July FasTrack is up

[Bill Miller]

http://www.scca.org/_FileLibrary/File/06-7-fastrack.pdf

[JeffYoung]

And here we go....

Before the deluge starts on ITR, I see at least two obvious errors:

1. RSX weight at 3600 lbs.

2. Porsche 928. That was supposed to be deleted.

Andy/Jake/George, how do we get that corrected?

Thanks guys. Ducking for cover, will come out of my hole in 2-3 weeks.

[Ron Earp]

Unfortunately, they have a very early version of that spreadsheet that contains more errors than what Jeff cited. Many of the flywheel estimates and calculations are off as well. Be that as it may, I'm sure if it comes to pass they will be using the correct process spreadsheet that was worked upon collectively. Don't think you need to run or duck for cover, debating this sheet is somewhat pointless due to errors present.

Ron

[Bill Miller]

I agree, looks like a couple of errors, probably an early version. Also, I thought we capped wheels at 8", not 8.5".

But, what I find really amazing is that it made it into FasTrack so fast!!!!

[Knestis]

Well, THAT'S a trip, huh?

The next time someone suggests that rule changes happen slowly because the system is resistant to change, point to this example: when someone WANTS change, it can happen very quickly.

It's a shame that the proposal went out without the most mature specifications proposal. That's going to complicate the process of final approval as it looks to some members as though the weights are being negotiated rather than computed by a process. That said, Jeff et al. should be very pleased with the impact that they've had on the category. It's going to be a good thing once the final details are worked out.

K

[JeffYoung]

I share responsibility for the "old" version of the spreadsheet getting out -- not quite sure how that happened? I have the latest and greatest from Andy and it has the last round of changes (Celica GTS to ITS, no 928, RSX fixed, other hp and weights fixed)...maybe I sent the wrong one. My apologies guys, if I just screwed it up.

Reiterate what Kirk said on weights: there was NO negotiation over that. It was all done by process. Where the "play" is is in the adders/deducts, and in the estimated flywheel hp in IT trim. If you guys see numbers that are wrong, let us know.

Andy/George/Jake -- how do we let the CRB know as a group that they have an early spreadsheet?

Jeff

[planet6racing]

Well, congratulations!! It's good to see that the process actually works.

I can say that, based on what I've read in this month's FasTrack, there may be a Saturn ITA car for sale soon... :D

[lateapex911]

No worries guys, blame it on ANDY!!! ;) Why not....he's the evil empire, remember??

Annnnyway, lets make sure we are all in agreement on the latest and greatest, and resubmit. It shouldn't be an issue. The con call is coming up soon, we'll go over it then.

Ron?? Nice job.
Jeff?? Nice job.

Guys, Ron cooked this idea up a long time ago, and Jeff hammered it along, long before it ever hit this site. I knew about it, thought we needed to move on it, called Ron, and they have run with it and put a lot of effort into it. I think the collective group did a great job, and it was fun.

I am most impressed by their flexibility and persistance. Thanks guys!

[lateapex911]

Also, I thought the 944S was left in ITS???

Other BIG things:

24 classes ONLY at the Runoffs. THAT is what makes the rest of the changes possible. It signals a huge change....to a free market economy. The "Old guard" just lost the grip.

A, B, C, and D Prepared.

With a direct link to Touring. Can anyone else hear the crickets chirping over Prod cars??

(I bet there's some iteresting reading over on the Prod site!)

Yup...that was one of the most significant Fastracks to come along in a lonnnng time.

[turboICE]

I hope the inference that I have made to the following is wrong:


The usual letters were addressed from the Touring, IT, Showroom Stock, Production, Spec Miata , GT, Formula and Sport Racing categories. The letters always take up valuable time at these meeting[/b]

Should this be taken to mean that member letters are taking up time that would be better spent by CRB on something else? What would be a better use of time than to consider input from members?

[lateapex911]

yeah, but it went on to say:



But this meeting was different. There was time set aside and taken for Strategic.....
[/b]

I think it was not well written, but the main point was that this meeting was unusual in that the big picture was the main issue, and the day to day stuff was more in the background.

There's a TON to discuss in these meetings, and a lot of issues are dependant on other issues. It's a big balancing act. What seem like no brainer ideas hit roadblocks when larger picture considerations are brought in. I think that the CRB guys have a pretty good grip on the larger picture of the club.

I think that what they were trying to convey, is that they are (finally ;) ) looking and doing something proactive, not just reacting to letters. ( I know it's been discussed for years internally, but.....)

Yes, letters are important, but thats not the entire role of the CRB.

Agreed though, not the best "wordsmithing" on that one.

All in all, I'm glad to see stuff that we've been talking about for years finally seeing the light of day.

[tnord]

if we already sent in our letter of support for ITR, do we need to send another now that it is officially posted in Fastrack?

between the financials, ITR, Formula 1000, runoffs limitations, Prepared, etc.....

the biggest fastract i've ever seen in my short 3yrs with the club.

[Geo]

Andy/George/Jake -- how do we let the CRB know as a group that they have an early spreadsheet?

Jeff
[/b]

Jeff, get us the latest and greatest. We have a conference call on Monday and can address it.

[Andy Bettencourt]

I have the latest and included it in our minutes to the CRB after our con-call. I will resend.

AB

[zracre]

ok im used to getting shot down...cant win unless you try...but my beef is that before I sent these in I requested a safety modification...relocate ballast to seat area...I have 100+ pounds of stuff bolted to my flimsy floor...I am dissapointed that this was not addressed. Oh well I will send it again!

[Z3_GoCar]

Wow,

Decisions, decisions.... Do I want to deal with my modifyed harnes and lack of stock computer housing and run ITR, or will I run in Prepared D and be run off eligable, and not hassle with all the non-legal mods. Down side is the SIR, and possible rewards weight.

James

[Bill Miller]

ok im used to getting shot down...cant win unless you try...but my beef is that before I sent these in I requested a safety modification...relocate ballast to seat area...I have 100+ pounds of stuff bolted to my flimsy floor...I am dissapointed that this was not addressed. Oh well I will send it again!
[/b]


Evan,

I thought that the ballast location rule was changing 1/1/07? BTW, never got to look in the trailer last night.

[JeffYoung]

Andy, thanks. Not sure what happened with that, but my guess is it is my fault and I submitted an early version.

My apologies to the group.

[zracre]

Evan,

I thought that the ballast location rule was changing 1/1/07? BTW, never got to look in the trailer last night.
[/b]

yes it is...i just thought with it being a bit of a safety issue it should be immediate. as a note the extra 115# ballast on the Integra and CRX was immediate and that was definitely not a safety issue!!LOL My car is in the paint shop and when it comes back it would be nice to put the weight in a more permanent spot....I have a seat there now acting as ballast...my car was way under and I really wouldnt feel safe having to put that much weight there...I am putting more bars in the cage to beef it up but that wont cut it...

[Jeremy Billiel]

Any update on FWD adders and subtractors in ITS? It seems as though this was discussed and they still want to monitor the FWD race cars a bit more.

Is this a good interpretation?

[Bill Miller]

Any update on FWD adders and subtractors in ITS? It seems as though this was discussed and they still want to monitor the FWD race cars a bit more.

Is this a good interpretation?
[/b]

I would say it's absolutely a good interpretation, and I think it's good that they're looking at things to make sure that they're right.

[Andy Bettencourt]

Any update on FWD adders and subtractors in ITS? It seems as though this was discussed and they still want to monitor the FWD race cars a bit more.

Is this a good interpretation? [/b]

My bet is that you will see something soon effective 1-1-07.

[zracre]

My bet is that you will see something soon effective 1-1-07.
[/b]

:035: YEAAAA BABY!!!! When I see it I will start my 10/10th's effort on the GSR! (if it is fair and it looks like the car has a chance...at least at some tracks!)

[lateapex911]

Wow,

Decisions, decisions.... Do I want to deal with my modifyed harnes and lack of stock computer housing and run ITR, or will I run in Prepared D and be run off eligable, and not hassle with all the non-legal mods. Down side is the SIR, and possible rewards weight.

James
[/b]

LOL....Downsides might be more than that.....have you seen the ruleset? Not written yet...so, that's a big unknown.

And.....have you seen World Challenge cars?? Not shall we say, "easy on the wallet."

I wouldn't expect to have much left from your years salery after a Prep Category build. However, the cars are cool, and there is a decent supply of ex World Challenge cars out there, albeit in various states. Not sure how soon the class would ramp up the numbers enough to make it to the Runoffs.

At least with your current issues, you know where you stand. If the Runoffs are a goal, write a letter telling the board you love what they're doing, but think they could go further and make IT National. Who knows, it might just fly.




Any update on FWD adders and subtractors in ITS? It seems as though this was discussed and they still want to monitor the FWD race cars a bit more.

Is this a good interpretation?
[/b]

yes....except the "monitor FWD race cars" part. It's in the works, but it's not a reaction to race results per se', if you know what I mean. I think Andy's right, we'll see the system online by the new season.

[Bill Miller]

While B & D Prepared will be cool (as will A & C Prepared), the whole World Challenge specification model is a significantly different paradigm. Discreet spec sheets for each car, rewards weight for drivers, factory involvement, etc. Not sure how that is going to fit into any kind of Club Racing Category model that exists today.

And as Jake said, don't plan on them being too easy on the wallet. Look at what it costs to build a top-level T3 car today, and figure you're going to probably double that to build the same car as a DP car. During a conversation that I had w/ a CRB member, we were talking about B & D Prepared. The general consensus was that a competitive DP car will be north of six figures.

[Catch22]

My bank account is extremely happy that there is no longer a race car in the garage.

This stuff is making it very difficult to keep my bank account happy.
Dammit.

[Z3_GoCar]

LOL....Downsides might be more than that.....have you seen the ruleset? Not written yet...so, that's a big unknown.

And.....have you seen World Challenge cars?? Not shall we say, "easy on the wallet."

I wouldn't expect to have much left from your years salery after a Prep Category build. However, the cars are cool, and there is a decent supply of ex World Challenge cars out there, albeit in various states. Not sure how soon the class would ramp up the numbers enough to make it to the Runoffs.

At least with your current issues, you know where you stand. If the Runoffs are a goal, write a letter telling the board you love what they're doing, but think they could go further and make IT National. Who knows, it might just fly.
yes....except the "monitor FWD race cars" part. It's in the works, but it's not a reaction to race results per se', if you know what I mean. I think Andy's right, we'll see the system online by the new season.
[/b]

Jake,

I've seen one, it's in my garage :P

Still that's a good point as to why I'd still go with ITR. It's just I afraid I won't be able to find a harness with all the stock connectors on, you know how slavage yards treat wire harnesses, rip pull yank and when all else fails cut. I'd hate to replace my unrulely bundle of wire with second bundle that's no less unrulely and still not be legel. There's all the unneccessary computer functions to by pass such as traction control, anti-theft, ABS, power windows/locks and the list goes on. Then there's dealing with the non-stock standalone computer, or spend 2k for a plug adaptor module and another 3K for a new computer/stock sensors. Really though run offs are not realistic living on the West coast(well ok maybe more realistic than when they were in Antlanta)

James

[planet6racing]

My bank account is extremely happy that there is no longer a race car in the garage.

This stuff is making it very difficult to keep my bank account happy.
Dammit.
[/b]

I know exactly what you mean. That FasTrack already has me designing my next car...

[Banzai240]

...my car was way under and I really wouldnt feel safe having to put that much weight there...I am putting more bars in the cage to beef it up but that wont cut it...
[/b]

I'm always curious as to WHY it is considered "unsafe" to carry around #115 of ballast in a location that's designed to hold a 200+ lbs passenger? :rolleyes:

The rules allow for one to reinforce the area where the ballast is located... this is a non-issue that some are trying to make one... :dead_horse:

[zracre]

do you carry 200+ pound passengers in the passenger FOOTWELL area? Why would they give us an IMMEDIATE 115# pound penalty then give us the option of running it in the pass seat area A YEAR FROM NOW....its just mean. I have to re-engineer the car multiple times to get the weight right. PITA...just make it legal now. simple. its legal 1/1/07...do they have something against us? I cant see why they would wait like that.

I will stop :dead_horse: because some people just dont see the point and like to argue.

[imported_Webmaster]

I know how you all hate subforums <_< but this sure looks like a good candidate to me.
You&#39;ve got something published nationally thats going to get a LOT of attention from other classes and even other race organizations. Yet, to discuss the evolution of this class you are going to require people to wade through a bunch of unrelated and potentially hidden posts to find the info?

This very post is a perfect example.
Joe Blow hears his car may now be eligible to really race and heads over to IT.com and yet finds no post with the topic of ITR in which this discussion is being held as it&#39;s buried in something called FastTrack that he may have no idea what that means. << nice run on, but you get the point.

At the very least there should be a sticky topic with the CORRECT spreadsheet data and a moderated discussion inside. Bill M. you up for moderating again? :D

[lateapex911]

Mr Webmaster:

(I love calling you that, LOL)

By all means, throw up a category called "The new IT class, ITR" and subhead it "Discuss cars, rules, and your thoughts here"

Put it right under "Rules and Regs, and over "General "

Andy has the proper spreadsheet, he can send it to you, and you can sticky it on top as post one.

Great idea. Seems simple too, no?

[Geo]

do you carry 200+ pound passengers in the passenger FOOTWELL area? Why would they give us an IMMEDIATE 115# pound penalty then give us the option of running it in the pass seat area A YEAR FROM NOW....its just mean.
[/b]

Mean? Are you kidding?

[lateapex911]

do you carry 200+ pound passengers in the passenger FOOTWELL area? Why would they give us an IMMEDIATE 115# pound penalty then give us the option of running it in the pass seat area A YEAR FROM NOW....its just mean. I have to re-engineer the car multiple times to get the weight right. PITA...just make it legal now. simple. its legal 1/1/07...do they have something against us? I cant see why they would wait like that.

I will stop :dead_horse: because some people just dont see the point and like to argue.
[/b]

Evan, Evan, Evan....relax, grab a beer, whatever. You&#39;re aiming your venom at the wrong target. We, (the ITAC) recommended a more liberal policy for ballast placement a loooonng time ago. (And this has been explained here numerous times). Somehow, it was lost in the sauce. Never saw the light of day.

So, we asked around: "Hey, anyone know what happened to that ballast rule? I never saw it in Fastrack?"

Crickets chirped.

OK, so we did it again, and thought that the rule would be added quickly, because it could be handled as an "Errors and Omissions" type of thing. Didn&#39;t happen...the big brass either didn&#39;t see it as such, or it didn&#39;t get presented as such when it went for publication.

Friends, what we have here is simply one of them deals, Yea it sucks, and yea it should be better, but there&#39;s a lot of fish to fry, and this one IS getting done, just not as we&#39;d like. The worlds an imperfect place- "Screws fall out, in the infamous "Breakfast Club" words.

The flipside is that it just isn&#39;t that hard to attach some weight to a car. Honestly, it&#39;s not a NASA grade engineering thing...it&#39;s agricultural technology level stuff. Most anyone can do it, and race shops like Bildon and such do it in their sleep.

Inconvenient? Yes. Sorry. But minorly so.

Mean?? Now...c&#39;mon...get real.

[zracre]

I was referring to Banzai240&#39;s reaction to my request. sorry if I offended. I did not mean to imply that SCCA ITAC BOD was "mean", I was just alittle upset with his tone on the subject...lots of great things are happening. I was just expressing my opinion on a simple subject. the purpose of this forum. Yes i had almost 200# of ballast attached to the small area of the footwell...I have since added some stock parts to try and make weight but still have well over 100# there now. I am engineering more weight legally in the chassis but my point was we had weeks to comply with the weight issue. Once the weight is allowed in the seat area, do I have to take off the welded 1/8" bracing ahead of the seat area that I put in for the temp weights? sorry if it was taken wrong.

[planet6racing]

Well, I just sent my first e-mail to the CRB/BOD in support of what I read in this month&#39;s FasTrack. I encourage everyone to do the same!

[JeffYoung]

Webmaster -- totally agree, let&#39;s set up a new ITR forum. Should be lots to talk about.

[Banzai240]

I was referring to Banzai240&#39;s reaction to my request. sorry if I offended. I did not mean to imply that SCCA ITAC BOD was "mean", I was just alittle upset with his tone on the subject...lots of great things are happening.
[/b]

For the record... The recommendation to change the ballast placement rules was submitted a considerable time before the class realignment was proposed. The idea was to have it in place to cover just the situation you are talking about. It fell through the process somehow, and was only recently "caught" by us... We had moved forward with our recommendations thinking this rule change had been put into motion.

Contrary to popular belief, we are NOT incompetent or otherwise incapable of making logical decisions... we actually DO consider the impacts of these changes and try to compensate for them before we move forward... This one just slipped through... something that wasnt&#39; noticed in time to get it in the books this year. "Rule changes" like this have to go before the BoD... Things like Spec Line (Weight adjustments, etc...) typically don&#39;t... under most circumstances...

Hopefully you can work it out until the rule comes into play...

[turboICE]

If ITR is approved any chance of moving the BMW there and getting rid of SIR use in IT?

BTW I do take the totality of the FasTrack as extremely positive developments.

[Ron Earp]

If ITR is approved any chance of moving the BMW there and getting rid of SIR use in IT?
[/b]

Yes, we put the BMW 325, 328, 330 in the class. It races at a lighter weight than in S too if I recall the weights on the sheet. From the feedback I&#39;ve received on working with various folks on ITR it appears that everyone is in agreement to try and class R correctly and avoid SIRs. Nice thing about R and starting from scratch is that you can be sure all the cars are classed using the same procedure. I&#39;m sure it won&#39;t be perfect, but I bet 325 like mistakes can be avoided.

Ron

[lateapex911]

Off the top of my head, the current ITS E36, speced at 2850, loses about 100 lbs, runs totally unrestricted, and picks up another inch in tire width.

We have a ITAC con call tomorrow night, and we&#39;ll discuss with the CRB liasons the concept of dual classing for an interim period the cars that are currently listed in ITS, but would would move to ITR if it is approved by the BoD.

[Bill Miller]

I know how you all hate subforums <_< but this sure looks like a good candidate to me.
You&#39;ve got something published nationally thats going to get a LOT of attention from other classes and even other race organizations. Yet, to discuss the evolution of this class you are going to require people to wade through a bunch of unrelated and potentially hidden posts to find the info?

This very post is a perfect example.
Joe Blow hears his car may now be eligible to really race and heads over to IT.com and yet finds no post with the topic of ITR in which this discussion is being held as it&#39;s buried in something called FastTrack that he may have no idea what that means. << nice run on, but you get the point.

At the very least there should be a sticky topic with the CORRECT spreadsheet data and a moderated discussion inside. Bill M. you up for moderating again? :D
[/b]


Great idea Bill, and yeah, I&#39;d be happy to mod that forum.

[turboICE]

I&#39;m sure it won&#39;t be perfect, but I bet 325 like mistakes can be avoided.[/b]Until the next car that responds exceptionally well to IT prep comes along. ;) I lightly jest but agree over all.

[Zneed4speed]

Also, I thought the 944S was left in ITS???
[/b]

The 944S should be left in ITS and it needs a weight reduction there!

R.L.

[Banzai240]

The 944S should be left in ITS and it needs a weight reduction there!

R.L.
[/b]

The 944S is STAYING in ITS and it&#39;s weight is currently exactly where the process says it should be... If you run some numbers, you&#39;ll find out that the 944 and 944S are different in weight in an amount equivalent to their 30hp difference...