July Fast Track

[Andy Bettencourt]

http://www.scca.org/_FileLibrary/File/05-0...07-fastrack.pdf (http://www.scca.org/_FileLibrary/File/05-07-fastrack.pdf)

AB

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

[Matt Rowe]

Hasn't this been out for awhile? About 3 weeks maybe?

Although it does remind me that I had a question about the new classification for the Ford Escort ZX2 (98-00) The spec line lists the compression ratio at 10:1, while all of the documentation I can find on the motor calls out 9.6:1. Am I missing some piece of Ford trivia or did a mistake get made in the classification?

I know, the ITAC and CRB never make innocent mistakes, it must be part of some pro-Escort conspiracy? http://ITForum.ImprovedTouring.com/biggrin.gif

Seriously though is my information on the motor wrong or can we expect a correction to be made?

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

[Speed Raycer]

Improved Touring
.......

Item 3. Effective 1/1/06: Change section
17.1.4.D.10.a.5 to read as follows:
A lateral, diagonal main hoop brace illustrated
in Figure 1, GCR Section 18, is
required. Any number of additional reinforcing
bars are permitted within the structure
of the cage,

***REMOVED provided they meet the
minimum tubing size per GCR Sections
18.1.6.C.REMOVED****

Such reinforcing tubes may pass
through any mandatory or optional bulkhead
or panel separating the driver/passenger
compartment from the trunk/cargo
area/fuel tank/fuel cell area, provided the
bulkhead is sealed around such reinforcing
tubes.

Cool!!! This makes things a little easier!

------------------
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)

[Knestis]

Hooray! Another dumb-ass ITCS thing gone. On the other hand...

ITB
1. Volkswagen Golf III (93-97), p. 49, correct
the specs as follows: Gear Ratios: 3.45,
1.94, 1.29, 0.97, 0.80, or 3.45, 1.94, 1.37,
1.03, 0.85

I've spent a LOT of time looking at documentation and never seen that second set of ratios listed for a 'box that came in a US-model, 2-liter Golf III.

If we are talking about the DFN here, I've never seen anything that put it in a Golf III where there wasn't a 1.8 bolted to it.

K

[This message has been edited by Knestis (edited June 08, 2005).]

[zracre]

Lower the weight of the 325e???!!! they have never seen John Dean III run top 3 in an ITS field 35 cars deep...hmmmmm

------------------
Evan Darling
ITA Integra

[chuck baader]

YES!!!!

------------------
Chuck Baader
#36 ITA E30 BMW
Alabama Region Divisional Registrar

[cherokee]

This is the part that scares me:

..Cars demed unsafe due to the unavailability of parts will be declassified from the IT class.

[Andy Bettencourt]

Originally posted by cherokee:
This is the part that scares me:

..Cars demed unsafe due to the unavailability of parts will be declassified from the IT class.



Why would that scare you?

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

[gsbaker]

And,

"The Club Racing Board requested from the Safety Committee more input on head and neck restraint systems."

Slowly but surely...

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

[Knestis]

Dave Zaslow sent me a copy of documentation that DOES show that gearbox (and ratios) in a US MkIII so I stand corrected.

K

[cherokee]

Originally posted by Andy Bettencourt:
Why would that scare you?



Because some dude somewhere might get the idea that parts for my car are not available....and I have boxes and shelves full of them.

Also I have gotten an impression (be it correct or not) that the old cars are a thorn in the side of progress....execpt for the popular old cars ie. RX7, there we might make allowances because so many people run them.

[Andy Bettencourt]

Good response - and I understand your concern. But also understand that it was a clarification to the request of the RX-3 driver who wanted alternative products for his car because they were not available anymore.

It is the position of the ITAC that this not be considered. Individual allowances for this type of thing brought on by obsolecense is not in the cards. If you can't legally campain a car because you can't find parts, it's time to move on.

AB

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

[cherokee]

I agree 100% with you. Do not change the that kind of rule for one car. some rules should be off limits no matter what ie carbs,injectors,cams,rotors, you get the idea. If you love your car (as I) and you want to run it in IT, do some searching you will find a windshield or whatever,you might have to buy an entire car to get that one part but you make your choices. I know that one day parts will go away then I will decide if I want to move to prod or build a new car. Just do not declassify a car because one guy has broken his winshield.

[JeffYoung]

Agree with both points. You can find parts for the old cars, it just takes effort (and dollars). If people can keep cars from the 50s on the road, you can find a windshield, somewhere, for an RX3. So, no rules breaks just because your car is old

Let's not declassify them though. If you have the "will" to run an old car in IT -- and to make the point that the older cars can be competitve -- there is a "way" to do it.

AB -- motor is IN the Jensen, Ronnie has just been slack in getting the pics up. It looks AWESOME --

[ddewhurst]

***..Cars demed unsafe due to the unavailability of parts will be declassified from the IT class.***

***If you can't legally campain a car because you can't find parts, it's time to move on.***

I agree that it's time to move on IF a racer can not find parts. BUT to declassify a car because one or more racers can't find a part is not fair to those that have parts.

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

[Andy Bettencourt]

It will have to be a documented issue, supported by many sources...not some off-the cuff de-classification.

AB

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

[Greg Amy]

My take on that reference is, "Your car will be declassififed long before we start making rules exceptions due to lack of parts availability."

Stick to the rules, and I sincerely doubt your car will be declassified. Start complaining about not being able to get windshields for your RX-3, or God forbid start using illegal Lexan parts with lack of availability as your excuse, and it's looking like Production Time...

[dyoungre]

While I agree that it is time to move on when production parts are no longer available, I also agree that the proposed rule is scary, as it is not necessary, and (as stated by the paraphrased comment of 'I have a garage full of used, but still service spec parts') redundant. It reminds me of a rules committee I was once a part of, that insisted that a minimum weight requirement was needed to avoid unsafe design - even when a safety cage structure was well defined in the rules. If ONE car is unsafe, it's unsafe - and if it has non-oem parts, it has non-oem parts. PERIOD. No new rule required.

------------------
Dave Youngren
NER ITA RX7 #61

[Knestis]

It's been precedent that cars are not de-listed if there are logbooked examples currently competing. There was an effort to do some weeding a few years back - more than a few, maybe - and Club Racing actually went so far as to reinstate a line in the ITCS after they killed it, when someone demonstrated that they were still running under it.

K