June is up....

[Fastfred92]

http://www.scca.org/_FileLibrary/File/06-6-fastrack.pdf

[Knestis]

16" wheels on an ITA e36 318, Fred? Nice try. :)

Interesting precedent of a sort set for grandfathering in sub-2200#-spec cages in cars that have been hit with a weight increase (newer Honda Si and del Sol).

There are three requests to which the response is that the cars are too fast for S - Supra, 300zx, and 328i - and mention that the CRB is looking into ITR.

K

[planet6racing]

IT - Investigate all public/written comments and decisions on matters made by the ITAC and
CRB; and return the rules to the state they were in at the end of 2004 (Courtney).
[/b]

Wow! Somebody doesn't like the ITAC...

[Fastfred92]

16" wheels on an ITA e36 318, Fred? Nice try. :)

[/b]

Well, as a habitual requester, I am not afraid ! This one is legit Kirk, or as legit as the 16"'s on the 318ti or 325 for that matter... Most 94 and 95's with sport pkg had 16"s.... And needing a VTS for 95 is crazy as there is no difference in 94 - 95...

[lateapex911]

Wow! Somebody doesn't like the ITAC...
[/b]
LOL, AND I had to waste 15 minutes of my life reading about what a jerk I am!!! The summation you read was very condensed!

(What's interesting about some of the letters we get is how they are SO opposed and act surprised by the path of things. Like it all happened suddenly, or something. On top of that, sometimes they are from people who never responded to the issue that they are so upset about previously.)

[lateapex911]

And, I have to give Cefalo the award for appearing in more categories with more complaints than anyone else! That guy gets around!

I must have been sleeping during the part where the notes on the ITS cars regarding the roll cages.....not sure what that is all about......

[Bill Miller]

"The CRB is developing a proposal for new classes"

Stan, can you comment?

Interesting that the Bimmer and the ZX are 'under consideration' but the Supra is not. If you read between the lines, sounds like an upper bound on ITR has been set.


Based on member input, the CRB rescinds its recommendation to merge SSB into T3 and SSC into T4, as published in the December 2005
Fastrack[/b]

Can you say "sold out"?

[JeffYoung]

Bill, did you read the difference in the 300ZX and Supra responses that way? I was concerned about that -- the Supra slots in almost exactly like the 300Z. Maybe not as good aero wise, but better brakes.

[Bill Miller]

I don't know Jeff. That made specific reference on the Bimmer and the ZX that they're under consideration, but said nothing else about the Supra other than it exceeded the parameters of ITS. My read may not be the right one, but it does make you wonder.

[Stan]

Nope, no black helicopters. All the cars on the published ITR list are still on the list. Several deadlines conspired to prevent any formula or sports racer inputs from making Fastrack, plus some typos not being detected, but if the ITR class is approved the Supra will be there.

It's just that none of those cars are being considered for ITS.

[Greg Amy]

...and act surprised by the path of things. Like it all happened suddenly, or something.[/b]

Jake, for someone that may not frequent this board, the activities and changes within IT of the last two years HAVE been very sudden. If you had relied solely on the monthly SportsCar and Fastrack for your news and updates, I'm sure it's all "Whoa! WTF???" - GA

[charrbq]

Interesting precedent of a sort set for grandfathering in sub-2200#-spec cages in cars that have been hit with a weight increase (newer Honda Si and del Sol).




[/b]
It&#39;s interesting how the rules makers determine that at a specific weight, a car needs to have a roll cage of greater/stronger dimensions in the interest of safety. Yet, when they realize that they stepped in crap when they slapped weight on a car that made it too heavy for its current roll cage, they feel that the lighter cage is okay. Is it fair to say that they will forego safety in the interest of covering their backsides, or is it more accurate to say that what&#39;s safe for some isn&#39;t required for others? <_<

[Bill Miller]

It&#39;s interesting how the rules makers determine that at a specific weight, a car needs to have a roll cage of greater/stronger dimensions in the interest of safety. Yet, when they realize that they stepped in crap when they slapped weight on a car that made it too heavy for its current roll cage, they feel that the lighter cage is okay. Is it fair to say that they will forego safety in the interest of covering their backsides, or is it more accurate to say that what&#39;s safe for some isn&#39;t required for others? <_<
[/b]


What&#39;s even more interesting, is that it&#39;s only ok for cars registered prior to 5/1/06. If you&#39;re building a new instance of one of these cars, you need a heavier cage, due to the weight/tubing size requirements, under the auspices (sp?) of safety, but if the car was registered prior to 5/1/06, it&#39;s going to be just as safe w/ the under-sized cage?

This smacks of the Prod &#39;Gold Seal&#39; cages of several years ago. For those of you that don&#39;t know, in a nut shell, older cage designs were grandfathered in. Look at what&#39;s going on now w/ Prod cages, and you&#39;ll see a whole bunch of people up in arms about it.

I find it somewhat amazing that we have to dump belts after two years, and can&#39;t use non-SFI certified H&N devices, but it&#39;s ok to let cars run w/ under-sized cages. I just don&#39;t get that one. I sure hope no one ever gets hurt in one of these cars w/ an under-sized cage. IMHO, the Club has opened themselves up to a huge liability w/ this one.

[Stan]

Interesting precedent of a sort set for grandfathering in sub-2200#-spec cages in cars that have been hit with a weight increase (newer Honda Si and del Sol).[/b]
Actually, this is not a precedent, since "grandfathering" has happened numerous times before.

FWIW, because racing is inherently dangerous, SCCA makes no claim that any particular design or specification is "safe" or "safer". We set standards and require cars coming into the Club to meet them. Where cars teeter on the edge of a standard and then a spec-line change tips them to the other side, the Club sometimes gives the competitors the option to stay with the prior standard in leiu of rendering their cars noncompliant and hence parked until meeting the new standard. That said, nothing prevents owners upgrading to the new standard, and in fact they are encouraged to do so. With that said, new cars coming in are required to meet the new standard...not because it is "safer", but because it is the current standard.

Building on that thought, let me pose a rhetorical question. For those who feel the Club sacrifices safety in the name of expediency, do you only comply with safety equipment requirements because you are forced to? In a perfect world everyone would optimise the safety of their car and equipment on their own initiative, but the reality is that everyone does not. Hence we have standards. The SFI standard may not be optimal -- I make no presentation that it is, but it is the standard we use for some equipment.

Regards,

[JeffYoung]

Stan, thanks for the clarification on the 300ZX, the Supra, the 328 and ITR/ITS. Glad to have you around.

Jeff

[Knestis]

When i said "interesting," I meant it in academic terms, rather than with any kind of "stepped in crap" connotation attached.

Frankly, the cage standards are pretty arbitrary and aren&#39;t based on any clinical engineering data, and - "big tubing" or "little tubing" - the structures that get built are probably well beyond any reasonable margin of safety for anticipated problems. Heck - fabrication issues should probably be a bigger concern in the real world.

I&#39;m interested in this issue because it&#39;s been suggested that the Golf III should in fact be heavier than it&#39;s currently spec&#39;d, based on The Process, and that the only thing that keeps its minimum weight from being increased is the cage tubing rule. Please don&#39;t let that be the case, given this precedent (reminder?), if it&#39;s truly s&#39;posed to be heavier.

I can argue this without losing any sleep because there are other moves that would arguably be good for the category but are theoretically "impossible" because of the cage issue (e.g., RX7 and 1.6 16v Toyotas to ITB?). Now, it needs to be done in a thoughtful manner, as opposed to "Ooops - screwed up so we&#39;d better start grandfathering..." but let&#39;s think about what&#39;s good for the whole deal.

K

[Jake]

On the cage thing - it always struck me oddly that this magic happened when the SPEC WEIGHT hit 2380lbs. Even though my MR2 spec weight was 2370, it raced closer to 2500lbs when I started out.

[Bill Miller]

I can argue this without losing any sleep because there are other moves that would arguably be good for the category but are theoretically "impossible" because of the cage issue (e.g., RX7 and 1.6 16v Toyotas to ITB?). Now, it needs to be done in a thoughtful manner, as opposed to "Ooops - screwed up so we&#39;d better start grandfathering..." but let&#39;s think about what&#39;s good for the whole deal.

K
[/b]


What Kirk has brought up, was pretty much where I was comming from. Discussions about moving a few cars down, and adding weight to them, especially if they were already &#39;on the bubble&#39;. always had the issue about tubing size for the cage come up. Based on the recent FasTrack, sounds like it&#39;s a non-issue, and should not hinder having any of those cars moved down w/ some weight added.


With that said, new cars coming in are required to meet the new standard...not because it is "safer", but because it is the current standard.
[/b]

Stan,

With all due respect, you sound like a veteran politician w/ that line.

[charrbq]

When i said "interesting," I meant it in academic terms, rather than with any kind of "stepped in crap" connotation attached.

Frankly, the cage standards are pretty arbitrary and aren&#39;t based on any clinical engineering data, and - "big tubing" or "little tubing" - the structures that get built are probably well beyond any reasonable margin of safety for anticipated problems. Heck - fabrication issues should probably be a bigger concern in the real world.



K
[/b]
Interesting word, "probably"...particularly when it comes to safety. "The cars will &#39;probably&#39; slow down when they see the accident, so we &#39;probably&#39; don&#39;t need a waving yellow".
It just seems that no one thought about the weight/roll cage structure thing, until someone brought it up on a thread concerning the additional weight of the Del Sol.
Sorry if the "stepped in crap" offends, it comes from my "raised in the country" roots. I cleaned it up substantially, but it sometimes fits the situation.

[orlando_wrx]

What Kirk has brought up, was pretty much where I was comming from. Discussions about moving a few cars down, and adding weight to them, especially if they were already &#39;on the bubble&#39;. always had the issue about tubing size for the cage come up. Based on the recent FasTrack, sounds like it&#39;s a non-issue, and should not hinder having any of those cars moved down w/ some weight added.
Stan,

With all due respect, you sound like a veteran politician w/ that line.
[/b]


Sounds like MR2 to ITB re-cage arguements are no longer valid and 1.8 ITA miatas could get weight without having to recage now? Wow, what a heap they&#39;ve "stepped in" :cavallo:

note: my cage is built with the thicker walls...just in case...

[Ron Earp]

Stan, thanks for the clarification on the 300ZX, the Supra, the 328 and ITR/ITS. Glad to have you around.
Jeff
[/b]

Yes, thanks. Being a indivdual that runs for cover when I hear a helicopter, I envisioned some Black Helicopter Crew voodoo brewing on the Supra in ITR.

Ron

[Stan]

Stan,

With all due respect, you sound like a veteran politician w/ that line.[/b]
Touche! :birra:

[JamesB]

Well in part I can see where the CRB is comming from. 100# over the limit, I can see allowing grandfathering. 500# over, no way no how could I see that as safe or sane.

[shwah]

On the cage thing - it always struck me oddly that this magic happened when the SPEC WEIGHT hit 2380lbs. Even though my MR2 spec weight was 2370, it raced closer to 2500lbs when I started out.
[/b]

The rules specify the cage tubing based on weight of the car. Not spec line weight.

[charrbq]

The rules specify the cage tubing based on weight of the car. Not spec line weight.
[/b]
I&#39;m sorry...I don&#39;t follow that one. How do they determine the weight of the car and not the spec line weight? My grand rotundancy weighs more in my car than my sometimes codriver. How do they know that? :wacko:

[Bill Miller]

Which is essentially spec line weight - 180# (avg. driver weight, but I want to know who they&#39;re using for that avg! :D )

[JamesB]

I am under 180 :)

[charrbq]

I am under 180 :)
[/b]
I used to be, but I had to start eating again. The drugs and the anorexia were starting to take a toll. Besides...I like to eat and drink beer! :lol:

[JamesB]

Oh I eat well and drink beer, but I hit the gym 3x a week to maintain my coushined 175# (im 5&#39;6" I should be like 150.)

So if I could cut back on the beer and go with the 10oz ny strip instead of the 14oz with a loaded baked potatoe maybe I can justify another 25# ballast in the car.

[charrbq]

I do the gym thing, too, but I&#39;ve got 5 inches on you. At 170 (two yrs ago) my car was 5lbs over...dry. But then I started eating again. Last time I weighed us, I was told that if I came in under, they would have to erase my qualifying times. I thought I was going to hurt myself laughing!

[JamesB]

gotcha. no I actually was 90# under first school when I rolled on the scales. I got 80# in the car and run more then 1/8 tank of fuel when I get off the track. I will likely add a 25# plate for the glen and VIR, I didnt like how the car drove with nearly a full gas tank vs a half tank.

[turboICE]

The rules specify the cage tubing based on weight of the car. Not spec line weight.[/b]

Not true.


Originally posted by 2006 GCR 18.1.6.D.
Improved Touring roll cage tubing sizes are to be calculated based on the published vehicle weight minus 180 lbs.Which when you deduct a fixed amount from every spec line weight for tube size means that tubing is based on spec line weight.

[erlrich]

gotcha. no I actually was 90# under first school when I rolled on the scales. I got 80# in the car and run more then 1/8 tank of fuel when I get off the track. I will likely add a 25# plate for the glen and VIR, I didnt like how the car drove with nearly a full gas tank vs a half tank. [/b]

Ok - enough already :angry:

Those of us who have to carefully measure the amount of gas we start a race with so we finish with just a few teaspoons left officially hate you guys now. Geez, my left leg weighs more than you do James.

Btw, are you gonna be back together for MARRS IV?

[orlando_wrx]

The rules specify the cage tubing based on weight of the car. Not spec line weight.
[/b]

Quite the contrary, copy/pasted from the GCR:



D. For purposes of determining tubing sizes, the vehicle weight
is as raced without fuel and driver. The minus tolerance
for wall thickness should not be less than .010” below the
nominal thickness. Improved Touring roll cage tubing sizes are to be calculated
based on the published vehicle weight minus 180 lbs."

[shwah]

Never noticed that section of 18.6.D referring to the spec line weights. Why specify the recommended tubing for car weight ranges, and on the next page say that the car can weigh whatever you want for that tubing size that fits your spec line? Not sure how the ink on the page in the ITCS affects roll cage performance, but apparantly it does so more than the mass of the car :P. (and no this does not bug me at all, but I do find it funny)

So, I made the mistake of trying to apply logic to the rule, and believed that the actual car weight would be considered for tubing size. That would be why my last post made no sense.

[Eagle7]

So, I made the mistake of trying to apply logic to the rule, ...[/b]
We though you&#39;d know better by now. :018: :lol:

[JamesB]

I believe at its current status, studied and poondered enough the GCR will give someone a brain tumor or tracked to the cause of a stroke.

[ITANorm]

Sounds like MR2 to ITB re-cage arguements are no longer valid and 1.8 ITA miatas could get weight without having to recage now? Wow, what a heap they&#39;ve "stepped in" :cavallo:

note: my cage is built with the thicker walls...just in case...
[/b]

:rolleyes:

[JLawton]

Did I miss something?? There were only 6 letters for the change to the HNS ruling?? Were most of the letters in the May issue?

[erlrich]

Did I miss something?? There were only 6 letters for the change to the HNS ruling?? Were most of the letters in the May issue? [/b]

There were 12 in the May Fastrack - so a total of 18 of us have written in. By our (racer&#39;s) standards that&#39;s a flood, isn&#39;t it?