November FasTrack is out

[planet6racing]

http://www.scca.org/documents/Fastrack/08/08-fastrack-nov.pdf

So much for fixing the Saturn classification for FP in November... Luckily I found a new hobby that will keep me from working on the car for a while.

[Greg Amy]

Interesting SM proposed changes. Give 'em inch, and all that...? Interesting how such seemingly pointless items as the plastic bump spacers hae to be spec'd to +/- 0.01" ... Sorry, kids, you brought it on yourselves. And the R888 tire from now on? Not surprising, I suppose.

And the Court of Appeals on the ITB Alfa? WITF was that guy thinking? 'I've been running for four years this way, and other cars race this way, too!' is not even CLOSE to a reason to appeal. I'm pleased to see his appeal fee was retained...what a tool. Well done, Mr. Bitterman, we need more like you.

Unfortunately, given no further notice, it appears our request for rules interpretation on the CAI intakes will not happen prior to the ARRC. This should make for an interesting situation come November... - GA

[spnkzss]

Unfortunately, given no further notice, it appears our request for rules interpretation on the CAI intakes will not happen prior to the ARRC. This should make for an interesting situation come November... - GA

Crying Shame.

[Dave Gomberg]

http://www.scca.org/documents/Fastrack/08/08-fastrack-nov.pdf

So much for fixing the Saturn classification for FP in November... Luckily I found a new hobby that will keep me from working on the car for a while.
Sorry about that, but we didn't have our regular CRB meeting (we were a bit busy at the Runoffs). We will meet in about 10 days to take care of a bunch of things.

Dave

[planet6racing]

Dave:

Thank you. I'm sorry if I'm coming across as an unappreciative idiot. I'll look forward to next month, then.

[Ron Earp]

Dang, I guess they still didn't have time to think about the Pony Car proposal for ITR. I'm sure they will get to it one day.....

Lighter flywheels for 1.6L SMs? Holy opening a can of worms.....

[924Guy]

Lighter flywheels for 1.6L SMs? Holy opening a can of worms.....

Two words... Membership Driven? :happy204:

[1stGenBoy]

[quote=
Unfortunately, given no further notice, it appears our request for rules interpretation on the CAI intakes will not happen prior to the ARRC. This should make for an interesting situation come November... - GA[/quote]

Easy guys. I spoke with one of the letter writers regarding this and we HAVE NOT recieved a letter on this. It was apparently sent correctly to the CRB but as the letter appears to be asking for a rules interpretation it WOULD NOT come to the IT Committee. I told the person this and they were going to check with SCCA on the status of the letter.

[JeffYoung]

Good lord, run AWAY from Spec Miata.


Two words... Membership Driven? :happy204:

[Greg Amy]

...as the letter appears to be asking for a rules interpretation it WOULD NOT come to the IT Committee.
That is correct.

A GCR 8.1.4 interpretation request goes directly to a convened Court of Appeals (with consultation to the CRB for rules interpretation, just as did the one in this month's Fastrack in regards to Formula Continental (page 7, the reason our CAI issue came to mind when I read the Fastrack...)

On that note, I cannot EVER remember seeing a GCR 8.1.4 result published in Fastrack. Glad to see it happen; personally, I think they should all be published for the benefit of the membership, regardless of result. - GA

[Knestis]

Dang, I guess they still didn't have time to think about the Pony Car proposal for ITR. I'm sure they will get to it one day.....

Can't blame the board for that - it's still in the ITAC.

K

[Dave Gomberg]

Dave:

Thank you. I'm sorry if I'm coming across as an unappreciative idiot. I'll look forward to next month, then.
I didn't mean to imply you were unappreciative or an idiot (or both :)). FYI, what was intended was that the SL2 be classified as Level 2, at 2235 lbs. base weight, with 450 cam lift, 11:1 CR and track 61 inches front, 60.2 inches rear.

Dave

[Greg Amy]

A GCR 8.1.4 interpretation request goes directly to a convened Court of Appeals...
I received some corrected info via email. An 8.1.4 request goes to a "first court" (not a Court of Appeals), itself comprised of 3-4 Executive Stewards, who will make the initial ruling on the request. The Court of Appeals comes in if you wish to appeal the first court's decision.

In either/both case(s), the CRB may be contacted for input.

Greg

[ddewhurst]

***Interesting how such seemingly pointless items as the plastic bump spacers hae to be spec'd to +/- 0.01" ... Sorry, kids, you brought it on yourselves.***

Greg, do you think it would be any different if the IT classes went National? Being that your being harsh towards Spec Miata what would you make the tolerance of this spacer for IT cars? Everything has a tolerance.:D

I could make a comment about the delrin spacer .03 +/-.01 except that the comment would fall with the other comments I'v made that as long as there is no lower shock bushing to allow compliance for the shock rod to the shock hat the crap will continue to fail.

[Greg Amy]

...do you think it would be any different if the IT classes went National?
Don't see how being "National" or not makes it OK (or more likely) to cheat...

Everything has a tolerance.:D Especially patience. And Spec'ers found that limit pretty quickly...

[John Nesbitt]

On that note, I cannot EVER remember seeing a GCR 8.1.4 result published in Fastrack. Glad to see it happen; personally, I think they should all be published for the benefit of the membership, regardless of result. - GA

There is a rationale for not publishing a positive rules interpretation. If someone comes with a better mousetrap which is compliant, then his preparation secret is maintained by not publishing.

Negative interpretations (ie. the proposed gizmo is not compliant), such as the one in the current Fastrack are published in order to save others from making the same error.

[planet6racing]

I didn't mean to imply you were unappreciative or an idiot (or both :)). FYI, what was intended was that the SL2 be classified as Level 2, at 2235 lbs. base weight, with 450 cam lift, 11:1 CR and track 61 inches front, 60.2 inches rear.

Dave

Well, I can be a little bit of both... :D Thank you for the information. Any hint on the wheel size? The published one said 15X6, but a comparable car (CRX Si) has 15X7. I'm really hoping for the 15X7s...

[Greg Amy]

There is a rationale for not publishing a positive rules interpretation...
John, that seems reasonable. - GA

[Dave Gomberg]

... Any hint on the wheel size? The published one said 15X6, but a comparable car (CRX Si) has 15X7. I'm really hoping for the 15X7s...
I think that was just overlooked and it will probably happen. Someone else wrote about that and some other items. When the PAC looks at it, we'll get it all straightened out. Watch for this in the December Fastrack.

Dave

[ddewhurst]

***Don't see how being "National" or not makes it OK (or more likely cheat...***

***Especially patience. And Spec'ers found that limit pretty quickly...***

No one said it's ok to cheat. As you well know things change in a hurry when a class becomes National. The cheating going on in IT Regional don't make headlines just like the cheating going on in Regional SM don't make the headlines.

EDIT: When things in IT are found in the gray are the rules get revised. I could start a list of rule revisions or shall I say cheat revisions.

[Andy Bettencourt]

Interesting SM proposed changes. Give 'em inch, and all that...? Interesting how such seemingly pointless items as the plastic bump spacers hae to be spec'd to +/- 0.01" ... Sorry, kids, you brought it on yourselves. And the R888 tire from now on? Not surprising, I suppose.

This happened because the 90-97 cars are now allowed a "99+" upper shock mounts. In order for them to fit and be equal, they specified some paramters.


And the Court of Appeals on the ITB Alfa? WITF was that guy thinking? 'I've been running for four years this way, and other cars race this way, too!' is not even CLOSE to a reason to appeal. I'm pleased to see his appeal fee was retained...what a tool. Well done, Mr. Bitterman, we need more like you.
Here, here. +1.
[/quote]

[Daryl]

Negative interpretations (ie. the proposed gizmo is not compliant), such as the one in the current Fastrack are published in order to save others from making the same error.

Or....when someone is aware of something that somebody else is doing that they don't feel is compliant and want to get some kind of clarification prior to an expensive protest. Get the interpretation, have it published.

The creative interpreter may decide to become compliant without any further action required. If he doesn't, your protest should be more likely to stick.

As far as how quickly things CAN move. Take a look at the FF wheels bit. That came up on Monday at the RubOffs.

[Ron Earp]

Can't blame the board for that - it's still in the ITAC.
K

Wow. I had no idea.

I think it was submitted in January of 2008, with drafts/emails about it circulating among the ITAC in November/December of 2007. Have to check notes.

Ron

[CaptainWho]

Am I the only one that's, um, disturbed by the COA case referenced as William Emery vs. SOM (08-17-NE)?

Mr. Emery admitted that he continued around the course and came upon red flags at several corners prior to coming to a stop.

That's pretty scary, both as a corner worker and as a driver. If the 'net weren't busy from the incident triggering the red flag condition, it'd sure as hell be burning up with this! I have to wonder how many stopped cars he passed while negotiating "several corners" of red flags.

When the red flag flies, the risk of having first responders in harm's way goes way up. I'd hate to have to dodge someone doing this crap while I'm tring to extract a driver, or suppress a fire while someone while someone else extracts him.

While I agree with most of the COA's "reworked" punishment, I wish they'd have required him to attend driver's school again.

[924Guy]

Yes, that was pretty scary to hear about... wasn't there etc, but sounded like that guy was really in over his head from the description of the event! I agree, driver's school sounds like a bare acceptable minimum!