October Fastrack

[Dave Zaslow]

FYI - October Fastrack

http://scca.com/documents/Fastrack/09/10/09-fastrack-oct.pdf

SUGGESTED RULES FOR NEXT YEAR

The following subjects will be referred to the Board of Directors for approval. Address all comments, both for and against, to the Club Racing Board. It is the BoD’s policy to withhold voting on a rules change until there has been input from the membership on the presented rules. Member input is suggested and encouraged.

Please send your comments to [email protected].

Improved Touring

Item 1. Effective 1/1/10: Change section 9.1.3.D.1.a.6 as follows:
The engine management computer may be altered or replaced. A throttle position sensor and its wiring may be added or replaced. A MAP or MAF sensor and its wiring may be added. Other existing sensors, excluding the stock air metering device, may be substituted for equivalent units.

Item 2. Effective 1/1/10: Change section 9.3.5 as follows:
Four wheel (All-Wheel) drive is prohibited except in Showroom Stock, Touring, Improved Touring, and Super Touring.

CLUB RACING TECHNICAL BULLETIN

All changes are effective 10/1/09 unless otherwise noted.

Improved Touring

ITR
1. Honda S2000 (00-02), p. 344, Add the 2003 model year.
2. Classify the Honda S2000 (04-05), effective 1/1/10, in ITR as follows:
(can't copy the chart, sorry)
ITS
1. Honda Prelude SH (97-00), p. 348, Add the 2001 model year.
2. Honda Prelude non-SH (97-00), p. 348, Add the 2001 model year.
ITB
1. Classify the 92-95 Honda Civic DX (2,3 & 4 door) in ITB as follows:
(can't copy the chart, sorry)

[Knestis]

...so the prohibition on "adjustments" is retroactive back to recommendations in response to members' requests that were acted on by the ITAC as early as January of this year.

Rock on.

I now officially feel l like crap for playing a role in deceiving the members that their requests to review IT weights would get fair consideration.

K

[seckerich]

At least you got out before the castration happened.:smilie_pokal:

[GTIspirit]

Improved Touring

Item 1. Effective 1/1/10: Change section 9.1.3.D.1.a.6 as follows:
The engine management computer may be altered or replaced. A throttle position sensor and its wiring may be added or replaced. A MAP or MAF sensor and its wiring may be added. Other existing sensors, excluding the stock air metering device, may be substituted for equivalent units.


Well, I suppose allowing the addition of a MAF sensor, and not just a MAP sensor is a tiny step in the right direction. But I'm disappointed that there was no mention of correcting for the gross inequality brought about by allowing the open ECU rule, namely that some later model cars are better poised to take advantage and older cars are saddled with constraints posed by their archaic sensor set. But I'm just :dead_horse: Sigh.

[Knestis]

Well, I suppose allowing the addition of a MAF sensor, and not just a MAP sensor is a tiny step in the right direction. But I'm disappointed that there was no mention of correcting for the gross inequality brought about by allowing the open ECU rule, namely that some later model cars are better poised to take advantage and older cars are saddled with constraints posed by their archaic sensor set. But I'm just :dead_horse: Sigh.

But the only way to remedy that is to allow lots of alternate hardware, right? That's a huge slippery slope to unintended consequences.

K

[Ron Earp]

.
I now officially feel l like crap for playing a role in deceiving the members that their requests to review IT weights would get fair consideration.
K

You only deceived someone if you told them one thing while knowing another was likely to happen. That isn't how I understood it went down - all of you fully believed that it'd happen therefore you didn't deceive anyone.

[lateapex911]

You only deceived someone if you told them one thing while knowing another was likely to happen. That isn't how I understood it went down - all of you fully believed that it'd happen therefore you didn't deceive anyone.

Heck, it was happening....

So, all those changes got rejected?? I didn't know that.

[bamfp]

I sent in a request a year ago. Waited and waited. Then I heard the change had been sent off to the CRB for approval. They sat on it for a few months. Now this. Am I happy No. It was worth the try whether or not a change was going to get made or not.

Kirk I do not feel deceived. You had no idea this was going to happen. I have very little faith in anything lately that SCCA does.

Back down to the garage to see what I can do to make it go faster.

Blake Meredith

[Knestis]

Heck, it was happening....

So, all those changes got rejected?? I didn't know that.

Andy indicated - or I misunderstood - that the backlog was voted on during his "sell us the idea of the ITB do-over" CRB call, after the August ITAC con-call. I probably just misconstrued that that meant they had been approved, and/or my assumption that they would appear in the October Fastrack (had they been approved) is faulty.

Regardless, at this point I think we're pretty well dicked and that the only possible solution probably requries more juice than I have in the Club. How depressing.

K

[lateapex911]

Andy indicated - or I misunderstood - that the backlog was voted on during his "sell us the idea of the ITB do-over" CRB call, after the August ITAC con-call. I probably just misconstrued that that meant they had been approved, and/or my assumption that they would appear in the October Fastrack (had they been approved) is faulty.

Regardless, at this point I think we're pretty well dicked and that the only possible solution probably requires more juice than I have in the Club. How depressing.

K

That's what I thought. Actually, I thought that the whole backlog had been approved except the Audi. Maybe it's just a dropped ball. between the CRB and the Fastrack transcription

[quadzjr]

just curious how did the honda get through the CRB? I am happy to hear it got moved to ITB.

[Knestis]

just curious how did the honda get through the CRB? I am happy to hear it got moved to ITB.

Uh, yeah. That was my "ah-ha!" moment that left me figuring that the rest of the PILE of recommendations just got ignored. I'll wait to be proven wrong but right at this point, I'm thinking the CRB did a pick-and-choose from among the recommendations, based on what they liked. That doesn't bode well for future consistency.

K

[seckerich]

From discussions I have had this evening now is the time to call your BOD members to see what is up. If not, quit complaining.:D

[Greg Amy]

I can't help but chuckle at watching the ITAC/CRB knee-jerking to competitors loop-holing the rules...as if it'll make a difference...as if you think you can stay on top if it...

Case in point: you just opened up another truck-sized loophole. And, no, I won't explain it to you. But you can be assured I will take advantage of it.

Sigh...

[Andy Bettencourt]

I can't help but chuckle at watching the ITAC/CRB knee-jerking to competitors loop-holing the rules...as if it'll make a difference...as if you think you can stay on top if it...

Case in point: you just opened up another truck-sized loophole. And, no, I won't explain it to you. But you can be assured I will take advantage of it.

Sigh...

Thanks again for the help. Team player.:shrug:

[Greg Amy]

Thanks again for the help. Team player.:shrug:
I am a team player, Andy. It's YOU who are the one(s) that think you got it all figured out, that you can out-fox the foxes. It's YOU that think you're smarter than everyone else. As I recall, I replied to 100% of the emails you sent to me asking me what I think the proper re-write of the rule should be...oh, wait, that's right, YOU DIDN'T ASK, you just chose to go off on a wild-assed tangent based on Internet forum blather!!!

So the next time you want to publicly tee-off on someone that figured something out that you didn't - and trust me, this ain't the first time, and it ain't gonna be the last - you might want to re-think that tee shot. Maybe try a 3-wood instead?

Read. Then re-read. Especially Tip #1.

http://www.improvedtouring.com/forums/showthread.php?t=22779

[JeffYoung]

Or, just tell us what the loophole you perceive is and help us write a better rule.

[Andy Bettencourt]

I am a team player, Andy. It's YOU who are the one(s) that think you got it all figured out, that you can out-fox the foxes. It's YOU that think you're smarter than everyone else. As I recall, I replied to 100% of the emails you sent to me asking me what I think the proper re-write of the rule should be...oh, wait, that's right, YOU DIDN'T ASK, you just chose to go off on a wild-assed tangent based on Internet forum blather!!!

So the next time you want to publicly tee-off on someone that figured something out that you didn't - and trust me, this ain't the first time, and it ain't gonna be the last - you might want to re-think that tee shot. Maybe try a 3-wood instead?

Read. Then re-read. Especially Tip #1.

http://www.improvedtouring.com/forums/showthread.php?t=22779

OR - we are just trying our best and you are being a jerk.

I will make sure to run everything we do through you so you can catch our screw ups before they happen. Given your vast knowledge of everything and anything, a CRB position for you would help all of Club Racing.

:rolleyes:

[Z3_GoCar]

Or, just tell us what the loophole you perceive is and help us write a better rule.

It's probably the allowance of a second MAF.... There was a protest at a race in SFR that disqualified a racer because he was running two MAF's, the stock one and a second for his aftermarket ecu. Greg's probably planning on putting them in tandem then closing off the opening to the stock MAF for as much air flow as he can pull in :D

[Andy Bettencourt]

It's probably the allowance of a second MAF.... There was a protest at a race in SFR that disqualified a racer because he was running two MAF's, the stock one and a second for his aftermarket ecu. Greg's probably planning on putting them in tandem then closing off the opening to the stock MAF for as much air flow as he can pull in :D

Hopefully Greg will let us know where we screwed the pooch but in your example, there is still no allowance to modify the physical characteristics of the OEM MAF. It was our intent to make sure the car breathed through the factory AFM, MAF, etc. no matter what you wanted to 'add' that could talk with your ECU.

[Z3_GoCar]

Hopefully Greg will let us know where we screwed the pooch but in your example, there is still no allowance to modify the physical characteristics of the OEM MAF. It was our intent to make sure the car breathed through the factory AFM, MAF, etc. no matter what you wanted to 'add' that could talk with your ECU.

I know that's what you intended. I'm just guessing at how Greg might take advantage of this new allowance. He does have more experience than I do at doing that.

[StephenB]

Personally I am in SCCA to race not just to find loopholes and tricks to make my car faster. If I wanted that I would go do HPDE or track days... Anyone can look at anything on my car and I will try to explain anything on my car. I am here to race wheel to wheel not just because I have a bigger wallet or a better loophole.

AND NO spec class is not for me either... I like the challenge of different cars with different advantages around the track.

Stephen

[frnkhous]

After rereading the rules multiple times the only way I can see to use the change in the rule would be that if a car's intake restriction is the maf unit you could legally run 2 in parralel. Unless i'm missing something in the rules to prevent it.

[almskidd]

FYI - October Fastrack
1. Classify the 92-95 Honda Civic DX (2,3 & 4 door) in ITB as follows:
(can't copy the chart, sorry)

The reclassification spec line of the Civic DX into ITB has an error in the column for wheelbase. The Fastrack has the wheel base for the 2 (coupe) 3 (hatchback) door at 101.3" and the 4 door (Sedan) at 103.2". Every source of information I have seen has the wheel base of the 2 door coupe at 103.2” (same as the 4 door) and the 3 door as the only chassis with a wheel base of 101.3”. I can see where the mistake could of happened. In the ‘92 civic manual Honda calls the 3-door a “2-door hatchback” because Honda did not sell a 2 door coupe in model year ‘92. During model year ‘93 they introduced the 2 door coupe (with the same wheel base as the 4 door 103.2”). My ’94 civic manual included the 2-door coupe, 3 door hatchback, and the 4-door sedan body specs. The Coupe and sedan was 103.2" while the hatchback is 101.3". I'll double check tonight and post scans tomorrow.

Double checked.. need scanner