PDA

View Full Version : numerous issues



mazdagt3
01-29-2004, 12:46 AM
The following is a letter submitted to the comp. board, BOD as well as Steve Johnson.

For several months I have noticed a complete lack of effort on part of our comp. board. Time and time again I see their responses in Fastracks to member input only to hide behind the usual excuses.

For example, "the comp. board does no have time to address this issue and it will have to wait to be included in the 2005 GCR".

"Car would be too fast if classified down from one class to the other because the rules do not allow weight adjustments."

"Against the philosophy of said class to allow a certain part."

C'mon people, wake up and do something. There a many cars classed wrong, there are parts available that you refuse to allow yet there are no performance advantages, and you keep hiding behind the fact of certain rules not allowing adjustments.

I am writing as a concerned SCCA member to all, that our ENTIRE comp. board needs to step down and I call for their immediate resignation period.

We need new blood, thought and ideas to take SCCA into the next century.

With that in mind.... I propose the following.

1. Reclassification of the Dodge/Plymouth Neon from ITS to ITA. For years you have recieved letter upon letter asking for the right thing to be done.

THE CAR IS NOT FAST IN ITS. I drive an ITS car and can tell you that a Neon will never be competitive. Change the improved touring rules to emulate the showroom stock/touring rules.

Throttle restricters and weight penalties are allowed and used for certain vehicles in the showroom stock/touring rules.

Move the Neon NOW. If Neal Sapp can get a 2001 Prelude classified for SSB in the MIDDLE of the season, there is no reason you cannot make this change immediately!

2. Allow threaded collar shocks in improved touring and production. As a shop owner who constructs vehicles, I can attest that there is no difference wheather the adjusting collar sits on a perch or is part of the shock body.

This would allow members to have the chance to choose from additional manufacturers for shocks/struts for their particular car. This would be in the best interests of the club.

3. Open the showroom stock ecu rules to be exact like the touring/improved touring rules. We all know that some people unfortunately cheat. SCCA has gone on record to say that tech officials cannot police the showroom stock ecu rules effectively. That being the case, allow modifications to the original ecu within its original housing.

4. Open the brake rotor rules for showroom stock. There is no difference in braking effectiveness from one brand to the next. As long as dimensions are exact, they should be allowed to save members money on purchasing parts.

5. Decrease the opening of the throttle restrictor of the SSB BMW Z4 an additional 10mm. A comp board member got this car classified under everyone's nose. The car is too fast and has allready won nationals WITH EASE on both sides of the country.


marc cefalo
#256244

ITSRX7
01-29-2004, 11:24 AM
I had replied to this in the Northeast section not knowing that Marc had posted to MULTIPLE areas.

I would suggest reading my response in the NE area and then continuing the thread here.

AB

------------------
Andy Bettencourt
06 ITS RX-7
FlatOut Motorsports
New England Region #188967
www.flatout-motorsports.com

01-29-2004, 11:56 AM
LOL

Greg Amy
01-29-2004, 12:14 PM
This is fun, isn't it?

Go here:

http://forums.improvedtouring.com/it/Forum...TML/000157.html (http://forums.improvedtouring.com/it/Forum3/HTML/000157.html)

ITSRX7
01-29-2004, 01:48 PM
Originally posted by Greg Krom:
I can tell you that the 2300 lb spec weight on the Neon is completely unrealistic. It is a good 150 to 200 lbs too light.

My Spec Neon weighs over 2450 with me in it (I weigh 190, only 10 lbs above the bogey). The car is a '94 ACR Sedan (the lightest available) with a minimal cage, full interior removed, very light kevlar drivers seat, etc. The only thing I have not done is remove the sound deadening, but that sure doesn't add up to 150 lbs, especially on a '94 - there just isn't much deadening material there.

I'm afraid that this bogus weight is the cause of alot of the concern that the CRB and ITAC have regarding moving the car to ITA. That makes a difference of over 1 pound per horsepower when your looking at power-to-weight ratios. Thats enough to change some perceptions.

<Cut and pasted from the NE section - lets keep all our replies here so we can get someting done...>

So, if the 2300 min can't be achieved in the 132hp SOHC car, what weight would YOU put it at in ITA? It would seem a little light given the current makeup. 2400? How about the DOHC car that had 150? 2550?

Throw out some ideas with some justification.

AB


------------------
Andy Bettencourt
06 ITS RX-7
FlatOut Motorsports
New England Region #188967
www.flatout-motorsports.com (http://www.flatout-motorsports.com)

[This message has been edited by ITSRX7 (edited January 29, 2004).]

Greg Krom
01-29-2004, 10:30 PM
I would suggest 2450 for the SOHC and 2500 for the DOHC.

You could probably even go with 2450 for both like we do in Spec Neon. The two engines are actually very evenly matched with the SOHC having more torque and DOHC having a bit more top end. The gearing of the car suits the SOHC better, further negating the additional HP of the DOHC.

Knestis
01-29-2004, 11:42 PM
Would that situation change with open final drive options in IT-prepared cars? I wish that there was a way that the IT/Neon issue could get resolved: What a waste...

K