June Fastrack

[lateapex911]

Read and smile..or read and weep, LOL.

[GKR_17]

I realize this issue should be long dead, but since they're bringing the rule back I'm not clear what is legal.

Per the most recent fastrack:

9.3.31 Lights (effective 11/07)
Exposed glass headlights shall be taped. Rear brake lights may be taped with transparent tape. Turn signals, front parking lights, backup lamps, and side marker lights may be taped. Fog/driving lights mounted on or below the bumper shall be removed, and all resulting holes shall be covered to prevent air passage through said holes.

And our current ITCS:

9.1.3.D.8.b:
...Where an air dam/spoiler is used, two total openings may be cut in the front valance to allow the passage of up to a three (3) inch diameter duct leading to each front brake/rotor assembly. Where no air dam/spoiler is used, two total openings of a maximum size five (5) inches by seven (7) inches maybe cut in the front valance so that brake ducts can be added with a three (3) inch diameter hose leading to each front brake/rotor assembly.

So do both of these rules apply? If so, you can cut holes right next to the former fog lights, but can't use the fog light holes that already exist (as is common practice currently). I doubt that was the intent.

Grafton

[JoshS]

The intent here is to move the light-taping rules from each individual ruleset to the generic GCR ruleset, so that all classes are consistent -- right now, the wording, and therefore the rule, varies. It is not intended to have any other significance.

I don't know if we need to change the IT rules to compensate or not (I'll think about it), but it is certainly the intent that A) the foglights below the bumper are removed, and B) foglight ducts can be below the bumper, with a maximum size, and C) any other space left there from the removal of the foglights must be filled.

[Chris Wire]

My quick-read is that the ITCS trumps the GCR. Therefore, if you have fog lamps, you must remove them. If you use the holes for brake ducting, and they meet the other criteria for brake duct hole sizing, you are fine. If you don't use them for brake ducting, they must be covered.

[Greg Amy]

You know, the Spec Miata BS is really starting to piss me off.

Seriously.

So, now we're not only going to have to police cars to the Improved Touring Rules, but to the fuggin SPEC MIATA rules too? Why don't we just go ahead and eliminate all classes except Spec Miata, and be done with it?

Jeezuz H friggin keerist.

"You guys" are doing your damndest to completely destroy a good thing. Congratulations.

I cannot IMAGINE what you are thinking.

[IPRESS]

Greg, I am not far off from your position. I don't understand the 99 in ITA. It is classified for ITS already. I guess you could run a 99 in ITA and then again in ITS and cap it off with a SM race too if they were all in seperate run groups.

I maybe should step back and think about this, but I am trying to figure out why this rule is being put in. My only guess is that with the constant "SM weekly rule changes" the SM cars could be SM legal but be out of sync with IT rules - update / backdate. (Rear diffs are being swapped around in SM and before it is over SM might be any year miata with whatever legal parts you want on them... no year model different from the other.) Hell I helped start the class, but national racing has turned it into a "Bitchfest" with a bunch of genuises (the SM forum rules nuts) trying to fix something that is not broken. I have related to the SMAC, (the ADHOC before them,) and the CRB that just leaving things alone for a couple of years would be best. Too many loud voices want Utopia racing and stuff like the subject of your post is the fallout.
99+s are already the "devil car" in SM as they are being projected as overdogs. The SM moaners are out to get the 99+ and put it back in the pack. Putting this rule in just makes the SM haters that much madder. I am all for letting SM cars run in IT, but they need to be IT legal not just SM legal IMHO. (Or maybe they will let me cross back over and run my A car in SM. In :D my case, with my talent, the bunch I run with would let me in! (And crease my fenders in the process!)

Now.... I am open for the reasons this is a great idea that Greg and I have not thought of.
Ears are open!

[Greg Amy]

An email I just sent to the CRB. I'm so fuggin ripped on this I could spit, Mac...this is totally unacceptable. I - and many others in my circle - are going beyond being Miata "dislikers" and quickly becoming Miata haters.



In regards to June 2007 Fastrack, Club Racing Technical Bulletins, specifically ITA items 3, 4, 5:

These are rule changes, not technical clarifications. Rule changes are REQUIRED to go through a full membership feedback process; it is contrary to the bylaws of the organization to change the regulations without going through the notification and feedback process.

Ergo, I insist that the changes allowing Spec Miatas to run in Improved Touring under Spec Miata rules be withdrawn.

To create an entire sub-prep of the rules - in a category that has become difficult enough as it is to enforce - is nothing short of absurd.

It is VITAL to require vehicles competing in IMPROVED TOURING competition to compete under the IMPROVED TOURING preparation rules. To do otherwise by creating a "special" set of rules only applicable to specific vehicles is UNACCEPTABLE and contrary to the philosophy of the class.

Vehicles prepared to Spec Miata rules currently meet the minimum prep requirements, and are ALREADY legal to the rules: early cars in ITA and later cars in ITS. It is obvious that the subtext reason for these wholesale changes is to allow the currently-classified-in-ITS later-model Miata to circumvent the existing rules and compete in ITA instead of ITS. THIS IS TOTALLY UNACCEPTABLE and contrary to the existing regulations.

It is your RESPONSIBILITY to follow the GCR and club rules and withdraw this recommendation, at least or until you go through the full process.

Greg Amy
Middletown, CT
SCCA 287196

[Andy Bettencourt]

An email I just sent to the CRB. I'm so fuggin ripped on this I could spit, Mac...this is totally unacceptable. I - and many others in my circle - are going beyond being Miata "dislikers" and quickly becoming Miata haters.



In regards to June 2007 Fastrack, Club Racing Technical Bulletins, specifically ITA items 3, 4, 5:

These are rule changes, not technical clarifications. Rule changes are REQUIRED to go through a full membership feedback process; it is contrary to the bylaws of the organization to change the regulations without going through the notification and feedback process.

Ergo, I insist that the changes allowing Spec Miatas to run in Improved Touring under Spec Miata rules be withdrawn.

To create an entire sub-prep of the rules - in a category that has become difficult enough as it is to enforce - is nothing short of absurd.

It is VITAL to require vehicles competing in IMPROVED TOURING competition to compete under the IMPROVED TOURING preparation rules. To do otherwise by creating a "special" set of rules only applicable to specific vehicles is UNACCEPTABLE and contrary to the philosophy of the class.

Vehicles prepared to Spec Miata rules currently meet the minimum prep requirements, and are ALREADY legal to the rules: early cars in ITA and later cars in ITS. It is obvious that the subtext reason for these wholesale changes is to allow the currently-classified-in-ITS later-model Miata to circumvent the existing rules and compete in ITA instead of ITS. THIS IS TOTALLY UNACCEPTABLE and contrary to the existing regulations.

It is your RESPONSIBILITY to follow the GCR and club rules and withdraw this recommendation, at least or until you go through the full process.

Greg Amy
Middletown, CT
SCCA 287196 [/b]

Did you send the same letter when IT cars were allowed in DP?

[Greg Amy]

Yes, Andy, as a matter of fact I did.


"On edit" edited out. It's best I walk away from the keyboard for the evening...

[Andy Bettencourt]

Jake and I are looking into this. A few requests have come in requesting specific allowances to continue the facilitation of crossover. The removal of the drivers side vent window (for egress purposes) and the allowance of a second diff choice. The first spawned a categorical recommendation, not a car specific allowance and the second was denied.

Allowing the SM's that are currently eligible for ITA (90-97) to run in ITA seems redundant but given the tiny little tweaks here and there, to be 100% legal the allowance was recommended. The 99+ car (ITS) was NEVER put on the table as far as I can tell. This may have been a CRB decision. I don't like it because it does create some additional required knowledge but in application, the on-track effects are no different than that of the 90-97. We will find out what happened. I am not for it but it certainly is not unprecidented.

[MMiskoe]

Foregive me for not reading through the GCR but first impression is to allow cars to run IT w/o the problems of changing the few items that are SM legal but not IT legal. Off the top of my head the only one I can think of is the exhaust. For what ever reason its OK for an SM car to have it end under the car whereas we must exit beyond the car.

If one wanted to get picky, wouldn't a restrictor plate be illegal in IT?

Greg - Thanks for pointing out the need for member input. Although not quite as insenced as you, I do agree this is a bad move.

Under this same thinking, ITC-B-A cars would be able to move 'up' a class if they chose to.

[Andy Bettencourt]

Yes, Andy, as a matter of fact I did.

And you?


On edit: So, if I send in a letter requesting classification in Spec Miata with an appropriate restrictor, I should be able to get that, right? Or, maybe I request that I get classified in ITB with an appropriate weight break; no problem, right? Even better, maybe I can get into Showroom Stock with a note saying I can compete under IT rules?

No? How come? OH, OF COURSE!! Wrong manufacturer, make, and model...!

Sorry, Mr. ITAC member, but you keep trying to take shots like that and I'll really start to unload... [/b]

No I didn't. I thought it was a good idea...except I actually expanded on the thought process with my follow-up letter asking IT cars be cross classed in Production (http://itforum.improvedtouring.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=10920).

I asked the question seriously. That letter would have never been sent to the ITAC because it was a DP-related comment.

Relax Greg. It's not a shot. Unload? Do what you need to do to serve yourself and 'your circle'.


Foregive me for not reading through the GCR but first impression is to allow cars to run IT w/o the problems of changing the few items that are SM legal but not IT legal. Off the top of my head the only one I can think of is the exhaust. For what ever reason its OK for an SM car to have it end under the car whereas we must exit beyond the car.

If one wanted to get picky, wouldn't a restrictor plate be illegal in IT?

Greg - Thanks for pointing out the need for member input. Although not quite as insenced as you, I do agree this is a bad move.

Under this same thinking, ITC-B-A cars would be able to move 'up' a class if they chose to. [/b]

You are right on the RP and the exhaust. Just another couple of those little things making crossover technically illegal.

[IPRESS]

Andy, I think the crossover cars would be IT legal in most cases before this rule. The people doing it are usually looking for track time, and not running max prepped SMs in IT races. (Not to say at some places an SM can't be a winner.)
With me being a Mazda and an SM guy I still agree this is not the right way for those cars to be included. Save the real or perceived Mazda influence for something way more important then this. It sort of comes across as being favortism (even if Mazda iteslf could care less about the SM / IT relationship.)

I like to see the SMs out there (Greg should too as it gives him more cars to lap. :P ) But if their rules were in the least bit STABLE this wording would have never come up.

[seckerich]

Illegal is illegal--period. No gray area there unless you choose to ignore it. I'm a Mazda man but this is a total crock to invent more places to run the same friggin car 50 times a weekend. We already get the shaft with run groups because of them as it is. Lets just make a Miata legal for every class and screw with the weight until it fits everywhere. :mad1: I bought one for my wife and already hate the friggin thing before it even runs now.

[Andy Bettencourt]

Andy, I think the crossover cars would be IT legal in most cases before this rule. The people doing it are usually looking for track time, and not running max prepped SMs in IT races. (Not to say at some places an SM can't be a winner.)
With me being a Mazda and an SM guy I still agree this is not the right way for those cars to be included. Save the real or perceived Mazda influence for something way more important then this. It sort of comes across as being favortism (even if Mazda iteslf could care less about the SM / IT relationship.)

I like to see the SMs out there (Greg should too as it gives him more cars to lap. :P ) But if their rules were in the least bit STABLE this wording would have never come up. [/b]

I hear you. Like I said, Jake and I are looking into it. The 99+ issue is not something I support - proceedural questions aside.

[JeffYoung]

The question for me on this is why do it? Other than wheel sizes, can't all SMs save the 99 run in ITA as is?

Seems to me that it is time to let the unbeleivable amount of changes to the ITCS and car sets for IT settle for a while. Change just to change or because it's just the latest brainstorm is not a good idea. A lot of changes, almost all good, have been made the last two years. I think it is time for a breather.

And the idea of putting the 99 SM in ITA using SM specs is just silly. Why have a dual classification for that car in IT? That should only be done in very RARE situations, like the recent issue with the ITR/S 325.

This is a small change that I'm sure came up as part of a "yeah that sounds good!" idea when it really is not. More a product of the culture of change than any real need itself.

[Andy Bettencourt]

The question for me on this is why do it? Other than wheel sizes, can't all SMs save the 99 run in ITA as is?

Seems to me that it is time to let the unbeleivable amount of changes to the ITCS and car sets for IT settle for a while. Change just to change or because it's just the latest brainstorm is not a good idea. A lot of changes, almost all good, have been made the last two years. I think it is time for a breather.

And the idea of putting the 99 SM in ITA using SM specs is just silly. Why have a dual classification for that car in IT? That should only be done in very RARE situations, like the recent issue with the ITR/S 325.

This is a small change that I'm sure came up as part of a "yeah that sounds good!" idea when it really is not. More a product of the culture of change than any real need itself. [/b]

Actually Jeff, wheels in SM are perfectly legal in ITA. The above mentioned 'little' items make SM's technically illegal for ITA even though they are underprepared compared to their IT sisters.

- 90-93 diff allowance (different carrier as it applies to IT)
- Exhaust rule
- Restrictor plates

So even though many run double duty, they are potentially illegal (a 90-93 with Mazdacomp exhaust and 3 of the 4 allowed diffs would be 100% legal I believe). Requests have come in to avoid this situation. I would also hesitate to liken this to a dual classification. The ITR/ITS 325 is competitive and designed to fit in both as listed. The 99+ SM would be NO FASTER than the other SM's crossing over. The beef I have is that the other years would be able to mix and match IT-legal parts and still be technically legal so little would have to be 'worried about'. The 99+ would have to be signed, sealed and as delivered in SM trim to compete...just not worth the hassle IMHO. You could also run your 99+ in SM, ITS and ITA now. I just don't see the need. Just because it 'could', doesn't mean it 'should'. I can run my car in 3-4 classes now - just like many of us...IT(your class), ITE, DP and maybe a Prod class...so why do these guys double and triple dip - and we don't?

Eliminating the 99+ for a moment, why would the 90-97 be a BAD idea as you state?

[JeffYoung]

Andy, I forgot the wheel rule was changed. It used to be (this was an issue for us when we ran in ITA and SM in our SMs) that SMs had to run 15s and ITA 900-97 Miatas had to run 14s, which was the biggest issue in trying to run in two classes. My bad on that.

The other items you mention are either choice items, not really an issue or easily fixable:

1. The restrictor can be removed very quickly;

2. The differential allowance is just that, and if you want to run your Miata in IT you should be required to adhere to the IT rule set which means no late Torsen in your early SM. Giving Miatas this allowance is in my view like allowing the Achieva to run rear discs. Shouldn't be done in IT.

3. What is the issue with exhaust? Isn't an SM exhaust legal in IT?

Allowing the 90-97 to run in IT under SM specs is a bad idea (some of this is repetitive of the above, sorry) for the following reasons:

1. Not necessary, car can already run in ITA if prepped as an SM in a manner that allows it to legally run in both classes. This is the "price" for the competitor of having the ability to run two races in a weekend.

2. Giving it the allowances (and in particular the alternate diff for the early cars) is entirely contrary to the IT rules.

3. Just a "gut reaction" that doing this is change for change sake and not fixing any real problem (and creating some). As Greg and Steve mentioned above, this means if a fast SM shows up (and here in the SEDiv at many tracks a fast SM is just as fast as teh top ITA cars even though they really shouldn't be) the ITA guys (not me, not an issue in S) have to be cognizant of the SM rule set and able to "police" that. At a more base level, the way IT is supposed to work is that we DON'T give allowances to make it easier for a specific car to run in IT. We make rules that apply to everyone and then you build your car and you take your chances.

Andy, I know the ITAC didn't intend it this way, but this gives the appearance of favoritism to the Miata to give it allowances in an effort to create more places for it to run. I have absolutely no problem with someone running their SM in IT and SM in a weekend. More power to them if they can. But they should have to comply with both rulesets in order to do so. That's the price of getting to run two races.

[Ed Funk]

<_< Gee, last fall when I brought up the issue that it seemed that Mazda and Miata were trying to take over the club and maybe rename it to SMCCA, a bunch of you guys who have posted above jumped in and told me what a great thing was happening to the club and what great cars Miatas were. Well, now that it looks as if the goal is for Miata owners to be able to show up and run in nearly any class they want, it appears that some attitudes have changed.

Why don&#39;t we have 25 classes for Miatas and 1 class for the rest of us, we can call it Spec WTF! I rarely agree with everything that Greg Amy says, but about this I whole heartedly do!

Oh well, time for me to get back to saving lives and easing suffering! ;) Carry on, smoke &#39;em if you got &#39;em!

Oh yeah, flame away! It won&#39;t bother me since I&#39;m smart as a horse and hung like Einstein!

[iambhooper]

Under this same thinking, ITC-B-A cars would be able to move &#39;up&#39; a class if they chose to.
[/b]

Jeff, look out... once I fugure out how to "legally" get an additional 70 or so HP out of the the Crx, I&#39;m aiming for ITS! :eclipsee_steering: Of course, I will petition the commitee to allow me to keep the car at it&#39;s current weight :D

As for the 99&#39;s I hope they aren&#39;t serieously considering moving those to ITA? If that&#39;s the case, tehn I will moste definatly not be building an A car. Or perhaps it&#39;s time to go take a ride with the "dark" side?

hoop

[Ed Funk]

Hoop,

If you want to run against Miatas, it would be more practical and a lot more likely to happen if we make Miatas legal in itc. A simple swap of tires to Sears Road Handler M&S should do it. They&#39;d be even slower in the corners and still smoke us on the straights, and since most are very good at blocking, they&#39;d be a natural for yet another class winner! :dead_horse:

Maybe I should do a GA and walk away from the keyboard.

Oh, I forgot to mention, I used to be BUYsexual, if I ever got any, it was because I had to buy it! :lol:

[ddewhurst]

Hey Andy, as long as you & Jake are going to smooth everything over relative to the Miatas how about a request that something be done with ALL the illegal side hoops in Spec Miatas & ITA Miatas.

Ya, that&#39;s comming from someone building a car for the dark side.

I saw absolutly the best road race of my short time (11 years) being at road racing tracks this past weekend at the Farm National race. 6 cars at the point pack fighting for the sharp end like a pack of dogs after RED MEAT.

[gran racing]

It sort of comes across as being favortism (even if Mazda iteslf could care less about the SM / IT relationship.)[/b]

Just a bit.

[Greg Amy]

OK, so, after having walked away and slept on this overnight...I&#39;m still ripped as all get out.

So, riddle me this (more questions to come, no doubt):

- Will these cars have to declare at registration to what rules they&#39;re prepped? How will that be declared/enforced? Whose responsibility will it be to ensure they&#39;re properly declared/registered? ITA competitors? Fellows SM&#39;ers? Registration? Tech? Andy Bettencourt?

- Is pre-declaration required?

- How are these "special" cars (SMMAACs: "Spec Miatas Masquerading As &#39;A&#39; Cars") going to be externally identified as being either ITA or SM prep rules so that competitors - the persons primarily tapped with the responsibility for ensuring rules compliance per the GCR - can know what to expect? Are we to ASSUME that any car with an "SM" on the side is properly – and legally - prepped to SM rules, and thus can weigh 2325/2350 (SM weights) versus 2255/2380 (ITA weights)?

- Once (if?) SMMAACs are physically, externally identified somehow, who&#39;s going to take the initiative to police the required restrictor plates (easily a sub-5-minute R&R), spec shocks, springs, bars, and wheel weights so that this "special" group can run heretofore-ITA-illegal modifications? Does that fall upon the ITA competitors? Tech? Andy Bettencourt?

- When I protest a SMMAAC do I protest them to the ITAC specs or the SM specs? Or both?

- When a pre-declared (?) SMMAAC is found illegal to SM rules but legal to ITA rules, are they really illegal? i.e., Can they suddenly claim they prepped to ITA rules, not SM rules? Can these cars pick and choose what category they&#39;re prepped to during the course of the weekend?

- If they change prep rules during the weekend, is this a new registration, requiring a new entry and all that that implies?

- When the two classes (SM and ITA) are grouped together, how will drivers identify which category they&#39;re in? i.e., Am I dicing with an ITA/SMMAAC (same class) or an SM (different class)?

- Finally – but most importantly – will the point in each weekend where all Miata drivers line up and drop trou so we can kiss their collective asses be codified in the GCR, or are the Regions responsible for writing that into the Supps?

As someone mentioned above, this smacks (har-de-har!) as something done as a feel-good knee-jerk idea (was alcohol and a napkin involved?), but not seriously thought through. Oh, you may THINK you did, but you didn&#39;t. RIGHT NOW select "Bookmarks/Bookmarks This Page" &#39;cause this one will go down EXACTLY like the The Other Miata Debacle We&#39;ve Been Discussing Lately that I predicted to you three years ago:

"I Told You So."

GregA

P.S. Speaking of which, the ONE good thing to come from this is now the CRB/ITAC can properly classify weight on the "real" ITA Miatas without hiding behind that last bit of MKAL ("Miata Kiss Ass Legislation"), spec&#39;ing weights such that SMs can play in ITA with their existing rollcages…

"Bring Back the Miata 105!"


On Edit: Note that I INTENTIONALLY left out the currently-classed-in-ITS-&#39;99-into-ITA" issue. That part is just plain RETARDED. Just wait &#39;til the first time a &#39;99 SM hands Andy his ass on a plate at LRP and we&#39;ll hear the screaming...(don&#39;t forget, sweetheart, that "National SM" Regional racing does not necessarily require a spec tire...)

[Ed Funk]

Man, I never thought that this would come to pass, but AMEN, Greg!!!

[JeffYoung]

Greg, a lot of good points, but let&#39;s let the system work and see if this gets corrected before we start flaming the ITAC. I do think there was a good intention here -- SM drivers asked to make it easier to run in IT, the ITAC thought on its face this was a good idea and recommended it. I agree that it does not look like a lot of thought was put into this, but it is just a recommendation and there is a lot of thinking going on here.

If this gets corrected, meaning the recommendation is withdrawn, this is all good and the system worked.

The ITAC is not all (or even mostly) Mazda guys, so again a bunch of folks with no ties to Mazda or Miatas thought this was a good idea.

[Knestis]

It sure does seem to be all about the ME-ottas.

Do this for ME.

This is best for ME.

Make ME happy.

I&#39;m doing my "set it free" dance again and am going to be a spectator for this dorked up deal. Carry on.

http://members.aol.com/KiteCD/images/popcorn.jpg

K

[JamesB]

makes me happy I chose to run in ITB.... Kirk pass the pop corn.

[seckerich]

The 99 crosses over fine to ITS. Anything else is creating a new level of prep inside IT and will not be good long term. I know some of the CRB are lurking here and need a wake up call if they just missed this one. Letters should be sent now.

[Andy Bettencourt]

Greg, a lot of good points, but let&#39;s let the system work and see if this gets corrected before we start flaming the ITAC. I do think there was a good intention here -- SM drivers asked to make it easier to run in IT, the ITAC thought on its face this was a good idea and recommended it. I agree that it does not look like a lot of thought was put into this, but it is just a recommendation and there is a lot of thinking going on here.

If this gets corrected, meaning the recommendation is withdrawn, this is all good and the system worked.

The ITAC is not all (or even mostly) Mazda guys, so again a bunch of folks with no ties to Mazda or Miatas thought this was a good idea. [/b]

Take the 99+ out for a moment. Not a lot of thought? What is the downside? The 90-97 cars are already classed in ITA. The only thing this does is allow a few piddly little non-performance allowances to not get anyone &#39;weenie-protest&#39; buttons pushed. Again, let&#39;s review:

Exhaust: no turn-down required but nobody runs a shorty exhaust which doesn&#39;t exit away from the body. It would melt the inner rear bumper cover.
Restrictor Plate: If you have a complaint about this one ("Hey, he IS running a RP, he is illegal. I want him to remove it so he is legal to the letter - but he will be faster") you need some help.
Diff: An alternate carrier is permitted (from the 94+ 1.8&#39;s) Since the IT rules permit open R&P, there is no advantage as you can get a 4.88 and the Comp limited slip in the stock housing.

So to faciliate legal crossover, it was recommended. It&#39;s already happening but there are some concerned folks out there who want to be legal - and they asked to be. It changes nothing.

If this allowance is for the 90-97 only, then it doesn&#39;t matter if you mix or match parts. The sum can NEVER be greater than that of a &#39;real&#39; ITA Miata. The only people who need to be worried about &#39;parts&#39; are the SM guys.

And to Greg: National SM racing DOES require a spec tire.

To Kirk: Isn&#39;t EVERY letter we get a &#39;ME&#39; request?


Just wait &#39;til the first time a &#39;99 SM hands Andy his ass on a plate at LRP and we&#39;ll hear the screaming...[/b]

From who? Based on what? They only people screaming about perceived on-track performance is the &#39;circle&#39;.

[JeffYoung]

Andy, two lists of downsides (a short one, mine) and a long one (Greg&#39;s) are above. Respond to them when you get a minute, I know we all have to do things like work during the day.....lol....

But what is boils down to is a philosophy issue. There SHOULD NOT BE a special allowance to allow an SM to run in IT under SM specs that is DIFFERENT FROM THE IT RULESET. That is a basic foundation of what I believed the IT ruleset and the ITAC to be about. Now, we are starting down the path of fudged allowances here and there to make things easier. I am with Kirk on this, that is a HUGE problem.

Last point -- I thought that the allowance for the Torsen in the early Miatas required an entire change of teh carrier (at least it did on our car) so it is completely different than the R&P allowance in IT. The Torsen diff and carrier is beefier and lasts longer than the readily available Mazdacomp early Miata diff and carrier. So this to me smacks of giving the early Miatas a "realiability" allowance when running under SM specs in IT.

And as Greg says, we now have to check the rear end on an SM/IT car to make sure it complies with the motor prep?

Enforcement of the rules here will be a nightmare and simply not possible.

Andy, Jake, others, this is a BAD idea.

[Andy Bettencourt]

Andy, two lists of downsides (a short one, mine) and a long one (Greg&#39;s) are above. Respond to them when you get a minute, I know we all have to do things like work during the day.....lol....

But what is boils down to is a philosophy issue. There SHOULD NOT BE a special allowance to allow an SM to run in IT under SM specs that is DIFFERENT FROM THE IT RULESET. That is a basic foundation of what I believed the IT ruleset and the ITAC to be about. Now, we are starting down the path of fudged allowances here and there to make things easier. I am with Kirk on this, that is a HUGE problem.

Last point -- I thought that the allowance for the Torsen in the early Miatas required an entire change of teh carrier (at least it did on our car) so it is completely different than the R&P allowance in IT. The Torsen diff and carrier is beefier and lasts longer than the readily available Mazdacomp early Miata diff and carrier. So this to me smacks of giving the early Miatas a "realiability" allowance when running under SM specs in IT.

And as Greg says, we now have to check the rear end on an SM/IT car to make sure it complies with the motor prep?

Enforcement of the rules here will be a nightmare and simply not possible.

Andy, Jake, others, this is a BAD idea. [/b]

And from a philisophical standpoint, I agree with your position. Write your letter - but a note to all, don&#39;t make it about Miata&#39;s or Mazda, because it isn&#39;t. It&#39;s about the biggest pocket of revenue for the SCCA. We are trying to listen and facilitate certain things that some think is good for the club overall. If this was about &#39;Spec GTI&#39; in ITB or &#39;Spec GSR&#39; in ITS, I would have voted the same way. Bad for the class? I just don&#39;t think so but I have been wrong before.

I don&#39;t need to respond to Greg&#39;s issues. They are moot if the 99+&#39;s are out as I have stated above. <Devil&#39;s advocate hat on> Enforcing the rules not possible? I think you need to look at this practically. Other than the diff CARRIER, the IT rules exceed those of SM in every way. What is so difficult? Why would you even NEED or WANT to check it? It&#39;s no advantage as you know.

[JeffYoung]

Andy, thanks. I again think you guys are trying to do what&#39;s best, I just think this one is not good for IT. I&#39;ll write my letter and let the chips fall where ..... they......may.

It&#39;s not about Miatas. It is about allowances in the IT rules for a particular car (regardless of make). That runs directly contrary to what IT is about, and in this case is rewarding a popular car in order to give it more places to run.

(One small beef, I think a lot of Greg&#39;s downsides apply to the early Miatas as well)

[Greg Amy]

And to Greg: National SM racing DOES require a spec tire.[/b]
And, you REALLY need to read the rules if you&#39;re going to be involved in recommendations for rules changes.

And that just about says it all, right there...

[seckerich]

I have to agree if the 99 is out of the picture. Cross classing with seperate prep starts down a bad road. The rear dif is a wash but it has been an understood point that we ignore it. I have much less of a problem with letting it slide at races than writing it into the rules and starting a bad precedent. Has there ever been a protest of a SM running in ITA getting bumped for a diff? Let it Gooooooooo.

[Andy Bettencourt]

And, you REALLY need to read the rules if you&#39;re going to be involved in recommendations for rules changes.

And that just about says it all, right there...
[/b]

Well help me out and quote the rule. Here is what I come up with:


c. Tires:

1. National Competition

All cars shall use the Toyo Proxes RA-1 (205/50R15)[/b]</span>


How do you &#39;read&#39; the rules?

[JeffYoung]

Response to the devil (that is a joke):

The added reliabilty of the diff carrier is, for example, a HUGE advantage in enduros. Ask me how I know.

But I agree with you, it is mostly a philosophy issue but we are taking about the golden rule of IT here.

[RickyBobby]

I will be submitting the following ideas to the CRB for further consideration…

It is felt that Miata’s do not get enough track time on any given weekend. To rectify this situation, please allow Miata’s to remove fenders, quarter panels, and the top thereby making Miata’s legal to participate in all open wheel run groups. Arm restraints will be at the Miata driver’s discretion. Any other rules they choose to follow will be at the Miata driver’s discretion as well.

In order to facilitate the highest finishing position possible, allow Miata drivers to declare what class they are running on the last lap of a race. If the race is shortened for any reason, allow this declaration to take place in impound, but only after a review of the provisional finishing positions.

[Greg Amy]

If this gets corrected, meaning the recommendation is withdrawn, this is all good and the system worked.[/b]
Jeff, it&#39;s not a recommendation; it&#39;s a rule change effective 10 days from now, without user input or commentary. Notice it&#39;s under the "Technical Bulletins" area with the note "All changes are effective 6/1/07 unless otherwise noted."

I can&#39;t think of strong enough words to describe this...

Yes, Andy, I&#39;m ripped.



How do you &#39;read&#39; the rules?[/b]
Uh, with my eyes (I don&#39;t know Braille)...?

SMCS, p GCR 496 of the 04/07 updated edition (incorporates Fastracks to date, available online):

9.1.8.C.6c. Tires:
1. National Competition
All cars shall use the Toyo Proxes RA-1 (205/50R15)
2. Regional Competition
Any DOT approved tire is permitted. Racing, recapped, or regrooved tires are not allowed. Tire size is unrestricted. The only modifications allowed to tires are having treads
“shaved” or “trued.” Individual regions may require spec tires for regional races. Supplemental regulations for specific events should be checked.

Really, son, if you&#39;re missing the small stuff like this, then the big picture is really, really, cloudy...



Take the 99+ out for a moment.[/b]

Why? Divide and conquer? Try to get arguments about the benefits/detriments to each individual rule, whereas they&#39;re being presented as a package? Try to get folks arguing about different points while ignoring the "big picture" effects of this whole idea?

Sorry. No bueno.

Fine, you don&#39;t agree with that part; well guess what? It&#39;s an integral "slippery slope" result of fundamentally changing the IT/SM relationship. Even if the 99s were not part of this rule change (and it&#39;s most decisively a rule change, not a technical clarification as it&#39;s being presented) I&#39;d still oppose it because adding in the "equal" 99s is the next logical step for such an action! I&#39;m actually damned surprised that the CRB didn&#39;t think of proposing it as two separate actions!

Can&#39;t say enough about how bad an idea this is. I&#39;ll certainly try, though.

Next?

[Andy Bettencourt]

Uh, with my eyes (I don&#39;t know Braille)...?

SMCS, p GCR 496 of the 04/07 updated edition (incorporates Fastracks to date, available online):

9.1.8.C.6c. Tires:
1. National Competition
All cars shall use the Toyo Proxes RA-1 (205/50R15)
2. Regional Competition
Any DOT approved tire is permitted. Racing, recapped, or
regrooved tires are not allowed. Tire size is unrestricted.
The only modifications allowed to tires are having treads
"shaved" or "trued." Individual regions may require spec
tires for regional races. Supplemental regulations for
specific events should be checked.

Really, son, if you&#39;re missing the small stuff like this, then the big picture is really, really, cloudy...

Next? [/b]

Well I admit that I read your first post wrong. "National SM" Regional racing? What was the purpose of the two terms? To point out a &#39;pro&#39; effort? I focused on the quotes...and it should have been obvious enough to think we had a miscommunication when you saw my response - &#39;National SM racing DOES require a spec tire&#39; - because it DOES.

Don&#39;t let it get personal Greg. The cheap shots are beneath you.

[JIgou]

One other little piddly thing for the weenie protest list: SMs can de-power the steering rack; unless I&#39;ve missed a change, that&#39;s not allowed in IT.

Jarrod

[Greg Amy]

Oh, so you misread, made an ass of yourself, and it&#39;s my fault?

First, "National SM" is a commonly-used term to differentiate SM from other regional forms for Miatas, such as SSM and SMT (Spec Miata Tire). I&#39;m amazed you&#39;re unaware of it.

Second, why the hell would I give an F about National racing specifics in the context of discussing a regional-only class? Doesn&#39;t it make more sense to read the rules thoroughly and be concerned with the points at hand?

Third, why would you stop reading at the word National, given the word "Regional" is right below it and far more applicable to the discussion at hand?

Finally, don&#39;t be condescending and try to tell me (or infer to others) what&#39;s below me; trust me, I can go WAAAAAAY much lower. Keep trying.

This is indefensible.

[stevel]

One other little piddly thing for the weenie protest list: SMs can de-power the steering rack; unless I&#39;ve missed a change, that&#39;s not allowed in IT.

Jarrod
[/b]

yes it is, at least for the 94-97 it is because there were models that came with manual steering from the factory. Since they are all on the same spec line they are allowed thru update/backdate. To be legal you have to do a full manual rack swap, not just loop the lines and yank the pump out.

i don&#39;t know enought about the 90-93 (did they even come with power steering?) or the 99+ to comment on those.

s

[zenbutcher]

Well, I gotta say - I am not in any &#39;circle&#39; that I know of. I do know that I thought I left crap(asinine rules changes) like this behind when I left Prod racing. IT was appealing mainly for it&#39;s stability and rules consistency. This change just doesn&#39;t pass the smell test.

It has been joked about for a few years as the Mazda CCA, but now that it&#39;s a reality it scares me. Who&#39;s club is this? The members or biggest contributors?

Peter Baumgartner
ITA Fiero

[Andy Bettencourt]

Oh, so you misread, made an ass of yourself, and it&#39;s my fault?

First, "National SM" is a commonly-used term to differentiate SM from other regional forms for Miatas, such as SSM and SMT (Spec Miata Tire). I&#39;m amazed you&#39;re unaware of it.

Second, why the hell would I give an F about National racing specifics in the context of discussing a regional-only class? Doesn&#39;t it make more sense to read the rules thoroughly and be concerned with the points at hand?

Third, why would you stop reading at the word National, given the word "Regional" is right below it and far more applicable to the discussion at hand?

Finally, don&#39;t be condescending and try to tell me (or infer to others) what&#39;s below me; trust me, I can go WAAAAAAY much lower. Keep trying.

This is indefensible.
[/b]

I disagree &#39;National SM&#39; is a commonly used term. What SM circles do you run in again that you hear this?

I said I made the mistake of focusing on the quotes included in your confusing terminology. Bottom line, we were arguing different things and both of our statements hold true. You made a cheap statement even when my quote was clear. It&#39;s ok. I know I misread. You did too - or you just refused to conceed a miscommunication before you threw a couple witty ones my way.



I am done. It&#39;s obvious to me that you are letting other things fire you up. Get low if you have to. You know how everyone will view it.




The members or biggest contributors?

Peter Baumgartner
ITA Fiero [/b]

Aren&#39;t the biggest contributors also members?

Seriously, I can see the backlash from a categorical standpoint - and write your letters. I will suport that point of view. But like I said, it has nothing to do with Mazda. It could be any make or model that brings 30+ cars to the table every weekend.

[JeffYoung]

So if I rounded up every other car that shows up at a regional event (which generally exceeds the SM field) and got them all to say no SMs in IT AT ALL, should that control? No, it shouldn&#39;t.

The point is this. IT has a rulest. If you want to run your SM in IT, you can but you have to follow the IT ruleset. It is really that simple. This really shouldn&#39;t be a debate.

[RacerBowie]

yes it is, at least for the 94-97 it is because there were models that came with manual steering from the factory. Since they are all on the same spec line they are allowed thru update/backdate. To be legal you have to do a full manual rack swap, not just loop the lines and yank the pump out.

i don&#39;t know enought about the 90-93 (did they even come with power steering?) or the 99+ to comment on those.

s
[/b]

Not quite. In IT you are not allowed to "de-power" the rack. You have to go to the manual rack.

[stevel]

Not quite. In IT you are not allowed to "de-power" the rack. You have to go to the manual rack.
[/b]

true. I missed the de-power and just thought manual steering. You can have manual steering and still be legal in IT. That&#39;s why I said what I did.



To be legal you have to do a full manual rack swap, not just loop the lines and yank the pump out.
[/b]

[Andy Bettencourt]

The point is this. IT has a rulest. If you want to run your SM in IT, you can but you have to follow the IT ruleset. It is really that simple. This really shouldn&#39;t be a debate. [/b]
Jeff,

Trust me when I tell you that I understand this position. HOWEVER, when I proposed IT cars - AS IS - into Production, you wrote:

Andy, I see no downside to this and think the idea of giving IT guys a taste of national racing is a good one (and will cause most of them to come running back to regionals!).[/b]

So here is where I get lost. You support extra places for IT cars to run under IT rules in Production, but you don&#39;t support SM cars in IT under SM rules. Can you have it both ways?

Mac, you are in the same boat. You wrote:


Actually there are good reasons for going in this direction no matter if you are in a "strong regional program" region or in a weak one (like ours.)
Come on guys.... it is another group to get some racing in. We may not have a chance in hell to win, but by having the chance to compete it will make me that much better in the IT race. I can get the extra practice + a longer race + I have a reason to go for an entire weekend.
I don&#39;t see it as taking anything away from IT (regional racing.)[/b]

And Dave Gran, same for you. You mentioned support for my IT to Prod idea but yet this is somehow different.

If you are against this from a fundamental and &#39;intermingling&#39; standpoint, then you can&#39;t be for it when IT gets the benefit and not for it when some other class gets the benefit.

- On a side note, Greg has obviously walked away realizing our banter wasn&#39;t productive. I will do the same.

[gran racing]

What???

I just agreed that...


It sort of comes across as being favortism (even if Mazda iteslf could care less about the SM / IT relationship.)[/b]

I do recall saying this in the previous discussion:
I suppose a lot of this depends upon the goals of the club and how IT fits into that.[/b]

I am not a big fan of IT cars in Prod / National class. I am also not a big fan of this move. If we&#39;re doing this, I guess I really don&#39;t understand why it would be so horrible to dual class a few of the tweener IT cars - in particular the ITA RX7. It&#39;s even a Mazda! :lol:

Kirk, can you pass me some salt for my popcorn?

[Greg Amy]

On a side note, Greg has obviously walked away realizing our banter wasn&#39;t productive.[/b]
Yes, in a manner of speaking. Greg simply walked away realizing that "the club" is going to do whatever the hell it wants to, regardless of the long-term effects of the actions or the desires of the majority of the "members" of the club, all to curry the favor of a select self-serving group of people.

And no matter how much you try to reason to the contrary, there&#39;s always going to be some bonehead trying to defend it, so why bother?

Seems not much has changed in a half a century, &#39;cept most of the names...hey, at least we should be happy that this time they gave us 10 days&#39; notice...

Bookmark this spot...and talk to me in a couple of years. - GA

[Andy Bettencourt]

Bookmark this spot...and talk to me in a couple of years. - GA
[/b]

I hope someone does...but to really get an &#39;I told ya so&#39; in, maybe your top 3 negative repercussions of this new allowance would help us cheer you on when they are proven.

[jjjanos]

So here is where I get lost. You support extra places for IT cars to run under IT rules in Production, but you don&#39;t support SM cars in IT under SM rules. Can you have it both ways?[/b]

Not that this was addressed to me, but yes, I can have it both ways. With the exception of ITC, IT is a set of vibrant, well-subscribed classes and production is fading away slowly for a variety of reasons. As far as I am concerned, allowing IT cars to run in Prod under the IT rules is less about giving IT drivers another place to play and more about saving Prods aging and decrepit butt.


If you are against this from a fundamental and &#39;intermingling&#39; standpoint, then you can&#39;t be for it when IT gets the benefit and not for it when some other class gets the benefit.[/b]

Well, there is a fundamental difference between Prod and IT. IT is a pretty standard set of modifications and Prod is all over the map based on the car and engine used. Adding IT is simply adding another layer to an already complex situation. Then again, I view IT in Prod as a benefit to Prod, not IT. I don&#39;t view adding SM to IT as a benefit to the group getting the added layer of complexity.

In addition, the way in which this has been done is extremely offensive. It might have been put up for member input, but I don&#39;t recall seeing it. That alone is reason enough to oppose it and demand its IMMEDIATE retraction.

As for adding IT cars to BP and DP, again, that is to their benefit and is simply the way in which the Comp Board and BoD has decided to back door these classes into the Runoffs.

[Greg Amy]

Beautiful:

Numero Uno: Making significant rules changes out of scope of regulations, without timely membership notification or opportunity for membership feedback, and distributing them as "technical bulletins". You&#39;ve opened this door and it&#39;ll never close. Processes? We don&#39;t need no steenkin&#39; process!

Numero Dos: Creating a sub ruleset of prep applicable to only specific cars, a la Production. Why create category specs if we&#39;re going to adjust them as we see fit for particular makes and models? Rules? We don&#39;t need no steenkin&#39; rules!

Numero Tres: Dual-classification of specific vehicles dependent on prep. "We" opened that door with the BMW, SWEARING it was a one-time thing, and now the door creeps yet wider. Even worse, this time we&#39;re not even leaning on standard rules prep for guidance...Consistency? We don&#39;t need no steenkin&#39; consistency!

Thought it was tough writing a protest a couple of weeks ago for a car built to consistent, reasonably steady prep rules? Hah! Good luck on the next one...assuming anyone chooses to wade this quagmire to make it happen.

You - as in the rulesmakers that made this change happen, e.g., the ITAC and CRB - have opened a Pandora&#39;s box that you can NEVER close. Ever. Even worse, you&#39;re doing it with a "we know best" attitude in dark secret rooms, revealing it to the world in a brilliant, and non-reversible, flourish.

Congrats. You should be proud.

[Andy Bettencourt]

Beautiful:

Numero Uno: Making significant rules changes out of scope of regulations, without timely membership notification or opportunity for membership feedback, and distributing them as "technical bulletins". You&#39;ve opened this door and it&#39;ll never close. Processes? We don&#39;t need no steenkin&#39; process!

Numero Dos: Creating a sub ruleset of prep applicable to only specific cars, a la Production. Why create category specs if we&#39;re going to adjust them as we see fit for particular makes and models? Rules? We don&#39;t need no steenkin&#39; rules!

Numero Tres: Dual-classification of specific vehicles dependent on prep. "We" opened that door with the BMW, SWEARING it was a one-time thing, and now the door creeps yet wider. Even worse, this time we&#39;re not even leaning on standard rules prep for guidance...Consistency? We don&#39;t need no steenkin&#39; consistency!

Thought it was tough writing a protest a couple of weeks ago for a car built to consistent, reasonably steady prep rules? Hah! Good luck on the next one...assuming anyone chooses to wade this quagmire to make it happen.

You - as in the rulesmakers that made this change happen, e.g., the ITAC and CRB - have opened a Pandora&#39;s box that you can NEVER close. Ever. Even worse, you&#39;re doing it with a "we know best" attitude in dark secret rooms, revealing it to the world in a brilliant, and non-reversible, flourish.

Congrats. You should be proud. [/b]

Tough to quantify the effects of your bullets as IT is arguably as strong or stronger than it ever has been but I have saved them in a document with a side of crow to eat at a later date.

[Greg Amy]

Tough to quantify the effects of your bullets as IT was arguably as strong or stronger than it ever ha[d] been...[/b]

Corrected that for you. It&#39;s simply a matter of time before people get tired of tripping over Miatas and choose to spend their money elsewhere, just as many Miatas are currently looking to run places besides with other Miatas (like ITS and ITA...if that&#39;s not telling, nothing is...)

Enjoy it while you can.

(That ITB Geo Storm is lookin&#39; mighty interesting right about now...)

[Fastfred92]

Kinda funny......... I asked a year and a half ago to move the 99 miata to A and was told I would not have a snowballs chance in hell,,,, actually i was told I would have a better chance of getting the 944 to A than I would the 99+ cars...... Full circle

[lateapex911]

Yes, in a manner of speaking. Greg simply walked away realizing that "the club" is going to do whatever the hell it wants to, regardless of the long-term effects of the actions or the desires of the majority of the "members" of the club, all to curry the favor of a select self-serving group of people.

And no matter how much you try to reason to the contrary, there&#39;s always going to be some bonehead trying to defend it, so why bother?

Seems not much has changed in a half a century, &#39;cept most of the names...hey, at least we should be happy that this time they gave us 10 days&#39; notice...

Bookmark this spot...and talk to me in a couple of years. - GA
[/b]

Greg, I know you&#39;re pissed, but I&#39;m thinking that taking a breather is best for all right now. (Note I didn&#39;t say "You taking a breather is...")

Let me provide some light on this, if i may. (I might be sticking my neck out a bit, but...)

The April con call was odd in that Andy wasn&#39;t there. If he&#39;s going to miss it or be late, or if theres a CHANCE of either, he will call me and ask me to run it. After a bit, I decided to press on, and started running it, sans Andy. Of course, Andy had the agenda, etc, so I was a bit behind the 8 ball. Now, it turns out Andy was stuck in a plane circling Logan with a no cel phone rule for 2 hours, so......

So, we went through the letters and eventually came to a letter from a guy with a Miata wanting to remove his vent window. As a point of rule, i objected, but I had been thinking about the egress issue independently, so we discussed making a categorical rules change, to improve safety. The discussion, as far as I recall (remember, i was taking notes, making up the agenda as we went along and trying to figure out who was saying what) got into the whole "double dipping" issue of Miatas, and we discussed the concept of SMs being allowed in IT. As you&#39;ll note, Andy wasn&#39;t present for the entire call, so forgive him his lack of info. And note, the first post of Andy&#39;s says something like "Jake and I are looking into this..."

My recollection of the discussion was that it had it&#39;s merits, but also it&#39;s drawbacks. But I don&#39;t remeber making a rules change, or anything concrete like that. Maybe I was confused or doing two things at once, but, I just don&#39;t remember it getting to that stage.

So, at this point, I&#39;m wondering how it got put into Fastrack in the language it&#39;s in, and, to my eye, this would be a rules change that would need BoD approval. Of course, I&#39;m not an advisor for things of that level, so I could be wrong on that.

But, nevertheless, I suggest we all take five while we (ITAC/CRB) dig further.

[Knestis]

Mmm. Crunchy. But dammit - I&#39;m getting sucked into the plot.


It could be any make or model that brings 30+ cars to the table every weekend. ...[/b]

For consideration - one reason we have checks and balances in federal government is (supposed to be) to prevent a majority from running roughshod over the rights of a minority. "So, we rich white guys voted and determined that black people should be treated as property rather than people..." Uh, sorry - no.

That a rule change (sorry - technical bulletin) should be implemented with the intent of keeping a majority happy to boost near-term revenue streams, without regard for existing first principles of IT as a category, is pretty disappointing. And silly comments about Mazda corporate conspiracy theories are completely unnecessary, when money-grubbing drives what should be strategic decisions about the Club Racing program.

I&#39;m certain that interest in the MkIII Golf would increase with just a few little allowances - starting with a different gearbox. But that would only bring in a few new entrants, huh? How many is enough to bulldoze the system?

And for the record, at least I&#39;m consistent in thinking that the crossover allowances are stupid. I can&#39;t quantify it but my experience tells me that a jumbled-up program of too many ways into what is already too many classes hurts our program in the long run.

Kirk (who&#39;s outlasted LITERALLY hundreds of thousands of short-timer ME&#39;s in this organization, many of whom got precisely what they wanted when they opened their wallets)

[Andy Bettencourt]

Corrected that for you. It&#39;s simply a matter of time before people get tired of tripping over Miatas and choose to spend their money elsewhere, just as many Miatas are currently looking to run places besides with other Miatas (like ITS and ITA...if that&#39;s not telling, nothing is...)

Enjoy it while you can.

(That ITB Geo Storm is lookin&#39; mighty interesting right about now...) [/b]

Don&#39;t correct anything Greg. It&#39;s pure speculation on your part. If you have a categorical issue, then moving to ITB ain&#39;t going to help you.


Kinda funny......... I asked a year and a half ago to move the 99 miata to A and was told I would not have a snowballs chance in hell,,,, actually i was told I would have a better chance of getting the 944 to A than I would the 99+ cars...... Full circle [/b]

Fred,

Of course this is NOT the same thing as getting the 99+ Miata classed in ITA. It&#39;s a perfectly good ITS car.

[charrbq]

Interesting history report. A few years ago, when I raced an older model Civic Si in ITA, I (and several others) lobbied like crazy to get the car changed to ITB. Even though the rules were different then than now, it was not unprecedented as the RX7&#39;s had been changed from ITS to ITA only shortly before. I was told by several members of the ITAC committee, at the time, that the last thing the SCCA wanted to see was Hondas running in every class available to them. Just a history lesson.

If we really want to get the SM mess to go away, all we have to do is find a way for SCCA Enterprises to take over the class. It wouldn&#39;t be something unprecidented...ask Carrol Shelby.

And if we really want to hear some screaming, lets see if we can&#39;t get BP/DP to running regional races with any car/class &#39;90 or later. Possibly include limited prep Miata&#39;s in FP in ITS/ITA.

All this would take would be a conference call with no agenda and a letter from a competitor. B)

[its66]

Where&#39;s Matt when you need him!!!! :D

[JeffYoung]

Edit: Jim! No! No! NO!....lol...by the way, how have you been? Good season? Hope to make it down to Daytona next year and make a nother try of it. Maybe I will see you then.

Andy, I did type/say that a while backat the very start of the discussion on the whole IT cars in Prod debate and it was precisely the type of thing that I have learned from this thread is WRONG -- a knee jerk, hey! that looks like a good idea! reaction.

So, let me be clear and consistent that allowing a Miata or any other car operating under a particular rule set to run in a different class under that same ruleset is a bad idea.

If a car can be prepped in a way so that it can run in two classes at once (i.e. an IT car can run in Prod without ANY allowances or deviations from the PCS), then so be it. But it is the allowances that are an issue, and a bad idea.

Healthy debate, just wish it were a bit more polite (and I think Andy has tried to be polite).

[its66]

Jeff,
I&#39;m doing well. busy busy busy. I&#39;m making every effort to come up there and see you guys at VIR in October. Drop me a line at [email protected] and I&#39;ll fill you in.

[shwah]

My take:

There is no reason to make this rule change. SM cars have a place to run now, and if they like can often run twice a day in different SM classes. Then if the grouping gods are nice to them they can choose to build their SM car to IT legal specs and have 3 places to run. There is no logical reason to pandor to this particular model.

Since the IT -> Prod discussion was brought up, I still think the only sensible thing to do there is to proactively class popular IT cars in Prod as LP cars.

I view this more as effort being wasted on a bad idea when it could have been spent untangling the mess that is Prod, or coming up with a good reason why we have National and Regional events, or speeding up the timeline on the ECU rule review (not that I mind waiting for next season).

The Pro arguments sound hollow, as they are based on catering to drivers of one specific car and making it easier for them to grab more track time. You just can&#39;t do that - or you have to start doing it a lot more for the rest of the members too....which you just can&#39;t do. The statement that the items that don&#39;t fit our ruleset do not improve performance is retarded. I can argue that using A4 VW rear brake calipers makes it easier to find parts with no performance advantage, but it IS NOT LEGAL IN IT.

[Xian]

So if Spec Miata&#39;s can run in SM trim in ITA can I run my ITA prepped car in SM races? Maybe I can run one of the Prepared classes too? Makes perfect sense, eh?

Christian, who&#39;d love to show up at a Miata race with a Honda

[IPRESS]

DAMN!!!! What a cluster. This little thread is bringing out plenty of hidden info as to why some things are the way they are.

Yes I said the IT to Prod sounded OK to me. But I don&#39;t think it got put in the rules without the Prod guys having their say. (And in reality, I don&#39;t give a hoot either way.)

I also can assure you Greg that lining up to Kiss this Miata drivers butt would be most distateful! :D Mainly because my miata is pretty dang far from being an SM and couldn&#39;t catch your sled with Senna himself at the wheel. Trying to stay on the same lap with that Nissan rocket made me sweat down in Georgia. (That is the distasteful part. :happy204: ) So if Andy has you Yankees thinking the ITA miata is the absolute nuts then his is one in a million. It is just decent in ITA for the most part, across the country.

Andy, SM cars should be able to run IT (that is where my first one started running before we had any SM classes.) they just need to be running under the same IT rules. A ton of them already are doing just that.

Jake, I can see how the idea came up, and I hope you can find out how it went all the way to a rule without any IT feedback. They sure do use the funny little rejection lines to thwart ideas the rules makers don&#39;t want.

Last but not least, YOU GUYS..... don&#39;t hate on mfgs. We need mfgs. support. Mazda is not the bad guy here. Miatas are not the bad guys either. In fact I would bet this is just a case of something not being given enough thought to find problems in the idea. I am sure no one really thought WE would care. Evidently IT folks (me included) do care. Throw the thing out and you won&#39;t miss a beat.

[Doc Bro]

Firstly I believe Miata&#39;s are good for the SCCA, however, an SSM Miata can run (in 10 days) in SSM, SM,ITA, SPU, and ITE on any given weekend. All under the same ruleset?? When do we say enough is enough??

Thank God were not about spectators....how do you explain the same car in 5 races to your friend??


R

[Conover]

A friend called me tonight and asked me if I had seen this, I said no, he told me what was going on and my reply,
&#39;that&#39;s absurd!"

Please, for heavens sake, cars racing in IT should be prepped and protested under IT rules.

The first time I see a SM racing in ITA under this allowance, I&#39;m going to urge ITA competitors to protest it, for anything it doesn&#39;t matter what, I&#39;ll pay the $25. When the Stewards have to deal with this catastrophe they will not be happy either. I think this should be rescinded with the quickness! Please, I hadn&#39;t totally lost faith in the process, save me before it&#39;s too late. :wacko:

[Andy Bettencourt]

The first time I see a SM racing in ITA under this allowance, I&#39;m going to urge ITA competitors to protest it, for anything it doesn&#39;t matter what, I&#39;ll pay the $25. [/b]

Now that&#39;s the spirit!

:wacko:

[Conover]

Andy, protests are allowed, expected, and part of the process in IT.

If you want to talk about spirit lets talk about the spirit of the rules, let&#39;s talk about the spirit of the the technical bulletin.

Don&#39;t try to embarrass me just because you need company.

[zracre]

I have nothing against Miatas...or mazdas for that matter...I have a SM and just raced a RX8 at Laguna in GAC. Zoom Zoom. My thoughts on this are that it is rediculous. SM cars are not legal for ITA with the most basic prep(how many SM cars have P/S? Manual racks are like hens teeth and I don&#39;t think they came on 99&#39;s)...now 1.6 cars can change to a 99 diff...I think the outrage is that they are making an allowance for a now national class to race in a regional class...the opposite is there for us (only if it is a 1990+ car) in DP but that is a new class. IT needs to keep its dignity and not allow this kind of stuff...how can they expect growth if they are giving a car special classifications and stuff? The current class will just dwindle. Its just wrong. It wasn&#39;t broke don&#39;t fix it.

[Andy Bettencourt]

Andy, protests are allowed, expected, and part of the process in IT.

If you want to talk about spirit lets talk about the spirit of the rules, let&#39;s talk about the spirit of the the technical bulletin.

Don&#39;t try to embarrass me just because you need company. [/b]

Seriously? The way I read your post, you said you would protest an SM in ITA if the allowance went through. Not because it&#39;s illegal, but to make a point and make life difficult for all involved. If that isn&#39;t what you meant, it sure came off like that.

[jjjanos]

Seriously? The way I read your post, you said you would protest an SM in ITA if the allowance went through. Not because it&#39;s illegal, but to make a point and make life difficult for all involved. If that isn&#39;t what you meant, it sure came off like that.
[/b]

Well how about a protest that, even though the car is classified as legal, it is not consistent with the philosophy of the class? How about a protest that the adoption of the rule did not follow established Club procedures and thus the rule itself is illegal, ergo the car is illegal. If memory serves me correctly, the BMW guys at the Runoffs got screwed by a variation of this.

Bottom line, and one that you seem to be ignoring, is that this was done without member input and contrary to the procedures as understood by the membership at large. Whether this is or is not a good idea, the failure to follow established procedures and traditions makes this a terrible decision.

[Andy Bettencourt]

Well how about a protest that, even though the car is classified as legal, it is not consistent with the philosophy of the class? How about a protest that the adoption of the rule did not follow established Club procedures and thus the rule itself is illegal, ergo the car is illegal. If memory serves me correctly, the BMW guys at the Runoffs got screwed by a variation of this.

Bottom line, and one that you seem to be ignoring, is that this was done without member input and contrary to the procedures as understood by the membership at large. Whether this is or is not a good idea, the failure to follow established procedures and traditions makes this a terrible decision.
[/b]

Then your beef is with the CRB, not with &#39;a guy&#39; at a race. That is my point. Raise holy hell with the PTB, not some dude running legal under a rule &#39;we&#39; don&#39;t like.

I am not ignoring it. I am trying to debate the merits of the actual idea. If/when it gets out for member comment, it&#39;s still up to them to decide. I see more upside than down (99+ nowithstanding) because the cars are 99% there already. Many have contrary opinions which are valid. Make sure you all read post #58 again before you send your notes to the CRB. Jake and I believe the CRB thought this was a recommendation by the ITAC, when it seems it was not. Either way, they made the call and went with it. We should be able to reel it in if the members don&#39;t want it. Errors and ommissions...

[Conover]

I admit I had not read #58, and it does make me feel a little better, a little, thanks for pointing it out.

That said. Improved touring is a category with a set of rules. I believe that all cars displaying IT*.* should be subject to and allowed the same set of rules. K.I.S.S.

[zracre]

Also how easy would it be for a 99 to pop his plate out and put Hoosiers on "just for fun"? Even if he doesn&#39;t win it is downplaying our class. the cars have plenty of playgrounds.

[gran racing]

Start reeling.

<div align="center">http://www.slopeindicator.com/instruments/instrument-images/inclin-cable-reel-foto.jpg</div>

Look Kirk, I even added a picture in there for ya!


Many of us are upset because of how this did not go though the proper process. Am I for this new rule change? Right now no, but I could be convinced otherwise if through a discussion there is good justification. Andy was literally up in the air, and being a Miata guy it surprises me this would go through with out getting his input. Have you even had an opportunity to fully think this through Andy? I know you&#39;ve been busy in a defensive mode, so I wonder if some comments and even view points now are made from that perspective.

You guys (CRB and ITAC) need to slow things down with this and take a few steps back. There&#39;s no way this should have gone through this way no matter how brilliant of an idea it is, or little impact some may feel it has. ITAC, CRB & member input, right?

Tabled for further discussion or errors & omissions - you choose. It&#39;s gotta happen.

[Matt Rowe]

Cheating is unacceptable no matter if you are racing for 1st or 20th so please don&#39;t tell me that getting beat by a SM running as ITA is fine just because I&#39;m not at the pointy end of the field. As a mid pack racer I have built my car to a set of rules and expect to compete against people who have done the same. I find it insulting to be told I shouldn&#39;t worry about this rule change because an SM is too slow to win in ITA. That may be true but they are still fast enough to beat other drivers that make up the bread and butter of the ITA field. Loyal IT racers that consider the idea and the method a slap in the face.

Facts: This is neither a benefit to ITA or IT in general.
This is not a tech bulletin, it is a rule change that includes not only new cars but a new level of prep.
There is a process for rule changes and this does not follow that.
The only group to benefit is a single class of car that already has several places to run
Can you disagree that any of these facts are true?

If not I fail to see a good reason for this change. Much less a good reason to ramrod it through.

[JoshS]

That said. Improved touring is a category with a set of rules. I believe that all cars displaying IT*.* should be subject to and allowed the same set of rules. K.I.S.S.
[/b]
This is a good argument, I like it.

Can we please get all of the regions to change the name of ITE?

[RSTPerformance]

A friend called me tonight and asked me if I had seen this, I said no, he told me what was going on and my reply,
&#39;that&#39;s absurd!"

Please, for heavens sake, cars racing in IT should be prepped and protested under IT rules.

The first time I see a SM racing in ITA under this allowance, I&#39;m going to urge ITA competitors to protest it, for anything it doesn&#39;t matter what, I&#39;ll pay the $25. When the Stewards have to deal with this catastrophe they will not be happy either. I think this should be rescinded with the quickness! Please, I hadn&#39;t totally lost faith in the process, save me before it&#39;s too late. :wacko:
[/b]


I know you may have changed your position, but I did want to point out... The Stewards would have to find the car legal as it would be concidered legal in the Rule Book... That doesn&#39;t mean that I or any steward agrees with the rule, but we do have to govorn by the rules that are in place.



This is a good argument, I like it.

Can we please get all of the regions to change the name of ITE?
[/b]

I think that the IT in ITE originated from a requirement that the ITE car must meet "IT" safety standards.


As for all the rest of this thread and the "dual classing" of cars. I am ALL FOR dual classing of cars, however I feel that the cars must meet both class rules/requirements. Basically I think that Prod/IT rules should be modified to allow cars to be legal in either/both classes (obviosly an IT car would not be competitive in Prob if it also was meeting the more strict rules of IT). If SM needs to be allowed in IT, then change the rules for all of IT to allow such modifications that are allowed in SM or change the SM rules to meet IT rules. If some of the SM rules do not meet the class "philosophy" (to lazy for spell check tonight) then either those rules need to be changed or the IT philosophy needs to be changed for ALL cars/classes.

Raymond "JMO (Just My Opinion)" Blethen

[Knestis]

...If SM needs to be allowed in IT, then change the rules for all of IT to allow such modifications that are allowed in SM or change the SM rules to meet IT rules. If some of the SM rules do not meet the class "philosophy" (to lazy for spell check tonight) then either those rules need to be changed or the IT philosophy needs to be changed for ALL cars/classes.
[/b]
So, Raymond - you are now saying that you might actually consider changing fundamental aspects of the entire IT category to accommodate Spec Miatae?

Seriously?

Bloody hell.

This is sounding more and more like a deal that got poked through the CRB without any real input from the ITAC. Andy is stuck defending something that got sprung on him and I hope that doesn&#39;t come back to bite him. Jake is rightfully pleading ignorance.

K

[pfcs49]

Raymond-if you&#39;ve been using spellcheck, you ought to get it checked. I think it has a problem.
And as for changing IT rules to accomodate SM-that&#39;s a bad plan.

[ddewhurst]

K, fresh pop corn please the stuff on the site is stale. :014: ZOOM ZOOM ZOOM................

For a moment I thought I was reading a thread on the Production site. They are constantly :bash_1_:

[planet6racing]

I just want to be sure I understand. SM cars may get to run in ITA. The biggest bone of contention is that the CRB version includes the 99 model year. The other biggest bone of contention is that the CRB did not put this out for member comment before making a rule.

Let me ask this: If they did, would the outcome be any different? Also, if they restricted it to the 90-97 MYs in ITA and put the 99 in ITS, would most everyone feel better?

We&#39;ve all been seeing the SMs get more and more run groups. This really isn&#39;t new to any of us. Surely, this isn&#39;t the ITAC&#39;s fault (though they are easy to blame, especially Jake because he drives a Mazda, even if it is a lowly RX-7 :D ).

I say we start a letter writing campaign to get the SMs listed in GT1, also. They need a numbers boost, too, right? :D

[JeffYoung]

Bill, a little more complicated than that for me anyway.

In addition to your issues above, the biggest beef I have is that an allowance is being made to the IT ruleset. 90-97 Miatas can run in IT using SM rules, which are different in some ways. People are disagreeing if those differences are significant or not, but I think even the proponents of the rule agree that it is a shift away from one of the basic (to date) principles of IT -- the rules are set down, and all cars have to adhere to them (a single ruleset).

I don&#39;t find the lack of member input to be an issue, yet. I don&#39;t think the ITAC rushed this through. I think it came up, seemed like a simple, good idea and was passed to the CRB as a recommendation. The CRB immediately adopted it. No one really had the time or even the need to think it through in the detail we are thinking it through here.

Where the "rush through" becomes a problem is if the entire IT community opposes this (and it appears they do) and it still stays a rule simply because "most Miata drivers want it, and there are a lot of Miatas."

I have heard from one person that some of this is bring driven by financial considerations. Without allowing Miatas to do this, easily, regions not nearly as healthy as SEDiv, MidAtlantic, NER, etc. may cut or eliminate their regional programs.

This is a non car specific NEED for the rule that if true, MIGHT be a justification for allowing this assuming there is no othe way to do it (allow Miatas in IT using SM rules). I still don&#39;t think it is that hard to prep a Miata to run up front in SM and still be somewhat competitive in ITA without much trouble. And if that is true, then I think even with the financial problems some regions are facing then there simply is no need for a rule that will cause a lot of trouble in the regions in which regional events are already full or close to it.

[Andy Bettencourt]

I have heard from one person that some of this is bring driven by financial considerations. Without allowing Miatas to do this, easily, regions not nearly as healthy as SEDiv, MidAtlantic, NER, etc. may cut or eliminate their regional programs.
[/b]

However true or not true for the singular person you spoke with, that most certainly is NOT on the radar of the ITAC. This type of move does not make the balance sheets go from red to black...besides, these guys are already crossing over so the money is there now.

[JeffYoung]

Andy, thanks. I am glad that is the case, because that removes the one pragmatic reason I see for varying the IT ruleset. Without it, this is an easy call (for me anyway).

Again, thanks for clearing that up.

[Knestis]

...and any region that wanted to could create additional class opportunities to generate more entries - ITSM, if you will.

The biggest beef, Bill is that we have just got the IT category rules and specs settled down and are swinging the barn door open again with special exceptions, inconsistent with the big picture.

Some of the smaller issues (differences between the rules, competitiveness of SMs in ITA) are red herrings. Go back to the first principle and get concensus on that, THEN think about the piddly stuff.

Do we think it&#39;s a good idea to have some cars classified for competition in IT classes, running to rules different than those that apply to the category as a whole?

|_| Yes

|_| No

K

[Joe Harlan]

Jeff,

Trust me when I tell you that I understand this position. HOWEVER, when I proposed IT cars - AS IS - into Production, you wrote:
So here is where I get lost. You support extra places for IT cars to run under IT rules in Production, but you don&#39;t support SM cars in IT under SM rules. Can you have it both ways?

Mac, you are in the same boat. You wrote:
And Dave Gran, same for you. You mentioned support for my IT to Prod idea but yet this is somehow different.

If you are against this from a fundamental and &#39;intermingling&#39; standpoint, then you can&#39;t be for it when IT gets the benefit and not for it when some other class gets the benefit.

- On a side note, Greg has obviously walked away realizing our banter wasn&#39;t productive. I will do the same.
[/b]


The support was to allow regional cars to try national racing Miata&#39;s already have both of those worlds and about every other class in SCCA. I am positive that this kind of allowance is NOT a good thing for this catagory.

[Bill Miller]

Sorry I&#39;m late to this, but I had to go out and get more popcorn.



To Kirk: Isn&#39;t EVERY letter we get a &#39;ME&#39; request?
[/b]

Andy,

I&#39;m pretty much at a loss for words over that comment. You&#39;ve been around here HOW long? :(


Trying to make sense of this whole thing is about as easy as a Westerner trying to understand what makes an Islamic suicide bomber tick (no pun intended). I read all 5 pages and couldn&#39;t find one post that had a logical, reasoned defense for this change. I can&#39;t believe the multi-level prep/dual classification/etc. didn&#39;t throw up all kinds of red flags w/ the ITAC and the CRB, but hey, what do I know. How many times have requests for cars in Prod been shot down w/ the "it would create another level of prep" line (DD, that one&#39;s for you)? What&#39;s next SM in HProd or GProd (they missed the boat on this one, as they could have probably saved GP w/ it).

And please don&#39;t bring the "IT cars in DP" or the "IT cars in Prod" into the discussion. The goals behind those proposals aren&#39;t even in the same galaxy as the "SM in IT" issue. Trying to equate them says one of two things, either you really don&#39;t understand how this whole thing works, or you think you can blow smoke up someone&#39;s tailpipe.

For those that say this isn&#39;t a Mazda thing, guess what, perception is reality.

I&#39;m going to go back to my popcorn, as there are plenty of others that have this thing covered. I&#39;m just glad I don&#39;t support this kind of nonsense anymore.

[Ed Funk]

Check the open wheel, production and GT forums. Those guys are upset also that Me Otters are getting more and more places to run and everyone else are losing out because of it. This is either a club of all the members who are treated equally or it&#39;s a club going down the tubes.

Someone, please post the e-mail address of CRB (I know, I should be able to find it, but I&#39;m old!)

[Bill Miller]

Someone, please post the e-mail address of CRB (I know, I should be able to find it, but I&#39;m old!)
[/b]

[email protected]

[Andy Bettencourt]

Andy,

I&#39;m pretty much at a loss for words over that comment. You&#39;ve been around here HOW long? :(
[/b]

Bill, the point of my comment was that every letter that comes in (well ok, 99%) are requests that affect that writer in positive way. Whether it&#39;s &#39;class my car&#39;, &#39;reduce my weight&#39;, &#39;add weigh to the other guy&#39;, &#39;allow me to do this&#39;, etc, etc...nothing more, nothing less.

[RSTPerformance]

My comments were not meant to say that I think that we (IT) should need to change to meet the SM rules, I would be against that. I am just saying that for dual classing in general we should have it a normal practice to alter the rules in both or one of the classes so that cars can legaly fit into both classes. I don&#39;t believe in the idea of allowing "exceptions" to the rules to allow dual classing of cars no matter what class it is.

We (IT) have a good thing going, and I don&#39;t think that any rules need to be changed, maybe some fine tuned and clarified, but not a total revamp of the rules to meet SM or any other class rules. If they want to play with us, then have them change thier rules.

Raymond

[charrbq]

Looks like, once again, we&#39;re getting screwed, and those doing the screwing are sending in the attack dog to justify the screw and convince us to stop kicking and screaming. :mad1:

[Bill Miller]

Bill, the point of my comment was that every letter that comes in (well ok, 99%) are requests that affect that writer in positive way. Whether it&#39;s &#39;class my car&#39;, &#39;reduce my weight&#39;, &#39;add weigh to the other guy&#39;, &#39;allow me to do this&#39;, etc, etc...nothing more, nothing less.
[/b]

Not even worth getting into a discussion over. In fact, I&#39;m not sure why I&#39;m even posting this, as it&#39;s not my problem any more. :unsure:



My comments were not meant to say that I think that we (IT) should need to change to meet the SM rules, I would be against that. I am just saying that for dual classing in general we should have it a normal practice to alter the rules in both or one of the classes so that cars can legaly fit into both classes. I don&#39;t believe in the idea of allowing "exceptions" to the rules to allow dual classing of cars no matter what class it is.

We (IT) have a good thing going, and I don&#39;t think that any rules need to be changed, maybe some fine tuned and clarified, but not a total revamp of the rules to meet SM or any other class rules. If they want to play with us, then have them change thier rules.

Raymond
[/b]

Raymond,

Maybe you should try racing w/ EMRA if this is what you&#39;re after. This is no dig against EMRA, as I think they&#39;re a great organization. It&#39;s just that they give you the ability to move your car around (class-wise) depending on what you want to do w/ it. I&#39;m pretty sure that&#39;s also the way NASA&#39;s PT thing works as well.

[Stan]

Facts: This is not a tech bulletin, it is a rule change that includes not only new cars but a new level of prep.
There is a process for rule changes and this does not follow that.
Can you disagree that any of these facts are true?[/b]
Yes, I can disagree. A rule change is defined as a change to the verbiage of (in this case) the ITCS, and is subject to the process of member notification and discussion, and ratification by the BoD. OTOH, car classifications are authorized, and are done directly by, the CRB without going through those additional steps. This happens all the time, including other cars in the latest Fastrack (see the two Hondas immediately above the SMs...).

And now back to your debate in progress... :024:

[Joe Moser]

The ITAC/CRB contingent allowing this to go through is inexcusable.

There are enough strong points in this thread, and I won&#39;t recite them all. Maybe the ITAC will let me run my currently-prepped-to-NASA H4 CRX in ITA, rather then making me change everything back to ITA ruleset. Sure would be easier, and I&#39;m sure there are plenty of other H4 cars that would love to race in ITA with the NASA H4 rule set. Yeah, asinine isn&#39;t it, well its just how this change looks and feels.

I&#39;m sure the ITAC can see how thoroughly the IT community rejects this change, and I&#39;m sure they&#39;ll do the right thing. There is no sense in alienating the core IT-drivers for some fly-by-night Spec Mayham trend. Short term gains RARELY equal long term profits.

Joe Moser

[RacerBill]

Do we think it&#39;s a good idea to have some cars classified for competition in IT classes, running to rules different than those that apply to the category as a whole?

|_| Yes

|_| No

K
[/b]

My vote is NO!!!!!!! :bash_1_: :bash_1_: :bash_1_:

[Andy Bettencourt]

The ITAC/CRB contingent allowing this to go through is inexcusable.

Joe Moser

[/b]

Post #58 needs to be required reading.

[planet6racing]

There are enough strong points in this thread, and I won&#39;t recite them all. Maybe the ITAC will let me run my currently-prepped-to-NASA H4 CRX in ITA, rather then making me change everything back to ITA ruleset. Sure would be easier, and I&#39;m sure there are plenty of other H4 cars that would love to race in ITA with the NASA H4 rule set. Yeah, asinine isn&#39;t it, well its just how this change looks and feels.
[/b]

Joe:

Maybe you should ask! Can&#39;t hurt, anyway!!

So, for those of us that wanted the IT cars classed in production, was that just an understanding that the IT cars would have spec lines in the Prod category, but still need to meet the minimum Prod specs?

Also, this is already done in the club with Solo and IT. Though IT cars are beyond the prep level of SP in some aspects, but restricted in others, IT cars can run SP for their appropriate class (last time, for the Saturn, it was DSP).

Eh, well, I guess it really doesn&#39;t matter to me. In the five years, this will be but a blip on the radar (if that) and we&#39;ll all have bigger things to worry about as we bow down to our new Spec Maserati overlords! :D

[ltblouis]

Hey Andy!! I am going to back to ITA with my CRX can I get the old weight back ??????

:D :D :D :D :D :D



Louis

[Knestis]

... every letter that comes in (well ok, 99%) are requests that affect that writer in positive way.[/b]
Like my request to list a Honda in ITB so I have more people to race against. My point about reactive catering to "MEs" supported just a little more.


... The goals behind those proposals aren&#39;t even in the same galaxy as the "SM in IT" issue. Trying to equate them says one of two things, either you really don&#39;t understand how this whole thing works, or you think you can blow smoke up someone&#39;s tailpipe. ...[/b]
...OR it&#39;s possible (yet again) that inconsistencies are evidence that the public rationale for the various proposals differ from the ones that are actually driving the changes. ANY time things don&#39;t seem right, it&#39;s possible that they aren&#39;t.

K

[Ed Funk]

. ANY time things don&#39;t seem right, it&#39;s possible that they aren&#39;t.

K
[/quote]
K, is that like saying if it looks, smells, feels and tastes like BS it&#39;s a good thing we didn&#39;t step in it?!?!

[MMiskoe]

Even the guys over on the SM page think most of this is a bad idea. This alignment between SM and IT must be noted as a once in a lifetime happening.

What month was it this past spring/winter when Fast Track had the letter printed that asked for the CRB to remove their collective heads from their bungholes? That one had to do w/ Production changes.

Might need to get a copy of that letter and apply it here.

[gran racing]

How does is this simply fall into "car classifications are authorized"? The Miata is already classified in ITS & ITA. This IS a change to the ruleset, for better or for worse. Sure, using a loose definition there could be existing cars classified with a note on the spec line "CRXs are now also allowed in ITR with a turbocharger, the ITA RX7 can go also go into ITR with a ported rotary" etc. Not trying to pick a fight with you Stan, but that&#39;s a pretty liberal way getting this in there.

While this may seem trival to some, what doors will this open up?

[Andy Bettencourt]

Even the guys over on the SM page think most of this is a bad idea.
[/b]

Actually Matt, only one guy who is not a cross-poster (Greg and Mac) is complaining - so far! :) But I wouldn&#39;t expect them to dislike the idea.

[dickita15]

Yes, I can disagree. A rule change is defined as a change to the verbiage of (in this case) the ITCS, and is subject to the process of member notification and discussion, and ratification by the BoD. OTOH, car classifications are authorized, and are done directly by, the CRB without going through those additional steps. This happens all the time, including other cars in the latest Fastrack (see the two Hondas immediately above the SMs...).

[/b]

this is a lot more that a classification. the CRB has added another level of prep to a class that currently has just one. That is a rule change.

IT does not have a tradition of single spec line exceptions. how long ago was the Oldsmobile exception made, that is still brought up as a precident.

[mustanghammer]

...and any region that wanted to could create additional class opportunities to generate more entries - ITSM, if you will.

The biggest beef, Bill is that we have just got the IT category rules and specs settled down and are swinging the barn door open again with special exceptions, inconsistent with the big picture.

Some of the smaller issues (differences between the rules, competitiveness of SMs in ITA) are red herrings. Go back to the first principle and get concensus on that, THEN think about the piddly stuff.

Do we think it&#39;s a good idea to have some cars classified for competition in IT classes, running to rules different than those that apply to the category as a whole?

|_| Yes

|_| No

K
[/b]


NO.

The CRB used the "this creates another prep level" argument against a GP/RX7 proposal I submitted a year ago. If that logic applied then it needs to apply now. Ifwe can&#39;t have what we want then a little consistency would suffice.

[Andy Bettencourt]

More Devils Advocate:

So for all those who don&#39;t want &#39;two prep levels&#39;***, would you be including in your letter to the CRB a request to recind the Limited Prep rules in Prod and the IT cars in DP rules already on the books or is this issue only applicable to the world we live in? I would think that if you are against it fundamantally and catagorically, you would be against it &#39;globaly&#39;. Not sure, just guessing.

***Again, I am NOT for the inclusion of the 99+, that to me really creates a new prep level that would require policing. But the 90-97&#39;s? Come on here. We are talking about 3 nitpicky little items that nobody cares about anyway for cars ALREADY IN THE CLASS. SM&#39;s are UNDERPREPPED for IT. This is happening NOW. Does it make sense that with a one-sentence rule, that everyone can be legal? You don&#39;t have to worry about policing it because any performance-enhancement would be already legal.

The CRB could have just as easily put these items on the spec line and called it a day. No rule change, no proceedural outcry, done.

My impression from most of you is that you would rather allow what is already happening to just happen under the table instead of trying to proactively avoid issues should someone decide to throw weenie-paperwork. That is a valid position I suppose as well.

Standing on princinple is fine. Greg&#39;s thought process that this opens us up for future issues is a concern. I don&#39;t think it WILL happen but I have no way of guaranteeing it obviously. Keeping the walls around IT is not a bad thing from some aspects.

Other than the proceedural issues, and the 99+ policing issues, is it such a big deal to allow for simple and easy cross-over of a huge pocket of cars that allows car counts to rise and regional revenues to fill out? I just don&#39;t see the doom and gloom...I see guys running every weekend getting huge track/dollar ratios and seeing VALUE in the SCCA.

Trying to start a civil debate on why this is a bad thing (90-97) because I am not buying what I have read so far...but I could be &#39;off&#39; as I have not seen much support although I have had 3 PM&#39;s wondering what the fuss is about and not wanting to get flamed for saying so.

Read Post #58

[DavidM]

I just stepped in something and it stinks badly. I think it&#39;s this proposed (already passed?) technical bulliten/rule.

So spec miata guys want to run in IT? Cool. Let them prep their cars to the IT rule set and they can come play. They don&#39;t want to do that, they can go run SM. If you want to run IT then come run IT. If you want to run SM, the run SM. You don&#39;t get to have it both ways and that&#39;s what they are trying to do. This "rule" is a crock. How many classes can Miatas run in? And you don&#39;t think that&#39;s just a little biased?

As for the whole IT in prepared thing, I don&#39;t know that any IT racers actually asked for IT cars to be classed in prepared.

David

[JeffYoung]

Andy, I would be:

1. In favor of always maintaining "one" set of rules for IT. If SMs wanted to run in IT with some minor deviations (although I disagree with you about the importance of the diff allowance) and chance a protest, well I for one wouldn&#39;t be a protestor. But then again I don&#39;t drive an A car.

I see a LOT of value in preserving our rule set and avoiding at all costs different levels of prep within it.

2. I would similarly vote to rescind the idea of IT cars in DP, LP cars and would be against IT cars in Prod TO THE EXTENT THE RULES WOULD ALLOW THEM TO RUN IN THOSE CLASSES WITHOUT COMPLYING WITH THE EXISTING RULES FOR THE CLASS. When I said a month ago I saw no downside to IT cars running in production, I don&#39;t think I fully comprehended the idea that this would require allowances and exceptions to the PCS.

In short, I think the foundational value is worth preserving here at nearly all costs, save extinction of certain regions and regional events due to low car counts which I believe you indicated was not a real possibility or concern.

One other pragmatic point that I hestitate somewhat to bring up.

Here in the SEDiv, SMs already run nearly at, at or below the ITA track record at several tracks (Roebling, CMP and VIR). Hell, while I am not a top level S car or driver, at Rockingham I finished second in ITS and immediately behind the first place SM (Bob Thornton). This is no knock on the local A cars, but rather I think the testament to what a fully max prep, max driven SM can do. It ain&#39;t slow. The top SMs here in the SEDiv would beat most of the best A cars.

Andy, some of your position seems based on the fact that empirically, an SM should not be competitive in A. I have seen with my eyes for several years here in the SEDiv that they can. We can discount that as unreliable track results, but I think if we do we are shortchanging an important part of the debate and we are already IMPLICITLY giving some value to on track results by assuming that allowing this wouldn&#39;t create any competitive issues because SMs can&#39;t run competitively in A. The fact is they can, and do.

[RSTPerformance]

Is this entire issue over the 99+ SM car being allowed to run in ITA with a restrictor plate vs ITS without a restrictor plate, or is the issue that SM cars do not meet the IT rules we already have?

Raymond "More to follow after a simple reply..." Blethen

[cherokee]

I don&#39;t have a dog in this hunt as I am one of those old farts with an antique that is going to Prod from IT, but I do have to say....

Cut the guy some slack, at least he is a on the board trying to tell you the why&#39;s and what for&#39;s on this deal.
This speaks volumes to me.

Salute to you Andy for being on the board and telling us what is going on, you have a thicker skin then I, guess thats why I am not in a public office.

[tnord]

i stayed out of this as long as i could....



More Devils Advocate:

So for all those who don&#39;t want &#39;two prep levels&#39;***, would you be including in your letter to the CRB a request to recind the Limited Prep rules in Prod and the IT cars in DP rules already on the books or is this issue only applicable to the world we live in? I would think that if you are against it fundamantally and catagorically, you would be against it &#39;globaly&#39;. Not sure, just guessing.
[/b]

correct, and you can check the archives for my letter against the IT in DP thing as well.



***Again, I am NOT for the inclusion of the 99+, that to me really creates a new prep level that would require policing. But the 90-97&#39;s? Come on here. We are talking about 3 nitpicky little items that nobody cares about anyway for cars ALREADY IN THE CLASS. SM&#39;s are UNDERPREPPED for IT. This is happening NOW. Does it make sense that with a one-sentence rule, that everyone can be legal? You don&#39;t have to worry about policing it because any performance-enhancement would be already legal.

The CRB could have just as easily put these items on the spec line and called it a day. No rule change, no proceedural outcry, done.

My impression from most of you is that you would rather allow what is already happening to just happen under the table instead of trying to proactively avoid issues should someone decide to throw weenie-paperwork. That is a valid position I suppose as well.
[/b]

that&#39;s pretty much where i stand. it wasn&#39;t really a problem in the first place.



Other than the proceedural issues, and the 99+ policing issues, is it such a big deal to allow for simple and easy cross-over of a huge pocket of cars that allows car counts to rise and regional revenues to fill out? I just don&#39;t see the doom and gloom...I see guys running every weekend getting huge track/dollar ratios and seeing VALUE in the SCCA.
[/b]

ignoring the 99+ thing which is just plain stupid, it&#39;s not so much what was done, as how it was done. same deal as the backroom dealing with the 99+ in SM to begin with. remember that one?

[JohnRW]

... only one guy who is not a cross-poster (Greg and Mac) is complaining - so far! [/b]


I&#39;m still trying to imagine what kind of dress a &#39;cross-poster&#39; wears. Are there stiletto heels involved ?

[tnord]

So spec miata guys want to run in IT? Cool. Let them prep their cars to the IT rule set and they can come play. They don&#39;t want to do that, they can go run SM. If you want to run IT then come run IT. If you want to run SM, the run SM. You don&#39;t get to have it both ways and that&#39;s what they are trying to do. This "rule" is a crock. How many classes can Miatas run in? And you don&#39;t think that&#39;s just a little biased?

[/b]

a SM can be an ITA car, but an ITA car can not be a SM, that&#39;s really your problem.

many SMs don&#39;t need to change a damn thing to be IT legal.

[its66]

More Devils Advocate:
..I see guys running every weekend getting huge track/dollar ratios and seeing VALUE in the SCCA.

Read Post #58
[/b]

Andy,
You are correct in that this will help racers increase the dollars/fun ratio. However, this is only the guys with SM&#39;s. This will potentially decrease the dollars/fun ratio for every other class. Perhaps you can help me see how this change will help an ITS guy, or ITB, or anyone other than SM. I see more entrants(same number of cars) in our already crowded IT fields, and the possibility of yet another run group. This will decrease the available track time to everybody EXCEPT SM. I realize I could be planning for a worst case scenario which might not happen. Isn&#39;t that what helps decide a good judgement call-weighing the potential benefits with the potential losses?

If I have missed something, please explain it to me, Greg, Steve, Dick, David, and the others who are wondering the same thing. How is this good for IT, or Club Racing as a whole? As I see it, this is good for one group, and one group only. The IT-> DP thing is similar in that it was out of the normal rules set, BUT, it doesn&#39;t appear to have the potential to hurt any other group. That is why nobody was complaining(that I know of).

[Andy Bettencourt]

Andy, I would be:

1. In favor of always maintaining "one" set of rules for IT. If SMs wanted to run in IT with some minor deviations (although I disagree with you about the importance of the diff allowance) and chance a protest, well I for one wouldn&#39;t be a protestor. But then again I don&#39;t drive an A car.[/b]

The diff is not a speed advantage. We don&#39;t class cars or make allowances for enduros...


I see a LOT of value in preserving our rule set and avoiding at all costs different levels of prep within it.[/b]

High moral ground I can sink my teeth into.


One other pragmatic point that I hestitate somewhat to bring up.

Here in the SEDiv, SMs already run nearly at, at or below the ITA track record at several tracks (Roebling, CMP and VIR). Hell, while I am not a top level S car or driver, at Rockingham I finished second in ITS and immediately behind the first place SM (Bob Thornton). This is no knock on the local A cars, but rather I think the testament to what a fully max prep, max driven SM can do. It ain&#39;t slow. The top SMs here in the SEDiv would beat most of the best A cars.

Andy, some of your position seems based on the fact that empirically, an SM should not be competitive in A. I have seen with my eyes for several years here in the SEDiv that they can. We can discount that as unreliable track results, but I think if we do we are shortchanging an important part of the debate and we are already IMPLICITLY giving some value to on track results by assuming that allowing this wouldn&#39;t create any competitive issues because SMs can&#39;t run competitively in A. The fact is they can, and do. [/b]

On this, I think you have to look outside the local flavor. Your top-prep SM cars (of which there are MANY) meet or exceed the prep level of 99% of IT cars. The math is simple. You can get more power, a better suspension and use better tires on an ITA Miata...and one can argue that the ITA Miata is not the class of the field at most tracks. The NX2000, CRX, 240SX, Integra etc are all in the mix. There is NO other reason for &#39;less than&#39; SM lap times in an ITA Miata other than lack of prep or driving...none....and that is fine - been there. We all work at our own pace and what our budgets allow. We can&#39;t compare max prep and max driven SM&#39;s to mid-level anything, S or A cars. Just not valid. Can they compete? Sure - but not because the slight differences in the rules give them an advantage - because they are already close in parts, above in prep and who knows in driver.

Why I don&#39;t buy the competitive issues is that these cars are already legal for ITA. Anything you do to enhance competitivness over &#39;SM trim&#39; is already legal. Heck, the things already have springs, bars, intake (in some cases), exhaust, etc. You can&#39;t &#39;exceed&#39; IT trim/speed with an SM. I just see it as simple math. Maybe it isn&#39;t. Throughout all the BS, there is a potential shift in fundmentals. I just don&#39;t see the shift as a bad thing - but as Greg and others point out, that may be at the detriment of the long-term health of the class. I don&#39;t buy it, but the potential is there.

[Bill Miller]

More Devils Advocate:

So for all those who don&#39;t want &#39;two prep levels&#39;***, would you be including in your letter to the CRB a request to recind the Limited Prep rules in Prod and the IT cars in DP rules already on the books or is this issue only applicable to the world we live in? I would think that if you are against it fundamantally and catagorically, you would be against it &#39;globaly&#39;. Not sure, just guessing.


[/b]

Andy,

Please read at least my comments again. It&#39;s not about people not wanting multiple prep levels w/in a given category, it&#39;s about the lack of internal consistency coming out of Topeka. On one hand they&#39;ll shoot down requests because it creates another level of prep, even though it might help car counts. On the other, they&#39;ll blow something like this through. Come on dude, you&#39;re sharper than that.


Yes, I can disagree. A rule change is defined as a change to the verbiage of (in this case) the ITCS, and is subject to the process of member notification and discussion, and ratification by the BoD. OTOH, car classifications are authorized, and are done directly by, the CRB without going through those additional steps. This happens all the time, including other cars in the latest Fastrack (see the two Hondas immediately above the SMs...).

And now back to your debate in progress... 024.gif[/b]

Stan,

The term &#39;strained and tortured&#39; comes to mind after reading your post. BTW, is that an easy transition from racer to politician? As the old saying goes, "same whore, different wig". :puke:

[Greg Amy]

...is it such a big deal to allow for simple and easy cross-over of a huge pocket of cars that allows car counts to rise and regional revenues to fill out?[/b]
Since I started this shitstorm, allow me to respond.

OF COURSE NOT, Andy. Of course not. But there are multiple levels to this "situation" that you are glossing over. The reason you are not "buying" what people are offering here is because you are trying to nit-pick the "good" stuff while overlooking the big picture and its long-term effects. Said differently (and clumsily), you are trying to approve specific trees while ignoring the forest. The vast number of people that have expressed disagreement with you should be a major clue-by-4!

When I was reading through those three seemingly innocuous lines, here was my thought process:

"Ok, let&#39;s zip over to Technical Bulletins, see what&#39;s up effective 6/1/07...GCR, uh huh...GT cars, blah, blah, blah...Ah, ITA. Huh, a VTEC in ITA...first one, I think, that&#39;ll cause some shit to fly; gotta check the specs out on that one...Miatas 90-93 can run SM spec...?...Don&#39;t they already do that...?...Wonder why the separate line...huh, did it for the 1.8L too...must be something incompatible with the IT specs, I should research what that&#39;s all about [editor&#39;s note: I had NO CLUE that they are starting to allow alternate final drives and stuff like like in SM...here we go on the SM letters for comp adjustments "welcome to prod racing"... ANYWAY...] ...WTF??? CLASSIFY THE &#39;99 in ITA??? OK, what in the hell is really going on here with these changes???"

That&#39;s when the gears started turning, and my first post to this thread. Why is one group of cars getting special treatment that others do not? Why are we creating a discrete level of prep for specific cars? How far can this be taken, given our history of rules creep? I slept on it overnight and came up with a HOST of reasons why this is a TERRIBLE idea, thus my third post. Then, Andy, you came out of the gates defending what I consider indefensible and attacking the messenger while ignoring the message, and the rest, as they say...

I&#39;ve described my issues with this situation, ad nausea, on multiple levels, so I won&#39;t go into excruciating detail. But, had the CRB simply wanted to include Spec Miata within the existing structure/classification while allowing some SM mods that are currently IT-illegal - i.e., stopped after items #3 and #4 - it would have still caused a squeek from me simply because it should go out for membership feedback and consideration, but the general idea is a reasonable one -- on the surface. If instead of cramming it down our throats the CRB had published it for membership input while explaining its purpose it would have gone a LONG way towards avoiding this showdown. But that process wasn&#39;t followed.

But it didn&#39;t stop there, did it? The CRB careened down the rules creep road and went overboard with classifying the &#39;99, creating a dual-classed vehicle, allowing it to run two different Improved touring classes with SIGNIFICANTLY different prep levels.

Problem is, Andy, it&#39;s a package deal now: take it all (but no leave it all). We won&#39;t have the opportunity for review and feedback, we won&#39;t have the opportunity for further consideration. We won&#39;t have the opportunity to let the CRB understand what a bad precedent this is (not just the &#39;99s, but the whole ideal as previously argued), and how it can be misused and abused to "create" a situation that&#39;s untenable, especially given our lax attitudes towards self-enforcement. We got slapped in the ass, told, "this is happening, we decided it, it&#39;s not open to debate."

Unacceptable, and indefensible.

So, do I care that Spec Miatas race in ITA? OF COURSE NOT! Come on down and sign up! As far as I was concerned prior to this week, they were a good fit -- and, within the spirit of the rules, LEGAL. Sure, I knew that they could cap off their power steering and remove the vent windows, but WHO CARES? NOBODY of any consequence in Improved Touring cares (any IT competitors complaining to you about Miatas removing their vent windows?)

C&#39;mon down, you&#39;re welcome to run with us. But don&#39;t ask us to change our culture, philosophy, and rules set just to accommodate you. You are welcome to compete with us under our existing rules structure(s) any time you wish, as long as you abide by our rules. That&#39;s REALLY not an unreasonable request. To expect otherwise is self-centered and narcissistic.

Finally, there&#39;s the "Miata" aspect of the whole thing. Find for me one other make and model that gets so much compromise and allowances, that has so many places to play now, and is competitive in so many places (Doc, you missed D Prepared on your list)? Do we REALLY need to change our rules to accommodate them in yet ANOTHER category? It&#39;s like the spoiled kids that barge their way to the front of the food line in the cafeteria; where does it stop? I say it stops here.

To directly answer your question: would I prefer "what is already happening...under the table instead of trying to proactively avoid issues should someone decide to throw weenie-paperwork"? Well, when given the choice between a fundamental change in philosophy versus the minimal risk for someone tossing weenie paperwork, I&#39;ll ABSOLUTELY take the risk of weenie paperwork ANY DAY, EVERY DAY (someone actually protesting a competitor&#39;s car in IT? Hah!) Then we&#39;ll drum that weenie figuratively out of the track, just as if they&#39;d protested a washer bottle.

Come play with us, we&#39;re glad to have you. But you&#39;re using our rules, not yours.

Greg

P.S. Andy, please don&#39;t bother parsing out this post and hitting it point-by-point. You just CANNOT defend this action in any manner to convince me otherwise. You&#39;re wasting time trying.


(Non sequitor: I&#39;m getting a load of laughs out of the responses to my post on specmiata.com...I was told to "sit and spin" by one person and called a "troll" by another...these guys have absolutely no clue to the effects of this change - this time in their favor, unlikely so next time - and that SCCA existed long before Spec Miata was developed...they truly just "don&#39;t get it". But they will. Some day.)

[Bill Miller]

Said differently (and clumsily), you are trying to approve specific trees while ignoring the forest.[/b]

Or even more clumsily, you&#39;re trying to pick the peanuts out of the shit. :o

[Andy Bettencourt]

P.S. Andy, please don&#39;t bother parsing out this post and hitting it point-by-point. you just CANNOT defend this action in any manner to convince me otherwise. You&#39;re wasting time trying.
[/b]

Then don&#39;t post at all Greg. I don&#39;t agree with some of the stuff you say. It isn&#39;t FACT. For instance:


The reason you are not "buying" what people are offering here is because you are trying to nit-pick the "good" stuff while overlooking the big picture and its long-term effects.[/b]

I am tired of this one. Same arguement some people use to hold back the ECU rule. WHAT EFFECTS? I would like some specifics. To tell me the sky will fall is fine - as long as you tell me WHY it will fall, not &#39;it could fall because you just opened up pandoras box&#39;. Can&#39;t these things be taken on a case-by-case basis? It&#39;s how it works. This isn&#39;t case-law. You could be 100% correct, but I want to know WHAT to look out for.

As far as the action is concerned, please everyone, re-read post #58. I have already talked with CRB members. This can be modified and/or turned around. From what I can tell from meeting notes and talking with ITAC members, this was NOT an official recommendation. We will address it specifically on the next call for the next FT.

The &#39;special treatment&#39; issue. Sigh. If we want to limit ourselves on priniciple, fine. That&#39;s the old SCCA. Same reason S2000 hasn&#39;t been relegated to Regional status yet. This isn&#39;t about allowing anything that isn&#39;t happening already. I just hope when we pull this back and examine all the feedback, people have included tangible upsides/downsides.

As far as who it helps? IT car counts (not every region is as &#39;successful&#39; as some on the East Coast). The perception of SCCA maybe. Increased regional revenue. SM retention. This kind of thinking may help YOUR class in the future - but if we cut off our nose to spite our face, we may not get the help WE need in the future, should we need it. Maybe we won&#39;t but to say no on principle limits our future success IMHO. Some will justifiably say that it limits our future EXPOSURE for failure - and it does. I just see people blocking for the sake of blocking. No quantifiable and definate outcomes - just Chicken Little stuff. It&#39;s also very possible I am too new to the Club (only a 17 year member) to remember how issues like this have backfired. Some examples would help us grab ahold of the possible outcomes.

Action for me: Pull it all back, put it out for member comment. Please write in when you see it next month.

[Greg Amy]

...

[RSTPerformance]

still no reply to my comment...

Let me ask it in another way... I have no time right now to be looking through the GCR, but others that strongly feel SM shouldn&#39;t be in ITA can probably answer this quickly without a GCR.

1) What rules does a fully prepped SM car have that would make it not be legal in IT?

1a) Should we adopt some of those SM rules into IT?

2) Why do you care if a car has a dual IT classification (99+ Miata ITS/ITA), one class with the car has a restritor plate and one class it doesn&#39;t? (We already have this with the BMW in ITS/ITR.)


Raymond " Not supporting anything yet" Blethen

[JLawton]

Hmmmm, am I the only one selfesh enough to wonder about the size of the run groups?? In the NE, our IT groups are very close to max..........I can see groups getting over prescribed......Are they going to have to add a run group because 20 Miata&#39;s are running in three run groups? Will our 12 minute qualifying sessions turn into 6??

[Andy Bettencourt]

Ray - it&#39;s been said in the thread.

[RSTPerformance]

Ray - it&#39;s been said in the thread.
[/b]

Deleted post...

not worth my time to read through all the posts I only saw window vent and exhaust not exiting away from the car... Let em Race and quit bitching... Lime rock will be fun again as more miatas will challenge for the win

Raymond



Hmmmm, am I the only one selfesh enough to wonder about the size of the run groups?? In the NE, our IT groups are very close to max..........I can see groups getting over prescribed......Are they going to have to add a run group because 20 Miata&#39;s are running in three run groups? Will our 12 minute qualifying sessions turn into 6??
[/b]


Jeff... its been said in prior posts. Not everywhere has good turnouts in IT. We have a good fields here on the East Coast, but other tracks/races are not as fortunate :)

[shwah]

More Devils Advocate:

So for all those who don&#39;t want &#39;two prep levels&#39;***, would you be including in your letter to the CRB a request to recind the Limited Prep rules in Prod and the IT cars in DP rules already on the books or is this issue only applicable to the world we live in? I would think that if you are against it fundamantally and catagorically, you would be against it &#39;globaly&#39;. Not sure, just guessing.[/b]
At minimum all safety regulations should match for the cars in a given class. Of course getting the overall cage rules in order will help in this regard. But guess what - DP is not my class, so I do not feel compelled to protect the &#39;sanctity&#39; of that ruleset. The powers that be made this decision to help force a pet class into runoffs qualification. I don&#39;t know why, since they could have simply pulled a &#39;T3&#39; and put them there. It is part of a larger effort to eliminate classes without making the tough decisions, but rather making it the drivers fault for not &#39;showing up&#39; enough.

Considering the fact that Production ostensibly will not be classifying new cars in any prep level outside of LP, I don&#39;t see any problem with suggesting that IT cars be classified as LP in Production. Allowing IT cars with a different level of prep is not ideal IMO, again need to have consistent safety regulations for a given class.


***Again, I am NOT for the inclusion of the 99+, that to me really creates a new prep level that would require policing. But the 90-97&#39;s? Come on here. We are talking about 3 nitpicky little items that nobody cares about anyway for cars ALREADY IN THE CLASS. SM&#39;s are UNDERPREPPED for IT. This is happening NOW. Does it make sense that with a one-sentence rule, that everyone can be legal? You don&#39;t have to worry about policing it because any performance-enhancement would be already legal.[/b]
You can already build a car that meets both rulesets at one time. Who exactly needed this allowance? If your goals are to be supremely competitive in SM, then focus on that, if your goals are to get more sessions in your SM, then build and ITA/SM/SMT etc. legal car. There is no reason to add a separate prep level to IT to accomodate SM drivers who don&#39;t get enough track time. I welcome them into our midsts (although grudgingly because some of them always seem to hold up me and my ITB competitors everywhere but the straight away) as IT competitors, but they should prep to IT rules.


My impression from most of you is that you would rather allow what is already happening to just happen under the table instead of trying to proactively avoid issues should someone decide to throw weenie-paperwork. That is a valid position I suppose as well.[/b]
This impression came from the one post making that statement in this thread? Hardly representative of the collective &#39;we&#39;. There is an easy way for Miata competitors to avoid weenie protests - prep the car to IT legal specs. Use the right differential carrier (heck change rear ends between sessions if you have to), configure the exhaust properly - is there anything else?


Other than the proceedural issues, and the 99+ policing issues, is it such a big deal to allow for simple and easy cross-over of a huge pocket of cars that allows car counts to rise and regional revenues to fill out? I just don&#39;t see the doom and gloom...I see guys running every weekend getting huge track/dollar ratios and seeing VALUE in the SCCA.

Trying to start a civil debate on why this is a bad thing (90-97) because I am not buying what I have read so far...but I could be &#39;off&#39; as I have not seen much support although I have had 3 PM&#39;s wondering what the fuss is about and not wanting to get flamed for saying so.

Read Post #58
[/b]
The big deal is the fact that the halmark of IT in it&#39;s current state is a single, stable set of rules for all competitors. This may only be a &#39;minor&#39; allowance for the Miatas, but an allowance is an allowance. Next step will be all the VW guys asking (again) for different front hubs, since they break (isn&#39;t this the reasoning behind the Miata differential rules - one option is short lived, so they allow later parts on older cars?), E36 guys asking for rear sub-frame reinforcements because they crack, 944 guys asking for alternate lower control arms because they break catastrophically if not monitored appropriately. These are all the same type of reasons to allow one of the bigger changes that the SM is allowed to make.

I don&#39;t care if the car is supposed to be a winner or not - special rules for one car in IT is counter to the philosopy of the class, and may lead to other more dangerous decisions in the future when a whole different set of names is on the ITAC and/or CRB.

[JohnRW]

Finally, there&#39;s the "Miata" aspect of the whole thing. Find for me one other make and model that gets so much compromise and allowances, that has so many places to play now, and is competitive in so many places (Doc, you missed D Prepared on your list)? Do we REALLY need to change our rules to accommodate them in yet ANOTHER category? It&#39;s like the spoiled kids that barge their way to the front of the food line in the cafeteria; where does it stop? I say it stops here.

[/b]

I&#39;m following your logic, right up until you get here ^^^^. Then....CLUNK....right into a brick wall. Huh ???

Over the last ~15 years, we&#39;ve noticed that a certain 2-seat roadster is quite worthy of &#39;race car&#39; status. First in Showroom Stock, then in IT, then in SM/SSM/SMT/LSMFT/etc. That&#39;s not a bad thing, and it&#39;s certainly introduced new racers to the Club. Not really that different from the sea of leaky British crap that has infested the Club for the last 50 years (and kept an active market for helmet tear-offs for guys in open sports racers who have to share the damn track with them, like ME).

It&#39;s not Mazda&#39;s fault that nearly everything domestic/imported built in the last 20 years is complete crap and unraceworthy.

This part of your argument goes sour, and makes you sound like a crazed conspiracy theorist, which I don&#39;t think you are.

[jrvisual]

I am glad I am building an S car and did not buy that A car that I was considering.

Another thing that needs to considered.

Rules for handling a full run group. If ITA drivers get bumped because SM drivers is running in two classes, I have a hugh issue with that. It would be to the detriment of the class and the club for this to happen.

If this rule stays, and I don&#39;t think it should, any driver entering a ITA car in the ITA group should be give preference up until the close of registration at the track. If someone has a car that is fully legal in ITA and SM then they should have to declare which class is there primary class and risk getting bumped from the other if it fills.

My 2 cents.

[Greg Amy]

I&#39;m following your logic, right up until you get here ^^^^. Then....CLUNK....right into a brick wall. Huh ???[/b]

John, would you feel the same way if this allowance was made for "...leaky British crap that has infested the Club for the last 50 years..." rather than the Mazda Miata?

If so, then good for you. If not, you make my point for me...

[lateapex911]

Rolling eyes....

lots of misinformation here, but, just to hit a point or two...

SCCA is obviously tries to make as many people happy as it can, and sets up rules to do so, but in a fair way. Sometimes, the regions are responsible for utilizing those rules and ensuring the fairness aspect.

Now IF (a big IF, ) this were to go down, the regions will be tasked with creating a system that allows the Matas to "double dip" as long as it&#39;s not at the expense of the IT regulars. And thats the way it should be for any car that fits multiple classes.

In the bigger picture, regions are seeing things like one car being entered into three different classes on one day by as many as three different drivers. I think, in the SF Region, one Miata could be driven by 4 drivers in four seperate classes. (ITX, ITA, SM and SMT) Obviously, it could also be "quadruple dipped" if the classes aren&#39;t in the same group. Its really up to the regions to decide how to utilize the situation. Of course, at this point, the Miata isn&#39;t a "real" ITA car, but at a recent Regional at Sears Point, there were 5 "real" ITA cars, and 50 Miatas, and none were dedicated ITA Miatas as far as I could tell.

Now, I&#39;m not saying any of this as a defense or as a position statement, just as information.

Obviously, there are costs to such changes, and it&#39;s seems that the cons outweigh the pros in this discussion.

[Matt Rowe]

Andy, you say you want specific consequnces, okay what about this. What happens when the SMAC decides to modify there ruleset further? Maybe they allow alternate flywheels, or maybe it is a brake upgrade or maybe they just go ahead and take weight out of the 90-97&#39;s and the restrictor off the 99+&#39;s to meet the next generation of faster miata&#39;s. The point is we don&#39;t control their rules and this puts ITA at the mercy of someone else&#39;s ruleset. So what happens when SM spec cars start being the class of the ITA field? Who is going to stand up and turn away those driver&#39;s then? That money will already be in the regions budgets by then and the ITA driver&#39;s will be the ones suffering and leaving to run somewhere else.

[Ron Earp]

Wow, came late to this discussion but had fun reading a lot of posts.

Seems like a bad idea. Doesn&#39;t really solve a problem and results in a fundamental change in IT with respect to allowance for the SM cars.

If I were in the Southeast running ITA I&#39;d be concerned (and I assume in other regions too). The top flight SMs are in general faster than the top ITA cars at a lot of tracks.

Shouldn&#39;t have sold that Miata.

Ron

[ed325its]

Post #58

So why is anyone surprised that the CRB did not follow prescribed policy and send the issue to public comment before making the rule change? That has been their action on at least three major items in the last 2 years; IT weight process, station wagon allowance, and now SM in IT. Those are the three that come tomind quickly. I am sure there are others. This is also the second time that the CRB has implemented a rule change which the ITAC has stated was discussed but not approved or sent to the CRB. The first time it was also called an error in the minutes of the ITAC.

I give up. The ITAC and CRB will continue to do as they choose and I have just gotten used to being kicked around.

[Andy Bettencourt]

Andy, you say you want specific consequnces, okay what about this. What happens when the SMAC decides to modify there ruleset further? Maybe they allow alternate flywheels, or maybe it is a brake upgrade or maybe they just go ahead and take weight out of the 90-97&#39;s and the restrictor off the 99+&#39;s to meet the next generation of faster miata&#39;s. The point is we don&#39;t control their rules and this puts ITA at the mercy of someone else&#39;s ruleset. So what happens when SM spec cars start being the class of the ITA field? Who is going to stand up and turn away those driver&#39;s then? That money will already be in the regions budgets by then and the ITA driver&#39;s will be the ones suffering and leaving to run somewhere else. [/b]

Matt,

Excellent point. I think the answer is that one group governs all the rules. The CRB. If there was a major shift &#39;up&#39; in the performance envelope for SM, I would EXPECT the rule to change. They control BOTH ends of teh issue. Not only do I not see SM&#39;s rules expanding, they are in effect getting more restrictive. If they added a performance component outside the IT ruleset, the allowance doesn&#39;t &#39;work&#39;.





If I were in the Southeast running ITA I&#39;d be concerned (and I assume in other regions too). The top flight SMs are in general faster than the top ITA cars at a lot of tracks.
[/b]

Only because they are underprepped and/or underdriven. There is no other good reason otherwise. The math doesn&#39;t add up. Add hp, better shocks, better springs, better bars and better tires to an SM and you have an ITA car. At least ITA potential.




Post #58

So why is anyone surprised that the CRB did not follow prescribed policy and send the issue to public comment before making the rule change? That has been their action on at least three major items in the last 2 years; IT weight process, station wagon allowance, and now SM in IT. Those are the three that come tomind quickly. I am sure there are others.

I give up. The ITAC and CRB will continue to do as they choose and I have just gotten used to being kicked around. [/b]

Sigh. When the ITAC was developing the IT weight process, member comment was solicited. We got examples of formulas, we got peoples ideas. Almost 4 years ago now. Station wagon exclusion being recinded? You REALLY have a problem with that?

If you want the chance to weigh in on every tweak and change, you will be reading the FT for a week. There ARE certain things members should have imput on but to mandate it all would slow the system down to a dead stop. The SCCA has never been more nimble - maybe to a fault as some have pointed out. Blame market pressure, new &#39;management&#39;, whatever - but there aren&#39;t many who will tell you thet IT sucks. They will tell you that it has never been better and never have they had as many solid choices in each class.

[ddewhurst]

I&#39;m taking some IT popcorn to the garage for eating while I work on my Spec Miata. You folks continue doing something useful :cavallo:

[ed325its]

Andy,

Don&#39;t sigh at me! Yes, I have previously stated that I had a problem with the CRB not following the process and comment period on the station wagon allowance in IT. As to the rule change, I could care less but the process should be preserved.

Yes, I want member input and comment on every rule change. No more rule changes made or changed without member review.

[Bill Miller]

Excellent point. I think the answer is that one group governs all the rules. The CRB. If there was a major shift &#39;up&#39; in the performance envelope for SM, I would EXPECT the rule to change. They control BOTH ends of teh issue. Not only do I not see SM&#39;s rules expanding, they are in effect getting more restrictive. If they added a performance component outside the IT ruleset, the allowance doesn&#39;t &#39;work&#39;.
[/b]

Andy,

I know you&#39;re not that naive. Matt&#39;s point is spot on. They can tell the SM folks that they can&#39;t run ITA anymore, but the Regions will scream because they&#39;re counting on those entries. They&#39;ll make up the lost revenue somehow (by raising the entry fees for everyone, most likely).

Do what&#39;s best (and right) for IT and stop this thing now.

[JeffYoung]

This is starting to feel like gang up on Andy, which I don&#39;t like, but one last point since I think I at least am at a dead end with this:

The diff allowance in SM is a reliablity enhancement. It is therefore a performance enhancement. Time and time again this have been appropriately shot down in IT, except for that stupid Olds rear brake deal. This is just ONE item, I know, but it is a big one. If SMs in IT get to replace diffs that don&#39;t last a season, can I please replace my LT77 tranny that usually breaks once a year with an easy to upgrade to R380? Please?

I don&#39;t mean to sound ticky tacky but this one item right here is a BIG deal in granting SMs the allowance to run in IT without meeting the IT ruleset. It IS a performance advantage and you would immediately shoot down, as an ITAC member, any such request for any other car.

[Andy Bettencourt]

Andy,

I know you&#39;re not that naive. Matt&#39;s point is spot on. They can tell the SM folks that they can&#39;t run ITA anymore, but the Regions will scream because they&#39;re counting on those entries. They&#39;ll make up the lost revenue somehow (by raising the entry fees for everyone, most likely).

[/b]

If the regions have to raise entry fees because they loose out on double dipping Miata&#39;s (or DD IT cars, or DD SPO cars, etc), then I respectfully submit that a &#39;no&#39; to this idea caused it. You have actually predicted something tangible to a rejection of the idea. And that thing is raised costs to the racers if regions loose this current or future increased revenue. No? Maybe I am over-reading it.




This is starting to feel like gang up on Andy, which I don&#39;t like, but one last point since I think I at least am at a dead end with this:

The diff allowance in SM is a reliablity enhancement. It is therefore a performance enhancement. Time and time again this have been appropriately shot down in IT, except for that stupid Olds rear brake deal. This is just ONE item, I know, but it is a big one. If SMs in IT get to replace diffs that don&#39;t last a season, can I please replace my LT77 tranny that usually breaks once a year with an easy to upgrade to R380? Please?

I don&#39;t mean to sound ticky tacky but this one item right here is a BIG deal in granting SMs the allowance to run in IT without meeting the IT ruleset. It IS a performance advantage and you would immediately shoot down, as an ITAC member, any such request for any other car. [/b]

No worries Jeff! Thick skin is a requirement in this (and any) volunteer position. You dish it, you have to take it.

The reason things like this in IT get shot down is because there are hundreads of models. In SM, there is one. Since it doesn&#39;t make a car go faster, no &#39;other&#39; SM&#39;ers had a problem with it. Is it &#39;fair&#39; to everyone else, probably not...but is that &#39;negative&#39; enough to not allow the crossover? Again, those standing on the principle will say no - and I respect that, I just don&#39;t agree. I THINK I am looking at this from 10,000 feet, maybe it&#39;s 6 feet under... ;) The diff issue is a red-herring. Only certain pockets of the country seem to have the problem. There is no one single point of failure. For every 1 that pops in a year, there are 10 that go for 3+ years. I have seen the letters, and I have seen the data. You can make these kind of allowances in a spec class.

And Ed, I am not sighing AT you. I am sighing at the thought that revisionist history is getting put out there. Opportunity to respond to the idea of a process was solicited. Yes, the station wagon issue was a change put forth but it was from a member request. Is there anyone that needs that amount of granularity? If you do, I submit you have no idea the quantity of things you will need to review.

In the end, I look at the idea and weigh the factors. The baggage SM brings to this idea is minimal IMHO. Especially for 50+ extra entries it already/could bring to some regions in a weekend. But like Jeff says, the overall preservation of the integrity of IT needs to be considered as a primary goal...is this a fatal chink in the armor? I submit no but could obviously be wrong.

[Greg Amy]

The reason things like this in IT get shot down is because there are hundreads of models. In SM, there is one. [/b]
Wow...what arrogance...!

Andy, if there&#39;s only "one" model in NASA&#39;s SE-R Cup, and my power steering system tends to overheat badly and destroy pumps, and since we want to be inclusive for the purpose of increasing entries, shouldn&#39;t we allow the Nissan B13s to remove the power steering system?

Where does it end, my friend?

I&#39;m simply dumbfounded that you brought that up as an example...

[Andy Bettencourt]

Wow...what arrogance...!

Andy, if there&#39;s only "one" model in NASA&#39;s SE-R Cup, and my power steering system tends to overheat badly and destroy pumps, and since we want to be inclusive for the purpose of increasing entries, shouldn&#39;t we allow the Nissan B13s to remove the power steering system?

Where does it end, my friend?

I&#39;m simply dumbfounded that you brought that up as an example... [/b]

Greg, you need to quit reading stuff that isn&#39;t there.

The simple point being made is that with a single marque class, you can make single allowances without upsetting anyone else. In NASA&#39;s SE-R Cup, if they wanted to allow the removal of the PS system, it wouldn&#39;t hurt anyone. Unfortunatley, allowing the inclusion of classes from other sanctioning bodies that the SCCA has no control over like Spec Neon or SE-R Cup is dumb. I used it as an example to show it can be ok for one class in SCCA and not in another. The &#39;baggage&#39; I speak of is exactly these types of things. You accept the bad with the good if you want to make a change. I just see the &#39;bad&#39; as miniscule.

[Greg Amy]

The simple point being made is that with a single marque class, you can make single allowance without upsetting anyone else.[/b]
EXACTLY.

Yet, the CRB has dropped this single-marque class (we&#39;ll ignore the three distinct models described, simply &#39;cause they have the same name) into a widely-diverse-marque class, ergo causing all changes made to the single-marque class - heretofore in isolation - to, in effect, affect an extremely large number of vehicles. Detrimentally? Positively?

Who&#39;s to say?

Are we getting closer...?

[ed325its]

There is no revisionist history in anything I said and you statements otherwise are an insult to us all. I challenge you to identify where any of my examples including RP and IR&#39;s, station wagons, or SM intrusions were put to member input according to the rule making process and rules of the SCCA.

Until then I am done with this thread.

[Joe Harlan]

Greg, you need to quit reading stuff that isn&#39;t there.

The simple point being made is that with a single marque class, you can make single allowances without upsetting anyone else. In NASA&#39;s SE-R Cup, if they wanted to allow the removal of the PS system, it wouldn&#39;t hurt anyone. Unfortunatley, allowing the inclusion of classes from other sanctioning bodies that the SCCA has no control over like Spec Neon or SE-R Cup is dumb. I used it as an example to show it can be ok for one class in SCCA and not in another. The &#39;baggage&#39; I speak of is exactly these types of things. You accept the bad with the good if you want to make a change. I just see the &#39;bad&#39; as miniscule.
[/b]
It is fine for a single marque class to do what ever it wants until the day it blows up from all its allowances. My issue is if we accept these cars with diffs and with restrictors than we now have the door open to have to allow this in other cars. If the miata&#39;s want to run IT then they need to run IT as IT cars. The bad is when in a year the SM guys feel they need another adjustment for a special part that a car needs we will be forced to accept it also...Pretty soon SM&#39;s have more trcik shit than a gt car and we are all wondering how the hell we got there. Sorry Andy but even just the tip will knock you up.....:)

[Andy Bettencourt]

EXACTLY.

Yet, the CRB has dropped this single-marque class (we&#39;ll ignore the three distinct models described, simply &#39;cause they have the same name) into a widely-diverse-marque class, ergo causing all changes made to the single-marque class - heretofore in isolation - to, in effect, affect an extremely large number of vehicles. Detrimentally? Positively?

Who&#39;s to say?

Are we getting closer...?
[/b]

Now we are. If the &#39;allowances&#39; were of any significance (read: increased the performance beyond IT-level) I would undertand the push back. But in practical application, I see the allowances as a drop in the bucket. Maybe it&#39;s foolish to think that way and the ABSOLUTE integrity of IT is more important.




There is no revisionist history in anything I said and you statements otherwise are an insult to us all. I challenge you to identify where any of my examples including RP and IR&#39;s, station wagons, or SM intrusions were put to member input according to the rule making process and rules of the SCCA.

Until then I am done with this thread.



[/b]

Ed, what about the request for input on a classification process? THAT is the single biggest issue you raised and you were wrong. I have no issues with anyone wanting more grainularity. Just don&#39;t complain about the quantity when it comes your way.

[Andy Bettencourt]

It is fine for a single marque class to do what ever it wants until the day it blows up from all its allowances. My issue is if we accept these cars with diffs and with restrictors than we now have the door open to have to allow this in other cars. If the miata&#39;s want to run IT then they need to run IT as IT cars. The bad is when in a year the SM guys feel they need another adjustment for a special part that a car needs we will be forced to accept it also...Pretty soon SM&#39;s have more trcik shit than a gt car and we are all wondering how the hell we got there. Sorry Andy but even just the tip will knock you up..... :) [/b]

Your point is a valid one Joe. I just have more faith in the CRB - they govern both classes so they control the destiny. IT can stay on birth control until the CRB wants to stop...and trust me when I say that SM is going BACKWARD in terms of prep level, not forward.

[Greg Amy]

If the &#39;allowances&#39; were of any significance (read: increased the performance beyond IT-level) I would undertand the push back. But in practical application, I see the allowances as a drop in the bucket.[/b]
Andy, dude, if these allowances were NOT increasing performance beyond IT-level then there would be no need to create the exceptions.

Are you telling me it&#39;s therefore OK for early-model ITA 1.6L Miatas to convert to the Torsen diff? It&#39;s OK for Miatas to have currently-illegal exhausts? It&#39;s OK for ITA Miatas to remove their vent windows?

So, anything that ITA competitors do that they consider to be "a drop in the bucket" is OK, as long as they&#39;re not, practically speaking, competitive in ITA or increasing performance in any manner?

Andy, seriously man, read this again. It&#39;s one thing to informally overlook minor prep inconsistencies in order to be able to include the SMs in ITA competition (something I support wholeheartedly); it&#39;s a totally different can of worms to codify it.

I am amazed you don&#39;t understand (or are willing to admit?) that.




I just have more faith in the CRB - they govern both classes so they control the destiny. [/b]
Andy, do you truly and honestly believe that when the SMAC (of which you are a part) and the CRB is considering changes to the National SM rule set that they will give even a moment&#39;s consideration to the effect it will have on the Improved Touring category? And that at that point they will either give that weight and choose to not implement and/or divorce the SMs from the IT rules?

You don&#39;t really believe that, do you?

This is getting silly, man! Are we in the same club here or am I in some alternate universe?


I&#39;m done for the evening; my head is spinning with all this. I honestly can&#39;t wait until the morning to read what next juicy tidbit you provide...

[Joe Harlan]

Your point is a valid one Joe. I just have more faith in the CRB - they govern both classes so they control the destiny. IT can stay on birth control until the CRB wants to stop...and trust me when I say that SM is going BACKWARD in terms of prep level, not forward.
[/b]


Andy, Being a car salesman"trust Me" beneath you. It is not the CRB of today I have an issue with it is the the CRB of the future that has no notes and no history on this one deal. As far as SM going backards please to borrow from Bill "dont piss in my ear and tell me its raining" Let me just say Trojan Horse buddy and it is bullshit. Again Next year when SM gets standalone ECU&#39;s cause they can&#39;t be policed or removal of the Airflow meter cause they are getting cheated anyway we will have a backdoor method to have all these bullshit allowances in IT...Trust this I will start writing letters to fight this also, but some of us are gonna get tired of this all together and just go away.

[Conover]

It is so simple. Improved touring cars follow improved touring rules. That&#39;s it. It&#39;s wicked easy.

[Andy Bettencourt]

Andy, dude, if these allowances were NOT increasing performance beyond IT-level then there would be no need to create the exceptions.[/b]

Huh? What allowance increases PERFORMANCE outside the level of IT? Not talking about outside the philosphy here...


Andy, seriously man, read this again. It&#39;s one thing to informally overlook minor prep inconsistencies in order to be able to include the SMs in ITA competition (something I support wholeheartedly); it&#39;s a totally different can of worms to codify it.

I am amazed you don&#39;t understand (or are willing to admit?) that.[/b]

Maybe this is where we have the disconnect. If you are willing to overlook something, why aren&#39;t you willing to SAY you are willing to overlook something?


Andy, do you truly and honestly believe that when the SMAC (of which you are a part) and the CRB is considering changes to the SM rules that they will give even a moment&#39;s consideration to the effect it will have on the Improved Touring category? And that at that point they will either give that weight and choose to not implement and/or divorce the SMs from the IT rules?

You don&#39;t really believe that, do you?
[/b]

If/when the rules ever intermingle, then it is the RESPONSIBILITY of the PTB to give such consideration. To not would be irresponsible at a bare minimum. I believe in the people and the system. As a point-in-fact, the PCS is getting re-written as we speak. The Prod guys are very concerned with items that prohibit easy transition from IT to Prod. The SCCA&#39;s cage rules are being melded for this same reason. Inter-catagory cohesivness IS a thought process the current PTB work with every day.

[ner88]

So, this isn&#39;t a good time to talk about getting SSM Miatas into ITB? :unsure:

[Joe Harlan]

[/i]

Huh? What allowance increases PERFORMANCE outside the level of IT? Not talking about outside the philosphy here...
Maybe this is where we have the disconnect. If you are willing to overlook something, why aren&#39;t you willing to SAY you are willing to overlook something?



If/when the rules ever intermingle, then it is the RESPONSIBILITY of the PTB to give such consideration. To not would be irresponsible at a bare minimum. I believe in the people and the system.
[/b]

Naive at best complicate at worst, Andy, performance level change? Why not let the 240z run an R200 gears are pleantiful and part is much stronger. Same basic deal on the SM is it not? Am I to take it from what greg said that you are now sitting on two AC&#39;s?

[davidb72]

So, this isn&#39;t a good time to talk about getting SSM Miatas into ITB? :unsure:
[/b]

Smartass... :018:

[Andy Bettencourt]

[/B]
Am I to take it from what greg said that you are now sitting on two AC&#39;s? [/b]

I have been for 3 years. Funny thing is that I tend to be more of a &#39;forward thinker&#39; on the ITAC and a general stick-in-the-mud on the SMAC...and my thought processes are the same. Gives you an idea of the respective ages of the classes.

*Disclaimer - &#39;forward thinking&#39; and &#39;sticking-in-the-mud&#39; are not neccesarily optimal...

[Joe Harlan]

Shoving things down the collective throats of a group of people does not = forward thinker....Forward thinking was allowing cars to be clessed under a formula that gave each one a better shot at the front half of the field....The rest is just plain old creep and nothing more...

[Andy Bettencourt]

Shoving things down the collective throats of a group of people does not = forward thinker....Forward thinking was allowing cars to be clessed under a formula that gave each one a better shot at the front half of the field....The rest is just plain old creep and nothing more... [/b]

Thanks Joe, glad I answered. Never said it was a positive - and actually &#39;disclaimered&#39; it so. Just trying to drop some perspective on ya&#39;ll. Time for a break from the BB.

[jjjanos]

2) Why do you care if a car has a dual IT classification (99+ Miata ITS/ITA), one class with the car has a restritor plate and one class it doesn&#39;t? (We already have this with the BMW in ITS/ITR.)[/b]

Because it favors one specific car and leaves everyone else out in the cold?

I&#39;ve been told by some that the only differences between my ITC CRX and an ITB CRX is a VIN and afuel-injector. Don&#39;t know if it&#39;s true, but let&#39;s say it is. Should I be allowed to add the fuel-injected engine to my CRX and be allowed to run ITB? Well, that would make race weekends busy, so how about letting me run my ITC-legal CRX with a fuel-injected engine as an ITB car, but also run it with a restrictor so that I can also run it in ITC without swapping engines?

In fact, I&#39;d like to run my Honda CRX in Spec Miata. Obviously the CRB needs to adjust the modifications I can make to the ITC car so that I can be, at least, a mid-pack Spec Miata. You say my car isn&#39;t a Miata? What&#39;s that got to do with anything? Afterall, people shouldn&#39;t care if my car has dual classification and clearly the philosophy of the class means squat.

Next thing you know, we&#39;re freaking NASA and the rulebook means whatever this week&#39;s tech inspector says it means, except for his buddy who gets to do much more.

That&#39;s why.

[jjjanos]

I think the answer is that one group governs all the rules. The CRB. If there was a major shift &#39;up&#39; in the performance envelope for SM, I would EXPECT the rule to change. They control BOTH ends of teh issue. Not only do I not see SM&#39;s rules expanding, they are in effect getting more restrictive. If they added a performance component outside the IT ruleset, the allowance doesn&#39;t &#39;work&#39;..[/b]

Just so I understand, this is the same group that shoved this change down our throat without following club rules and traditions? So, basically, you are saying that we should just pick up the soap and trust the CRB for the reach around?

This money issue doesn&#39;t hold water. The better subscribed regions don&#39;t need the extra ITA cars and the less subscribed regions can add the extra cars through a region class. You know, the same way we got SRX7, IT7, ITE, GTP and, correct me if I am wrong, SM before the CRB did anything.

To condense: The "solution" fixes a problem that doesn&#39;t exist and isn&#39;t wanted by the majority of the people being impacted. Yep, that&#39;s a Pareto Improvement if I ever saw one.



You can make these kind of allowances in a spec class. [/b]

Excuse me, please explain why you cannot make the same allowances for non-spec classes when there is a reliable history of a single part failing in a manner like the SM swapped part?


In the end, I look at the idea and weigh the factors. The baggage SM brings to this idea is minimal IMHO. Especially for 50+ extra entries it already/could bring to some regions in a weekend.[/b]

I seriously doubt that regions producing 50+ SM entries per weekend are having issues with car counts. Where I sit in NEDIV, we already have 2 dedicated run groups for Miatas and no room to put triple-dipping Miatas. And that, sir, is the rub. Your national solution creates problems for a different set of regions. Given that those regions in need of car counts already can create region-specific classes to raise their car counts, there is no need for a national solution. In fact, there is no problem at all with the current set of rules. Those regions lacking cars that have not implemented double/triple-dipping region-specific classes have done so by their choice.

[its66]

Cut from Mylaps. January Sebring 12 hour course. I realize it is one day, and one track, but it is the first one I looked at. I snipped the fastest Q for ITA, and the fastest Q for SM. I think we all know that a lone SM in a pack of other cars will go slower than it will when nose to tail with 5 other SM. That may explain the similar lap time, but I don&#39;t think anyone who knows this ITA car or driver will say that it is underprepared or underdriven...

Class: ITA

1 4 Paul Ronie 2:40.612

Class: SM
1 2 Jim Drago 2:40.236 2:40.236 2:40.242
2 20 Mary Katharine 2:40.333 2:40.333 -.---
3 99 Michael Cottrell 2:40.690 2:42.381 2:40.690


Just a single point of reference. I won&#39;t make a blanket statement that SM&#39;s are slower than a top ITA car.I&#39;m sure that anyone can look and find data which will also show the ITA cars to be faster, so there is no need to waste the time.


It seems though, that most everyone would be happy, or at least happier, about this if the CRB were to say..."OOPS>>we jumped the gun because we misunderstood something from the ITAC. Let&#39;s rescind this immediately and put it to the membership for input." Is that so difficult?[i] Seems pretty simple to me. I think it would have saved a bunch of bandwidth, and let several people skip the extra blood pressure medicine for two days. Greg, would this have helped?--Andy, is this so objectionable? At least then, the reason for implementation could be that the majority of the members who responded were in favor of this.

And as for it taking forever to put every little decision out for member vote, Yes, it would take longer than just making a decision and doing it. Doing things the right way usually does take a little longer.

Just my opinion...

[JeffYoung]

Jim, that&#39;s good data. SM lap times at roebling, CMP and VIR are similarly equal to or less than top IT car lap times. You can say that ITA cars here are underdeveloped but I think that does them a disservice.

The fact of it is that the numbers don&#39;t tell the whole story with teh SM. It is faster than you would expect from pure numbers, like the 170whp/130wtq RX7. Brakes, aero, handling, etc. just add up to a better "race" package than a lot of other cars.

I know some will consider this part of the debate irrelevant, but from a practical standpoint it is EXTREMELY relevant. THere will be rule enforcement issues due to the SMs running at the front if thsi is allowed.

[Eagle7]

[/I]
Huh? What allowance increases PERFORMANCE outside the level of IT? Not talking about outside the philosphy here...[/b]

ITA 94-97 Miata - 2380#

SM 94-97 - 2350#

[IPRESS]

Andy I will support the deal if you will get me a signed letterfrom the BOD saying SM rules won&#39;t change for 3 years! :rolleyes:

No matter what the SMACs ideas are now on prep for SM, the rules get changed way too much. I came this way (ITA) to be able to run against different make cars. (And to keep from fixing body work after every race.) I love having SMs running in IT. They do..... and will continue without this change. The rule change won&#39;t really change the SM to IT entries very much in my opinion. The top prepped and driven cars have no desire to run IT. Many SM drivers don&#39;t even run regional SM as they save their cars for National races.
I think you are defending something that in the long run is not worth a defense.
As much as i hate the answer I see in Fastrack ALL the time, I think it finally does fit here: DOES NOT FIT CLASS FELOSOFEE! :happy204:

And the 99+ idea.......... WOW :dead_horse: (I only posted the horse cause I could not find a can of worms smiley!)
Just let this one go (back to the CRB so they can throw it out.)

[Knestis]

Yeah, it&#39;s going to feel like piling on, Andy but only because you are just about the only one here who seems to think this mess is defensible.


...would you be including in your letter to the CRB a request to recind the Limited Prep rules in Prod and the IT cars in DP rules already on the books or is this issue only applicable to the world we live in?If entrants in those categories want multiple prep levels, they can have them. Further, those additional prep levels - largely allowed to bolster numbers to allow the category to survive - have been initiatives by those INSIDE the cateogory. This is a completely different thing - nobody in IT asked to please have SM&#39;s added to the category. Quite the opposite, in fact. This was done TO IT competitors, not BY them.


...We are talking about 3 nitpicky little items that nobody cares about anyway for cars ALREADY IN THE CLASS. SM&#39;s are UNDERPREPPED for IT. This is happening NOW. Does it make sense that with a one-sentence rule, that everyone can be legal?
And because SM entrants want to double dip, without having to compromise their SM competitiveness by the amount afforded by those three nitpicky items, a fundamental tenant of the entire IT category goes by the wayside? Me, me, me, me, meeeee.


The CRB could have just as easily put these items on the spec line and called it a day. No rule change, no proceedural outcry, done.
...but they recognize the tacit acceptance that this would have been a bad thing. What&#39;s good for the goose is good for the gander and how do you defend not allowing the 944 its A-arms, while allowing something for someone else? You don&#39;t. And I daresay that individual spec line allowances are generally considered a bad thing by people who actually run IT cars.


My impression from most of you is that you would rather allow what is already happening to just happen under the table instead of trying to proactively avoid issues should someone decide to throw weenie-paperwork.
Red herring. Or crap - whatever. Rules and enforcement are two different things. You could write one of those one-sentence changes that makes my illegal close-ratio gearbox legal but you won&#39;t do it for me. There has to be 50 of me. Again, I do NOT subscribe to theories about the Masons (er, Mazdas) running things in secret cabals. It&#39;s just selfishness and greed intersecting.


...is it such a big deal to allow for simple and easy cross-over of a huge pocket of cars that allows car counts to rise and regional revenues to fill out?
Go for it. Align the SM rules with IT and let &#39;em go to it. Propose that over at SM.com and see how it flies.


I just don&#39;t see the doom and gloom...
...and rather than trying to head it off, you prefer to wait until it happens. We&#39;ve demonstrated over, and over, and OVER again how hard it is to undo something once it&#39;s been allowed but there is just no way we can trust future rules makers to do all of the great things you suggest - considering the impact on IT when making future allowances in the SM rules? That this could even be suggested demonstrates either a complete lack of understanding for the history of our class structure or a level of arrogance so huge as to be completely insulting.


The diff is not a speed advantage.
If it weren&#39;t an advantage, nobody would have asked that it be allowed. Besides, it&#39;s not about the specific competitiveness of current SMs with current ITA cars. It&#39;s about the future mess that MIGHT result because of a fundamental policy change. And the fact that we can&#39;t PROVE that bad things will happen is considered proof that we&#39;re wrong - that the change should stand??


As far as who it helps? IT car counts (not every region is as &#39;successful&#39; as some on the East Coast). The perception of SCCA maybe. Increased regional revenue. SM retention.
Every single one of those issues can be address as needed through the addition of region-specific classes. Hell, have SM1 and SM2, and put them in two separate groups. What? Entrants in other classes migth be upset that one class gets a double regional when the rest of them have just one race? I can&#39;t imagine why.


If the &#39;allowances&#39; were of any significance (read: increased the performance beyond IT-level) I would undertand the push back. But in practical application, I see the allowances as a drop in the bucket.
I&#39;m not alone, I don&#39;t think, in believing that you are serious about your race car development, Andy. Or am I imagining all of the times that you&#39;ve explained how speed is found in tiny little increments, and that every 1/100th counts? They count enough that you test and tune and spend money, but these particular increments do NOT count for anything?


This kind of thinking may help YOUR class in the future - but if we cut off our nose to spite our face, we may not get the help WE need in the future, should we need it.
And when IT is so close to dead that we need to change the class to help it survive, so be it. But again - the rule change we are discussing has NOTHING to do with "helping" the IT category. And (again) I&#39;m having a lot of difficulty picturing SM entrants allowing changes to their rules to benefit IT entrants. Heck, they won&#39;t leave those three piddly things undone so they can play with us.


Funny thing is that I tend to be more of a &#39;forward thinker&#39; on the ITAC and a general stick-in-the-mud on the SMAC...and my thought processes are the same. Gives you an idea of the respective ages of the classes. ...
And yet you are very confident that upward pressure on SM rules won&#39;t increase their speed over time? I want to see you type "there will be no creep in the SM rules that will make them statistically significantly faster in the next 5 years." Talk about a bookmark opportunity!

As far as failure modes go?

** Matt R. presented the most likely and damaging failure mode and the best argument is something like, "Oh, don&#39;t worry - that can&#39;t happen." When anyone who&#39;s watched the process work through a critical eye has absolutely NO problem picturing how - and THAT - it CAN happen.

** Jim C. pointed out that this is going to make IT entrants unhappy. The CRB doesn&#39;t care, apparently. There&#39;s not enough of us to matter, or we don&#39;t have big enough haulers, or something. As long as the "good customers" are happy.

And finally - sure, the procedural issue is irritating but I&#39;ve been in the organization long enough that I cease to be surprised about stuff like that. On the other hand, Stan - while I appreciate your willingness to participate here and volunteer your time for the Club, I&#39;m VERY insulted that you think we&#39;re such siimpletons that we can just be told that black is white and we&#39;ll smile and shut up. Calling this a "car classification" is right out of the Karl Rove School of Management and Communications. It&#39;s outrageous.

...and dammit - I am SO very PO&#39;d that people making decisions in this organization will do stuff STUPID enough to get me, well, PO&#39;d. Again. About something that doesn&#39;t actually hurt me. WHAT AM I THINKING, CARING ABOUT THE STRATEGIC LONG-TERM HEALTH OF THE CATEGORY?? What a dumbass I am.

K

EDIT - No, I don&#39;t know why my quotes are dorked up. And I&#39;ve wasted an hour of my life given a crap already.

[its66]

As far as who it helps? IT car counts (not every region is as &#39;successful&#39; as some on the East Coast). The perception of SCCA maybe. Increased regional revenue. SM retention. This kind of thinking may help YOUR class in the future - but if we cut off our nose to spite our face, we may not get the help WE need in the future, should we need it. Maybe we won&#39;t but to say no on principle limits our future success IMHO. Some will justifiably say that it limits our future EXPOSURE for failure - and it does. I just see people blocking for the sake of blocking. No quantifiable and definate outcomes - just Chicken Little stuff. It&#39;s also very possible I am too new to the Club (only a 17 year member) to remember how issues like this have backfired. Some examples would help us grab ahold of the possible outcomes.

Action for me: Pull it all back, put it out for member comment. Please write in when you see it next month.
[/b]

First, After my last post, I must admit that I missed the "Action" part of this post. This is right, and what should happen at this point. There should be a provision to "pull it back" immediately. It was put into play with only 2 weeks, so it should be pulled just as quickly.

Second, There are no quantifiable, or definate outcome for either leaving this new rule, or rescinding it. No Crystal Ball on my dining room table, how about you? There is no need to call it "chicken little stuff" when someone points out a potential downside of something. It could also be thought of as some "Blue Sky" ideology to think that simply adding the 99+ SM&#39;s to ITA will save the regions who are struggling with low participation numbers. Look at BOTH sides. As a representative of our little IT world, you, and the other members of the ITAC should welcome input on both the positive and negative possiblilities of any action. (as should the CRB)

Third, the condesending 17 year member comment really isn&#39;t helping your arguement any.(just my opinion) .....I&#39;ve only been a member for 8 years, so my input may not be worthy. I can think of some examples where the outcome wasn&#39;t exactly what was expected...one glaring example can be summarized with 3 letters. ECU. The pros and cons of a well written rule weren&#39;t fully explored 6 or so years ago, and we are still trying to sort it out. I think that one is big enough.

Andy, I&#39;m not trying to attack you here, but I don&#39;t agree with what you are saying. You seem to be defending a decision that was made, when it appears the decision was made in haste, and without the proper input/process.

[Andy Bettencourt]

Jim,

You and I have a good history. We often think the same on many levels. Drop me a line tomorrow, I am done here. Out of respect for you, I wanted you to know I wasn&#39;t ignoring you.

To all: The proceedural issue will be fixed and re-done. It seems as it was a misunderstanding between the ITAC and the CRB. I will take responsibility as the notes from the call were not presented to the CRB in the standard format because I was not on the call. You will have your opportunity to speak up and out on this. We already have 4 letters on the subject. After the fire dies down, ask yourself what good or bad can come of this and cast your vote - but support your position, please.

[Andy Bettencourt]

Third, the condesending 17 year member comment really isn&#39;t helping your arguement any.(just my opinion) .....I&#39;ve only been a member for 8 years, so my input may not be worthy. I can think of some examples where the outcome wasn&#39;t exactly what was expected...one glaring example can be summarized with 3 letters. ECU. The pros and cons of a well written rule weren&#39;t fully explored 6 or so years ago, and we are still trying to sort it out. I think that one is big enough.

[/b]

Just to address this one Jim - I was SERIOUS when I say that I was &#39;only&#39; a 17 year member. Greg, Bill, Krik and others who have voiced opposition have more tenure and are in a much better position than I to take us back to similar failures - which I hoped they would, something has to be influencing the fear, uncertainty and doubt. I just want to learn from it. Matt did have a good point which I acknowledged but pointed out the way I see the organization put together, it shouldn&#39;t happen. Anything can, but it shouldn&#39;t. As far as the ECU rule is concerned, putting it out for comment woudn&#39;t have solved anything (don&#39;t know if they did or not). It was a poorly written rule, you can&#39;t hide from that.

Done taking the beating. Write in and I will represent your opinions to the CRB.

[Tkczecheredflag]

...and any region that wanted to could create additional class opportunities to generate more entries - ITSM, if you will.

The biggest beef, Bill is that we have just got the IT category rules and specs settled down and are swinging the barn door open again with special exceptions, inconsistent with the big picture.

Some of the smaller issues (differences between the rules, competitiveness of SMs in ITA) are red herrings. Go back to the first principle and get concensus on that, THEN think about the piddly stuff.

Do we think it&#39;s a good idea to have some cars classified for competition in IT classes, running to rules different than those that apply to the category as a whole?

|_| Yes

|_| No

K
[/b]

NO

[Tkczecheredflag]

Your point is a valid one Joe. I just have more faith in the CRB - they govern both classes so they control the destiny. IT can stay on birth control until the CRB wants to stop...and trust me when I say that SM is going BACKWARD in terms of prep level, not forward.
[/b]

Andy - I am relieved to know that while CRB is grinding away on IT (with just the tip in), that they will pull out before the "spit" - WHEW - I can&#39;t tell you how comforting that is.

Having re-read post #58 I am hopeful - Ya think?

Why do I have this feeling that an ITA Miata will show up with a front tow hook in the shape of a Phallic symbol.

I am a little out of the loop on the ITAC/CRB process, but I&#39;m learning a lot here, let me tell ya.

[lateapex911]

Post #58

So why is anyone surprised that the CRB did not follow prescribed policy and send the issue to public comment before making the rule change? That has been their action on at least three major items in the last 2 years; IT weight process, station wagon allowance, and now SM in IT. Those are the three that come tomind quickly. I am sure there are others. This is also the second time that the CRB has implemented a rule change which the ITAC has stated was discussed but not approved or sent to the CRB. The first time it was also called an error in the minutes of the ITAC.

I give up. The ITAC and CRB will continue to do as they choose and I have just gotten used to being kicked around. [/b]

Ed, stick to the facts...

The IT weight process was VERY discussed, and very open....to say different is really intentionally misleading. You were there, and part of it, I know that and so do you.

The reason there are commitees...made up of representative members, is to represent the member body the rulings affect. The ITAC represents the interests of the IT racer. THe CRB oversees all the racers...I know that seems obvious to most, but your demand that ALL rule changes be put out for member comment obviously shows you either don&#39;t get, or disapprove of the system and organization.

There are rules changes that are significant and large in scope that get member input. The ECU is one thats out now. Pleeeeenty of time is being spent on this one, and members have actually complained that we&#39;re allowing TOO much member comment.

Then you think that you want a vote on EVERY item.

Well, you&#39;re at the extreme. The balance lies in the middle.

Honestly guys, the ITAC is looking into this, and we&#39;ll get it sorted out. Write yor letters, make your points. I&#39;ve read solid reasoning here, but I&#39;d like to try to remind people that fuming and pissing isn&#39;t productive.

[shwah]

Now we are. If the &#39;allowances&#39; were of any significance (read: increased the performance beyond IT-level) I would undertand the push back. But in practical application, I see the allowances as a drop in the bucket. [/b]
I think that allowing A1 Volkswagens to run later A2 front hubs are not of any performance significance, and are a drop in the bucket. The result could be more entrys as those competitors will not have to tear down and rebuild the front corners as often.

Seriously - if performance advantages are what makes an allowance &#39;matter&#39; there are a ton of them that need to be considered. Alternatively, if the IT philosophy is what makes the class strong - then remain true to it across the board.

I also don&#39;t quite buy the argument that regions will become insolvent if we do not allow this change to occur. Surely there are other ways. Why not just create another SM class? Why not create another SM run group - run two races in the class every day? You get the same effect on entries, but don&#39;t mess up the other classes in the process.

[gran racing]

Why do I have this feeling that an ITA Miata will show up with a front tow hook in the shape of a Phallic symbol.[/b]

Now that was funny Tim!!

[Knestis]

...I was SERIOUS when I say that I was &#39;only&#39; a 17 year member. Greg, Bill, Krik and others who have voiced opposition have more tenure and are in a much better position than I to take us back to similar failures - which I hoped they would, something has to be influencing the fear, uncertainty and doubt. ...[/b]
With respect, I have done that in the past and been told that since I couldn&#39;t in essence guarantee that the same problems would arise, my fears were unfounded. Or that the current ITAC/CRB wouldn&#39;t let bad things happen, even though past decision-makers did. That was really the straw that broke my giving-a-hoot camel&#39;s back.

The most amazing thing to me is that we were just starting to see some disaffection with SM result in crossover builds of REAL ITA Miatas. More evidence to suggest that this initiative is all about helping SM entrants and regions&#39; pocketbooks, without respect for the integrity of the IT category.

Krik

[tnord]

Cut from Mylaps. January Sebring 12 hour course. I realize it is one day, and one track, but it is the first one I looked at. I snipped the fastest Q for ITA, and the fastest Q for SM. I think we all know that a lone SM in a pack of other cars will go slower than it will when nose to tail with 5 other SM. That may explain the similar lap time, but I don&#39;t think anyone who knows this ITA car or driver will say that it is underprepared or underdriven...

Class: ITA

1 4 Paul Ronie 2:40.612

Class: SM
1 2 Jim Drago 2:40.236 2:40.236 2:40.242
2 20 Mary Katharine 2:40.333 2:40.333 -.---
3 99 Michael Cottrell 2:40.690 2:42.381 2:40.690
Just a single point of reference. I won&#39;t make a blanket statement that SM&#39;s are slower than a top ITA car.I&#39;m sure that anyone can look and find data which will also show the ITA cars to be faster, so there is no need to waste the time.
[/b]

people need to stop letting their egos get in the way of the facts regarding the SM vs ITA speed potential. There is NO WAY a fully prepped ITA miata driven by the same guy will be slower than a fully prepped SM.

for the 1.6
1) the weight is lower in ITA than SM
2) add 10hp or more via intake, ECU, head work, cams (yes cams as SM restrictions are tighter), crank pulley, header, .40 over, REM r/p, and i don&#39;t know what else.
3) better aero (a big problem in a miata which is why running in packs works so well) via a front air dam that&#39;s lower and will push air around the tires
4) better suspension in the form of lighter wheels, whatever shock you want over OTS OEM bilsteins, whatever spring you want, bushing upgrades, and whatever bars you want.
5) better brakes via ducting allowance
6) better gearing via FD change

for the 1.8 94-95
1) no restictor plate (45mm i think in SM, takes away about 2-3hp)
2) same improvements as the 1.6 gets in item 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6.

for the 96-97
1) no restrictor plate (43mm i think in SM)
2) same improvements as the 1.6 gets in item 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6.


so how is anyone worried about the SPEED (how this was done, or integrity of IT ruleset is something entirely different) of the SM in IT? an IT car has better power, handling, brakes, aero, and tire.

[Doc Bro]

ITA 94-97 Miata - 2380#

SM 94-97 - 2350#
[/b]



for the 1.6
1) the weight is lower in ITA than SM
2) add 10hp or more via intake, ECU, head work, cams (yes cams as SM restrictions are tighter), crank pulley, header, .40 over, REM r/p, and i don&#39;t know what else.
3) better aero (a big problem in a miata which is why running in packs works so well) via a front air dam that&#39;s lower and will push air around the tires
4) better suspension in the form of lighter wheels, whatever shock you want over OTS OEM bilsteins, whatever spring you want, bushing upgrades, and whatever bars you want.
5) better brakes via ducting allowance
6) better gearing via FD change

for the 1.8 94-95
1) no restictor plate (45mm i think in SM, takes away about 2-3hp)
2) same improvements as the 1.6 gets in item 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6.

for the 96-97
1) no restrictor plate (43mm i think in SM)
2) same improvements as the 1.6 gets in item 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6.





Combining these two posts I REALLY don&#39;t see how all of the IT allowable upgrades over SM prep are worth ONLY a 30lb weight penalty to an SM running in IT. Has anyone cought on to this. Want to run an ITA Miata.....I do. Bring on the Miata&#39;s, that&#39;s fine by me, but they NEED to SERIOUSLY have the weight looked at.

R

[tnord]

for the 1.6
1) the weight is lower in ITA than SM
2) add 10hp or more via intake, ECU, head work, cams (yes cams as SM restrictions are tighter), crank pulley, header, .40 over, REM r/p, and i don&#39;t know what else.
3) better aero (a big problem in a miata which is why running in packs works so well) via a front air dam that&#39;s lower and will push air around the tires
4) better suspension in the form of lighter wheels, whatever shock you want over OTS OEM bilsteins, whatever spring you want, bushing upgrades, and whatever bars you want.
5) better brakes via ducting allowance
6) better gearing via FD change

for the 1.8 94-95
1) no restictor plate (45mm i think in SM, takes away about 2-3hp)
2) same improvements as the 1.6 gets in item 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6.

for the 96-97
1) no restrictor plate (43mm i think in SM)
2) same improvements as the 1.6 gets in item 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6.
Combining these two posts I REALLY don&#39;t see how all of the IT allowable upgrades over SM prep are worth ONLY a 30lb weight penalty to an SM running in IT. Has anyone cought on to this. Want to run an ITA Miata.....I do. Bring on the Miata&#39;s, that&#39;s fine by me, but they NEED to SERIOUSLY have the weight looked at.

R
[/b]

what? it&#39;s not ONLY a 30lb weight penalty. it&#39;s a 30lb weight penalty plus a restrictor, heavier wheels than IT, heavier clutch/PP than IT, stock shocks unlike IT, less than ideal spring rates unlike IT where you pick what you want, no gearing changes unlike IT, at least a 10hp disadvantage to IT, less grippy tires than IT, worse aero than IT, worse braking than IT......and on and on. a SM is slower than an ITA car in every regard, just accept it! :cavallo:

[gran racing]

Now IF (a big IF, ) this were to go down[/b]

I hear what you’re saying bud, but as of right now that is not how this “car classification” is in the books. From members’ perspective, it’s a done deal thus peoples reaction. However, I am going with the mindset that this will be pulled out and given further consideration.


So, this isn&#39;t a good time to talk about getting SSM Miatas into ITB?[/b]

I know where you live Jerry!! LOL


people need to stop letting their egos get in the way of the facts regarding the SM vs ITA speed potential. There is NO WAY a fully prepped ITA miata driven by the same guy will be slower than a fully prepped SM.[/b]

While hard to do, I agree with what you and Andy (others too) say in this respect. There is one catch I included below about this though.


Want to run an ITA Miata.....I do.[/b]

Rob, it’s pretty simple. Sell the darn BMW and buy an ITA Miata. You do know Matt Kessler is just itching to build a full-out ITA Miata, right?

___________________

I’m trying to keep an open mind to this whole thing and stepping back from how it was stuffed in there (now that pisses me off!).

As pointed out, this change would impact regions differently. I believe we all can agree that as an overall, it will increase the total car counts in ITA. Here in the N.E., it will cause even more over subscribed events. The sups often have a clause where the top X % of cars will go in the feature race, and others that do now qualify will be in a consolation race. I do not like the idea of a SM car bumping a true IT car into the consolation race. Not one bit. (This is not about ME, I’m an ITB guy.) In other regions this change could help with the car counts in a positive way. I went out to Oregon last year and attended an event and like Jake, noted that the true IT car counts were low. For some regions, this change could prove beneficial. Note how I said for the regions and didn’t make this statement to the category itself.

I am not a fan of modifying the IT rule set to cater to another group of cars. BUT, maybe this could be done on a regional level? Doing things this way would have several benefits compared to making the category “car classification”. If things change with the SM rules that negatively impact them racing in IT, then it would be much easier to terminate the relationship. For regions where adding SM would hurt the true IT cars, the regions simply wouldn’t include SMs with IT. For regions where it would prove beneficial, then they can choose to utilize it. Doing this would also allow the membership to gain some comfort (or come to the conclusion that it is just silly) without making a change to IT’s structure.

[JIgou]

Greg, to clarify (even though I don&#39;t know that it&#39;s needed anymore):



[editor&#39;s note: I had NO CLUE that they are starting to allow alternate final drives and stuff like like in SM...here we go on the SM letters for comp adjustments "welcome to prod racing"... ANYWAY...]
[/b]

The rear diff allowance is only to allow the 1.6 cars to use the Torsen LSD. The cars must retain the correct diff ratio - which means either a new ring and pinion in a 94-97 diff or the much easier task of getting a 99+ rear diff and dropping it in, as the 99+ 5-speed cars have the same rear end ratio as the 1.6 cars.

Advantages:
* It&#39;s a beefier setup

Disadvantages:
* Adds 40 lbs of weight to the car, including some rotating mass
* Torsens go open if you lift a tire, unlike the clutch pack.



Everyone else: I know a gentleman who owns both a 1.8L SM and a dyno. This past weekend he told me he loses around 4 HP for putting the restrictor plate in his 1996 1.8

Jarrod

[Andy Bettencourt]

for the 1.6
1) the weight is lower in ITA than SM
2) add 10hp or more via intake, ECU, head work, cams (yes cams as SM restrictions are tighter), crank pulley, header, .40 over, REM r/p, and i don&#39;t know what else.
3) better aero (a big problem in a miata which is why running in packs works so well) via a front air dam that&#39;s lower and will push air around the tires
4) better suspension in the form of lighter wheels, whatever shock you want over OTS OEM bilsteins, whatever spring you want, bushing upgrades, and whatever bars you want.
5) better brakes via ducting allowance
6) better gearing via FD change

for the 1.8 94-95
1) no restictor plate (45mm i think in SM, takes away about 2-3hp)
2) same improvements as the 1.6 gets in item 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6.

for the 96-97
1) no restrictor plate (43mm i think in SM)
2) same improvements as the 1.6 gets in item 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6.

Combining these two posts I REALLY don&#39;t see how all of the IT allowable upgrades over SM prep are worth ONLY a 30lb weight penalty to an SM running in IT. Has anyone cought on to this. Want to run an ITA Miata.....I do. Bring on the Miata&#39;s, that&#39;s fine by me, but they NEED to SERIOUSLY have the weight looked at.

R

[/b]

Rob,

Why are you equating the two? The weights of SM&#39;s are relative to EACH OTHER, nothing else. The weight of the IT Miata&#39;s was born from the same process as the other ITA cars.

(edit: Rob, we will chat this up over a beer this weekend)

[Joe Harlan]

Greg, to clarify (even though I don&#39;t know that it&#39;s needed anymore):
The rear diff allowance is only to allow the 1.6 cars to use the Torsen LSD. The cars must retain the correct diff ratio - which means either a new ring and pinion in a 94-97 diff or the much easier task of getting a 99+ rear diff and dropping it in, as the 99+ 5-speed cars have the same rear end ratio as the 1.6 cars.

Advantages:
* It&#39;s a beefier setup

Disadvantages:
* Adds 40 lbs of weight to the car, including some rotating mass
* Torsens go open if you lift a tire, unlike the clutch pack.
Everyone else: I know a gentleman who owns both a 1.8L SM and a dyno. This past weekend he told me he loses around 4 HP for putting the restrictor plate in his 1996 1.8

Jarrod
[/b]
Jarrod, is this currently allowed in IT uunder update backdate? Answer is....NO that makes this rule outside the IT rules set...I would like to have a gleason in my 240sx....will I be allowed a 1.8 diff?
The same case could be made for a lot of other cars but we have not gone down this road and for good reasons.

[Doc Bro]

TNord, I was talking about the ITA Miata. I&#39;m sorry if my post was confusing.

AB what I&#39;m stating is that if an SM is capable of running lap times consistent with front running ITA cars across the country in SM trim, then how is the list of all the available mods that IT rules provide worth only 30lbs??? I&#39;m sure your answer will be something like an SM pack moves as a mass and doesn&#39;t hold each other up therefore.....

I&#39;m just saying on paper it looks different from what [smooth talk] your going to sell me!! :D

R

[Andy Bettencourt]

TNord, I was talking about the ITA Miata. I&#39;m sorry if my post was confusing.

AB what I&#39;m stating is that if an SM is capable of running lap times consistent with front running ITA cars across the country in SM trim, then how is the list of all the available mods that IT rules provide worth only 30lbs??? I&#39;m sure your answer will be something like an SM pack moves as a mass and doesn&#39;t hold each other up therefore.....

I&#39;m just saying on paper it looks different from what [smooth talk] your going to sell me!! :D

R [/b]

We already told you buddy, the prep level and driver talent in those SM&#39;s people are quoting is as high as it gets. IF the same prep and attention to detail was put into an IT car, you get versions like Greg&#39;s NX, the Moser&#39;s CRX, Chet&#39;s BMW, etc. You know them...the cars that hold the track records. Because the SM&#39;s are theoretically equal, guys spend thousands on reduction of rotating friction, 1-2 hp here and there, etc. The level of prep of the top 5 IT cars at the ARRC can be found at any National in any Division on any weekend in SM. $7000 motors are COMMONPLACE in SM. Yup - a class where you can&#39;t do ANYTHING. These things are running upwards of 120whp. IIRC, a certain Southeastern track record holding ITS Mercedes was shared with a top-National SM guy last year or a year or two. He jumped in and smashed the record by something like 2 seconds. What does that tell us? Nothing. It&#39;s just one of many reasons you can&#39;t use on-track as a measurement between classes - or even between drivers. You have to be able to quantify levels of prep (tires, shocks, hp, etc) AND driver ability all at single events - how do you do that? You can&#39;t.

[ddewhurst]

10 pages & counting............

Same $hit different day...................... :dead_horse:

No I don&#39;t raed all this page after page of :014:

[ner88]

First off, I&#39;m one of those 99&#39; Miata drivers.
I had nothing to do with this, I have never been accused of blocking or running into any IT cars and have never run over anyones trailer door. :dead_horse:
So, looking at the April event at NHIS, ITA and ITS times are very close.
In SM trim I don&#39;t think I could get anywhere near those times but remove restrictor, take out some weight and put on some Hoosiers and I might have a shot at ITS.
But, I&#39;m having way too much fun in SM, why would I want to change??? :unsure:
I just heard that FP is being renamed Miata Limited Prep............. :P

[Conover]

We already told you buddy, the prep level and driver talent in those SM&#39;s people are quoting is as high as it gets. IF the same prep and attention to detail was put into an IT car, you get versions like Greg&#39;s NX, the Moser&#39;s CRX, Chet&#39;s BMW, etc. You know them...the cars that hold the track records. Because the SM&#39;s are theoretically equal, guys spend thousands on reduction of rotating friction, 1-2 hp here and there, etc. The level of prep of the top 5 IT cars at the ARRC can be found at any National in any Division on any weekend in SM. $7000 motors are COMMONPLACE in SM. Yup - a class where you can&#39;t do ANYTHING. These things are running upwards of 120whp. IIRC, a certain Southeastern track record holding ITS Mercedes was shared with a top-National SM guy last year or a year or two. He jumped in and smashed the record by something like 2 seconds. What does that tell us? Nothing. It&#39;s just one of many reasons you can&#39;t use on-track as a measurement between classes - or even between drivers. You have to be able to quantify levels of prep (tires, shocks, hp, etc) AND driver ability all at single events - how do you do that? You can&#39;t.
[/b]

Andy, that seems like really good rational for not mixing the two.

I really don&#39;t see much room for discussion. This move is wrong for IT. competitive, not competitive, whatever, it doesn&#39;t matter, this not an acceptable move.

Cars racing in IT should all be cars prepped for and by IT rules, that&#39;s all there is to it.

[tnord]

Andy, that seems like really good rational for not mixing the two.

I really don&#39;t see much room for discussion. This move is wrong for IT. competitive, not competitive, whatever, it doesn&#39;t matter, this not an acceptable move.

Cars racing in IT should all be cars prepped for and by IT rules, that&#39;s all there is to it.
[/b]

it already happens all the time though cameron, me being one of them. protest me for my looped power steering if you like and see what that gets you.

the mistake is not in having the 90-97 race in ITA with these technically illegal yet non-performance enhancing items, the mistake is in explicitly adding verbage to make them legal.

[Andy Bettencourt]

Andy, that seems like really good rational for not mixing the two.

I really don&#39;t see much room for discussion. This move is wrong for IT. competitive, not competitive, whatever, it doesn&#39;t matter, this not an acceptable move.

Cars racing in IT should all be cars prepped for and by IT rules, that&#39;s all there is to it.

[/b]

Point taken. The majority on ths BB has spoken. Let&#39;s make sure we follow up in an offical capacity when the request hits. (and encourage those who don&#39;t read it to understand the issue and weigh in)

[Joe Harlan]

10 pages & counting............

Same $hit different day...................... :dead_horse:

No I don&#39;t raed all this page after page of :014:
[/b]
Very helpful grouchy old man...go work on your car. :eclipsee_steering:

[Chris Wire]

If the regions have to raise entry fees because they loose out on double dipping Miata&#39;s (or DD IT cars, or DD SPO cars, etc), then I respectfully submit that a &#39;no&#39; to this idea caused it. You have actually predicted something tangible to a rejection of the idea. And that thing is raised costs to the racers if regions loose this current or future increased revenue. No? Maybe I am over-reading it.
[/b]

Andy, I respectfully submit that you are assigning a level of importance to the increased entry point that it doesn&#39;t deserve. There are enough currently-IT-legal SM cars that are crossing over that it makes the balance of potential additional cross-over cars a very small percentage. Certainly not enough in number to have a significant monetary infusion for the regions. And now we are making/adding a different ruleset outside of the current IT rules in an attempt to persuade that very small percentage to come and run IT, and to save struggling regions in the process. Ain&#39;t gonna fly.

You&#39;ll have my letter at the time of the request, if not sooner.

I welcome all SM racers who&#39;s cars meet the IT rule book without special exceptions. Let&#39;s be clear on that. I&#39;ve raced SM with them before; they&#39;re a good group.

[Andy Bettencourt]

Chris, all I can tell you is that this isn&#39;t to really increase what could come in, it is to legalize what is already there. Nobody wants it, that is fine and the majority shall rule but to think that all the SM&#39;s in ITA are legal is a misunderstanding of the way they are prepped.

All 1.8&#39;s technically illegal (with RP in place)

Any power steering car plugged is illegal

The 1st gen &#39;Daniels&#39; exhaust is illegal

Any 1.6 using the Torsen (small %) is illegal

I think you would be surprised to know how many SM&#39;s fall into at least one of these categories. I would hate the anti-Miata sentiment to get to a level that paper started flying on these items, but if it did, it is the right of the participant to protest technically illegal vehicles. I guess I am more worried about the LOSS of revenue if someone gets a hair across their ass on this and protests them all.

[Joe Harlan]

Chris, all I can tell you is that this isn&#39;t to really increase what could come in, it is to legalize what is already there. Nobody wants it, that is fine and the majority shall rule but to think that all the SM&#39;s in ITA are legal is a misunderstanding of the way they are prepped.

All 1.8&#39;s technically illegal (with RP in place)

Any power steering car plugged is illegal

The 1st gen &#39;Daniels&#39; exhaust is illegal
Any 1.6 using the Torsen (small %) is illegal

I think you would be surprised to know how many SM&#39;s fall into at least one of these categories. I would hate the anti-Miata sentiment to get to a level that paper started flying on these items, but if it did, it is the right of the participant to protest technically illegal vehicles. I guess I am more worried about the LOSS of revenue if someone gets a hair across their ass on this and protests them all.
[/b]

I am not sure I have seen the daniels exhaust. The 1.6&#39;s I have seen dump the exhaust at about the rear swaybar and that meets the current rule.


g. Any exhaust header and exhaust system may be used. Exhaust shall exit behind the driver, and shall be directed away from the car body. Original exhaust system heat shields may be removed. A suitable muffler may be necessary to meet sound control requirements.

[jjjanos]

I think you would be surprised to know how many SM&#39;s fall into at least one of these categories. I would hate the anti-Miata sentiment to get to a level that paper started flying on these items, but if it did, it is the right of the participant to protest technically illegal vehicles. I guess I am more worried about the LOSS of revenue if someone gets a hair across their ass on this and protests them all.[/b]

Seems to me that the obvious solution is not allowing SM-legal cars to compete in IT, but is, instead, to change the SM rules so that they are IT compliant. No backdating, same prep rules. Require all Miatas of a particular year and model to be IT compliant and if one wants to equalize the performance across Miata year/model, then ADD a restrictor for ALL Miatas of that particular year/model.

As for filing paper, I&#39;m not sympathetic. The cars aren&#39;t IT legal and it is no different than me putting the fuel-injected engine in my car and running ITB. I might do it to get track time, but you bet I wouldn&#39;t be running for series points if I did it.

[tnord]

Seems to me that the obvious solution is not allowing SM-legal cars to compete in IT, but is, instead, to change the SM rules so that they are IT compliant. No backdating, same prep rules. Require all Miatas of a particular year and model to be IT compliant and if one wants to equalize the performance across Miata year/model, then ADD a restrictor for ALL Miatas of that particular year/model.

As for filing paper, I&#39;m not sympathetic. The cars aren&#39;t IT legal and it is no different than me putting the fuel-injected engine in my car and running ITB. I might do it to get track time, but you bet I wouldn&#39;t be running for series points if I did it.
[/b]

look, i think this was a mistake just like everyone else, but the logic behind some of this stuff is nothing but bullfeathers.

1) expecting SM to change their ruleset so it is convienent for IT to gain a few more entries is just dumb. same is true of the reverse, which many here are arguing. it&#39;s dumb of IT to change their ruleset to allow a few more SMs to legally enter an IT race.
2) PS - there is no updating/backdating in SM.
3) PS again - many SMs are currently IT legal as they sit today without turning a single wrench.
4) the restrictor already is added across an entire year, there are no &#39;models&#39; of miata. 94/95 1.8L OBDI get the same restrictor, 96/97 1.8L OBDII get the same restrictor. 99+ 1.8L get the same restrictor
5) many of the cars are IT legal, and 90% of the ones that aren&#39;t, all they have to do is pull the restrictor plate and maybe add some gas. i have a hard time seeing how this is the same as you swapping an entire engine. if you want to squak about the cars being legal, all they&#39;re going to do is go faster than before. :bash_1_:

[Eagle7]

If the purpose of the change is to add revenue for the regions and to give more seat time for SM drivers, it seems that there&#39;s a much simpler solution that could aready be implemented at the local level - add SM to the ITA run group. Write the supps so that it&#39;s a separate entry from the "other" SM run group. Is it legal to schedule multiple run groups for a single class?

[Joe Harlan]

If the purpose of the change is to add revenue for the regions and to give more seat time for SM drivers, it seems that there&#39;s a much simpler solution that could aready be implemented at the local level - add SM to the ITA run group. Write the supps so that it&#39;s a separate entry from the "other" SM run group. Is it legal to schedule multiple run groups for a single class?
[/b]

Marty that would defeat the making IT one of the classes that becomes a top 20 runoffs spot which has been a behind the scenes motive for a few of the ITAC guys from day one....:)

[Andy Bettencourt]

I am not sure I have seen the daniels exhaust. The 1.6&#39;s I have seen dump the exhaust at about the rear swaybar and that meets the current rule.


g. Any exhaust header and exhaust system may be used. Exhaust shall exit behind the driver, and shall be directed away from the car body. Original exhaust system heat shields may be removed. A suitable muffler may be necessary to meet sound control requirements.
[/b]

It was the &#39;first gen&#39; SM exhaust of choice and they still pop up on cars every now and again until they get flattened by an off. It went parallel with the tub. All the versions since have a nice &#39;dump&#39; that sends exhaust toward the ground.




If the purpose of the change is to add revenue for the regions and to give more seat time for SM drivers, it seems that there&#39;s a much simpler solution that could aready be implemented at the local level - add SM to the ITA run group. Write the supps so that it&#39;s a separate entry from the "other" SM run group. Is it legal to schedule multiple run groups for a single class? [/b]

Oh, now every one else will LOVE that!

[RKramden]

Whew,

After reading ALL the posts, I can say that this is totally amazing.

I think the CRB missed on this one along with a few other changes they made this month.

(Have any of you ever heard my wife use NASTY words? Have any of you ever seen her get mad? Well, she did get mad at the CRB this month, and her words were not very nice....)

So, in the class of unintended consequences, exactly how is a competitor to know which rule set a Miata is preped to if they are running in ITA? (being a some time tech inspector makes me think about this.) What if they want to protest that car? How could they ever protest the car for being illegal in some respect if they cannot find out what the exact rules for that car are? Is there going to be a public sign up sheet

When I last had a chat with a CRB member, he said that it was probably a mistake that there wasn&#39;t a non-driver or two on the CRB (e.g. folks who know the nuts and bolts of what it takes to make a race happen from a workers perspective, and what some of the silly consequences of a rule change might just be. The same is probably true for the ACs as well.)

The real question is exactly how many of the drivers with Miatas are there who need this rule change to "double dip"? In the Northeast, there is SSM and SM, so they can already double dip and still be competitive in BOTH groups. And there is ITA and SM in other parts of the country where they can be competitive in at least one of the groups, show why do we need a SM rules cam in ITA as yet another option?

Exactly how many extra entries are we going to see because of this? How many drivers will want to "triple dip" on a race weekend?

This weekend is a "triple" for my region. I can&#39;t imagine any driver running their car in 9 different races over the course of one weekend.

And the logistics of assuring the SM, SSM and ITA are never in consecutive groups would be hell as well.

Unintended consequences. The CRB needs to learn about that concept.

[Knestis]

... What does that tell us? Nothing. It&#39;s just one of many reasons you can&#39;t use on-track as a measurement between classes - or even between drivers. You have to be able to quantify levels of prep (tires, shocks, hp, etc) AND driver ability all at single events - how do you do that? You can&#39;t.[/b]
Amen, Brother Andy. On THAT point we absolutely agree.

Guys - With respect, please don&#39;t let the red herrings get you. ANY time spent agitating about whether an SM and an ITA (whatever) are a good match competitively - 30 pounds here or an illegal exhaust system there - is yet another distraction from the really big issues at play here. Even if they ARE running the same lap times, do you want the system to shift toward one where cars of whatever specification are grouped by lap time, rather than by their mechanical attributes?


...expecting SM to change their ruleset so it is convienent for IT to gain a few more entries is just dumb. same is true of the reverse, which many here are arguing. it&#39;s dumb of IT to change their ruleset to allow a few more SMs to legally enter an IT race. ...[/b]
Absolutely. But if SM entrants banned together to change THEIR OWN rules, of their OWN accord, to allow them to more easily cross over to IT, that would be AOK as far as I&#39;m concerned. If this initiative had come from a groundswell of ITA people enthusiastic about adding another route into their class, that would be a different thing than what we&#39;re seeing here. (I&#39;d still think it&#39;s a bad idea, but making our own mistakes is at least a little more palatable than having them forced on us.)

K

[Andy Bettencourt]

Whew,

After reading ALL the posts, I can say that this is totally amazing.


So, in the class of unintended consequences, exactly how is a competitor to know which rule set a Miata is preped to if they are running in ITA? (being a some time tech inspector makes me think about this.) What if they want to protest that car? How could they ever protest the car for being illegal in some respect if they cannot find out what the exact rules for that car are? Is there going to be a public sign up sheet[/b]

Well, I am not sure you read all the posts Dave! We can go over it this weekend at the party... :)

If only the 90-97&#39;s are allowed, you don&#39;t have to know what &#39;they are&#39; because no matter how they present themselves, it will always be &#39;less&#39; than an ITA Miata. The IT rules exceed the prep level of SM in every way, except minimum weight. Rolling across the scales is easy. IF the 99+ were to be allowed (no chance), it HAS to be a pure SM. That ain&#39;t so hard to see.

The real question is exactly how many of the drivers with Miatas are there who need this rule change to "double dip"? In the Northeast, there is SSM and SM, so they can already double dip and still be competitive in BOTH groups. And there is ITA and SM in other parts of the country where they can be competitive in at least one of the groups, show why do we need a SM rules cam in ITA as yet another option?[/b]

Well I wonder what your guess would be for NER Dave? In the Opening Day Regional at NHIS, ITA had 23 cars pre-registered. 7 of those were double-dipping Miata drivers. In a region that HAS SSM and has it in a different run group! 30% of ITA were SM&#39;s.


And the logistics of assuring the SM, SSM and ITA are never in consecutive groups would be hell as well.[/b]

Your home Region runs it this way already!


Unintended consequences. The CRB needs to learn about that concept. [/b]

Again Dave, this CREATES nothing. It just legalizes what is already happening so that guys can be quilt and fear-free from protest.

It&#39;s obvious that the drivers don&#39;t want it. No problem, I see this going out for comment and dissappearing into history having gotten squashed. Let&#39;s just get the facts straight.




Absolutely. But if SM entrants banned together to change THEIR OWN rules, of their OWN accord, to allow them to more easily cross over to IT, that would be AOK as far as I&#39;m concerned. If this initiative had come from a groundswell of ITA people enthusiastic about adding another route into their class, that would be a different thing than what we&#39;re seeing here. (I&#39;d still think it&#39;s a bad idea, but making our own mistakes is at least a little more palatable than having them forced on us.)

K [/b]

And if the SM guys want it that bad, that may just be the way they need to go.

[Knestis]

Again Dave, this CREATES nothing. It just legalizes what is already happening so that guys can be quilt and fear-free from protest.[/b]
This is one of those "amnesty" things that I hear about on the radio, then?

Sorry - I&#39;m a dumbass but it&#39;s just sinking in, what&#39;s being said here. The REAL problem is that SM owners are entering cars wholesale in ITA that aren&#39;t legal, so since some folks believe they should be SLOWER than a REAL ITA car, we are writing the rule to allow them to run as-is...?

A group of drivers decide to run illegal cars on the rationale that they aren&#39;t actually going to beat the fast guys, and the Club&#39;s response is to reward them by codifying their behavior as totally OK.

SERIOUSLY??

Argh.

I guess if I get OK with the idea, it will open up all kinds of interesting new opportunities.

K

[Joe Harlan]

So we can now refer to SM cars as illegal aliens?

no hable inglés

Nosotros no podemos seguir sus reglas

Queremos la posición Nacional y nosotros no dejaremos hasta nosotros lo obtiene.

[Conover]

So how high does the fence have to be to keep them out?

[Chris Wire]

So how high does the fence have to be to keep them out?
[/b]

We don&#39;t need a fence, we need "comprehensive reform"! And whatever fence is needed will be virtual.

I think there too much Miata-hating going on from all you Marque-sist IT guys. They just want to race and support their family and crew. It&#39;s un-American to treat them this way; America is the land of opportunity, right? Call your congressman/race board chair and tell them you want them to vote in favor of Spec Pinata AMNESTY!

Can&#39;t we all just get along, gringo? - Rodney King Rodriguez
[/remove tongue from deep in cheek]

[cmaclean]

Wow, this one came out of left field. As an ex-SM guy who is now running ITA exclusively I think both the explicit allowance to prep as an SM and run ITA AND especially allowing the &#39;99 to run in ITA are both very, very misguided and just plain wrong decisions. Allowing the &#39;99 in ITA is one of worst decisions I&#39;ve ever heard of since being involved in SCCA. I sincerely hope this is reversed/clarified. A &#39;99 SM is perfectly happy in ITS. If the goal is to facilitate crossover that&#39;s one thing; but how does reclassifying a car possibly do that??? It&#39;s just crazy...

I strongly believe, however, that any "hatin" should be directed at the people responsible for concocting this rule, not the folks who happen to be driving the cars since we had nothing to do with this. Jelly Beans have feelings too :P

[mlytle]

i nominate posts 204, 205 and 206 as the "posts of the week"!!!

:happy204:

marshall
i used to intercept illegal aliens for a living, now i evidently just do it for a hobby...;)

[dickita15]

excellent. recruit tech inspectors from the border patrol.

[Joe Harlan]

excellent. recruit tech inspectors from the border patrol.
[/b]
haha, we already have a catch and release program don&#39;t we?

[IPRESS]

Wow, this one came out of left field. As an ex-SM guy who is now running ITA exclusively I think both the explicit allowance to prep as an SM and run ITA AND especially allowing the &#39;99 to run in ITA are both very, very misguided and just plain wrong decisions. Allowing the &#39;99 in ITA is one of worst decisions I&#39;ve ever heard of since being involved in SCCA. I sincerely hope this is reversed/clarified. A &#39;99 SM is perfectly happy in ITS. If the goal is to facilitate crossover that&#39;s one thing; but how does reclassifying a car possibly do that??? It&#39;s just crazy...

I strongly believe, however, that any "hatin" should be directed at the people responsible for concocting this rule, not the folks who happen to be driving the cars since we had nothing to do with this. Jelly Beans have feelings too :P
[/b]


Colin, The anti Mazda sentiment is way overboard on this board. Mazda may throw their weight around on the National side, but Regional.........doesn&#39;t even cross their minds.
I think you and I are victims of Andy working his butt off to max prep his car and driving skills. Us everyday run of the mill ITA Miata folks get welcomed to any gathering......sort of makes me think I might be a chump! :D A good guy chump, but no threat. Leo D. was right it seems with this group.

[Joe Harlan]

Mac, Just to be clear this is not any anti mazda stuff from me. I would feel this way if it was a nissan that was getting a special allowance outside the IT ruleset. It is known i have never been a rotary fan but that does not cross over to the manufacture. As a car builder and competitor it is good to have all factories take part in our sport and that includes Mazda. Robert Davis, Tim Buck Steve Sanders have all done a great Job with their products and the support they give all racers. The fact is these deal is a special ride for one type of car and it does not matter if it is a chevy or a VW it should not be done.

[IPRESS]

Joe,
I am sure there are others on here that are not just Mazda haters, too. I am on the same side as you and others on this issue. Mazda seems to be taking a beating and probably no one (Tim or Steve) even knows this happened. Like I said Regional racing is not high on their list of racing support. Don&#39;t get me wrong, I think overall they do a great job. Regional racing doesn&#39;t do a lot for them (other then ARRC and they do support that) and they still give us the same service as National guys get (minus the contingency.) You really can&#39;t complain about them cause they do love racing.

I am not sure that many in the SM community had ever heard or thought of this rule change before Fastrack came out so I think throwing a load of bulletin board BS on them is misguided also. THe PTB came up with this one (maybe after talking with a SMer or two that like to crossover) all on their own.

I am at Memphis R/N/RR as we type, and no one that I talked to new anything at all about any of this.

I am sure the committees will get it fixed right at some point.

[lateapex911]

Mac, good call. This was most certainly not done with any Mazda influence. We&#39;ll go over it Monday night and report back.

We&#39;ll have a much better handle on the situation then. Sit tight, the sky isn&#39;t falling.

[JohnRW]

excellent. recruit tech inspectors from the border patrol.
[/b]

Two words to remember: "Cavity search".

[Bill Miller]

Mac, good call. This was most certainly not done with any Mazda influence. We&#39;ll go over it Monday night and report back.

We&#39;ll have a much better handle on the situation then. Sit tight, the sky isn&#39;t falling.
[/b]

Yeah, just like there was no mfg. influence that killed the T3/SSB consolidation. :wacko:

[lateapex911]

Yeah, just like there was no mfg. influence that killed the T3/SSB consolidation. :wacko:
[/b]

Bill, it&#39;s fine to be critical, but your comments on this thread have been rather disprespectful. This one in particular fell far short of appropriate...



Stan,

The term &#39;strained and tortured&#39; comes to mind after reading your post. BTW, is that an easy transition from racer to politician? As the old saying goes, "same whore, different wig". :puke: [/b]

In this case, you seem to be saying that there IS Mazda influence involved, and I am covering it up. Is that accurate?

[Bill Miller]

Jake,

First of all, don&#39;t put words in my mouth. I didn&#39;t say you were covering up anything. But, don&#39;t make it seem that it&#39;s out of the realm of possibility that these types of decisions are influenced by the mfg&#39;s. The T3/SSB thing is a perfect example that they are.

And while it&#39;s noble that you&#39;re sticking up for Stan, I think he can stick up for himself. And that notwithstanding, that was a totally BS comment from him. Look at some of the other posts in this thread, I wasn&#39;t the only one that called him on it. You know me well enough, I don&#39;t mince words, and I&#39;ll never be called PC.

[Tkczecheredflag]

Greg, I know you&#39;re pissed, but I&#39;m thinking that taking a breather is best for all right now. (Note I didn&#39;t say "You taking a breather is...")

Let me provide some light on this, if i may. (I might be sticking my neck out a bit, but...)

The April con call was odd in that Andy wasn&#39;t there. If he&#39;s going to miss it or be late, or if theres a CHANCE of either, he will call me and ask me to run it. After a bit, I decided to press on, and started running it, sans Andy. Of course, Andy had the agenda, etc, so I was a bit behind the 8 ball. Now, it turns out Andy was stuck in a plane circling Logan with a no cel phone rule for 2 hours, so......

So, we went through the letters and eventually came to a letter from a guy with a Miata wanting to remove his vent window. As a point of rule, i objected, but I had been thinking about the egress issue independently, so we discussed making a categorical rules change, to improve safety. The discussion, as far as I recall (remember, i was taking notes, making up the agenda as we went along and trying to figure out who was saying what) got into the whole "double dipping" issue of Miatas, and we discussed the concept of SMs being allowed in IT. As you&#39;ll note, Andy wasn&#39;t present for the entire call, so forgive him his lack of info. And note, the first post of Andy&#39;s says something like "Jake and I are looking into this..."

My recollection of the discussion was that it had it&#39;s merits, but also it&#39;s drawbacks. But I don&#39;t remeber making a rules change, or anything concrete like that. Maybe I was confused or doing two things at once, but, I just don&#39;t remember it getting to that stage.

So, at this point, I&#39;m wondering how it got put into Fastrack in the language it&#39;s in, and, to my eye, this would be a rules change that would need BoD approval. Of course, I&#39;m not an advisor for things of that level, so I could be wrong on that.

But, nevertheless, I suggest we all take five while we (ITAC/CRB) dig further.
[/b]
Okay - "Post 58" - What I am hearing is that this needs BoD approval to be "law".

I would like to ask a question or two, please indulge me.

First, what "by-laws"regardng a CRB attendance and a quorum are followed (Roberts Rules??)? I am referrencing Andy B&#39;s attendance issue. Were others members not in attendance? Is a quorum required - if so did you guys have a quorum for this meeting?

Second, is there any misunderstanding about BoD approval - Is it required or not?

Third, if this is correct (BoD approval), other than this forum what part can the general membership play in communicating with the BoD regarding the "fairness and intent" of this proposal, and what is the "offical" process for doing do.

Finally, if BoD approval is not required (as it&#39;s already made Fast Track), is there an appeals procees that can be followed, if so what is it? In addition are there any "holes" in your procedure (CRB/ITAC), where an appeals process can be exploited - In other words - where any mistakes made that can be put to and "accountability test" regrading the process and procedures followed by CRB and ITAC?

Please note I am not savvy regrading, "your/our" by-laws, process, and procedure, regarding CRB, ITAC and the BoD, so if my questions seem inapproriate or stupid I plead ignorance. I am willing to be educated and I am listening.

Thanks for considering my questions and concerns.

[dickita15]

I have been thinking all weekend what started this idea of amnesty of SMs in IT ( great analogy by the way). I am pretty sure this was not thought up by the IT community or even the SM community. I heard no chatter about anything like this before fastrack came out. Contrary to some people’s reactions I do not believe that that Mazda cares enough about this to have a position.
My guess is that this may have come from the stewards at some level. One of the things stewards are taught is that a non compliant car should never finish higher than a compliant car. It has become common practice for some Miatas to run in ITA with insignificant non compliant issues. For a steward who is charged with making sure the rule book is followed to the letter this can cause some discomfort.
Given that a full prep SM is not as fast as a full prep ITA, I can see the leap of logic to think this proposal is a reasonable way to solve the problem.
What I believe was not taken into consideration is how much some of the IT community cares about the integrity of our rule set. Despite all the assurances that any SM changes will likely be more restrictive rather than less, the huge problem is this introduces a level of prep into IT that we, the IT community, and the ITAC have little or no control over. To use an absurd illustration if the SMAC approved turbos for SM next year we would have little recourse.
Now that the wheel rule has changed so the 15” wheels are legal there is very little preventing someone from building an SM car that is ITA legal as well. The only issue I can see is that the 1.8 cars have a restrictor that some may think a hassle to remove that is technically illegal in IT. So here is my proposed solution. Remove the 99’s provision to run in A and on the spec line in ITA and ITS put a note that the 1.8 Miatas can run in IT with or without a SM legal intake restrictor. This should allow simple legal crossover without compromising the IT rule set. Thoughts?

[RSTPerformance]

I have been thinking all weekend what started this idea of amnesty of SMs in IT ( great analogy by the way). I am pretty sure this was not thought up by the IT community or even the SM community. I heard no chatter about anything like this before fastrack came out. Contrary to some people’s reactions I do not believe that that Mazda cares enough about this to have a position.
My guess is that this may have come from the stewards at some level. One of the things stewards are taught is that a non compliant car should never finish higher than a compliant car. It has become common practice for some Miatas to run in ITA with insignificant non compliant issues. For a steward who is charged with making sure the rule book is followed to the letter this can cause some discomfort.
Given that a full prep SM is not as fast as a full prep ITA, I can see the leap of logic to think this proposal is a reasonable way to solve the problem.
What I believe was not taken into consideration is how much some of the IT community cares about the integrity of our rule set. Despite all the assurances that any SM changes will likely be more restrictive rather than less, the huge problem is this introduces a level of prep into IT that we, the IT community, and the ITAC have little or no control over. To use an absurd illustration if the SMAC approved turbos for SM next year we would have little recourse.
Now that the wheel rule has changed so the 15” wheels are legal there is very little preventing someone from building an SM car that is ITA legal as well. The only issue I can see is that the 1.8 cars have a restrictor that some may think a hassle to remove that is technically illegal in IT. So here is my proposed solution. Remove the 99’s provision to run in A and on the spec line in ITA and ITS put a note that the 1.8 Miatas can run in IT with or without a SM legal intake restrictor. This should allow simple legal crossover without compromising the IT rule set. Thoughts?
[/b]


Actually I think that it is a good/proper solution, and you may be right about the stewards issue, although I can say that I do not think that it came from the northeast, if it did I am unaware of any gossip/rumblings/cincerns that lead to the change.

Raymond "Rash" Blethen

[Andy Bettencourt]

What I believe was not taken into consideration is how much some of the IT community cares about the integrity of our rule set. Despite all the assurances that any SM changes will likely be more restrictive rather than less, the huge problem is this introduces a level of prep into IT that we, the IT community, and the ITAC have little or no control over. To use an absurd illustration if the SMAC approved turbos for SM next year we would have little recourse.[/b]

My only correction here is that the CRB is the center of the rules consistancy. They preside over BOTH categories so they COULD maintaion cohesiveness. This concern is very prevelent with the new CRB.

Now that the wheel rule has changed so the 15" wheels are legal there is very little preventing someone from building an SM car that is ITA legal as well. The only issue I can see is that the 1.8 cars have a restrictor that some may think a hassle to remove that is technically illegal in IT. So here is my proposed solution. Remove the 99&#39;s provision to run in A and on the spec line in ITA and ITS put a note that the 1.8 Miatas can run in IT with or without a SM legal intake restrictor. This should allow simple legal crossover without compromising the IT rule set. Thoughts?
[/b]

I would think that ANY allowance compromises the ruleset. They question is, by how much? How much is enough for you - for me - for any of us? I would assume that those who want to preserve the integrity of the IT rules would be against any allowance.

[dickita15]

My only correction here is that the CRB is the center of the rules consistancy. They preside over BOTH categories so they COULD maintaion cohesiveness. This concern is very prevelent with the new CRB.
[/b]

Andy while my default position is trust the judgment of the CRB, for which I have much respect, they obviously misjudged the reaction of the IT community this time so I am not give much comfort by their oversight in this situation.




I would think that ANY allowance compromises the ruleset. They question is, by how much? How much is enough for you - for me - for any of us? I would assume that those who want to preserve the integrity of the IT rules would be against any allowance.
[/b]
Single car anti performance allowances such as I am suggesting may be a slight irritation to some serious rules purist but I think it would be viewed by most as a whole lot better that the second level of prep that has just been foisted on us.
By the way it is kind of funny to hear you say that after the last 12 pages.

[Andy Bettencourt]

Single car anti performance allowances such as I am suggesting may be a slight irritation to some serious rules purist but I think it would be viewed by most as a whole lot better that the second level of prep that has just been foisted on us.
By the way it is kind of funny to hear you say that after the last 12 pages. [/b]

I am just saying that given the reaction in this thread by many, I would think that NO allowances be made would be the stance.

By &#39;second level of prep&#39; are you talking about the 99+? I don&#39;t see any support for that anywhere, including my posts. I guess I take it a little further thinking that the allowances for the 90-97&#39;s are also a slight irritation. You think 1 allowance is ok, I think 3 are ok, some may think more are ok - but most have stated NONE are OK...

And for the record, as an ITAC member voting on an issue WRT IT, it won&#39;t matter how many letters come in from SM guys on this topic. This is an IT issue and should be treated as such. If &#39;we&#39; don&#39;t want it, the CRB needs to know. I don&#39;t see the doom and gloom, but the message is loud and clear here, we shall see what it is when the RFC comes out.

[Joe Harlan]

I have been thinking all weekend what started this idea of amnesty of SMs in IT ( great analogy by the way). I am pretty sure this was not thought up by the IT community or even the SM community. I heard no chatter about anything like this before fastrack came out. Contrary to some people’s reactions I do not believe that that Mazda cares enough about this to have a position.
My guess is that this may have come from the stewards at some level. One of the things stewards are taught is that a non compliant car should never finish higher than a compliant car. It has become common practice for some Miatas to run in ITA with insignificant non compliant issues. For a steward who is charged with making sure the rule book is followed to the letter this can cause some discomfort.
Given that a full prep SM is not as fast as a full prep ITA, I can see the leap of logic to think this proposal is a reasonable way to solve the problem.What I believe was not taken into consideration is how much some of the IT community cares about the integrity of our rule set. Despite all the assurances that any SM changes will likely be more restrictive rather than less, the huge problem is this introduces a level of prep into IT that we, the IT community, and the ITAC have little or no control over. To use an absurd illustration if the SMAC approved turbos for SM next year we would have little recourse.
Now that the wheel rule has changed so the 15” wheels are legal there is very little preventing someone from building an SM car that is ITA legal as well. The only issue I can see is that the 1.8 cars have a restrictor that some may think a hassle to remove that is technically illegal in IT. So here is my proposed solution. Remove the 99’s provision to run in A and on the spec line in ITA and ITS put a note that the 1.8 Miatas can run in IT with or without a SM legal intake restrictor. This should allow simple legal crossover without compromising the IT rule set. Thoughts?
[/b]

Dick, Here is the real issue. A SM maybe not as fast as a full on ITA car but by allowing a non-spec car into the class you allow that car to finish in front a people that are trying their level best to get better and be a part of our rules set. So now you may not take 1st place away but you are taking positions away from legal cars by allowing no-compliant cars to beat them. I say the same thing to customers that are mid packers when they say to me that cheating a little is ok cause I am not competitive anyway....That&#39;s a wrong headed way of thinking.

[dickita15]

Dick, Here is the real issue. A SM maybe not as fast as a full on ITA car but by allowing a non-spec car into the class you allow that car to finish in front a people that are trying their level best to get better and be a part of our rules set. So now you may not take 1st place away but you are taking positions away from legal cars by allowing no-compliant cars to beat them. I say the same thing to customers that are mid packers when they say to me that cheating a little is ok cause I am not competitive anyway....That&#39;s a wrong headed way of thinking.
[/b]
Whoa Joe,
I agree, maybe I did not make myself clear. I was trying to understand the reasoning of those that foisted this on us and why they thought this would not be a problem. I am one of those midpackers. I usually only beat about half the double dippers. Sorry if I was not clear.




By &#39;second level of prep&#39; are you talking about the 99+? I don&#39;t see any support for that anywhere, including my posts. I guess I take it a little further thinking that the allowances for the 90-97&#39;s are also a slight irritation. You think 1 allowance is ok, I think 3 are ok, some may think more are ok - but most have stated NONE are OK...
[/b]
No that is absolutely not what I am saying. I know no one has supported the 99 inclusion publicly. I am saying that allowing a SM to compete in IT using the SM rule set is a second level of prep that I find unacceptable.

[mattbatson]

So, now I&#39;m starting to understand why people are against this...
It&#39;s because they may get beat by a better driver in a slower car. :o

Come on, this is a competition. We are RACING to COMPETE for the win. We should be welcoming more competition, not less. Who wants to win in a race with three or four cars?

I think some are worried about the depth of talent in the SM field, and perhaps would have some hurt pride if beat by a lower level of modified car? I would hope I&#39;m not right on this one.

Dont you want to race against the best competition you can find? Certainly not the worst you can find...I would hope.

On another thread on here, it was said that the worry is these slower cars will be getting in the way (such as getting lapped)....

Now, I&#39;m hearing something completely different.

I hear the arguements about how "they dont fit into our ruleset".... IT IS A MORE RESTRICTIVE RULESET THAT THEY COMPLY WITH !!!!! The arguements against just dont seem to be very rational. Just my opinion.

Now, I&#39;m not in ITA. But if I was, I would welcome more competition...from some of the best drivers in the nation...

just my opinion.

[Greg Amy]

It&#39;s because they may get beat by a better driver in a slower car.[/b]
From whose butt did you pull this one?

You may have had something useful to say after that, but I quit reading...

[dickita15]

Matt you could not be more freaking wrong.

[lateapex911]

So, now I&#39;m starting to understand why people are against this...
It&#39;s because they may get beat by a better driver in a slower car. :o

[/b]

Thats a pretty gross exageration of the comments I&#39;ve read here....

As a matter of fact, please go back and pick out the quotes you&#39;ve read and show us, because I can&#39;t remember anyone saying that.

There are two sides to the issue:

I think that those "for" the concept think that:

- It could help car counts for struggling regions, and HQ is charged with looking after the big picture.

- It would removes a quandry that faces officials who know of cars competing with obvious illegalities

- They also point out that concerns over cars running without restrictors (the 99 for example) are red herrings, policing is still the competitors job.



I think that those &#39;against" feel that:

- It&#39;s a different ruleset, and if these particular cars are allowed certain mods, like diff carriers, then it&#39;s only fair that the rest of the category be allowed such. What if, down the road, the SMAC sees a large number of transmissions breaking third gears, and allows an alternate gear? Should all of IT be allowed alternate third gears? Whats good for the goose is good for the gander, and so on. Those who drive cars like the MR2, which many consider to be not capable of running at the front will cry foul when the arguement "SMs are a lesser performance level, so alternate parts aren&#39;t a concern to the rest of the IT class/community".

-The IT community fears that if such a change is made, the precedence has been set that other rulesets, that are not strictly IT could also be let run. Maybe the "Spec E30" class is showing good numbers in two years and HQ is concerned about the competition from NASA. WIll Spec E30 be an ITA car?

- Some feel that track time is being lost as more and more SMs double and triple dip...costing the average racer precious time and money.

But I haven&#39;t herad one guy state that they don&#39;t want to be beat by a lesser car.

Lets stick to reasonable arguements.

[Joe Harlan]

So, now I&#39;m starting to understand why people are against this...
It&#39;s because they may get beat by a better driver in a slower car. :o

Come on, this is a competition. We are RACING to COMPETE for the win. We should be welcoming more competition, not less. Who wants to win in a race with three or four cars?

I think some are worried about the depth of talent in the SM field, and perhaps would have some hurt pride if beat by a lower level of modified car? I would hope I&#39;m not right on this one.

Dont you want to race against the best competition you can find? Certainly not the worst you can find...I would hope.

On another thread on here, it was said that the worry is these slower cars will be getting in the way (such as getting lapped)....

Now, I&#39;m hearing something completely different.

I hear the arguements about how "they dont fit into our ruleset".... IT IS A MORE RESTRICTIVE RULESET THAT THEY COMPLY WITH !!!!! The arguements against just dont seem to be very rational. Just my opinion.

Now, I&#39;m not in ITA. But if I was, I would welcome more competition...from some of the best drivers in the nation...

just my opinion.
[/b]

Dude yo are so far from right its not funny. It&#39;s about people that look at a set of rules and build a car with certain expectations of one day being competitive in a class based on those rules. When the rules get bastardized to satisfy a group of cars that already are getting their own run group in most regions and have already a couple of places to run in most regions its bullshit. If you want to run IT then have SM change the rules to meet all the IT specs then you can come kick the ass off all the midpackers you want. Until then run the car in SPU or DP or some other class that it fits in its current state but don&#39;t make this group just accept your wishes cause you think your waggin the big wallet in most regions. The arguments are plenty rational.

As far as officials pushing this then they should loose their license for not stopping it until there is a rule change. If you allow a non-compliant car to run knowing full well its not compliant then you shouldn&#39;t be an official...Its BS! Lets all cheat and then will write a rule to cover our asses...WRONG.

[Bill Miller]

As far as officials pushing this then they should loose their license for not stopping it until there is a rule change. If you allow a non-compliant car to run knowing full well its not compliant then you shouldn&#39;t be an official...Its BS! Lets all cheat and then will write a rule to cover our asses...WRONG.
[/b]

Thanks Joe, you saved me the trouble of typing it.


It has become common practice for some Miatas to run in ITA with insignificant non compliant issues. For a steward who is charged with making sure the rule book is followed to the letter this can cause some discomfort.[/b]

Dick, if stewards are &#39;uncomfortable&#39; [sic] enforcing the rules, as Joe said, they shouldn&#39;t be officials.

[dickita15]

Bill & Joe, then I assume you are in favor of protests for "chicken s&*%" stuff such as exhaust turndowns or having a restrictor that is not required or allowed. what is next washer bottle protests.

seriously I have no problem with these guys running in A as long as a reasonable effort is made to meet our rules. making it okay to leave the restrictor plate in place I thought was not much of an accomidation.

[RSTPerformance]

Bill & Joe-

I respect your views, however I am with the old guy on this one...

We (SCCA Members) are here for fun, and any steward who doesn&#39;t recognise that I don&#39;t want to work with, nor do I want to race when he/she is running the event. I agree that stewards certainly have an obligation to prevent illigal cars from racing, but that is not all they do (they also run the event, and many don&#39;t have time to look for/investigate cars that knowone makes a protest on). As a Steward or a Driver I wont be an @$$ and DQ someone for not using a turn down, or a window vent or any other non safety or non performance modification that made it so they could beat the next guy. If YOU the competitor protested the person, well then we would talk. Stewards are not out to examine every part of every car (we have enough to do already). All that would do is piss off perfectly good people (members) looking to simply have a good time. Basically we don&#39;t look for trouble, we try to resolve issues as fair as possible while continuing to run the event.

I for one never looked at a SM miata running in IT to see if it was legal or not while in IT, and I am sure most others also havn&#39;t (If you have a problem with that then tell me what is or isn&#39;t legal on a FA off the top of your head??? I know I don&#39;t know those rules. IT & SM is not the main or only concern of a steward believe it or not). If a driver had come to me about any car I certainly would have/will investigate, but I have never herd any at track complaints.


Raymond "If drivers are &#39;uncomfortable&#39; [sic] enforcing the rules, they shouldn&#39;t be complaining. :014: " Blethen

PS: I bet 90% of the cars that run at an SCCA event are non-compliant...

[Joe Harlan]

Bill & Joe-

I respect your views, however I am with the old guy on this one...

We (SCCA Members) are here for fun, and any steward who doesn&#39;t recognise that I don&#39;t want to work with, nor do I want to race when he/she is running the event. I agree that stewards certainly have an obligation to prevent illigal cars from racing, but that is not all they do (they also run the event, and many don&#39;t have time to look for/investigate cars that knowone makes a protest on). As a Steward or a Driver I wont be an @$$ and DQ someone for not using a turn down, or a window vent or any other non safety or non performance modification that made it so they could beat the next guy. If YOU the competitor protested the person, well then we would talk. Stewards are not out to examine every part of every car (we have enough to do already). All that would do is piss off perfectly good people (members) looking to simply have a good time. Basically we don&#39;t look for trouble, we try to resolve issues as fair as possible while continuing to run the event.

I for one never looked at a SM miata running in IT to see if it was legal or not while in IT, and I am sure most others also havn&#39;t (If you have a problem with that then tell me what is or isn&#39;t legal on a FA off the top of your head??? I know I don&#39;t know those rules. IT & SM is not the main or only concern of a steward believe it or not). If a driver had come to me about any car I certainly would have/will investigate, but I have never herd any at track complaints.
Raymond "If drivers are &#39;uncomfortable&#39; [sic] enforcing the rules, they shouldn&#39;t be complaining. :014: " Blethen
[/b]


whaooooo there raymond with ropse colored glasses.....Fun is racing against other cars that are legal and having a certian amount of competition in a weekend....What is not fun is having to learn ever set of rules and guess if a competitor is legal or not. What is not fun is leaving the track at the end of a weekend with a second place trophy knowing that you may have mmoved up if you were willing to put up a bond on another guy that was just having fun.

I am more than will to protest chicken shit stuff if need be Dick because it is the right thing to do if the rule is in print. I have refused to work on customer cars that weren&#39;t legal so its not a question. The fact is the washer bottle is callled for and you better have it....I am very black and white about these things and rthere is no room foor just having fun when it comes to major violations of the rules. As stated before if its so simple them SM can just use all the IT rules to fit in.

[lateapex911]

Raymond has a good point. To paint all Stewards as "Stewards not worthy" because thay don&#39;t proactively DQ cars for sometimes subtle issues is unfair.

We are a member driven organization, and we race as gentlemen. Pro racing is different, where the Stewards job is to catch cheaters, and enforce the rules...but in club racing, we self police, with the officials assistance. WE write the papers....

Now Stewards DO have the right to write "Requests for Action" (RFAs), but they are not duty bound to do so in every single suspected situation.

My take on Dicks point was that currently we have, in some cases, large numbers of cars that aren&#39;t true ITA cars and they can be taking trophies and finishing positions away from cars that meet the full letter of the class rules (Presumably)...and, perhaps they think, "is this an issue?" and ..."Are the IT guys OK with this??"

Because, in many regions, guys seem to be OK with it. The guys I talked to in SF (5 IT cars, almost 50 double dippers), had no complaints they were willing to share with me. But Stewards may be uncomfortable with it, as on one hand people seem Ok with it, but maybe in reality they aren&#39;t...tough for a Steward to know. It&#39;s definately a weird situation.

But throwing the Stewards under the bus for not making mass DQs is rather unfair.

[RSTPerformance]

whaooooo there raymond with ropse colored glasses.....Fun is racing against other cars that are legal and having a certian amount of competition in a weekend....What is not fun is having to learn ever set of rules and guess if a competitor is legal or not. What is not fun is leaving the track at the end of a weekend with a second place trophy knowing that you may have mmoved up if you were willing to put up a bond on another guy that was just having fun.

I am more than will to protest chicken shit stuff if need be Dick because it is the right thing to do if the rule is in print. I have refused to work on customer cars that weren&#39;t legal so its not a question. The fact is the washer bottle is callled for and you better have it....I am very black and white about these things and rthere is no room foor just having fun when it comes to major violations of the rules. As stated before if its so simple them SM can just use all the IT rules to fit in.
[/b]

Joe-

I definatly respect your view, and your concerns, but I am telling you it is completely IMPOSSIBLE or UNREALISTIC for any Steward to know all the rules of each specific class. If you expected that then we would not have ANY stewards. It is just way to much info and to much to understand. Like I said before thier is more to SCCA events than just SM and IT.

For the first year that NER had SM as a national class they had a specific Steward assigned for the year to the class to ensure compliance and good racing. With that setup I think you should and can expect the Steward to be responsable for the rules. The reality is though that we don&#39;t have enough stewards to assign to each class. If you or someone else wanted to volunteer to be an IT steward in your region then I am sure that you would be welcomed with open arms. Until people volunteer to do that then you can&#39;t expect someone else to do it, thus the reason the organization is designed how it is with competitors self policing the individual classes.

I have been an SIT and/or Steward at 20+ events and I have never had time to walk around and check cars, not even IT cars with which I am familiar with the rules. I don&#39;t know how to make it so you can understand that it just isn&#39;t feasible for a handful (maybe two handfulls) of volunteers (Stewards) to operate an event and nit pick 200+ cars.

Raymond "What is not fun is dealing with people who set expectatins to high and having to learn ever set of rules and having the responsability to proactively determine if a competitor is legal or not in EVERY SCCA CLASS" Blethen

[Joe Harlan]

You and jake both don&#39;t read, I said if the Stewart KNOWINGLY lets a car run that is illegal for the class then they shouldn&#39;t be stewarts....If a competitor knowingly lets a car run illegal then they are almost as guilty as the party running the car.....Sorry boys but if your gonna kiss the tip you may as well take the whole thing you still smoked it....Cheating is cheating period.

Oh and BTW Jake as I stated in most regions there are plenty of opportunities for a SM car to double dip legally with no issues and in the regions that don&#39;t have that then if the numbers are there I am sure it could be done....It again bothers me to think that you are pushing an agenda that will alter IT from what has and continues to be the best multi-marque set of racing classes in SCCA.

[Bill Miller]

You guys for sure don&#39;t get it. One thing is for sure, if I were still racing w/ the SCCA, I&#39;d worry about stewards and guys involved in the rules making process that have such a cavalier attitude about rule compliance.

It&#39;s pretty easy, either you&#39;re legal or you&#39;re not. If you feel that a rule is BS (e.g. washer bottles), there are defined ways to get it changed. IIRC, our gracious host put in a request a couple of years ago to allow for the removal of all the extraneous plastic in the engine bay. Pretty sure that one was approved and the rule was changed. That&#39;s how it works. Doing it any other way is situational ethics.

There are plenty of ways to spin these things, and several people have given examples in this thread.

And if the SM&#39;s want to double dip, let them run in ITE. But they probably don&#39;t want to do that, because they don&#39;t have a shot at a $10 trophy. If it&#39;s all about having a good time, how is it any less of a good time if they run ITE? Too many regions are catering to the SM&#39;s because they bring $$$. Never knew the SCCA was for sale.

[Knestis]

A few thoughts from the last page or so...

A "second level of preparation" isn&#39;t an entirely accurate description of what we&#39;re talking about. It&#39;s actually an entirely different set of rules being wedged into an existing category. It&#39;s not just about the Miata, or even ITA since an allowance like this is the camel&#39;s nose under the tent flap of the entire IT rule set. Before you know it, you&#39;ve got the hairy beast in your bedroll.

If Dickita&#39;s hypothesis (cha cha cha) proves out and this change is the result of someone wanting to make SMs legal in IT simply to eliminate a bunch of cheating ex post facto, then it REALLY does stink. However, I disagree with Joe that the stewards should be the genesis of all actions against illegal cars. Under the CURRENT system and culture, it&#39;s up to us as the entrants but we COUNT ON the stewards to uphold the rules as written - not interpretations that make their lives simpler. We&#39;ve had conversations about this issue manifesting itself in other ways in the past, and THAT should be a point of criticism for those in charge.

The flip side is that I also don&#39;t buy the suggestion (Jake?) that a lack of protests is evidence that we "seem to be OK with [noncompliance]." Who could have read the Protest Story and not been discouraged from participating in that process? It IS supposed to be fun and being the rules cop isn&#39;t. But it should NOT be about enforcement: The point has been well made here that if we really wanted to change the rules, we could try. And I dare say that if the weight of category entrants was behind it, pretty much any change could make it through the process.

MOREOVER, Dick&#39;s further suggestion that puts washer bottle protests on the same level with codifying the inclusion of non-IT cars in IT classes falls way short in my book.

There&#39;s a lot to disagree with here tonight.

Another opportunity for reflection: Would you prefer a system that classes cars based on their on-track performance, considering all factors including driver skill? It would be like run-what-you-brung bracket drags, where you could race your mid-pack ITA car against the most poorly piloted Formula Ford and the best ITC package in the country. Or do you want the classes defined by the mechanical aspects of the car, as has been the case for so long?

Please, ITAC&#39;ers - just help make this issue go away.

K

[charrbq]

I&#39;m getting tired of popcorn. Think I&#39;ll go for a Coke and a hot dog, or maybe nachos. I have a dog in this hunt, but I&#39;m saving him.

[Joe Harlan]

A few thoughts from the last page or so...

A "second level of preparation" isn&#39;t an entirely accurate description of what we&#39;re talking about. It&#39;s actually an entirely different set of rules being wedged into an existing category. It&#39;s not just about the Miata, or even ITA since an allowance like this is the camel&#39;s nose under the tent flap of the entire IT rule set. Before you know it, you&#39;ve got the hairy beast in your bedroll.

If Dickita&#39;s hypothesis (cha cha cha) proves out and this change is the result of someone wanting to make SMs legal in IT simply to eliminate a bunch of cheating ex post facto, then it REALLY does stink. However, I disagree with Joe that the stewards should be the genesis of all actions against illegal cars. Under the CURRENT system and culture, it&#39;s up to us as the entrants but we COUNT ON the stewards to uphold the rules as written - not interpretations that make their lives simpler. We&#39;ve had conversations about this issue manifesting itself in other ways in the past, and THAT should be a point of criticism for those in charge.

The flip side is that I also don&#39;t buy the suggestion (Jake?) that a lack of protests is evidence that we "seem to be OK with [noncompliance]." Who could have read the Protest Story and not been discouraged from participating in that process? It IS supposed to be fun and being the rules cop isn&#39;t. But it should NOT be about enforcement: The point has been well made here that if we really wanted to change the rules, we could try. And I dare say that if the weight of category entrants was behind it, pretty much any change could make it through the process.

MOREOVER, Dick&#39;s further suggestion that puts washer bottle protests on the same level with codifying the inclusion of non-IT cars in IT classes falls way short in my book.

There&#39;s a lot to disagree with here tonight.

Another opportunity for reflection: Would you prefer a system that classes cars based on their on-track performance, considering all factors including driver skill? It would be like run-what-you-brung bracket drags, where you could race your mid-pack ITA car against the most poorly piloted Formula Ford and the best ITC package in the country. Or do you want the classes defined by the mechanical aspects of the car, as has been the case for so long?

Please, ITAC&#39;ers - just help make this issue go away.

K
[/b]

Kirk, I feel honored to have been noticed except I think I am not typing what I am meaning or something. I don&#39;t feel stewarts are responsible to generate all protests but I do feel that a stewart cannot and should not ignore an illegal item when he knows about it.

[dickita15]

Ok this has gotten off point and I apologize for my part in that. Let put the points I have been trying for more simply. These are the truths I believe in.

The latest fastrack declaration is unacceptable.

IT cars have to run IT rules.

I have no problem with SM cars running in IT if they are IT legal.

You can build an SM that is IT legal.

Now is there any spec line addition that the ITAC can make on ITCS Miata spec line that could make crossover easier without compromising the integrity of the IT rules. My suggestion was that we could add that 1.8 cars can run with or without a SM restrictor in order to be more user friendly to these guys and save them the hassle of pulling the restrictor between sessions.
This would be part of OUR rules which are the only rules that we should have to use.

[Bill Miller]

Ok this has gotten off point and I apologize for my part in that. Let put the points I have been trying for more simply. These are the truths I believe in.

The latest fastrack declaration is unacceptable.

IT cars have to run IT rules.

I have no problem with SM cars running in IT if they are IT legal.

You can build an SM that is IT legal.

Now is there any spec line addition that the ITAC can make on ITCS Miata spec line that could make crossover easier without compromising the integrity of the IT rules. My suggestion was that we could add that 1.8 cars can run with or without a SM restrictor in order to be more user friendly to these guys and save them the hassle of pulling the restrictor between sessions.
This would be part of OUR rules which are the only rules that we should have to use.
[/b]

Dick,

While it may seem like semantics, I think it is important. "You can build an SM that is IT legal" would be better stated by saying "You can build a car that is legal for both SM and IT". One of the things I&#39;ve gotten a greater appreciation for, after reading several years of Kirk&#39;s posts, is just how important language is. It may not seem like much, but think about the position that it comes from.

As far as your question goes, the short answer is no, you can&#39;t allow cars from a different category to run in IT w/o compromising the integrity of the IT rules. Look how often the ITS GM Quad 4 rear brake issue is brought up. Nobody seems to know how or when that got slid in, but I have yet to see someone that doesn&#39;t think that it&#39;s a significant departure from the intent of IT.

People know what the rules are up front. You pick the class you want to build for and the car you want to build. You want to run your car in IT, you build it to the IT rules, you want to run your car in SM, you build it to the SM rules. You want to run your car in IT and SM, you build it so that it complies to both sets of rules. And if you decide you want to build a 1.8 car and run it in both ITA and SM, you know up front that you have to swap the RP between sessions.

If these folks want to double dip their cars, let them either build them in such a manner that they&#39;re legal for both categories, or let them go through the exercise of changing them over between sessions. There&#39;s no point in re-typing all the reasons why it&#39;s a bad idea to adulterate the IT rules to allow this current proposal.

However, if it&#39;s going to go through, it should go both ways. All IT-legal Miatas should be able to run in SM, as is, w/ only the addition of a determined amount of lead added. Oh yeah, and that goes for Nationals as well. Float that on the SM board and see how far it goes!

[dickita15]

While it may seem like semantics, I think it is important. "You can build an SM that is IT legal" would be better stated by saying "You can build a car that is legal for both SM and IT". One of the things I&#39;ve gotten a greater appreciation for, after reading several years of Kirk&#39;s posts, is just how important language is. It may not seem like much, but think about the position that it comes from.
[/b]
Point well taken Bill. You have pointed out a better choice of words. I too have learned much from the professor.



As far as your question goes, the short answer is no, you can&#39;t allow cars from a different category to run in IT w/o compromising the integrity of the IT rules.
[/b]
okay that is one for no.



Look how often the ITS GM Quad 4 rear brake issue is brought up. Nobody seems to know how or when that got slid in, but I have yet to see someone that doesn&#39;t think that it&#39;s a significant departure from the intent of IT.
[/b]
that is true though what I am suggesting is not a performance enhancement where the Olds was. Why however do I not hear complaints about the Golf Cup cars in ITB. that is really a closer analogy.

[ddewhurst]

Hey Sweetie, the pop corn is GONE again. :wacko: It would appear the beat is slowing down a bit. :dead_horse:

[jhooten]

At the Sunday race hosted by Lone Star region the SMs in ITA were protested. Outcome, Protest not filed in a timely manner.

[Bill Miller]

that is true though what I am suggesting is not a performance enhancement where the Olds was. Why however do I not hear complaints about the Golf Cup cars in ITB. that is really a closer analogy.
[/b]

While I agree that the Olds/Pontiac deal IS a performance enhancement, the justifications that I&#39;ve heard was that it was done for safety/reliability issues, as the rear drums would fail (not unlike the front hubs on a Rabbit).

As far as the Golf Cup cars, read it a little further, it requires the cars to be built to IT specs. I&#39;m not sure how this got in, but it&#39;s my understanding (and take that for what it&#39;s worth), is that it was done to allow the cars to compete even though they had no VIN #&#39;s. You want to run one of those cars, you have to make sure it meets the same specs as a Mk II Golf that was purchased from a dealer. No allowances for any Golf Cup specific parts (other than the tub). I&#39;m sorry Dick, I don&#39;t see the analogy. Now, if it was something like allowing a Miata BiW (Body in White) to be built into a car that required a VIN #, but the car had to be built to whatever class specs, that would be a similar situation. Note: I am assuming that a BiW does not have a VIN #.

[dickita15]

I am not a VW guy but I thought there was some metal missing from a golf cup car that exceeded the gutting rules of IT. If that is not true then the comparison is a bit weaker.

[lateapex911]

You and jake both don&#39;t read, I said if the Stewart KNOWINGLY lets a car run that is illegal for the class then they shouldn&#39;t be stewarts....If a competitor knowingly lets a car run illegal then they are almost as guilty as the party running the car.....Sorry boys but if your gonna kiss the tip you may as well take the whole thing you still smoked it....Cheating is cheating period.

Oh and BTW Jake as I stated in most regions there are plenty of opportunities for a SM car to double dip legally with no issues and in the regions that don&#39;t have that then if the numbers are there I am sure it could be done....It again bothers me to think that you are pushing an agenda that will alter IT from what has and continues to be the best multi-marque set of racing classes in SCCA. [/b]

Joe, with all due respect, I would be pleased if you could be a bit more respectful, and leave the barbs and insults out, as I don&#39;t see where i sent any your way..

Please show me where I have "pushed an agenda" here... I&#39;ll save you some trouble. Here are my qualifying comments from one of my few posts on this matter:

I
think that those "for" the concept think that:[/b]
bla bla bla...(repeated major points made by others
and......


I think that those &#39;against" feel that:

[/b]bla bla bla, (repeated major points made by others...except there was , if anything, more of these and more detail..

Facts:
You don&#39;t know who "created " this concept, who discussed it, who pushed for or against it, or how it came to Fastrack. if you do, please share for the edification of all.

You also have no idea of my stance on the concept, and have no knowledge of my vote or position on it.

Finally, you also shouldn&#39;t apply your concept of my beliefs to my comments about the workings of stewards. I was merely trying to illustrate Dicks point, and pointing out that Stewards exist to run events...racing events, and at the risk of sounding like Mattberg, they serve the interests of the racer. If they see 25 SMs in ITA with missing vent windows, for example, and nobody in ITA is saying anything, nobody is grumbling, and nobody is writing paper, I bet (and I think this was what Dick was saying..he&#39;s a lot closer to the tech community than I) they wonder if throwing 25 guys out is the thing to do. You feel that it is the thing to do, and that they are remiss in their duties, and shouldn&#39;t be allowed to be officials, as they are "knowingly" allowing non compliant cars to race.




........ then they should loose their license for not stopping it until there is a rule change. If you allow a non-compliant car to run knowing full well its not compliant then you shouldn&#39;t be an official...Its BS!
[/b]

And that&#39;s fine...it&#39;s your opinion, and I respect that.