 1.8L VW's to ITC.. then where will the ITC's go to be competitive? maybe it would be easier to tweak the car weights instead of all these class moves.

[ShelbyRacer]

Originally posted by nlevine:
I agree. It's got the potential to be a major PITA for those of us who use our race cars at HPDE events. In some cases, the track fuel pumps aren't open on HPDE days, so if specific fuel is mandated I either need to carry my own, or flush my fuel system between HPDE days and races. I don't like either alternative. I also think my homeowner's insuarnce would have a problem with me storing quantities of fuel in my garage (which is under the house - I have a problem with fuel stoarage there even if my insurance doesn't).



Well, from everything I've seen, even if you use the same fuel from the same pump at the same track and they got it from the same supplier, it may not pass after a few days, let alone a week or so. If they're going to be using the track fuel on a particular weekend as a baseline, and the acceptance window is going to be tight, then you're going to have to pump down and refill anyway. From what I saw, that's what SCCA is recommending that everyone does anyway...

Man, this is going to be interesting...

------------------
Matt Green
"Ain't nothin' improved about Improved Touring..."

[Joe Harlan]

The fix for the fuel problem is not another rule. It is the enforcement of the existing rule. I bet people wouldn't use this crap if not racing for a full season was the penalty for getting caught. This rule will end up being another Cluster F that will be changed again before long.

[This message has been edited by Joe Harlan (edited February 28, 2005).]

[Banzai240]

Originally posted by Campbell:
I'm not sure about moving the 1.8L VW's to ITC.. ... maybe it would be easier to tweak the car weights instead of all these class moves.

Interesting thought... http://ITForum.ImprovedTouring.com/wink.gif

[apr67]

Originally posted by Andy Bettencourt:
Alan,

Your reaching...

I have no idea what you are talking about, reaching for what?

Just stop being obtuse for a second and answer the question, who on the AdHoc has this fast and winning ITB Rabbit GTI?

[bldn10]

The new fuel rule was supposed to go into effect 1/1/05 so what have they been doing at the events already held? Since the new rule eliminated the existing standards, and they have not published the new list, has fuel essentially been legally wide open?

I think this could turn out to be a major area of dissension (and possibly litigation) in the SCCA ranks. What I fear is that Topeka is negotiating w/ one or a handful of oil companies to be "official" pump gas suppliers to the SCCA or to certain classes. In other words SCCA will take a payoff for a monopoly on fuel. If we are forced to buy fuel at the tracks at outrageous prices I for one will be re-evaluating my commitment to the SCCA.

------------------
Bill Denton
87/89 ITS RX-7
02 Audi TT225QC
95 Tahoe
Memphis

[gran racing]

Can you imagine what the fuel pump lines will be like at the track? Originally I was thinking this very sarcastically, but on a single day event… 300 racers, many people who typically bring their own street pump gas now having to buy it at the track.

------------------
Dave Gran
NER ITB #13
'87 Honda Prelude si

[RSTPerformance]

THe really fast ITB VW driver he is refering to is Chris Albin. In the limited races I have raced with him he is very very fast, and a good driver. I can list a ton of fast VW drivers. Not sure which engines they have since I really never pay to much attention to it. Derak Lugar, Collin HArmer, and all the other vantage guys. I could list more and more that jsut race in NE but I don't wnat to leave anyone out. The VW that chris and derek run are definetly ITB cars and really need little if any adjustments to be compeditive in ITB. They are fast if driven well, Derek and chris have proved that time and time again at the ARRC. The cars liek Ford Escorts, dodge chargers, ect are the ones that we need to help!

As far as the fuel goes.... I will always run pump gas from a gas station. I don't know anything about additives so I will never bother with them. I will however use cheap gas. I haved used fuel at the track but only in emergencies and then it was the lowest octane AKA the cheapest available. I normally use 91 sunoco and fill up my old dirty fuel cans that my dad used when he was racing in IT. Keep IT cheap and always allow pump gas! Let people use additives if they want in the end it costs the same amount for everyone!

Stephen

[Geo]

Originally posted by Joe Harlan:
The fix for the fuel problem is not another rule. It is the enforcement of the existing rule. I bet people wouldn't use this crap if not racing for a full season was the penalty for getting caught. This rule will end up being another Cluster F that will be changed again before long.

[This message has been edited by Joe Harlan (edited February 28, 2005).]

Hey Joe, we don't always see eye to eye, but I'm right there with you on this one. I went through all this garbage back 18 years ago when I was racing karts. What a PITA. And to require everyone to use the track fuel is just crazy beyond belief. What happens when the track runs out?

This is regional racing, not nationals. Sheesh. What our club did is use a specific gas station every week for the "control" sample. It was a crap shoot if you ran pump gas, but at least you knew where to buy it. If you elected to run race gas you knew you were OK.

Too much drama for regional racing IMHO.



------------------
George Roffe
Houston, TX
84 944 ITS car under construction
92 ITS Sentra SE-R occasionally borrowed
http://www.nissport.com

[Geo]

Originally posted by apr67:
I have no idea what you are talking about, reaching for what?

The quoted text never said anything about ultra fast now did it?


Originally posted by apr67:
Just stop being obtuse for a second and answer the question, who on the AdHoc has this fast and winning ITB Rabbit GTI?

Pleae quote where anyone said the ITB Rabbit GTI was a race winner.


------------------
George Roffe
Houston, TX
84 944 ITS car under construction
92 ITS Sentra SE-R occasionally borrowed
http://www.nissport.com

[Daryl DeArman]

Gregg Baker,

Any update from Topeka?

Were you the "Gregg Baker" seeking credit on WindTunnel for a photo?

[apr67]

Ok, just to set the record straight.

No one on the Ad Hoc races a ITB Rabbit.

[Banzai240]

Originally posted by apr67:
Ok, just to set the record straight.

No one on the Ad Hoc races a ITB Rabbit.



I realize that, but he DID race one, and it WAS competitive... Chris JUST told me that he believes the car is the MIDDLE of the class... That doesn't make it a good candidate for ITC...


------------------
Darin E. Jordan
SCCA #273080, OR/NW Regions
Renton, WA
ITS '97 240SX
http://home.comcast.net/~djjordan/Web/DJ_AV1.jpg

[This message has been edited by Banzai240 (edited February 28, 2005).]

[apr67]

Someone needs to check his facts.

[apr67]

I never said it did.

I just belive part of the justification you gave was bogus.

I also raced an ITB Rabbit GTI and got out of IT because my car moved further and further back in the pack by newer cars. Fact of life in IT that I thought the Ad Hoc and CRB was trying to effect change on.

[Racerlinn]

I will be sending my letter regarding the fuel situation. I agree, enforce the current rule, make the penalties very harsh if you are playing with the juice. My car is going to be a race car, lapping day car, Solo2 car, and a warm, sunny summer I-can't-drive-a-minivan-today day car. I will not buy gas at the track. I can get Costco (BP supplied) 92 octane consistently for less than $2.00 a gallon less than 5 miles from my house. Especially considering the fiasco I was involved with as a worker at a track a couple years ago where the track gas failed and the local region had to scramble and go buy several drums of fuel from a local supplier, who thankfully happened to have them available.

I will also be sending my letter opposing the ban on rechargable transponders. Again, enforce the current rules. If the car's transponder does not work (whether it is rechargeable or hard wired), black flag the car and bring them in until they fix it. Don't penalize me monetarily if others can't remember to recharge the dang thing.

------------------
Steve Linn
'92 ITA Sentra SE-R
www.indyscca.org (http://www.indyscca.org)
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v366/Racerlinn/SideSER2.jpg

[Geo]

Originally posted by apr67:
Ok, just to set the record straight.

No one on the Ad Hoc races a ITB Rabbit.



As long as you're setting the record straight, nobody said anything about a lighting fast Wabbit GTI or a race winning ITB Wabbit GTI.


------------------
George Roffe
Houston, TX
84 944 ITS car under construction
92 ITS Sentra SE-R occasionally borrowed
http://www.nissport.com

[Daryl DeArman]

Is the transponder not there to facilitate timing and scoring? Are they not supposed to manually score the last lap as a backup (makes transponder location irrelevant).

As to the fuel...the event supps should specify the fuel(s). They have a control sample of said fuel(s) if yours doesn't test the same...your tossed. I don't care what it is (pump gas, race fuel, doctored fuel, etc) it is not the same as the control sample. I had nothing but positive experiances with fuel tests while karting at the national level for a few years.

[Banzai240]

Originally posted by apr67:
I never said it did.

I just belive part of the justification you gave was bogus.



The point here is that the GTI is NOT an ITC car... and my "justification" for my opinion on this is that Chris Albin raced one of these cars and says that, today, they are a middle of the ITB pack car. We have a couple of other ITB drivers on the ITAC who agree...

The bottom line here is that the GTI needs some help, but belongs in ITB...

We'll have to see if there is something that can be done about that...

DJ

[apr67]

It's fine to base the decision on a Rabbit GTI on the fact that it is too much car for ITC.

It's also fine to use the knowledge and expertise of an Adhoc member.

But what was orginally stated was not accurate, and that was all I had a bone to pick with. And yes, I goofed up by taking your statments to mean that some fast Rabbit GTI's existed.

[bldn10]

"As far as the fuel goes.... I will always run pump gas from a gas station. I don't know anything about additives so I will never bother with them. I will however use cheap gas. I haved used fuel at the track but only in emergencies and then it was the lowest octane AKA the cheapest available. I normally use 91 sunoco and fill up my old dirty fuel cans that my dad used when he was racing in IT. Keep IT cheap and always allow pump gas!"

Stephen and Daryl, check out the new rule -"The SCCA will publish a list of leaded and unleaded fuels that are allowed for use in SCCA events...." You will NOT use Sunoco 91 unless it is on the list. You will not use Exxon if it is not on the list. Or BP or Shell or Texaco or Citgo or Costco or "cheap gas" if they are not on the list. You will buy what they ("our" club) tells you to buy, and perhaps where they tell you to buy it. What gas gets on the exalted list? Again, my fear is that it will be the supplier(s) that cut(s) the biggest sponsorship check(s). Watch for the big press release: "SCCA today announced that (fill in the blank) has been named as the official supplier of pump fuel for SCCA Club Racing events." Hooray.

------------------
Bill Denton
87/89 ITS RX-7
02 Audi TT225QC
95 Tahoe
Memphis

[gran racing]

If they told me that I had to use $7.00 per gallon gas I will NOT use that. I am totally against someone doctoring up fuel to gain a performance benefit; hopefully the rule will be reasonable.

------------------
Dave Gran
NER ITB #13
'87 Honda Prelude si

[Greg Amy]

Ditto. The day they mandate I buy all fuel from the track will be the day you've got carte-blanche to protest me with no retribution. With the exception of selected key events (e.g., the ARRC in RA) you can plan on my using whatever fuel I buy from the local street pumps.

[dickita15]

I am worried about the fuel issue as well so in Kansas City at he open road racing board meeting I asked the question. I was told that the BOD was pushing the RRB to find a solution and that they came up with a few ways to go and that this had the lowest downside but that they had found holes in it and that he BOD was coming around to the position that a fuel list would not work.

Doing this at the runoffs is a compromise. I think they feel they have to do something.

I would recommend we all lobby our directors to never let this rule expand beyond the runoffs.
dick patullo

[Daryl DeArman]

So, $600+/race for tires, $250+/- race entry + all the wear items on the car you must account for, travel to and from and people are willing to be disquallified because they are saving $50-75 a weekend on fuel? (By using $2/gal instead of $7/gal fuel).

I don't know that your fuel is Chevron 91 or Shell or Mobil, etc. I can only know that it isn't the spec fuel if it tests different. Not what it is or what you have or have not done...

Why spend all the time and money to get there and leave yourself vulnerable to a disqualification over saving $50 on fuel???

I can appreciate resisting change just for the sake of change. What if the event supps list 5 different race fuels and you are free to purchase it anywhere you want?

[Racerlinn]

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2"> I can appreciate resisting change just for the sake of change. What if the event supps list 5 different race fuels and you are free to purchase it anywhere you want?[/B]</font>

Because Sunoco in Kansas City may not neccesarily be the same as Sunoco in Atlanta.

It's the rules enforcement that needs help, not the fuel sources.

[gran racing]

If I only could race on this budget you talk about. But guess what, I can't.

And yes, adding $50 - $75 per event adds up. There are many other things I can think of doing with that. Again, we are talking about regional CLUB racing here.

Out of curiosity, what is involved in determining if fuel meets the rules? Is this a quick test that can be determined at the track? Would it then be necessary to go to nationals after to get verified? And yes, I'll be running the stock gas from Exxon or your other favorite local gas station.

------------------
Dave Gran
NER ITB #13
'87 Honda Prelude si

[Daryl DeArman]

The test I am familiar with is the high desert engineering test. It consists of dipping the probe into a neutralizing solution...dip it in the fuel sample...read the meter. Next...

Dave Gran,

My point was not that the $50-70 is small potatoes, it is that you have already invested a ton of cash, blood and sweat to get there. Made a huge effort to make sure you are legal and then decide to leave yourself vulnerable to disqualification by saving $50-75.

I have heard rumors about racing fuel being different from region to region...yet I have never viewed anything on any of the literature on their websites or MSDS that come with the fuel (when requested) that shows any difference in blend by region. Besides that is a mute point if you buy it at the track, the track fuel must be one of the control samples....don't care what it is, or what it reads on the meter...if yours' matches you are golden.

This really is quite simple.

[pgipson]

The difference in fuel costs is probably small, but the hassle factor will add to the cost also. In PHX we have one fuel supplier (Sunoco -- official fuel of NASCAR) at PIR and another (VP) at Firebird. Plus you can but U76 100 unleaded at stations locally ($5.35 per gallon recently). But can you use the same containers for all 3 different types? Some of the stuff I have read indicates that plastic jugs we all use will actually affect the ability of fuel to pass the DC test, since the hyrocarbons can leach into the plastic and essentially intermix with the new fuel.

For me, there are just too many questions right now that publishing a list won't answer.
One is would regions have the ability to supercede the fuel list through the supps for a regional race?

I have sent 2 e-mails to the CRB (one last year, another on Sunday night) suggesting enforcement of rules that ban hazardous substances would be a more appropriate remedy. On the last I copied my BoD member.

------------------
Spec RX7 #11
Scottsdale AZ

[RSTPerformance]

Daryl or anyone else that agrees with this rule need to go to nationals and get out of REGIONAL racing. $50-$75 dollars is more than I am willing To spend on a hotel room a night. (Yes I always try to camp!) Last year I called my brother at home had him book a hotel online while I was sitting in the parking lot to save myself $10.00 Regionals are for people like me. I rent an apartment and race when I save enough money to. I don't own a house becasue I choose to race. We all don't have money!

I WILL NEVER BUY GAS AT THE TRACK. EVER.

Everyone that runs regional racing should be against this new rule. you need to understand that all these addititives added to 89 octane fuel will still be cheaper than running the track gas. It is all a waste of time and money for regionals and should be reserved for nationals championship races only.

PS: does anyone know who came up this rule originally and who supports it wether directors or officials in Kansas. I would like to know who not to vote for ever!


Stephen Blethen

[Daryl DeArman]

Stephen,

Just because I believe in certain things doesn't mean that I shouldn't have the choice to participate at whatever level I wish.

For your information, I have an extremely modest budget! I race a Vee because it is cheap. To me, it is all about the race and not the ride.

I drive a 2000 Honda Civic with 150K on the odo as my daily driver because I'd rather race more than have a nicer car.

I utilize a RV for a tow vehicle/motel/kithcen to save money. I paid less for a 2 year old RV than a new truck would have cost and have never had to pay for a track motel. Insurance is cheaper too.

I have a nitrogen bottle in the trailer because it was cheaper than a compressor, quieter for my paddock neighbors and doesn't require electricity or me to run my generator. I don't utilize air tools and $20 worth of nitrogen will last me a season.

Because I am so cheap, I don't think $30+/gallon race gas has any place anywhere but F1 or NHRA top fuel. As long as there is a test parameter to meet, there will be a gas formulated to pass that test. Require a group of spec fuels, include a pump gas from the station closest to the track for that matter and the problem is solved.

If your event supps said you must run "race gas X from the track" OR "VP Red" OR "Costco 91 octane from down the street pump #12" and they had a control sample of each how is this hitting you in the pocket?

Please enlighten me.

[This message has been edited by Daryl DeArman (edited March 02, 2005).]

[Scooter]

Originally posted by RSTPerformance:
As far as the fuel goes.... I will always run pump gas from a gas station. I don't know anything about additives so I will never bother with them. I will however use cheap gas.

That's what I'm sayin. I will show up to the track with my crappy pump gas until they kick me out. At which time I'll do something else on weekends.

[Knestis]

I'm with Greg et al. on the fuel issue.

This goes counter to the philosophical position that IT cars (and other regional-only classes) should be "real race cars" but the whole point, it seems to me, should be that we CAN run cheap-o pump gas.

The engines shouldn't require high octane numbers - if they are legal - and the difference in fuel bills between the Milton mini mart and the VIR pump a mile away is not just a few bucks: It's like 300%. My bill (car tank and three jugs) for the 3.5 hour race a couple weeks ago, with a car that gets great mileage on-track, was $57. Make that $180?

It seems like we have a policy position coming out of a cobbled up theory of what the problems are.

If the issue is dangerous stuff in fuel, the test needs to look for dangerous stuff.

If the problem is that the current test can't do that without being befuddled by other, non-hazardous fuel options, then the process becomes a de facto verification that the sample is from a specific source, and the point is lost.

Now, it has ALWAYS been the case that we run the risk of failing a fuel test if we buy carte blance from public sources. When we used to race karts, we knew when the seasonal alcohol content changes happened, and which suppliers used more or less moonshine in their pump gas, for just that reason. (The "baby bottle" water solubility test was the standard.)

That probably ought to be the way we go now, too but I'm a little glad that in NCR Region, the semi-official position of the tech guys is that "It's an IT car. We don't care."

K

[gran racing]

Daryl,
The other issue I see with this is how it could potentially impact new people from entering the sport. For a low budget racer, things having to spend an extra $50 - $70 per race weekend could be the last straw. Not everyone uses Hoosiers. Heck, two years ago I was using SRF BFG tires because I could buy them for $25 each. The point here is that an entry level racer may have a very low budget and this does represent a fairly large increase in the weekend's budget. You may roll your eyes here, but it is true. (I won't even bother asking my wife if I should pay $50 more for track gas versus the local stuff un-doctored. I'd rather deal with the protest then her kick in the butt for wasting money.)

If there is no performance gain in track gas, it just seems like pissing away money. And don't get me wrong, I am totally for having a legal car and understand what you are saying. O.k. I'll stop blabbing here and write my letter to the board.

------------------
Dave Gran
NER ITB #13
'87 Honda Prelude si

[apr67]

Originally posted by Knestis:
The engines shouldn't require high octane numbers - if they are legal - and the difference in fuel bills between the Milton mini mart and the VIR pump a mile away is not just a few bucks: It's like 300%. K

I agree with the anger about the new fuel rule. But I think you are wrong when saying IT engines shouldn't require high octane.

Every engine is different. Some of our motors are very efficient, and have a high static compression ratio. When added to the volumentic efficiency, they need 103 or 110 fuel. Other cars may not. The same car that is not as far developed may not. The same car with more miles on its motor may required more (carbon can cause detionation).

I think you will see pitchforks and flaming buckets after a few guys engines get toasted by spec fuel.

Back in the day I remember that we would only purchase our race fuel (VP 103 unleaded) at once source. It wasn't worth the risk that the track would run out of fuel, or that it would be contaminated.

[ddewhurst]

$70 is two nights in a motel. The water bottle don't catch the oxigenators(sp) per the WKA rule. (sorry K.) From what I have read it's a worker thing. How many times can one get DQ'ed for using mini mart gas before they say don't come back? My name is David $2.00/gal mini mart.....................

This rule is being treated just like every other rule/law that don't work. They are adding another rule that will not work either. The solution is real simple. Draw gas from the top three cars. Send said gas to lab. Get results from lab. Legal you keep your position, illegal equals bummer. Cost ya say, everyone pays something additional with their event fee. The nasty stuff will be gone.

Have Fun http://ITForum.ImprovedTouring.com/wink.gif
David

[Joe Harlan]

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">$70 is two nights in a motel.</font>

Not in the places I stay.... http://ITForum.ImprovedTouring.com/smile.gif

I agree about the rule that again won't work. Punishment is that part that works. look at PCA or Vintage...they punish for body contact 13/13 and guess what they have very little...Suspension for juiced fuel will go further than any other sytem out there.

[JohnRW]

Operationally, it would be difficult for the SCCA to designate an 'official' race fuel and then guarantee a ready supply at each track. Tracks have sold fuel supply rights to different fuel companies. Sunoco might work if we were restricted to NASCAR-owed or affiliated tracks (Pocono, WGI, NHIS, Charlotte, etc.) but Sunoco isn't everywhere. SCCA would be very unwelcome if they set up a competing fuel sales stand at many tracks. Buy it from a designated gas station ? HAR ! "Friday night fuel" from the Sinclair station on the corner might be legal, but what about "Saturday morning fuel", after a tanker drops another load of anonymous hydrocarbons into the ground at 5am ?

If it's designated weekend-by-weekend (another reason to read the Supps), how could you manange the 'cross-contamination' problems. How often do you drain and purge your fuel system ? Wanna do it every weekend ? Ask SRF's Chris Current about the fun he had at the 2005 RunOffs trying to get his fuel system, filled with 'legal' Mid-O fuel, to pass the fuel tests. I hear he had to flush his fuel system about 3 times before it would pass the test. Oh joy.

Does anybody sell 'octane reducers' ? Track fuel is generally 94 octane and up, and at least 2 of my cars make more HP with 87 octane than any other fuel.

[OTLimit]

This rule will really affect the checkbooks of people like me. So maybe it is only $50-75/weekend. For one car. Now multiple that by two cars. And the excessive http://ITForum.ImprovedTouring.com/smile.gif number of weekends that I funded last year. I can (almost) justify this for the Runoffs and ARRC; not for regular regional or national races.

And then they want to complain because car counts are down?

------------------
Lesley Albin
Over The Limit Racing
Blazen Golden Retrievers

[Racerlinn]

Here's what my letter to the CRB said:

Sirs:

I would like to comment on points listed in the both the March and April 2005 editions of Fastrack regarding pump fuels and mandated fuel lists
I disagree with the mandated use of specific fuels for Improved Touring class cars.
Many of the cars in these entry level classes see no improvement whatsoever in using anything beyond standard 89 octane pump gas that is available at an affordable price on nearly every street corner with a gas station. Mandating that expensive "track" fuels be purchased puts added burden and cost upon the racers, many of which within the IT classes are running on restricted budgets.
Another area of burden will be upon the Regions themselves to make sure that the approved "track" fuels are available in quantity at their local track and that they do actually pass the fuel testing requirements. Having been witness first hand to an event where the on-site "track" fuel failed testing (and I have read of this same issue at other events), this is nothing but an additional burden upon the Regions.
Keep mandated fuels at the Runoffs Championships level where it belongs. Do not penalize the Regions and their racers.
The concerns of maintaining a fair and level field in regards to the use of fuels should be addressed through the testing procedures.
Fix the testing rather than mandate "spec fuels" at the Regional and Divisional level.

Thanks,
Steve Linn
Indianapolis Region
Member # 274451

[RSTPerformance]

Can anyone honestly tell me what SCCA is trying to accomplish? Be nice to me...remember I am unfamilier with additives and the advantages of them. I have heard of Nitros (sp) but that's about it. Can't things this extreme be tested for? Who cares if people mix different gasses and add additives. I would like to see how much it costs (If that's the reason for this) for the additives added per gallon including the gas. I would be somewhat suprised if any additives would cost more than $4.00 per gallon to add to my fuel which is about $1.89 at the gas station next door (today) That leaves me at less than $6.00 per gallon. It costs $7.00 per gallon at LRP for 110 octane. I am still saving money by using additives. I don't get it what is the point of no additives? Now lets look at the cost to the region!!! wow I have no idea where to start with the time/ hassle/ and monetary costs associated with this. I can see if they want to eliminate a few things like nitros but I'm sure extreme additives like this must be able to be tested for, right?

Can anyone enlighten me on what SCCA is affraid of?

Stephen Blethen

PS: David, I apologize I thought you were in favor of a gas rule.

[Joe Harlan]

The additives are known to cause cancer. Some of the stuff that has been used over the years is some of the worst cancer causing stuff known. The benefit is HP and a fair amount of it.

[RSTPerformance]

Originally posted by Joe Harlan:
The additives are known to cause cancer. Some of the stuff that has been used over the years is some of the worst cancer causing stuff known. The benefit is HP and a fair amount of it.

like how much more than the 110 octane that I can buy at Lime Rock. Is it like 10-15HP?

[Bill Miller]

Originally posted by apr67:
It's fine to base the decision on a Rabbit GTI on the fact that it is too much car for ITC.

It's also fine to use the knowledge and expertise of an Adhoc member.

But what was orginally stated was not accurate, and that was all I had a bone to pick with. And yes, I goofed up by taking your statments to mean that some fast Rabbit GTI's existed.


Alan,

Get used to it, that's Darin's style.

Darin,

With all due respect to Chris, how can he judge the car to be a mid-pack car now, w/ all the recent cars that have been moved down?

As far as the weight correction goes, like I said, I asked for that, and it was thrown in the trash w/o so much as an acknowledgement. And on top of that, you tap dance around being able to correct the weight of cars downward. You got the tool to fix some of the mistakes, yet now you're saying that you can't use it, or that's not what it was for. Talk about bait and switch!

As far as the Rabbit GTI not being an ITC car, how about gathering a little supporting data. Get Chris' fast lap times in his ITB Rabbit GTI, as well as lap times from other people that run the same car. Now, compare those lap times to the current ITC record at the respective tracks the lap times are from. Show me cars that are running under the ITC record, and you'll convince me that it's not an ITC car. Until then, it's all just speculation.

------------------
MARRS #25 ITB Rabbit GTI (sold) | MARRS #25 HProd Rabbit
SCCA 279608

[Matt Rowe]

Think of the advantage as a percent gain which would be under 5 percent. So for a 150 horse car you would see maybe 7.5 hp gain. Someone else on here may have some actual dyno tuning experience and can offer some hard numbers but the anecdotal eveidence I have seen is in the 3-4% gain range.

Keep in mind these type of gains are huge in a spec class where everyone is running the same combination. It's also nothing to be laughed at when running in class with competition adjustments where again the rules are designed to even things out. Then take a look at IT where competitiveness is not guaranteed. All of the high dollar fuel in the world is not going to make a mid pack ITA car run at the front.

I won't buy a spec fuel if it's going to cost me more than a 20% increase in cost. It would easily make the differences in the number of races I could attend and the difference in compliance with a flawed test standard isn't worth the loss in seat time, which is why I spend all this time and money. I also won't support a rule that would requiring lengthy and senseless flushing process just to be sure that I have the fuel du jour in my tank when I go out on track. Having to flush a system that passed two weeks ago at the last race at the same track because I know it won't pass doesn't make sense to me.

The people I have to talked to that do testing all say they can't accurately certify the same fuel sample will be good if tested 24 hours later under the tight standards we are talking about. If they can't prove that how are we going to have a meaningful test of whats in a tank? Furthermore the chemists I talk to have all said that if you're wallet is big enough they can blend something that will pass all the current tests and still give an advantage.

The simple fact as many people have stated is the current fuel testing can not accurately seperate the pump gas from specially blended race fuel. I for one don't care if someone wants to spend that kind of money to win a REGIONAL class. If the issue is health related than we need to come up with testing to monitor harmful additives, not additional band aids to slap on a testing process that is limited to begin with.

Finally, has anyone out there heard of any issues in IT with expensive race gases? Or are we, CRB and the BOD making something out of a non-issue?

------------------
~Matt Rowe
ITA Shelby Charger
MARRS #96

[Daryl DeArman]

Dave,

As a member of the "Frugal Racing" team, I understand your viewpoint. I was only using Hoosiers or that tire budget to highlight the absurdness of getting tossed because I tried to save a few bucks on fuel when I already have so much invested.

Kirk,

Presenting your cost argument the way you did supports your position (I am sure that is why you did it). However, if something used to cost $1 and then the price goes up to $5, the fact that it went up 400% appears much worse than the price went up $4. Especially in the volume we are talking about.

Of your entire racing (season) budget, what percentage would an increase of $4/gal in fuel represent?

The Enduro is an abnomally (another reason you probably chose it to support your argument). I would argue that your fuel budget for that race was a much larger slice of the pie than a normal race. Where else are you going to have that kind of entry fee to fuel cost ratio?

[Joe Harlan]

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Finally, has anyone out there heard of any issues in IT with expensive race gases</font>

Yes, oxygenators(sp?) benefit low compression engines in a big way.

Bill, I remember when the PCA concept was first pitched it was to slow cars down not speed them up. You can't fix every car and you certainly can't fix them all at one time. Little adjustments and see what happens.

[Banzai240]

Originally posted by Bill Miller:

You got the tool to fix some of the mistakes, yet now you're saying that you can't use it, or that's not what it was for. Talk about bait and switch!

As far as the Rabbit GTI not being an ITC car, how about gathering a little supporting data.

Miller,

Again, just so the rest of those here know... you have NO idea what you are talking about... You couldn't possibly...

The request to reclassify the GTI was rejected.... the car is in the correct class...

The request to reduce the GTIs weight is tabled at the time being, along with several other requests for reclassifications/weight adjustments...

We are not about to start making adjustments just because YOU think we should... Joe is correct in that PCAs were NOT intended to speed cars up... I tried to tell you guys that all along. That's not to say that some adjustments aren't warrented.

The ITAC is working as we always have, and will continue to do so, for the betterment of IT.

That's about all I can tell you at this time...

------------------
Darin E. Jordan
SCCA #273080, OR/NW Regions
Renton, WA
ITS '97 240SX
http://home.comcast.net/~djjordan/Web/DJ_AV1.jpg

[This message has been edited by Banzai240 (edited March 02, 2005).]

[Banzai240]

Originally posted by Bill Miller:

As far as the Rabbit GTI not being an ITC car, how about gathering a little supporting data. Get Chris' fast lap times in his ITB Rabbit GTI, as well as lap times from other people that run the same car. Now, compare those lap times to the current ITC record at the respective tracks the lap times are from. Show me cars that are running under the ITC record, and you'll convince me that it's not an ITC car. Until then, it's all just speculation.



One more thing... You are making two assumptions...

First, you are assuming that the current situation in ITC is equitable...

Second, you are assuming that the ITAC is working from a standpoint of using on-track results to make decisions...

I've told you all, (much to Kirk's approval, I believe), that we are concerned with matching the cars from a mechanical perspective to the best of our ability... The only time that "results" matter is as a validation of our model. You show me the top cars in each class and I'd better be able to show you on paper why they are the top cars... At this point, I can...

The best we can hope to do is to match the cars on a mechanical performance basis. The rest is going to be up to you guys...



------------------
Darin E. Jordan
SCCA #273080, OR/NW Regions
Renton, WA
ITS '97 240SX
http://home.comcast.net/~djjordan/Web/DJ_AV1.jpg

[Daryl DeArman]

Just in case you missed it.


Originally posted by Daryl DeArman:
Gregg Baker,

Any update from Topeka?

Were you the "Gregg Baker" seeking credit on WindTunnel for a photo? (I read the other post and saw that you were that Gregg Baker)

[nlevine]

I took a little different tack in my e-mail to the CRB regarding fuel:

"Gentlepersons - I am writing to add my input regarding fuel requirements, particularly for vehicles not-too-far removed from their original production specifications (Showroom Stock, Touring, Improved Touring).

I race in Improved Touring A and also use my race car in high-performance driver education (HPDE) events. In many cases, track fuel pumps are not open during HPDE events, so an "approved" grade of fuel may not be available at all times.

If a specified fuel other than commercially available pump gasoline were to be mandated, I would either have to obtain, store, and transport said fuel for use in my race car at all times - even for HPDE events, or be required to flush my fuel system prior to every race, requiring a method for disposal of any leftover fuel. In addition to the inherent safety concerns with storing and transporting fuel, I would anticipate issues with my homeowners insurance if I were required to store any quantity of fuel in my garage (located under my house). Similarly, disposal of any unused "pump" fuel that I may have used in an HPDE event poses both safety and environmental risks.

Additionally, "track" fuel carries a price premium that could significantly add to a race-weekend budget. In an "entry-level" class such as Improved Touring, this extra expense is unnecessary.

I urge the board to consider allowing vehicles that still remain relatively close to their production configurations (Showroom Stock, Touring, Improved Touring) to continue to use commercially available pump gasoline.

Thank you for time in consideration of my input.

Best regards,
Noam Levine
Member # 166382"

[Knestis]

Originally posted by Daryl DeArman:
... Presenting your cost argument the way you did supports your position (I am sure that is why you did it). ...

I'm beginning to wonder what's going on around here recently.

You sound like you believe that I'm commiting some kind of crime - twisting words to make untruthful statements sound right, to some evil end.

The whole point of thinking of things in terms of percentage changes is to put them in a common metric, so they can be effectively considered against other things.

Installing a New Beetle exhaust manifold on my Golf didn't just save 4.5 pounds - it reduced the weight of that part by more than 30%. That's pretty significant. Save "only" 10% on every part of the car and that's damn near all of the weight that the car was over the ITB limit last year.

It's NOT just "a few bucks" if it represents a tripling or quadrupling of a budget line item cost. People go broke racing all the time because they just think of each little expense as "only $50" so isn't it perhaps smart to think of reducing - or not increasing - each in terms of relative amounts? By as much as 400%??

Don't want to look at it like that? Don't. Don't want to hear to this point of view? Ignore it. Think $7.00 for a gallon of stuff that does the same thing in most of our engines as the $1.90 stuff is a good use of your dough? Totally within your right.

You aren't wrong. I'm not saying you're wrong. I don't think you are a bad person.

Spend your money exactly the way you want but it's my right to think about it in a way that works for me and to advocate for that position in public discourse, about a member-driven organization to which I've paid dues for two plus decades.

K

EDIT - the NASA 3.5 might be viewed as an anomoly because it was short. We are planning on two, 55-gallon drums of fuel (per car) for the Summit 12 hour race. The difference between $209 and $770 is significant either as a percentage increase OR as a total impact on the cost of running that event.

[This message has been edited by Knestis (edited March 02, 2005).]

[Bill Miller]

Originally posted by Banzai240:
One more thing... You are making two assumptions...

First, you are assuming that the current situation in ITC is equitable...

Second, you are assuming that the ITAC is working from a standpoint of using on-track results to make decisions...

I've told you all, (much to Kirk's approval, I believe), that we are concerned with matching the cars from a mechanical perspective to the best of our ability... The only time that "results" matter is as a validation of our model. You show me the top cars in each class and I'd better be able to show you on paper why they are the top cars... At this point, I can...

The best we can hope to do is to match the cars on a mechanical performance basis. The rest is going to be up to you guys...




Darin,

The note in FasTrack said based on performance. How would you interpret that? As far as the weight correction being tabled, there was nothing in there about it, and when I asked John Bauer about it, he said there was nothing on the agenda for it. His suggestion was to write another letter. How would you interpret that?


The point here is that the GTI is NOT an ITC car... and my "justification" for my opinion on this is that Chris Albin raced one of these cars and says that, today, they are a middle of the ITB pack car. We have a couple of other ITB drivers on the ITAC who agree...

The bottom line here is that the GTI needs some help, but belongs in ITB...

We'll have to see if there is something that can be done about that...

Here's a news flash Darin. Most, if not all of the top ITC cars are mid-pack ITB cars. And, while it's only one track, I looked at the '04 MARRS results from the Summit Point races (6). There's a pretty solid ITB and ITC contingent there, and the cars happen to run in the same group. In all but one of the races, there were multiple ITC cars in the top 10, overall, w/ fields in excess of 30 cars, a dozen and a half of which were ITB cars.

As far as your model goes, IIRC, both you and Andy said the car would be in ITC at 2250 - 2275#. You seemed much less concerned w/ the New Bettle upsetting the ITC apple cart than you do this car (which is hardly a match for a NB).

The comments about the equity in ITC and PCAs not being used to speed cars up are both disingenuous. You can't 'speed cars up' by reducing the weight, but you can speed them up by dropping them down a class? What a crock!

BTW, this isn't really about speeding the car up, it's about correcting the weight so that it's in line w/ what your classification model predicts. That's been done before, but now it's not ok? Yet another crock.

[This message has been edited by Bill Miller (edited March 03, 2005).]

[Daryl DeArman]

K,

No crime. It is smart. Just not the best terms to accurately portray the impact on ones' racing budget. I choose to spend my energy and budget worries in dollar$, not percentages.

My wallet doesn't care if it is has 10% of nothing or 90% of nothing.

If the price of rain-x tripled, I wouldn't much care because its' overall impact in my budget is minimal. However, if my entry fees or tire costs only doubled...I'd have a problem.

Weight savings on the car. Would you rather spend $100 to reduce the weight of a 2 pound non-rotating, sprung widget by 1 pound (50%) or $100 to reduce the weight of a non-rotating, sprung 20# widget by 5# (25%)?


Some draw the line at $1.98/gal fuel, I am okay with paying $6/gal if it means that guys can't use the $30/gal stuff.

ON EDIT--I race a Vee where almost the entire grid has between 58-61HP...As pointed
out above when all the cars are so 'equal' minor gains are all that is needed and the race fuel does make a difference. These motors don't even have 9:1 compression. There are more fuel attributes to consider than its' octane.

I have never said that pump gas shouldn't be allowed...it should be included as one of the approved fuels, therefore included in the control sample lot. If you only spec a dc the chemists out there will create a fuel that is an advantage that passes the test. I don't see any indication that the list of approved fuels will be short.



[This message has been edited by Daryl DeArman (edited March 03, 2005).]

[Banzai240]

Originally posted by Bill Miller:

BTW, this isn't really about speeding the car up, it's about correcting the weight so that it's in line w/ what your classification model predicts. That's been done before, but now it's not ok? Yet another crock.

We've got it handled Bill... that's where I'll end my part in this... You are free to continue thinking what you wish, but as I said before, you don't know the facts of what is happening/has happened, except from your point of view, and you really haven't paid attention when I've tried to explain, so discussing this further seems pointless...

Again, the ITAC and CRB have things well under control as far as IT is concerned...

------------------
Darin E. Jordan
SCCA #273080, OR/NW Regions
Renton, WA
ITS '97 240SX
http://home.comcast.net/~djjordan/Web/DJ_AV1.jpg

[This message has been edited by Banzai240 (edited March 03, 2005).]

[erlrich]

Originally posted by Knestis:
I'm beginning to wonder what's going on around here recently.

I think it's called cabin fever. Here lately I've taken to wearing my Isaac when visiting it.com, the head shaking was just getting too violet. Does make for some funny looks around the office though.

Earl

[This message has been edited by erlrich (edited March 03, 2005).]

[gsbaker]

Originally posted by erlrich:
I think it's called cabin fever.

Definitely cabin fever. It happens every year about this time.


<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Here lately I've taken to wearing my Isaac when visiting it.com.... Does make for some funny looks around the office though.</font>

Why? I think it's a stylin' accessory ya got there. http://ITForum.ImprovedTouring.com/smile.gif

------------------
Gregg Baker, P.E.
Isaac, LLC
http://www.isaacdirect.com

[edit: spelling is good]

[This message has been edited by gsbaker (edited March 03, 2005).]

[Andy Bettencourt]

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">As far as the Rabbit GTI not being an ITC car, how about gathering a little supporting data. Get Chris' fast lap times in his ITB Rabbit GTI, as well as lap times from other people that run the same car. Now, compare those lap times to the current ITC record at the respective tracks the lap times are from. Show me cars that are running under the ITC record, and you'll convince me that it's not an ITC car. Until then, it's all just speculation.</font>

OR - you could have included this information in your request. http://ITForum.ImprovedTouring.com/rolleyes.gif

We have yet to make a change that INCREASES a cars performance WITHIN it's current class. THAT is what is on the table. We are trying to do the right thing without going down the road of CA's.

There have been plenty of cars/requests that we have put in a holding pattern in order to make sure the CRB and the BoD are in full support of these types of one-time changes. We think they will be - but we must be patient. We are turing the ship a significant amount here and it needs a little time to circle around.

Be patient Bill. I understand your concern but I would understand your sense of urgency if you actually raced in IT.

Andy

------------------
Andy Bettencourt
New England Region, R188967
www.flatout-motorsports.com (http://www.flatout-motorsports.com)

[Daryl DeArman]

Anomaly, anomaly, anomaly, anomaly. As much as I feel it weakens an argument when people present data from an anomaly to support their stance, I feel it weakens an argument just as much when someone uses words they can't spell to support theirs. DOH!

[Gregg]

Originally posted by Bill Miller:
As far as the Rabbit GTI not being an ITC car, how about gathering a little supporting data. Get Chris' fast lap times in his ITB Rabbit GTI, as well as lap times from other people that run the same car. Now, compare those lap times to the current ITC record at the respective tracks the lap times are from. Show me cars that are running under the ITC record, and you'll convince me that it's not an ITC car. Until then, it's all just speculation.

Since Bill is using the MARRS series for some of his examples, here are lap times at Summit last year for the only ITB Rabbit GTI I know of vs. the winning ITC car for each race the Rabbit ran.

MARRS 1: 1:33.551 vs 1:33.831
MARRS 4: 1:33.952 vs 1:34.900
MARRS 9: 1:34.210 vs 1.34.559

By those numbers alone it looks like you'd be turning a mid-pack ITB car in the MARRS series into a series winning car unless it was saddled w/ more weight. But who in their right mind would make a decision on those numbers alone?

------------------
Gregg Ginsberg
http://www.ginsberg.org
'89 CRX Si -- MARRS ITA #72
WDCR-SCCA Rookie of the Year 2003

[This message has been edited by Gregg (edited March 03, 2005).]

[bldn10]

I heard somewhere that the fuel rule changes had to do more w/ safety and health than leveling the playing field, although that obviously is relevant. Some people, perhaps at The Runoffs, were apparently using very volatile, exotic stuff that we just don't even want in the paddock.
[WARNING - EDITORIAL CONTENT]
But, being the resident cynic, I suspect that someone also saw an opportunity to perhaps raise some revenue by seeing if they could get oil cos. to pay a sponsorship fee to be the official supplier of pump gas. After all, we have to make up for all the $ we plowed into Enterprises and will probably never recover. I'm all for increasing sponsorships and revenue but the interests of members/racers has to come first and foremost.

------------------
Bill Denton
87/89 ITS RX-7
02 Audi TT225QC
95 Tahoe
Memphis

[Banzai240]

Originally posted by Gregg:
...here are lap times at Summit last year for the only ITB Rabbit GTI I know of vs. the winning ITC car for each race the Rabbit ran.... But who in their right mind would make a decision on those numbers alone?



A question... WHAT car was the ITC car used in the comparison???

Another question... WHAT were the finishing results of the other ITC cars, of different makes than the car in the question above, in the same races? (how did their times compare to the winning cars??)

Just curious...



------------------
Darin E. Jordan
SCCA #273080, OR/NW Regions
Renton, WA
ITS '97 240SX
http://home.comcast.net/~djjordan/Web/DJ_AV1.jpg

[Joe Harlan]

Originally posted by Banzai240:
A question... WHAT car was the ITC car used in the comparison???

Another question... WHAT were the finishing results of the other ITC cars, of different makes than the car in the question above, in the same races? (how did their times compare to the winning cars??)

Just curious...



Really doesn't matter because the data is flawed. Unless you can provide same day same prep same driver same tire data the comparison has no meaning.
This argument is a case unhappy it can't happen fast enough. Some of this stuff is gonna take a little time to fix. You all keep up the good work and let the shi**y attitudes just be ignored cause that's whats happening. A couple of people will choose to twist the context of your own words everytime you reply to their negative postings. Please note that I have been told of several Neons that are in the process because they feel they now have a chance. I think you will find this is going on all over with some of the new respectful treatment IT is getting from the CRB and the BOD. People should be happy these classes are not being treated as the bastard child of SCCA because of the hard work of a few people.

P.S. to use track times as any form of comparison you would also need to know the cars being driven are legal. To many times over the years I have seen the big dog ends up not meeting all of our rules... http://ITForum.ImprovedTouring.com/smile.gif

[Jake]

Originally posted by Andy Bettencourt:
There have been plenty of cars/requests that we have put in a holding pattern in order to make sure the CRB and the BoD are in full support of these types of one-time changes. We think they will be - but we must be patient.

Are the RX7 and MR2 in holding patterns? When I try to play the "race results" game, I can't find any results where an ITA MR2 bests the top ITB car's time.

[ITANorm]

Originally posted by Jake:
Are the RX7 and MR2 in holding patterns? When I try to play the "race results" game, I can't find any results where an ITA MR2 bests the top ITB car's time.


In MiDiv - the fastest ITB cars ARE the GTI's - and the quickest of the MR2 / RX7 ITA contingent rarely, if ever, comes out on top. What confuses me is that we have the GTI being touted as a candidate for ITC, while the MR2 and RX7 (which can't routinely keep up with a well prepped & driven GTI) are being told they're too fast for ITB. Go figure.


------------------
Norm - #55 ITA, '86 MR2. [email protected]
http://home.alltel.net/jberry/img107.jpg
Website: home.alltel.net/jberry (http://home.alltel.net/jberry)

[OTLimit]

Originally posted by ITANorm:

In MiDiv - the fastest ITB cars ARE the GTI's -


That is true Norm, but they are Golf GTIs, and not Rabbits.

And I am leaving this discussion at that....


------------------
Lesley Albin
Over The Limit Racing
Blazen Golden Retrievers

[Banzai240]

Originally posted by ITANorm:
What confuses me is that we have the GTI being touted as a candidate for ITC,...


Norm,

Please don't confuse someone saying something "should" take place, as making it a "candidate" for ITC...

I think the Fastrack was clear that this car is NOT a candidate for ITC as far as the ITAC/CRB is concerned...



------------------
Darin E. Jordan
SCCA #273080, OR/NW Regions
Renton, WA
ITS '97 240SX
http://home.comcast.net/~djjordan/Web/DJ_AV1.jpg

[Gregg]

Originally posted by Banzai240:
A question... WHAT car was the ITC car used in the comparison???

Another question... WHAT were the finishing results of the other ITC cars, of different makes than the car in the question above, in the same races? (how did their times compare to the winning cars??)

Just curious...
As stated, I always listed the winning ITC car, regardless of make. But, I believe grjones's Fiesta was one and a 510 won at least one of those listed.

You can see the 2004 MARRS results here: http://www.wdcr-scca.org/results/index.htm



------------------
Gregg Ginsberg
http://www.ginsberg.org
'89 CRX Si -- MARRS ITA #72
WDCR-SCCA Rookie of the Year 2003

[itracer]

Just data for you to consider. The Rabbit GTI is fully preped, with good driver and at minimum weight. Most important - it is legal.

Links to the web sites are provided as are the sanction numbers and dates.

This is two different tracks within the same year:

Event: Pig Roast I NERRC/NARRC-Sanct#04-RS-169-S
Run: G6 Race - ITS ITB
Date: 7/17/2004
Track: NHIS

01:21.142 -- ITC 1st (Honda)
01:19.494 – ITB 1st (Volvo)

01:21.931-- ITB Rabbit GTI: (5th out of 16)
Would have been 3rd in ITC (based on lap times)

http://www.ner.org/RR1/results/04/0718nhis...g1-race-web.pdf (http://www.ner.org/RR1/results/04/0718nhis/04pig1-race-web.pdf)


Event: NARRC Runoffs 04-RS-184-S
Run: Grp01 Race ITA,ITC,SRX7
Date: 10/2/04
Track: Limerock LRP

01:06.0 – ITC 1st (VW Rabbit)
01:05.0 – 1st ITB (Volvo)

01:07.0 -- ITB Rabbit GTI
Would have been tied for 3rd with a Ford Escort and VW Rabbit (based on lap times)

http://www.nyr-scca.com/narrc_results.htm


------------------
Jason
ITB 17 (NER SCCA)
VW Scirocco

[Joe Harlan]

Event: NARRC Runoffs 04-RS-184-S
Run: Grp01 Race ITA,ITC,SRX7
Date: 10/2/04
Track: Limerock LRP

01:06.0 – ITC 1st (VW Rabbit)
01:05.0 – 1st ITB (Volvo)

01:07.0 -- ITB Rabbit GTI
Would have been tied for 3rd with a Ford Escort and VW Rabbit (based on lap times)

http://www.nyr-scca.com/narrc_results.htm




Ok color me stupid but how can you compare ITB to ITC when they aren't even in the same run group? ITC is at the bottom of one run group with faster cars which means they get lot of empty track and a good tow down the front straight from time to time.(best lap means nothing)
Looks like the ITB guys are spending all their time trying to get around spec miata's.

What shocks do these cars all have what headers, How much dyno time. It all counts when trying to figure this stuff out. Saying an 1800cc rabbit should be moved to ITC so a 1600CC rabbit could kick it's ass by 1 full second doesn't fly. Something is wrong with this picture.

[gran racing]

Is the rumor that we may have to buy gas on-line really true? I guess it makes us all buy from one source but this seems crazy!

http://www.hiperfuels.com/index.cgi?PageTo...ndedDepts=81048 (http://www.hiperfuels.com/index.cgi?PageToView=catalog&Department=169320&Cartid=&Merchant=highfuelsn&ExpandedDepts=81048)

http://ITForum.ImprovedTouring.com/wink.gif

------------------
Dave Gran
NER ITB #13
'87 Honda Prelude si

[Bill Miller]

Originally posted by Banzai240:
Norm,

Please don't confuse someone saying something "should" take place, as making it a "candidate" for ITC...

I think the Fastrack was clear that this car is NOT a candidate for ITC as far as the ITAC/CRB is concerned...




Yeah Darin, and if you recall, there have recently been other reclassification requests that were shot down, only to be approved a couple of months later.


Anyway, to answer your question regarding those results, the winning ITC cars were a 510, a Fiesta, and a Ford EXP. Other top ITC cars were Hondas and VW's (both Rabbits and Sciroccos), and I think I saw a Fiat 124 in there. Fast laps of the top 5 ITC cars are w/in a second or two of each other.

Gregg,

First off, I don't think I've ever said that, if moved, the Rabbit GTI shouldn't get some weight. Darin and Andy have both said that the model puts it in ITC @ 2250 - 2275#. Add 100# to the car, and you're probably going to see those lap times go up by .5 - 1.0 seconds. Sure makes those lap times look pretty equal. But, you're right, nobody in their right mind would (or should) make a decision based on a few cars over a couple races, at one track. But, when you start looking at data from multiple cars, w/ multiple drivers, at multiple tracks, you can see trends in the data. And with a large and varied sample, the prep level / legality of individual cars becomes an insignificant factor.

Darin,

You're right, I look at things from my perspective. That's what people do, look at things based on the information they have. Like when I call Topeka and am told that my request is not on the agenda, and has not been tabled. I'll ask you again, how would you interpret that? Thoughout this whole debate, you have yet to present any emperical or fact-based information to support anything you've said. What you have done, is make a bunch of wild claims, that when called on, you couldn't back up. You can take your arrogant self-rightousness and shove it.

Andy,

I've said it before, and I'll say it again, you folks have developed an objective classification model. It should be applied to all the cars listed in the ITCS to see where they fall, vis-a-vis the model.

Also, why would a weight correction be only a one-time event? Newly classified cars can have their weights adjusted several times, why would currently classified cars only get one shot? And yes, it's true, it doesn't appear that anything has been done to speed-up any cars, in their current class. That being said, w/ the exception of the BMW restrictor plate (which was supposed to be a rare occurence), what has been done that actually required PCAs? All of the downward reclassifications w/ weight changes were already legal, pre-PCAs.




------------------
MARRS #25 ITB Rabbit GTI (sold) | MARRS #25 HProd Rabbit
SCCA 279608

[Knestis]

Originally posted by gran racing:
Is the rumor that we may have to buy gas online...?


http://www.goemerchant-commerce2.com/StoreData/h/highfuelsn/Images/P10_SUNUL100_1.gif

Woo-hoo! Only $11 a gallon. Plus shipping of course...

K

[This message has been edited by Knestis (edited March 03, 2005).]

[Banzai240]

Originally posted by Bill Miller:

Like when I call Topeka and am told that my request is not on the agenda, and has not been tabled. I'll ask you again, how would you interpret that? Thoughout this whole debate, you have yet to present any emperical or fact-based information to support anything you've said. What you have done, is make a bunch of wild claims, that when called on, you couldn't back up. You can take your arrogant self-rightousness and shove it.


Bill... You could have just asked Andy, George, Me, or any of the other ITAC guys... we'd have told you what the story was... (of course, you'd actually have to believe what we say...)

As for the rest of this drivel... I stand by what I've said, including things we've agreed not to discuss again in public... I may not have all the answers, but I have not been making "wild claims" with no basis... From the BMW in ITS all the way down, each move we make is done with the intent of making the right moves for IT...

As I've said before, just because YOU don't like it, that doesn't make it wrong...

Luckily for you you had another class you could go to. Hopefully you are finding some comfort and satisfaction there...

Guess it's a good thing for you that you got out of IT when you did... otherwise, some of these decisions might actually effect you and then where would you be???

By the way... The ITB lap record at Road America is 2:53 and change in a Rabbit GTI. The ITC record is a low 2:58 in a Datsun 510 with an illegal 5 speed in it.( this was set this year) This information was sent to me privately, so take from it what you will...

------------------
Darin E. Jordan
SCCA #273080, OR/NW Regions
Renton, WA
ITS '97 240SX
http://home.comcast.net/~djjordan/Web/DJ_AV1.jpg

[This message has been edited by Banzai240 (edited March 03, 2005).]

[lateapex911]

Ok, I'll thow some in as well..

I know an extremely well driven GTI, and very well prepped as well, that can cover the fast volvos with a blanket in the corners and dive way deep on braking, but the straights are just too long for him in most cases. So, from that one little insignificant observation over a year or two at a few tracks, what can we conclude? Um..not too much.

But from a lot of similar observations with known prep levels, bla bla bla, we might get part of the picture. And add to that the actual static data, and we might have something.

(On the surface, I would raise my eyebrows if the car got moved...there are SO many better candidates...and you DON't want to get me started there! MR2 does come to mind, though....)

------------------
Jake Gulick
CarriageHouse Motorsports
ITA 57 RX-7
New England Region
[email protected]

[pgipson]

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Woo-hoo! Only $11 a gallon. Plus shipping of course</font>

And only $4 a gallon hazmat fee

------------------
Spec RX7 #11
Scottsdale AZ

[Bill Miller]

Well Darin, a quick search of the web gave a race report from August, 2000, in which, a 510 did set the lap record at Road America, at a 2:57.755, bettering Jamie Blair's old record of 2:58.158. Hardly a low 2:58, and hardly set this year. Haven't found anything on the ITB record yet. I'm curious though, who's car was it, and when was it set?

Jake,

I agree 200% that there are other cars that need help, and that the MR2 is high on the list.

------------------
MARRS #25 ITB Rabbit GTI (sold) | MARRS #25 HProd Rabbit
SCCA 279608

[Joe Harlan]

http://www.scca-milwaukee.org/RoadRacing/2...004_Results.pdf (http://www.scca-milwaukee.org/RoadRacing/2004/Results/Bonneau_2004_Results.pdf)


But you fail to give the whole story billy boy....ITB GTI at a 2:55 seams a little quick for ITC....Kinda funny you acuse Darin of talkin shit but then yo turn around and only use the fact that fit your needs. Sad really because you could use the sytem and your VW information to help get the car fixed instead of just trying to argue all the time.

[Bill Miller]

What did I leave out Joe? My search didn't produce the page that you did, but it did show an ITC lap record that was set in 2000, that was under 2:58 (Darin's claim was that it was a low 2:58).

Now, I fear that you've fallen into the same trap that Norm did. Just because it says "VW GTI", you assume that it's a Rabbit GTI. Could be, but not necessarily the case. The A2 ('85 - '92) cars are also referred to as GTI's. So, unless you know that the car in question is actually a Rabbit GTI, you can't use that data point. Does anyone hear actually know the driver of that car? Is he on here? Does anyone know if that car is a Rabbit or a Golf? So who's talking shit now?

As far as using the system to fix the car, I've tried that, on numerous occasions. The ITAC folks (at least Darin and Andy) have said that the current Rabbit GTI weight in ITB, is above what their model predicts. I have sent multiple requests for a weight correction, only to get answers that range from 1)Correct as classified 2)Referred to AC (w/ no follow up) 3)Ignored and not even acknowledged. Don't know about you, but that's what I call trying to use the system.

------------------
MARRS #25 ITB Rabbit GTI (sold) | MARRS #25 HProd Rabbit
SCCA 279608

[Andy Bettencourt]

Bill has tried to use the system. The system isn't quite ready for that kind of 'in-class' adjsutment.

All set?

AB

------------------
Andy Bettencourt
New England Region, R188967
www.flatout-motorsports.com (http://www.flatout-motorsports.com)

[ddewhurst]

***The ITC record is a low 2:58 in a Datsun 510 with an illegal 5 speed in it.***

& the car is going H Production this year...

[Joe Harlan]

Well I have seen your question answered many times here, The group seems to agree something needs to be done but the system currently has no fix. I also have seen people even through your crappy attitude try to address your concerns by indicating something is being worked on. I have seen you contine to try to make people look bad for doing a good job. All of this is gonna take time to undo some of the past mistakes. You don't seem to want to believe that anybody but you has the answer to the problem. Take a chill I have confidence that something is being done here and it looks positive.

[Banzai240]

Here is a followup to the Road Atlanta ITB/ITC discussion that was sent to me this morning:



Darin,
FYI: The ITC qualifying and race track record at Road America was set
june 24, 2004 at an SCCA regional. ITC qualifying record 2:58.483 ITC
Race record 2:57.680. Car#64
The ITB record was set by a Rabbit GTI a few years back and i cannot
remember the guys name or when it was set or the exact times. He was the
former area 5 director though. There are two records here a quailfying
record and a race record.


Again, accept it as you will...

------------------
Darin E. Jordan
SCCA #273080, OR/NW Regions
Renton, WA
ITS '97 240SX
http://home.comcast.net/~djjordan/Web/DJ_AV1.jpg

[Bill Miller]

No fix Joe? I'm sorry, I guess I completely missed the whole point of PCAs. Oh yeah, and most people w/ integrity sack it up and admit they were wrong, when they obviously step on their crank. And, I don't have to try and make Darin look bad, he does just fine on his own. As evidenced by his use of unsubstantiated, anonymous information.

Andy, I understand what you're saying, but it's not an adjustment, it's a correction. That's been done in the past (pre-PCAs even). It was even done past the 1-year time limit, and was listed in E&O.

There's a tool in place, that you, and a lot of others worked hard to get implemented. From what I read, it sounds like you guys are being told how you can use it, and that you can't use it to its fullest extent. That just doesn't make any sense. If downward weight corrections were never intended, why wasn't that reflected in the language?

Darin,

If that 510 had an illegal tranny in it at the time of setting the lap record, why wasn't it DQ'd? But I'm even more confused as to why you'd even put this information out there, w/o verifying it. If it came from someone that reads this board (which is probably a safe bet), why wouldn't you ask them to post it? If I were in your position, I'd want to verify information that was given to me, before I associated myself w/ it, and put it out for general consumption.

------------------
MARRS #25 ITB Rabbit GTI (sold) | MARRS #25 HProd Rabbit
SCCA 279608

[Matt Rowe]

Did I miss the CRB changing to basic premise of IT that no guarantee of competitiveness is expressed or implied? Sure PCA's are available now as a means to address gross errors in classification but my understanding is by no means were they meant to try and create parity throughout a class. If we are going to start opening the door to PCA adjustments to cars based on an inability to compete for a win then you're going to have a long line. Or is there something more to this than a singular complaint about one car being uncompetitive?

------------------
~Matt Rowe
ITA Shelby Charger
MARRS #96

[Banzai240]

Originally posted by Bill Miller:
If I were in your position, I'd want to verify information that was given to me, before I associated myself w/ it, and put it out for general consumption.



Who said the information was from someone from whom I haven't verified it??? The person isn't "ananomous" to me... I know exactly who they are, how credible they are, and I have full faith in it...

Again, you are speaking of that which you don't know... The only thing I didn't verify was going to the site to double check that what I posted was accurate, but again, I know the person well and trust him to be accurate... Always has been in the past...

You might want to look in the mirror as far as accusing someone of posting information that may be suspect... because some of the stuff you are posting here is flat wrong...

Once again, you have NO idea why the events have occurred the way they have, and until you do, your information is simply your opinion... yet you keep posting it like it's fact...

The facts are that we are working on a plan, and until such time as that plan is in place, you will continue to see things being "not recommended", or otherwise rejected in Fastrack... I've tried to tell you, as with the GTI, that this DOES NOT mean they are not the subject of some changes... it just means that they aren't getting changed at this time. This is NO different than the other models you mentioned previously that were rejected, only to be approved a couple of cycles later...

Take some advice from Joe... CALM down, be patient, and let us do the work we are trying to do... You don't have a stake in this anyhow, so it's pointless for you to try to stir up the sh!t, especially in the negative, abusive way to seem to like to do it...

As for me making myself look bad, it depends on who you talk to I guess...


------------------
Darin E. Jordan
SCCA #273080, OR/NW Regions
Renton, WA
ITS '97 240SX
http://home.comcast.net/~djjordan/Web/DJ_AV1.jpg

[This message has been edited by Banzai240 (edited March 04, 2005).]

[Joe Harlan]

Originally posted by Bill Miller:
No fix Joe? I'm sorry, I guess I completely missed the whole point of PCAs.
This doesn't shock me that you miss the point Bill. You are so colored by your dislike of Darin personally that you can't see there are good things going on here.


<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2"> Oh yeah, and most people w/ integrity sack it up and admit they were wrong, when they obviously step on their crank. And, I don't have to try and make Darin look bad, he does just fine on his own.</font>
Bill, I am not trying to take sides here but the only one that ends up looking bad my friend is you. I watched you for a year now get almost to the point of stalking. You go out of your way to find a single word that you think is out of place and you pounce on it. I am starting to think a 12 step program may be in order here. I have seen several of these guys agree that the car in question needs help. I have to agree with Matt here that there still is no gaurantee of being competitive for any model.
How about you give it a break and let the process work for a bit here. Darin,Andy,or even George are not your enemy and they are trying to help make a positive future for the catagory. I have know Darin for years and I have had the pleasure of meeting Andy in person and I am positive these guys are all listening.

[Wayne]

Originally posted by gsbaker:
Why don't you guys hold off for a few days, until some people get back to their offices in Topeka. This FasTrack is completely counter to what we have heard...
Update?

[Daryl DeArman]

Wayne,

I've asked for an update myself, a couple of times. I am guessing that no comment thusfar means that no resolution has been finalized. Must still be in the works...

It is not like Gregg hasn't visited this site or thread...so I am sure that he'll update us as soon as possible.

Keep hammering away Gregg!!!

I wrote two letters months ago, got an e-mail response/acknowledgement on both. Not one mention in any fastrack since I wrote the first one.

[lateapex911]

From what I hear from my friends who "know people", stuff is in the works, but it takes time. Nobody is going to tell us we can't wear the system, so it seems like the best thing to do is lay low and let it sort itself out. It does sound like it's going to take awhile, but it also seems like it shouldn't be a concern.

I think, in this case, writing more letters probably isn't the way to go...

------------------
Jake Gulick
CarriageHouse Motorsports
ITA 57 RX-7
New England Region
[email protected]

[pgipson]

Why do so many posts to the IT forum ultimately degenerate into an online argument between the same 2 individuals? Should there be a separate forum just for these two to jaw at each other? Then those that get some sort vicarious pleasure out of it could stand in their favorite's corner and whisper encouraging words.

And the rest of could have meaningful discussions about life altering issues like $6 racing gas and the value of spec tires in IT7.

------------------
Spec RX7 #11
Scottsdale AZ

[Knestis]

Originally posted by lateapex911:
...I think, in this case, writing more letters probably isn't the way to go...



I think I would tend to agree with Jake on this point.

I think risk management would FREAK if they got word that an official told someone that they couldn't use a piece of safety equipment with engineering data behind it, like that collected by Gregg and friends. I have a hard time picturing a bigger "Sue Me" banner being waved, should someone get hurt under those circumstances.

H&N systems are not required so specific rules defining some as "okay" and others as "not okay" is a very shaky situation, in the absence of evidence that any particular design actually makes you LESS safe.

I CAN picture the failure mode, of one grid guy getting a bee in his bonnet, but I think that (a) even THEY will understand not to do something silly, or (B) we can maintain a low enough profile that it doesn't become an issue. I'm going to ask forgiveness rather than getting on someone's radar scope by making a stink trying to force permission at this point.

Interesting that I'm in a similar boat with my fire system. They're not required for IT but mine is technically not installed legally because it doesn't have nozzles in two locations. The manufacturer specifically says NOT to do that, so it all goes into the cockpit in my installation. I'm anticipating questions there...

...but I'm USED to it. I have the documentation from Willans telling me that, contrary to what the SCCA tech people see as common wisdom, I SHOULD have the shoulder harnesses mounted to the (illegal) bar between the rear downtubes of the cage.

Someone will undoubtedly comment on the pattern here. http://ITForum.ImprovedTouring.com/smile.gif

K

[This message has been edited by Knestis (edited March 04, 2005).]

[dickita15]

Originally posted by Knestis:
Someone will undoubtedly comment on the pattern here. http://ITForum.ImprovedTouring.com/smile.gif
K


You have saved us the trouble http://ITForum.ImprovedTouring.com/smile.gif
cha cha cha

[Bill Miller]

Originally posted by Banzai240:
Who said the information was from someone from whom I haven't verified it??? The person isn't "ananomous" to me... I know exactly who they are, how credible they are, and I have full faith in it...

Again, you are speaking of that which you don't know... The only thing I didn't verify was going to the site to double check that what I posted was accurate, but again, I know the person well and trust him to be accurate... Always has been in the past...


Well Darin, seems that's some mis-placed faith, as the original information wasn't accurate. Again though, I'm curious as to why this person wouldn't post the information on their own.

You might want to look in the mirror as far as accusing someone of posting information that may be suspect... because some of the stuff you are posting here is flat wrong...


Please cite it, and if it's incorrect, I'll be the first one to admit my mistake.


Once again, you have NO idea why the events have occurred the way they have, and until you do, your information is simply your opinion... yet you keep posting it like it's fact...

The facts are that we are working on a plan, and until such time as that plan is in place, you will continue to see things being "not recommended", or otherwise rejected in Fastrack... I've tried to tell you, as with the GTI, that this DOES NOT mean they are not the subject of some changes... it just means that they aren't getting changed at this time. This is NO different than the other models you mentioned previously that were rejected, only to be approved a couple of cycles later...





<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">I think the Fastrack was clear that this car is NOT a candidate for ITC as far as the ITAC/CRB is concerned...</font>

Well Darin, which is it, a note in FasTrack is a clear indication, or it's only a 'maybe'? Like I said, I may not like it if it gets a 'not recommended' response, but I like it even less if it gets no response at all. The first thing I did when I didn't see it addressed, was to call Topeka and speak w/ John Bauer in an effort to find out if it was a typo/mistake/ommission. I was told that it was not addressed, and was not on a future agenda to be discussed.

In a previous post, you suggested that I ask you (or other ITAC members). I don't know Darin, but I think going through the 'official' channels, rather than asking one of the ITAC members to 'speak out of turn', is the correct approach. Or maybe what you're saying, is that John (or Jeremy) are not credible or accurate sources of information in these matters.


You don't have a stake in this anyhow, so it's pointless for you to try to stir up the sh!t, especially in the negative, abusive way to seem to like to do it...
You're right Darin, I don't have a direct stake in this, as I don't race one of the cars. That also means that I'm not out to get something for my car. This just happens to be a car that I know a lot about, and have a lot of experience with. What I am out to get, is an open, equitable, objective process. The way I see it, that's something that's good for all of IT.

I'd also like to go back to an earlier comment you made. You said I was operating under the assumption that the current situation in ITC was equitable. Your comment indicates that you don't think that's the case. Care to expand on that?

------------------
MARRS #25 ITB Rabbit GTI (sold) | MARRS #25 HProd Rabbit
SCCA 279608

[Bill Miller]

Originally posted by Joe Harlan:

This doesn't shock me that you miss the point Bill. You are so colored by your dislike of Darin personally that you can't see there are good things going on here.


Joe,

I never said they're weren't good things going on. But I'm not surprised that you try and change the subject. You state that there's no fix available, and when I show you that you're wrong, you avoid the issue and change the subject. I submit that your friendship w/ Darin has clouded your objectivity.



------------------
MARRS #25 ITB Rabbit GTI (sold) | MARRS #25 HProd Rabbit
SCCA 279608

[Banzai240]

As a previous poster pointed out... these threads get tiresome when they degrade to this back and forth BS...

I'm ending my part in this thread here with the following comments....

The GTI is NOT an ITC car and the request to move it was denied in Fastrack). The second part of the request is still tabled because making some in-class adjustments is something that is being discussed... John and Jeremy are doing a great job with a thankless task, but they aren't always privey to the the discussions taking place within the ITAC... As far as the ITAC is concerned, the GTI weight issue is still tabled, pending further discussions...

Take that as you will... I've told you what's going on, you can choose to believe it or not...


------------------
Darin E. Jordan
SCCA #273080, OR/NW Regions
Renton, WA
ITS '97 240SX
http://home.comcast.net/~djjordan/Web/DJ_AV1.jpg

[Joe Harlan]

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2"> You state that there's no fix available, and when I show you that you're wrong, </font>

Bill you may have offered a fix that I didn't/don't see but it was clouded with the venom you tend to spit when your not getting your way. You of all people know that I will put even my friends in their place when they deserve it. You have been around long enough to know that.
I think it has been explained enough times to you what is likely going on with this car. You continue to twist words to make something out of nothing so I will go back to ignoring you like everybosy else cause this gets no where. Goodluck cause it is to bad you have to have such an attitude cause I think you could help the VW camp in a big way with you knowledge of the product.

[Bill Miller]

Originally posted by Joe Harlan:
Goodluck cause it is to bad you have to have such an attitude cause I think you could help the VW camp in a big way with you knowledge of the product.

Well Joe, it's become painfully obvious that product knowledge and hard data don't mean anything when it's counter to someone's opinion.


As far as the ITAC is concerned, the GTI weight issue is still tabled, pending further discussions...

Take that as you will... I've told you what's going on, you can choose to believe it or not...

Fair enough Darin, I'll take that at face value. You know, you could have avoided 90% of this discussion, had that been published in FasTrack. Every month we see requests tabled for various reasons.



------------------
MARRS #25 ITB Rabbit GTI (sold) | MARRS #25 HProd Rabbit
SCCA 279608

[Joe Harlan]

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Fair enough Darin, I'll take that at face value. You know, you could have avoided 90% of this discussion, had that been published in FasTrack. Every month we see requests tabled for various reasons.</font>

There is were you get sideways Bill, I am sure the whole ITAC would like the samething if it was in their control. I think you end up getting on the wrong people. I don't think these guys have any control over the publishing or scheduling process.

[Jake]

FWIW, it is kinda interesting when an idea gets shot down but may be really "tabled" behind the scenes. I had to chuckle when my (and others) request to allow larger wheels was shot down becuase it wasn't necessary at this time, but turned out to be necessary about 2 months later. Same with several requests for cars to change classes. I suppose you don't want to get peoples hopes up, but I feel really bad for a friend of mine who was planning on building an ITS Civic Si but decided to sell it when a move to ITA for that car was deemed hopeless (req. denied!). He sold the Si and finished building another car precisely when the Si moved to ITA. D'oh!

[Banzai240]

Originally posted by Jake:
I had to chuckle when my (and others) request to allow larger wheels was shot down becuase it wasn't necessary at this time, but turned out to be necessary about 2 months later. Same with several requests for cars to change classes.

Jake,

This is simple... It's the difference between individual allowances, which would afford special allowances to only certain cars, and a whole idea, that would effect all of IT...

All the ITAC does is give recommendations to the CRB... What get's published from there is between them and the Tech Department... To both of their credit, it is usually in line with what we recommend, but they are an independant body that makes the final call...



------------------
Darin E. Jordan
SCCA #273080, OR/NW Regions
Renton, WA
ITS '97 240SX
http://home.comcast.net/~djjordan/Web/DJ_AV1.jpg

[Bill Miller]

Originally posted by Banzai240:
Jake,

This is simple... It's the difference between individual allowances, which would afford special allowances to only certain cars, and a whole idea, that would effect all of IT...

All the ITAC does is give recommendations to the CRB... What get's published from there is between them and the Tech Department... To both of their credit, it is usually in line with what we recommend, but they are an independant body that makes the final call...



Oh come on Darin, it's gone both ways. You've had individual car reclassifications that were shot down because the cars were 'too fast', only to have the cars moved a couple of months later. By the same token, you've had situations like the one Jake mentioned.

Anyway, help me out with this. You're saying that the ITAC can table something, and no mention of said tabling will be published in FasTrack. How then, is one supposed to track the status of a request? If a request has been tabled, I would think that there would still be some kind of 'open' status on it, and that it would still be listed on an agenda as old business. Afterall, all requests are logged and given some kind of ID # when they're sent in, aren't they?

Using my request as an example, when I called to find out the status on it, I was told that there was no status, and it was not on an agenda. You have suggested asking an ITAC member directly. I still don't think that's the proper way to go about it. Not only that, you're opening yourself (and the whole ITAC) up to being flooded w/ questions from people about the status of their individual request(s).

And as far as your earlier comments about not correcting the weight of cars, I just saw that that the ITS Mustang LX V6 had the weight changed from 3100# to 2850#. This was listed in E&O. How can you say that IT isn't ready for this, when it happens, time and time again? My request isn't for a comp. adj., it's for a correction of an incorrect specification.

------------------
MARRS #25 ITB Rabbit GTI (sold) | MARRS #25 HProd Rabbit
SCCA 279608

[Bill Miller]

Just read the PCA section of the '05 ITCS. Says right there, in black and white, upward or downward revision of the minimum weight. Now I know Darin or somebody else will be quick to point out that this is extracted from the section on what's done w/ newly classified cars, but if that's really the case, then not all cars are treated fairly. Regardless, it seems as if the true mission of PCAs is to restore equity w/in the class.

I'm sorry Andy, but if IT wasn't ready for this, or the CRB wasn't ready for this, it should have never been put into the rules.

------------------
MARRS #25 ITB Rabbit GTI (sold) | MARRS #25 HProd Rabbit
SCCA 279608

[This message has been edited by Bill Miller (edited March 06, 2005).]

[Andy Bettencourt]

Bill,

The Mustang weight was an error. The spec was based on mis-information on stock HP for the years listed. The VW weight is NOT an error. If it is to be changed it would be changed as part of PCA's, should that breadth of the definition of PCA's be accepted by the CRB and BoD. We need to make sure the powers that be are on board before we undertake a 'clensing'.

Your constant needling of everyone on this BB is not only unproductive with those who do contribute but keeps potential contributors from doing so. Enough is enough.

AB

------------------
Andy Bettencourt
New England Region, R188967
www.flatout-motorsports.com (http://www.flatout-motorsports.com)

[Jake]

Originally posted by Banzai240:
Jake,
This is simple... It's the difference between individual allowances, which would afford special allowances to only certain cars, and a whole idea, that would effect all of IT...

Not quite, I didn't ask for MY CAR to get larger wheels, my request was to allow all IT cars to open up wheel diameter. I realize that was not the proposal that went through, but my thinking was that it would be better for all as it would be percieved not to only benefit certain cars.

Either way, when my proposal was shot down because "Change is not currently needed" (or whatever), I spent a bunch of cash to get a rare 14x7 wheel repaired. When I finally got the wheel back, I learned that change was in fact needed, and I could've bought a set of cheap 15x7's instead of now racing with a repaired wheel.

In any case, I'm as scared as you are that I'm agreeing with Bill on a point.

[Bill Miller]

Originally posted by Andy Bettencourt:
Bill,

The Mustang weight was an error. The spec was based on mis-information on stock HP for the years listed. The VW weight is NOT an error. If it is to be changed it would be changed as part of PCA's, should that breadth of the definition of PCA's be accepted by the CRB and BoD. We need to make sure the powers that be are on board before we undertake a 'clensing'.

Your constant needling of everyone on this BB is not only unproductive with those who do contribute but keeps potential contributors from doing so. Enough is enough.

AB




Andy, IIRC, you and Darin both said (possibly in private conversations we had, I don't recall), that the current weight for the Rabbit GTI is higher than what the model predicts for it. If that's not an 'error' [sic], I don't know what else you call it.

------------------
MARRS #25 ITB Rabbit GTI (sold) | MARRS #25 HProd Rabbit
SCCA 279608

[Andy Bettencourt]

Originally posted by Bill Miller:

Andy, IIRC, you and Darin both said (possibly in private conversations we had, I don't recall), that the current weight for the Rabbit GTI is higher than what the model predicts for it. If that's not an 'error' [sic], I don't know what else you call it.



Bill,

Just because past committees numbers don't equal what ours do doesn't mean it was an error. New, accepted principles and processes don't deem everything done in the past as an error.

E&O's are based just that, errors and ommissions. Your GTI isn't either.

AB

------------------
Andy Bettencourt
New England Region, R188967
www.flatout-motorsports.com (http://www.flatout-motorsports.com)

[lateapex911]

Bill,

Sometimes you just have give things have a long(er) rope.

[preach mode ON]

I was a huge proponent of PCAs, and I actually convinced many current ITAC members of the viability of the concept, overturning preset biases. As a matter of fact my proposal is very close to the final draft that we now work with.

I pushed hard because it seemed that a relatively small portion of the cars in IT were really the vast majority of the problems. Overdogs render entire classes as also rans. And there are other pockets of well subscibed models that need help as well.

Ironically, my car is a poster child for the latter group, and I made a good empirical case to the effect that it couldn't possibly be competitive against the class. (other class leading cars make more HP, more tq, but weigh hundreds less, and bla bla bla,), but actual results from certain pockets of the country came in that conflicted, and showed the car could win.

Even though I had heard that decisions were to be based on hard data with results secondary, in this case, the outcome was that the race results were considered to be proof that the car was fine where it sits, as it sits.

Do I disagree? Of course! But you know what?? I have to respect that the ITAC and the CRB found other reasons to not move on the proposal, and while I don't like it, I have to live with it. (if I were dealing with agency or professional/government group that was not voluntarily staffed, this would be a different strory, and accountability would be demanded)

On the other hand, other proposals I have agreed with and pushed for HAVE been accepted, and I feel the category is better for it. Others have not.

In the end, I remind you that it's an ongoing process, and I am sure that the ITAC and CRB might actually agree with elements of the rejected proposals, but felt at the time they were submitted, there were bigger fish to fry, so to speak.

I know that you can make cases, as can I, until we are blue in the face, but you just have to sit back and respect the work the guys are doing.

I ask you this, even though you don't actually race in IT, do you think IT is a better place with a brighter future than it was 3 years ago??

I do, and while I personally didn't get my 'thing', I DID get my wish and proposal for the biggest change in IT for in years, so I really can't complain about the system and its current direction.

[preach mode OFF]
http://ITForum.ImprovedTouring.com/wink.gif

Sorry, I now return you to our regularly scheduled off topic discussion.........

------------------
Jake Gulick
CarriageHouse Motorsports
ITA 57 RX-7
New England Region
[email protected]

[This message has been edited by lateapex911 (edited March 06, 2005).]

[Bill Miller]

Originally posted by lateapex911:
Bill,

Sometimes you just have give things have a long(er) rope.

[preach mode ON]

I was a huge proponent of PCAs, and I actually convinced many current ITAC members of the viability of the concept, overturning preset biases. As a matter of fact my proposal is very close to the final draft that we now work with.

I pushed hard because it seemed that a relatively small portion of the cars in IT were really the vast majority of the problems. Overdogs render entire classes as also rans. And there are other pockets of well subscibed models that need help as well.

Ironically, my car is a poster child for the latter group, and I made a good empirical case to the effect that it couldn't possibly be competitive against the class. (other class leading cars make more HP, more tq, but weigh hundreds less, and bla bla bla,), but actual results from certain pockets of the country came in that conflicted, and showed the car could win.

Even though I had heard that decisions were to be based on hard data with results secondary, in this case, the outcome was that the race results were considered to be proof that the car was fine where it sits, as it sits.

Do I disagree? Of course! But you know what?? I have to respect that the ITAC and the CRB found other reasons to not move on the proposal, and while I don't like it, I have to live with it. (if I were dealing with agency or professional/government group that was not voluntarily staffed, this would be a different strory, and accountability would be demanded)

On the other hand, other proposals I have agreed with and pushed for HAVE been accepted, and I feel the category is better for it. Others have not.

In the end, I remind you that it's an ongoing process, and I am sure that the ITAC and CRB might actually agree with elements of the rejected proposals, but felt at the time they were submitted, there were bigger fish to fry, so to speak.

I know that you can make cases, as can I, until we are blue in the face, but you just have to sit back and respect the work the guys are doing.

I ask you this, even though you don't actually race in IT, do you think IT is a better place with a brighter future than it was 3 years ago??

I do, and while I personally didn't get my 'thing', I DID get my wish and proposal for the biggest change in IT for in years, so I really can't complain about the system and its current direction.

[preach mode OFF]
http://ITForum.ImprovedTouring.com/wink.gif

Sorry, I now return you to our regularly scheduled off topic discussion.........



Jake,

I agree w/ you on most of the points you make. I'm a very logical person, both by nature, and by training. I've been taught to draw conclusions based on sound, emperical data, not opinions and isolated data points. There are some really smart people on the ITAC (Darin being one of them), and I guess that's one of the things that bothers me the most, that they would chuk first principles out the window and take such a subjective approach to things.

As far as giving people a pass on the accountability issue, just because it's a volunteer position, doesn't cut it, in my book. A given position has certain functional and operational requirements. Be it a member of the ITAC, a coach of the local Babe Ruth baseball team, a Scout leader, or a number of other similar roles. The fact that it is a paid role or a volunteer role, should have no bearing on the standard the people are held to. People usually volunteer for something for one of two main reasons. Either they do it for truly altruistic reasons, and gain intrinsic satisfaction for the job they do, or they do it because they think they can get something out of it. Either they can benefit directly from it, or they see it as resume-building fodder.

I'm one of the leaders in the Scout organization that my son belongs to. I volunteered for the position for several reasons. I was a Scout when I was a kid, and I believe in the program. I think that kids today have a hard enough time, and having a program like Scouting, gives them a leg up. I also volunteered because I wanted to demonstrate to my son that I really believed in the program, and wanted some of that commitment level to rub off. So that part is me getting something out of it, a son that I'm proud of, that will hopefully grow into a man that will make me proud. If you've never been involved in Scouting, from a leadership perspective, I have to tell you, the standards are high, as is the accountability. Not to mention that I just wouldn't feel right, short-changing my constituency (the kids).

Nothing irks me more than people who think that, just because someone volunteers for something, they should be held to some lower standard of responsibility and accountability. Most of the people I know, that volunteer for the altruistic reasons, wouldn't accept (nor expect) that lower standard, and would probably resign if they felt that they couldn't meet the requirements for the role. The people that volunteer to get something out of it, well, they probably feel that they'll do the least amount they have to, as long as they can get what they want.

Sorry for the rant, but as I said, I don't subscribe to the lower standards because someone volunteers.

Now, is IT a better place w/ a brighter future, than it was 3 years ago? On a whole, I'd have to say yes. But that's a qualified yes. There seem to be the tools in place, and the attitude to go along with it, to effect a change for the better. However, there are times when it seem to be a case of "Same whore, different wig".


Just because past committees numbers don't equal what ours do doesn't mean it was an error. New, accepted principles and processes don't deem everything done in the past as an error.

E&O's are based just that, errors and ommissions. Your GTI isn't either.

Sorry Andy, but that's a load of crap. It's been well established that there was no consistent process in place for the classification of IT cars, prior to what the current regime has implemented. You folks have developed a reasonably objective, performance-based model. While I would love to see it published, I know that the culture of the Secret Car Club of America probably won't let that happen. For you guys to not go through the entire ITCS, and run ALL the cars through the model, is a dis-service to the entire IT community, and will only open you up to accusations of favoritism and special treatment. Something that I thought you guys were trying to eliminate. That's one of the beauties of having an open model, everyone gets treated the same. Some may like the results, some may not, but no one will be able to say that they didn't get the same treatment as everyone else did. To openly say that a car differs significantly (+/- 50#) from what your model says, and then say that you don't see anything wrong w/ that is BS, plain and simple. To say that one is an error, and another is not, is a smack in the face to the entire IT community.

------------------
MARRS #25 ITB Rabbit GTI (sold) | MARRS #25 HProd Rabbit
SCCA 279608

[Andy Bettencourt]

Let me just say this Bill, nobody on the ITAC has asked for, or wants a free pass because we volunteer our time to this truely thankless job. We do it becasue we want to. We realize what we are trying to do is a radical departure from past ideas and processes...and it will take time.

I, for one, am all for a clensing using the new process. Although I am not alone, there are some members who are against the idea. We also don't want to shock the CRB and BoD into a 'no' position. We want to make it right for everyone, but it will take time. If you can't understand that simple issue, then do us all a favor, just live with it for a while.

Our goal is better, cleaner IT classifications, and we will get there.

AB

------------------
Andy Bettencourt
New England Region, R188967
www.flatout-motorsports.com (http://www.flatout-motorsports.com)

[Fastfred92]

I am not sure if I am looking forward to, or dread the "May fastrack" post.....

Is it Cabin fever or neckpain from welding illegal gussets while wearing a double point release Isaac after removing my washer bottle and brewing up a batch of $1.75 Exxon with Outlaw octane booster and paint stripper ???? Damn, I still need to soak my tires........

[Bill Miller]

Fair enough Andy.

------------------
MARRS #25 ITB Rabbit GTI (sold) | MARRS #25 HProd Rabbit
SCCA 279608

[SamITC85]

Am I missing something, but didn't the fastrack say that the only place they will require track gas is at the runoffs? That seems to me that it would not hurt anyone here because IT does not race at the runoffs.
I for one don't have a major problem with this, although for the competitors having to drain their cells it is a hassel, but if it is safer and in the end will be cheaper then I have no problem with it. (I say cheaper because you won't have the 28/ gal. gas being used.)

------------------
Sam Rolfe
TBR Motorsports
#85 ITC VW Rabbit being converted to LPHP
#85 GP Scirocco

[shwah]

Originally posted by gsbaker:
Yes sir.

We were told yesterday that the powers that be will not be in until Monday. These are the same people who told me (verbally) that we are good to go.

Once we get this verified we will request a simple e-mail confirmation and post its contents on our site.



Just wondering if I missed something, or if this confirmation is still forthcoming? It is not right for the SCCA to tell me I can't use what I feel is the best option for head/neck restraint, but I sure want to know if that is what they are in fact saying.

Sheesh - I have not even used mine yet.

Chris

[lateapex911]

Go to page 3 of this thread, and check out mine and Ks posts from the 4th....

------------------
Jake Gulick
CarriageHouse Motorsports
ITA 57 RX-7
New England Region
[email protected]

[shwah]

Originally posted by lateapex911:
Go to page 3 of this thread, and check out mine and Ks posts from the 4th....



Thanks. That page gets awful fuzzy with extra bandwidth. Must have just started skimming a bit too much around there.

Regardless I was planning on just using the thing and not making any waves while doing it. Sounds like that is what others are planning.

Chris