Jan 07 Fast Track is up

[Andy Bettencourt]

http://scca.com/_FileLibrary/File/07-1-fastrack.pdf

For those afraid of National status, you are safe!

"C. Based on member input, a Regional Class meeting or exceeding with participation levels 0.5 above the participation requirements outlined in paragraph 9.1.12.A. for one (1) year two (2) successive years may be considered for inclusion in the National Championship racing program, except Improved Touring."

[JoshS]

And some other changes we've heard of: the BOD *rejected* the weight sticker proposal. And you can now legally remove your speakers, amps and other radio-related whatnot in IT.

[Andy Bettencourt]

I am not so sure on the wight stickers. Why would they re-write the section and bold new text only to have it 'rejected'? There is also no clear END to that section. Could one logically assume that the original wording was rejected and this new wording is the new rule? It sure is less stern than the GCR is right now...I will have the stickers on...

<div align="left">D. Minimum Weight Decals</div>
<div align="left">The specified minimum weight shall be displayed on both sides of the racecar. The numbers shall be sufficient in size and legibility to be read from a distance of ten feet. If the displayed number should be found at any time to be lower than the current specified minimum weight, this shall be considered a violation of the rules.</div>
[/i]

[tnord]

http://scca.com/_FileLibrary/File/07-1-fastrack.pdf

For those afraid of National status, you are safe!

"C. Based on member input, a Regional Class meeting or exceeding with participation levels 0.5 above the participation requirements outlined in paragraph 9.1.12.A. for one (1) year two (2) successive years may be considered for inclusion in the National Championship racing program, except Improved Touring."
[/b]

:OLA:

under current structure, i&#39;m glad IT is remaining regional only.....BUT; i think it&#39;d be best for the club to completely do away with the distinction of national/regional, and the top 24 classes go each year. i can&#39;t remember who layed out the structure of this, perhaps it was jake? anyway...i really liked the idea.

[GKR_17]

Nothing on the ECU proposal?

The fuel cell note is clearer now for all the BMW&#39;s, but still no correction on the ITR BMW 328i/is specs.

Also, seems odd they added the 318i/is models to the 318ti line, since the chassis is very different between those cars. Would have made more sense to add it to the other E36 318 line (even though the engine is different, the same is already true of the ITS 325&#39;s).

[Knestis]

Nothing on the ECU proposal?

The fuel cell note is clearer now for all the BMW&#39;s, but still no correction on the ITR BMW 328i/is specs. ...
[/b]
That makes no sense to me. They&#39;ve taken a clause ("same size as stock") that didn&#39;t make any sense, or have any stated rationale, and applied it to more cars from the same manufacturer.

Consistent + Dumb = Consistently Dumb

K

[lateapex911]

:OLA:

under current structure, i&#39;m glad IT is remaining regional only.....BUT; i think it&#39;d be best for the club to completely do away with the distinction of national/regional, and the top 24 classes go each year. i can&#39;t remember who layed out the structure of this, perhaps it was jake? anyway...i really liked the idea.
[/b]

Yup, that&#39;s ]me. Some CRB guys like IT going National, others don&#39;t. Some think if we do we should just merge with Limited Prep Prod. Some (All?) ITAC guys start sweating REALLY badly when they hear that, LOL




Nothing on the ECU proposal?

The fuel cell note is clearer now for all the BMW&#39;s, but still no correction on the ITR BMW 328i/is specs.

Also, seems odd they added the 318i/is models to the 318ti line, since the chassis is very different between those cars. Would have made more sense to add it to the other E36 318 line (even though the engine is different, the same is already true of the ITS 325&#39;s).

[/b]

ECU proposal is on the way ib Jan Fastack.

The BMW thing...that sounds odd. We&#39;ll have to check into that... and the fuel cel thing too.

[tnord]

merging with limited prep prod is a BAD idea. where would would be the point of entry for new racers? does EVERYONE go through SM then?

if you want to merge classes, merge GT2/GT3.

or, merge prepared and prod.

or, merge FC and F1000.

or SSB and T3.

there are a lot better places to combine classes than IT into prod. i won&#39;t even get into the nature of the PTB to talk out of both sides of their mouth by continuing to accept mfg money and creating more and more Touring classes, but wanting to combine classes because we have too many. i agree, we have way too many classes (who are we, NASA?), but you can&#39;t solve this problem by creating 2 prepared classes, 2 touring classes, an IT class, and a formula class without having a plan of where you&#39;re going to trim fat.

:personal rant over:

[GKR_17]

That makes no sense to me. They&#39;ve taken a clause ("same size as stock") that didn&#39;t make any sense, or have any stated rationale, and applied it to more cars from the same manufacturer.

Consistent + Dumb = Consistently Dumb

K
[/b]

As for the fuel cell, what doesn&#39;t make sense? These cars can run any size cell if within one foot of the stock location (like every other car). But since it is much more difficult to put the cell within one foot of the stock location in those cars, they are allowed to place it in the trunk. The size limit is almost surely to stop people from using it as ballast. The change just clarifies that it doesn&#39;t have to be in the trunk.

[Andy Bettencourt]

As for the fuel cell, what doesn&#39;t make sense? These cars can run any size cell if within one foot of the stock location (like every other car). But since it is much more difficult to put the cell within one foot of the stock location in those cars, they are allowed to place it in the trunk. The size limit is almost surely to stop people from using it as ballast. The change just clarifies that it doesn&#39;t have to be in the trunk. [/b]

100% correct.

[Matt Rowe]

As for the fuel cell, what doesn&#39;t make sense? These cars can run any size cell if within one foot of the stock location (like every other car). But since it is much more difficult to put the cell within one foot of the stock location in those cars, they are allowed to place it in the trunk. The size limit is almost surely to stop people from using it as ballast. The change just clarifies that it doesn&#39;t have to be in the trunk.
[/b]

No offense to the ITAC but when did level of difficulty matter. Whatever happened to living with the good AND bad points of the horse you chose? And please don&#39;t say it&#39;s a safety issue and that argument is never acknowledged as holding water.

The statements made in the past are that we are trying to cleanup single spec line exceptions and now we are adding a dozen? I think that needs a little more clarification than it&#39;s too difficult to follow the rule the rest of us live with.

[tnord]

i&#39;m with matt on this one.

it&#39;s hard to keep a 1.6L miata diff from blowing up, can i switch to a torsen like in SM for safety reasons? :114:

[gprodracer]

Not to stir the pot...

Most of the people I&#39;ve talked to are not "afraid" of IT going National, it&#39;s a rational conclusion (for those of us on this side of the fence) that it&#39;s not necessary to add all the "issues" that come with National classification to a perfectly good class as it exists today.
Again, just my 2 cents.

Mark

[Knestis]

100% correct.
[/b]

Okay - i must have missed the memo that there was a commonly understood rationale for the spec-line exception. Last time it came up, there was a lot of theorizing but I didn&#39;t remember any actual answer from folks who know.

I kind of agree with Matt too but what&#39;s done is hard to undo.

K

[GKR_17]

No offense to the ITAC but when did level of difficulty matter. Whatever happened to living with the good AND bad points of the horse you chose? And please don&#39;t say it&#39;s a safety issue and that argument is never acknowledged as holding water.

The statements made in the past are that we are trying to cleanup single spec line exceptions and now we are adding a dozen? I think that needs a little more clarification than it&#39;s too difficult to follow the rule the rest of us live with.
[/b]

It&#39;s not as if this is a new issue. This has been permitted on some cars for over a decade now. At some point, the word "allowed" was lost on the spec lines. Now it&#39;s back, and applied to the cars that make sense. Not just BMW&#39;s by the way.

Do you also have a problem with allowing the cage to go through the rear window (which can be replaced with lexan)? I count 12 or so cars with that allowance.

[Andy Bettencourt]

It&#39;s not as if this is a new issue. This has been permitted on some cars for over a decade now. At some point, the word "allowed" was lost on the spec lines. Now it&#39;s back, and applied to the cars that make sense. Not just BMW&#39;s by the way.

Do you also have a problem with allowing the cage to go through the rear window (which can be replaced with lexan)? I count 12 or so cars with that allowance. [/b]

Again, 100% correct.

[Matt Rowe]

It&#39;s not as if this is a new issue. This has been permitted on some cars for over a decade now. At some point, the word "allowed" was lost on the spec lines. Now it&#39;s back, and applied to the cars that make sense. Not just BMW&#39;s by the way.

Do you also have a problem with allowing the cage to go through the rear window (which can be replaced with lexan)? I count 12 or so cars with that allowance.[/b]
I&#39;m not arguing with the cars that have already had this on their spec line but i see no justification in adding additional cars and I don&#39;t care what make they are. And furthermore the point is that we have come along way in the last decade in NOT making additional spec line exemptions so why do we suddenly need this? Everyone&#39;s car has lot&#39;s of item that are difficult to do, why pick this exception.

As for the allowance for bars through the rear window, that is an allowance made that is required to install a required cage element. This is an allowance to install optional equipment but maybe you can enlighten me as to why it isn&#39;t possible to install a fuel cell by following the current rule.

[lateapex911]

BMW guys, help us out here by describing the stock fuel tank. Isn&#39;t it kinda under the rear seat, and fills both sides, ...almost like two tanks? And is it even possible to mount a cell in the trunk and stay within the 12" rule, keeping in mind the axle/diff is there?

[GKR_17]

The stock tank is located under the rear seat for the BMW sedans. The driveshaft runs right through the middle of it. The earlier cars actually have two tanks connected with a hose that runs under the driveshaft. The trunk is on the other side of the rear differential from the tank. It varies somewhat by model, but the nearest part of the trunk is roughly 18" or more away from the stock tank location. Without the exception, the only way to get a cell (of typical capacity) would be to cut out the rear seat area and go up and/or put it in the passenger compartment. I doubt anyone believes those are good ideas.

[Z3_GoCar]

Yup, that&#39;s ]me. Some CRB guys like IT going National, others don&#39;t. Some think if we do we should just merge with Limited Prep Prod. Some (All?) ITAC guys start sweating REALLY badly when they hear that, LOL
ECU proposal is on the way ib Jan Fastack.

The BMW thing...that sounds odd. We&#39;ll have to check into that... and the fuel cel thing too.
[/b]

Jake,

All the 2.8l BMW&#39;s need to be seperated between &#39;98 and &#39;99. In the Z3 the chassis is the same but there&#39;s enough of a change that they should be considered different motors with different wire harnesses and different stock ECU&#39;s. In the sedan this is where the e-36 and e-46 part ways, again with different wire harnesses and ECU&#39;s. There&#39;s also the fact that the double VANOS has more potential as it&#39;s continuously variable verses the off/on nature of the single VANOS and has a larger range of adjustment. Should be worth at least 10hp from talking to someone who built one up for USTCC, and that&#39;s before really optimizing it.

James

[JoshS]

Jake,

All the 2.8l BMW&#39;s need to be seperated between &#39;98 and &#39;99. In the Z3 the chassis is the same but there&#39;s enough of a change that they should be considered different motors with different wire harnesses and different stock ECU&#39;s. In the sedan this is where the e-36 and e-46 part ways, again with different wire harnesses and ECU&#39;s. There&#39;s also the fact that the double VANOS has more potential as it&#39;s continuously variable verses the off/on nature of the single VANOS and has a larger range of adjustment. Should be worth at least 10hp from talking to someone who built one up for USTCC, and that&#39;s before really optimizing it.

James
[/b]
James,

At least for the Z3, leave them on the same line and take advantage of update/backdate!

On the 328i, since the &#39;98 is an E36 and the &#39;99 is an E46, I think it&#39;s appropriate to break those up.

[Matt Rowe]

Without the exception, the only way to get a cell (of typical capacity) would be to cut out the rear seat area and go up and/or put it in the passenger compartment. I doubt anyone believes those are good ideas.[/b]
So it&#39;s possible but it results in a higher cg? Again i don&#39;t see the need for an exception. Plus i&#39;d feel a lot better about a fuel cell closer to the center of a roll cage than out in the trunk which is essentially a crush zone.

I do know my car falls into a similar category as it is a thin tank beneath the rear seat, installing a fuel cell would result in it being higher than stock and extending into the passenger compartment. And yes I would rather have it back in the trunk for weight reasons but I don&#39;t think it justifies an exception to the rules.

I still don&#39;t see any good reason to justify an exception or any difficulty that is any worse than a challenge any other car faces.

[lateapex911]

Well, Matt, if we had a clean sheet of paper....

But we don&#39;t, and there are cars out there running around with setups based on the line item notes...so changing that isn&#39;t possible, obviously.

Then we have cars getting moved to new classes..but they are already built presumably, so they too need to keep the exception.

Soooo..., in your eyes, the exceptions should be limited to those already in existance, and no others?

[Matt Rowe]

Soooo..., in your eyes, the exceptions should be limited to those already in existance, and no others?[/b]

That sounds about right. I can&#39;t see any reason to justify expanding an exception that isn&#39;t uniformly applied to the entire class. But the rationale of it&#39;s an existing situaution that is hard to undo is better than the original reason of "it&#39;s too difficult" that was presented.

[GKR_17]

At least for the Z3, leave them on the same line and take advantage of update/backdate!

On the 328i, since the &#39;98 is an E36 and the &#39;99 is an E46, I think it&#39;s appropriate to break those up.
[/b]

Different engines on the same spec line already exists with the E36 325. The &#39;92 was pre-vanos with a different head, ECU, and harness.

As for the &#39;99 328, the 4-door is an E46, but the 2-door is the last year for the E36 I believe. The specs on the line do not mach the E36 chassis though. Also, the &#39;is&#39; designation ended with the E36 as well (2-door E46 models are labeld &#39;Ci&#39;). The way the line is now, you could presumable update/backdate from the E46 to the E36 chassis, and that surely isn&#39;t right.

[IPRESS]

I am not so sure on the wight stickers. Why would they re-write the section and bold new text only to have it &#39;rejected&#39;? There is also no clear END to that section. Could one logically assume that the original wording was rejected and this new wording is the new rule? It sure is less stern than the GCR is right now...I will have the stickers on...

<div align="left">D. Minimum Weight Decals
<div align="left">The specified minimum weight shall be displayed on both sides of the racecar. The numbers shall be sufficient in size and legibility to be read from a distance of ten feet. If the displayed number should be found at any time to be lower than the current specified minimum weight, this shall be considered a violation of the rules.</div>
[/i]
[/b][/quote]
Andy can you get a REAL answer on this? What I read is that the requirement was rejected. I have been wrong before.....a lot.

Thanks, Mac

[erlrich]

It sure is less stern than the GCR is right now[/b] Andy, I may have missed it; is there something currently in the GCR about weight stickers?

[Andy Bettencourt]

Must have been thinking the proposed wording - it was harsh.

The common thought process is that it has been shot down. Not an issue anymore.

[leggwork]

just curious - why would anybody object to the min weight you&#39;re supposed to be above being posted on your window to make it easier for tech?
cheers,
bruce




Must have been thinking the proposed wording - it was harsh.

The common thought process is that it has been shot down. Not an issue anymore.
[/b]

[Greg Amy]

just curious - why would anybody object to the min weight you&#39;re supposed to be above being posted on your window to make it easier for tech?[/b]

Well, Bruce, that&#39;s just not the way things have been done before! Of course!

Seriously, I canNOT imagine what reasonable disagreement there is with this. What, the $5 in vinyl? Soem kind of misguided competitive advantage like knowing someone&#39;s horsepower (another silly argument)?

Regardless, I&#39;m putting my weight listing on the car. As an inspector, I know it makes life SOOOO much easier for Tech. - GA

[Andy Bettencourt]

Bruce,

Check out some of the web-boards. The responses to the way it was worded had peoples panties in a bunch. I thought it was a great idea and I will be doing it.

[Knestis]

I&#39;ve already got my weight stickers made and am VERY glad that they&#39;ve revisited the extra language in the original draft of the rule, that described the draconian penalty for not having them. There&#39;s no need for the rules to stipulate what will happen if you fall afoul of them, unless we want to go to mandatory sentencing guidelines for every clause in the book.

K

[Eagle7]

Regardless, I&#39;m putting my weight listing on the car. As an inspector, I know it makes life SOOOO much easier for Tech. - GA
[/b]

I&#39;m curious. If they&#39;re not required to be correct, how will this help them? Like when they ask me what my weight is supposed to be - that really makes me wonder.



I do think it&#39;s a good rule and would like to see it passed.

[tom91ita]

any suggestions as to font type and size that would be good (to meet the visible from 10 feet, etc.? also, i guess i will need to do something innovative to cover different classes:

GP 1900 #
ITB 2130 #

are you guys planning on putting the graphics on the outside of the window or on the inside?
white letters/black background or just white letters on glass?

any tech folks out there with a preference? if we are doing this for them, i&#39;d like to make sure it works for you.

[ddewhurst]

Information decal of the future. :wacko:


ITA weight (lbs) 2280

Brakes Std. (mm) (F) 227 Disc ® 200 Drum ® 236 Disc

Gear Ratios 3.88, 2.22, 1.43, 1.00, 0.83

Wheel Dia. (inch) 13

Wheel Base (inch) 95.3

Comp Ratio 9.4

Valves IN & EX (mm) There are no valves

Displ. (cc) 2292

Engine Type 2 rotor

[gran racing]

Hmmm, I like the min. weight decal idea but a bar code system might just work. :D

[ddewhurst]

Dave, I like that ^. :023:

[tdw6974]

I&#39;m curious. If they&#39;re not required to be correct, how will this help them? Like when they ask me what my weight is supposed to be - that really makes me wonder.



I do think it&#39;s a good rule and would like to see it passed.
[/b]
Just have to jump in here :rolleyes: As Tech inspector in my former years (1980- 2002) for SCCA, IMSA,and any other bunch that showed up at Watkins Glen I usually ran the platform scales for all those years it will make life easier for your Friendly B) inspector. On the SCCA site there are currently displayed 30 plus pages of weights "updated monthly" as an Weigh/Scale Master (occasional referred to as the astard at the scales) I DID NOT WANT TO KNOW what you car is supposed to weigh ;) just give me a starting point and I get you in and out in a hurry! Win or DQED no adding a pound or 2 to squeak someone through. Also remember the scales are the scales at that track really didn&#39;t care if someone says" I weighed 150 lbs more last week at -- insert name of track-- :D any How I have our decals ready to Install :114: here is site http://www.zazzle.com/products/product/pro...4649000-8812950 (http://www.zazzle.com/products/product/product.asp?product_id=217-04649000-8812950) and I&#39;m sure somone on the board can whip some fine vinyl up for us. Rember be friendly to that old tech inspector with a little luck you may see him in impound :D is it race time yet??? :eclipsee_steering:

[JIgou]

I think the minimum weight sticker makes sense, but the proposed implementation left a little to be desired.

IMHO, the best thing National could do if they want to go this route would be to create a standard sticker and sell it/share the cut files so everyone&#39;s weight sticker looks the same. (Think kill switch sticker/fire system sticker). Then require it to be in the same general area on the cars, at least by class.

Jarrod

[Greg Amy]

...create a standard sticker and sell it/share the cut files so everyone&#39;s weight sticker looks the same. (Think kill switch sticker/fire system sticker)...[/b]

Or someone develops and resells one that is so clever - and so cost-effective - that it becomes the de facto standard (think Racer Wholesale-sourced kill switches or MazdaSpeed tow hooks for SMs, for example...)

[joeg]

I already made those stickers up and they are on the car. It was probably requested for techs trying to weigh huge groups and as being an occassional helper at tech, I know it would cut down on time.

[mlytle]

Or someone develops and resells one that is so clever - and so cost-effective - that it becomes the de facto standard (think Racer Wholesale-sourced kill switches or MazdaSpeed tow hooks for SMs, for example...)
[/b]

the wdcr srx7 group did this already.

too bad we can&#39;t make all IT cars weigh the same so we could get a volume discount like the spec classes! :)

[its66]

the wdcr srx7 group did this already.

too bad we can&#39;t make all IT cars weigh the same so we could get a volume discount like the spec classes! :)
[/b]

:D They could..with SIR&#39;s...ducks..runs for cover... :lol:

[mlytle]

:D They could..with SIR&#39;s...ducks..runs for cover... :lol:
[/b]
whoooo hooooo! sir&#39;s for everyone! :023:

oh wait...haven&#39;t we already had this conversation? :P

[good one!!!]

marshall

[Mike Spencer]

I am not so sure on the wight stickers... <snip> [/b]

I have the 2007 GCR in my hand. I looked up section 9.3.28 and there is nothing with regard to displaying the racecar weight. Looks like they ditched the whole idea.

[almracing]

Hmmm, I like the min. weight decal idea but a bar code system might just work. :D
[/b]

CODE 39?? CODE 128?? UPC?? 2D?? That could lead to years of debate :D

[planet6racing]

i&#39;m with matt on this one.

it&#39;s hard to keep a 1.6L miata diff from blowing up, can i switch to a torsen like in SM for safety reasons? :114:
[/b]

Um, unless it won&#39;t physically fit in the existing housing, yes you can (and not just for safety reasons).

It&#39;s pretty clearly spelled out on page 299 of the good book...

[NutDriverRighty]

Revisiting the standard sticker idea posted earlier in this thread, don&#39;t I recall there being a standard sticker on all of the cars at the last Runoffs? Why can&#39;t we get those printed for the masses? I believe that it has class, car number, minimum weight, etc. and also functioned as the tech sticker for the event. Ideas? Opinions?

Scott

[dickita15]

The one at the runoffs was the tech sticker. Tech had to determine the weight and write it on the sticker. That is too much hassle every weekend. I am sure as someone said there will be a free market solution.

[CaptainWho]

The one at the runoffs was the tech sticker. Tech had to determine the weight and write it on the sticker. That is too much hassle every weekend. I am sure as someone said there will be a free market solution.
[/b]

It seems like if National would simply release the MS Word or PDF or whatever file for the that one, we&#39;d have our "free" market solution. :D

[tnord]

isn&#39;t there a giant Kohler logo on that one? probably can&#39;t use that outside of the Runoffs.

[CaptainWho]

isn&#39;t there a giant Kohler logo on that one? probably can&#39;t use that outside of the Runoffs.
[/b]

There&#39;s always the "Delete" key. :D

[dickita15]

here you go

Min. Wt. xxxx

:D