April Fastrack

[JoshS]

Published today.

http://www.scca.com/documents/Fastrack/10/10-fastrack-april.pdf

[quadzjr]

So with the letter sumbited.. about the process..

"Thank you for your input. The CRB has opened communication channels with the ITAC. The ITAC chairman will communicate
with the membership."

is this any different than before? We talk to ITAC then they talk to CRB? is there guidlines in place fo rthe CRB to listen and consider openly to ITAC decisions?

looks like we have our first AWD.. and from the quick look at it, the weight seems right.

[jjjanos]

"Thank you for your input. The CRB has opened communication channels with the ITAC. The ITAC chairman will communicate with the membership."

Translation: We are going to ignore the membership and continue to do what we want.





is this any different than before? We talk to ITAC then they talk to CRB? is there guidlines in place fo rthe CRB to listen and consider openly to ITAC decisions?

No. The CRB is free to ignore ITAC recommendations/requests. Though, now that the Vichy ITAC is installed, I'm certain the ITAC and CRB will be of one mind.

[lateapex911]

New rule:


Seat mounting
Merideth/Sheridan, motion to approve the following GCR change: Approved: Butler, Creighton, Gordy, Kephart, Langlotz, Lewis, Lybarger, Merideth, Noble, Sheridan, Wannarka. Abstain: Patullo Effective immediately 3/9/10.
To allow secure mounting of racing seats in categories where a limited number of cage attachment points are allowed, the CRB recommends the following change.
In 9.3.41, add a new second paragraph as follows: Mounting structures for racing seats may attach to the floor, cage and or center tunnel. Seat mounting points forward of the main hoop, between the center line of the car and the driver’s side door bar and rearward of the front edge of the seat bottom are not considered cage attachment points in classes with limitations on the number of attachments.

That's us IT guys.. So, with that, a number of cars I know are now legal, and the way cars are built will change. How does this rule line up with NASA?

[lateapex911]

Translation: We are going to ignore the membership and continue to do what we want.





No. The CRB is free to ignore ITAC recommendations/requests. Though, now that the Vichy ITAC is installed, I'm certain the ITAC and CRB will be of one mind.

Well, that was an interesting Fastrack.
On one hand I can see that there has been an effort for the responses to be more than "yes" or "no. That's something the old ITAC was working on. And that's good. Up to a point.

On the other hand, I can see it's being used when the CRB wants to use it. Case in point, the 8 letters written in protest of the CRB ITAC blow up. The letters are listed and the summation is "CRB-ITAC relationship", which tells the reader who knows nothing of what transpired, exactly nothing.
Then FURTHER, the response is very misleading. "Communication has been opened" ?!?!?!?! As if to say that CRB/ITAC communication was closed before!?!? That's really wrong. Communication was open, for sure. But the communication the ITAC was getting was inconsistent, flip flopped and was at times misrepresented.

It also states that the "Chairman will communicate". This I take to be a new limitation on public discussion, in that only the Chairman is allowed to communicate.

Thankfully the Chairman is Josh. But, it's still a gag order to my way of thinking.

Finally, (not really, but ...;) ) the response to the guy asking for the Golf 2.0 weight in ITA to be reviewed made me chuckle. By the Process the cars (1.8 and 2.0 Golfs) are heavy. (The 2.0 is 2475, about 70 heavy IIRC..I'd have to dig up my notes to be sure) During the con call I was on where the cars were discussed (Our recommendation to adjust them had been rejected by the CRB ). The CRB cited the displacement as being key. They stated the cars compared well to other similar cars in the class. When pressed, they looked through the GCR, and, in the case of the 2.0, they used a Toyota with a 2.0 engine (2615lbs) as a justification that the 2.0 at 2475 was fine, and didn't need to be changed. (Horsepower be damned) As a matter of fact, they stated the car "Is competitive", that it had "Won the ARRC"*, and that it was actually a bit light in their eyes.

NOW they cite HP as the determining factor, and compare it to the 1.8.
It's this kind of story changing inconsistent behavior that got the ITAC all confused, and created the divide.

Further, they trot out the Great Reorg, and state that it was considered fine at that point.

This is the SAME CRB that, at the time of the Great Reorg, advised the ITAC, and was complicit with the ITAC, in creating a "Top 20 (plus minus)" list of the worst offenders, and it was understood at the time that IF the GR went through, we'd see how it played, and take a look at the other cars that weren't AS BAD later. The entire goal was to get some changes made, NOT to do EVEY car ..and NOT recommending a car for adjustment was NOT saying it that it was on Process.

But now it's convenient to trot that out. Which is very misleading.
:shrug:

*No lie, it did, FOURTEEN years ago. Yea, THAT's relevant.

[Marcus Miller]

New rule:



That's us IT guys.. So, with that, a number of cars I know are now legal, and the way cars are built will change. How does this rule line up with NASA?


For PT, I believe they have a maximum of 8 points; ask Ken Brewer on the brown board, he'll know off the top of his head.

[GKR_17]

"Consideration is being given to revisiting ITR as a whole during 2010."

What's going on here?

[JoshS]

"Consideration is being given to revisiting ITR as a whole during 2010."

What's going on here?

We're 3 full years into ITR competition. We just want to follow up and make sure that the weights are consistent and that there are no glaring errors.

The ITAC is still trying to get caught up on letters, but we'll get to this.

[Knestis]

"Errors" being operationalized as...?

K

[frnkhous]

We're 3 full years into ITR competition. We just want to follow up and make sure that the weights are consistent and that there are no glaring errors.

The ITAC is still trying to get caught up on letters, but we'll get to this.

Umm I'm willing to guess there could be some glaring errors... but I'm not sure how anybody thinks they are going to find them any easier now than they could have 3 years ago, or when a new car was classed. You certainly can't tell anything by ontrack performance yet(New CRB/ITAC position)... I'm 99% sure an RX-8 can be made to handle better than a second gen rx-7 of similar weight, I know for sure it makes about 30 more whp in IT trim and can/and is allowed to in ITR fit a bigger wheel and tire than ITS... yet huffmaster went faster than anyone in IT at the arrc. You have no DATA to go by. Period.(unless someone has offered up dyno sheets for multiple similar builds showing something doesn't make expected power) Not to mention that nobody has yet tried to build a serious front wheel drive car and see how it stacks up at all(they could all be off)

Only thing I can think of is that the v6 mustang is probably not going to be able to make weight... maybe not within 50lbs with a 180lbs driver. However, several more are being built I believe so it would seem foolish to change those cars before more people come to that conclusion.

[JoshS]

Umm I'm willing to guess there could be some glaring errors... but I'm not sure how anybody thinks they are going to find them any easier now than they could have 3 years ago, or when a new car was classed.

Well, for example, it appears that the Mitsu 3000GT/Dodge Stealth didn't get any sort of break for FWD, although it should have. Just want to do a complete audit.

[JeffYoung]

Kirk, it appears some process factors were not correctly applied to ITR cars -- some of the weights can't be backed into using the process.

As I understand it, those are the errors we would be looking at. Josh's example of the 3000GT and Stealth are prime ones.


"Errors" being operationalized as...?

K

[Knestis]

Well, for example, it appears that the Mitsu 3000GT/Dodge Stealth didn't get any sort of break for FWD, although it should have. Just want to do a complete audit.

So it sounds like "error" as in, not to the process that should have been used when they were initially listed...

K

[StephenB]

We're 3 full years into ITR competition. We just want to follow up and make sure that the weights are consistent and that there are no glaring errors.

The ITAC is still trying to get caught up on letters, but we'll get to this.

Seriously? Already we are messing around... Is it documented that a member requested a specific car to be looked at?
Stephen

[GKR_17]

Not to mention that nobody has yet tried to build a serious front wheel drive car and see how it stacks up at all(they could all be off)

Paul Dubinski and Mark Masters have their "Part Time" Acura RSX moving very well now. I've heard of another in Ohio, but haven't seen it.

[mossaidis]

use the formula Daniel-san.... use the formula...

[lateapex911]

Paul Dubinski and Mark Masters have their "Part Time" Acura RSX moving very well now. I've heard of another in Ohio, but haven't seen it.

I think I met those guys at VIR last fall?. NICE guys. SWEET looking car!

[Ron Earp]

Only thing I can think of is that the v6 mustang is probably not going to be able to make weight... maybe not within 50lbs with a 180lbs driver. However, several more are being built I believe so it would seem foolish to change those cars before more people come to that conclusion.

The car was run through the process and a weight comes out. At that point a decision is made to possibly drop it a class at a higher weight, however, for that car, and a few others in that 190hp range, the S weight is just too high compared to other cars in the class and the mechnical aspects of the car in question. 26XX in R or around 3000+ in S, a bit of a tweener.

I weigh 175 lbs and if I can get my Mustang to be within 50lbs of weight I'll be plenty happy. I need to lose 20 lbs anyhow, that'd make it even closer! :)

[JeffYoung]

That's the one. It is a nice car, and nice guys.


I think I met those guys at VIR last fall?. NICE guys. SWEET looking car!

[GKR_17]

I think I met those guys at VIR last fall?. NICE guys. SWEET looking car!

They found somewhere near four seconds at VIR since last season. Quite impressive.

[JeffYoung]

I think that is right -- they ran a 2:12 or something?

Grafton, how fast has your 944S2 gone? I don't think Ricky has been under 2:15 yet, although I know he is still doing a lot of development work. Didn't Skeen get a ITR 325 in the 11s?

[GKR_17]

Our best at VIR is a 2'12.5. Ben hit a 2'12.7 at the March race, while Mark got the Acrua to 2'13.3. Mike Skeen ran a 2'10 in Moorefield's E36 BMW last year in qualifying (2'11.2 is his true, but not yet recorded lap record). We all have a lot of improvement to go it seems.

[Super Swift]

Skeen is my hero! He passed me in the up hill esses on that 2:10 lap.

I'd love to run against him there again: Makes me feel all inadequate. Maybe one day I'll be cool like him. (We have found some time since we raced him but only about half of what we need.)

(On a side note I think ITR is perfect except for one Mazda car that needs weight. :rolleyes: )

Ben Robertson

[lateapex911]

Skeen is my hero! He passed me in the up hill esses on that 2:10 lap.

I'd love to run against him there again: Makes me feel all inadequate. Maybe one day I'll be cool like him. (We have found some time since we raced him but only about half of what we need.)

(O:rolleyes:n a side note I think ITR is perfect except for one Mazda car that needs weight. )

Ben Robertson

based on?

[Super Swift]

Might have something to do with it being the only car with an assumed negative power gain when built to IT spec. Or maybe that nasty gear box that is supposedly to weak to run a single race. Or it might be I don't like how it turned the "process" political.

Jake I know I lost the fight with that car, but I don't plan on stopping my complaining.

[Andy Bettencourt]

Might have something to do with it being the only car with an assumed negative power gain when built to IT spec. Or maybe that nasty gear box that is supposedly to weak to run a single race. Or it might be I don't like how it turned the "process" political.

Jake I know I lost the fight with that car, but I don't plan on stopping my complaining.

Ben,

Complaining is never a problem but it would be great if you used some facts to back up your statements. Using LOADS of data from GAC to Pro Formula Mazda, 215whp potential was used. That is a POSITIVE power adder of 10%.

The Process didn't turn political at all. The RX-8, like many other cars were treated the same. Take a step back and admit to yourself that it's the facts.

[Knestis]

What Andy said - again. The ITAC busted its collective ass on that decision because we KNEW it was going to be examined under an electron microscope. It's squeaky clean.

K

PS to Andy - Did you get your ITAC severance check from "M" yet? Mine came just in time to pay off the house last month. ;)

[lateapex911]

Ben to further what Andy said, not only did we have a bunch of data, but the data was from NON interested parties, AND it was very consistent. On top of that, we used the higher extremes of that data (an actual diservice to the car). No allowance was given for the transmission that is reported to be suspect.

Further, that evidence was brought in, and vetted by the entire ITAC, and then voted on. I have the voting records, person by person. To me, that one car was perhaps the apogee of the Process, and now that the CRB has pushed back, we may never see a weight so properly processed again.

It's a high water mark for the IT car classification system, if you ask me.

Too bad that System has been abandoned.

Complain if you want Ben, but saying it has a negative power factor is either a joke lacking a smiley, or sour grapes and a misrepresentation...you KNOW it didn't get a negative factor.

[GKR_17]

No allowance was given for the transmission that is reported to be suspect.

There is one of my major complaints on this car. The transmission should have been taken into account. The ratios are phenomenal in that box, and it negates the 'low torque' (100lb deduction) of this motor.

[RSTPerformance]

Seriously? Already we are messing around... Is it documented that a member requested a specific car to be looked at?
Stephen

Stephen you should know by now that the CRB is a piss poor group of people who have absolutely no idea how to research decisions properly or understand that consistency has something to do with member support and/or growth. The "rules" will change from month to month until we change the members of that committee. Unfortunately those members are not voted on so we have not options as members to replace them.

Raymond "not bitching, just being a realist when it comes to how SCCA handles member input and change" Blethen

PS: I really need to get that VTS sheet into the ITAC to see how the CRB deals with the Audi 4000 Quattro... According to the process it should weigh a good 200lbs less than the FWD version so it will be interesting to see how the ITAC and CRB handle that one:shrug:! If you have the info can you fill it in and e-mail it to me? Thanks!

[lateapex911]

......the Audi 4000 Quattro... According to the process it should weigh a good 200lbs less than the FWD version ....


Why? Same engine or different?

[RSTPerformance]

Why? Same engine or different?

Exact same car other than the AWD, independant rear suspension and the disc brakes in the rear...

They (ITAC and CRB) have no data from the Audi Coupe so they need me to complete a VTS sheet. Amaizingly the CRB was able to justify the coupe in ITB soley on the on-track performance as it aparently did not have a VTS sheet so it did not have ANY data to back up its decisions...

Raymond "Yup, my comments about the CRB are harsh, but it is how I feel" Blethen

[lateapex911]

So, if I read between the lines, you're saying that the Process for that car is 200 or so less than the currently classed version. And therefor the current one is wrong. yea, we did that dance. ;)

You aren't going to let it go, LOL, you're trying to get more guys to leave the ITAC? ;)

[RSTPerformance]

I will let it go once we have consistancy and the bull shit stops where the CRB gives one excuse and less than a month later does the exact opposite. They need to treat customers (so called members) and thier cars the same. It goes far beyond the Audi, MR2, VW Golfs or the varios other cars people have had problems with. I would like to say it isn't personal, I just have absolutely zero respect for Bob Dowie or the other members of the CRB. I don't ever expect that to change... Bob Dowie has zero leadership skills and the BOD doesn't seem to concerned with the performance of the group as a whole so it is a no win situation IMO.

Raymond

[RSTPerformance]

I am not trying to get more ITAC member to leave...

No disrespect to Josh, he is a nice guy and has been very good at communicating with me but I wish that the ITAC members that left never did. They had a backbone and the bold moves they made were ignored by SCCA. I am suprised you are all still members to be honest.

Raymond

[Knestis]

An interesting point: If another car with exactly the same mechanical attributes as the Coupe "processed out" 200 pounds less - absent on-track performance to justify the heavier weight - it wouldn't get that "kicked ass at the ARRC reward weight," would it? That's the AWD version of the car, right there...

This should be interesting, seeing how the extra lead gets rationalized.

K

[Andy Bettencourt]

Believe it or not I have been out of the loop now for almost a 1/4 of a year but here is my perception of what will happen.

1. The ITAC will run the Process. It will come out to the same numbers run on the GT.

2. Someone will say that it's the same motor. The CRB will thumb through the ITCS and find 'similar' cars and reference that weight.

3. They will set the weight at the weight listed on the current car under that theory (assuming there is no adder for AWD)

*If this is the way it actually pans out, it's one of the main reasons I left.

[lateapex911]

I know where i'm putting my money!

Follow that chain of events further, Kirk. The ITAC has stated* that ('for now") they will only change existing cars that are mechanically identical.

So, IF the AWD version goes in at process, POOF, the FWD version gets a letter to reprocess, and then they are going to look at that. However, it's not mechanically identical....although, based on the previous process output of AWD cars, the differences aren't factored, so, ostensibly it IS mechanically identical.

Of course, i'm not the only guy that can see the path of events unfolding, so, I imagine the obvious play will be to class it "Appropriately" based on the known performance of it's mechanical twin, thereby avoiding the ugly and embarrassing letter to reprocess the FWD version...again..

*And, based on what I've read and what I saw behind the curtain before I left, I'm thinking that statement was based on direction from the CRB. But, I could be wrong, and it might be an ITAC initiative to get back in the good graces of the CRB....)

[JoshS]

They (ITAC and CRB have no data from the Audi Coupe so they need me to complete a VTS sheet.

Even if we had data from the Audi Coupe, I'd still be asking for a VTS sheet for the 4000Q. It's NOT the same car, it wouldn't go on the same line, it's got plenty of differences, even if the engine itself is shared. We are just simply not going to classify any new cars without VTS sheets. I explained that to you on the phone. I don't think that should be a tough policy decision to swallow. We don't to make sure that someone has done due diligence on any new listing, and that we have a record of it.

[lateapex911]

yea, there should always be a VTS sheet, either in the existing records, or submitted. And the car does have brake differences for example to warrant it's VTS need. That's something that I'm glad Josh is pushing.

[Andy Bettencourt]

Even if we had data from the Audi Coupe, I'd still be asking for a VTS sheet for the 4000Q. It's NOT the same car, it wouldn't go on the same line, it's got plenty of differences, even if the engine itself is shared. We are just simply not going to classify any new cars without VTS sheets. I explained that to you on the phone. I don't think that should be a tough policy decision to swallow. We don't to make sure that someone has done due diligence on any new listing, and that we have a record of it.

Which is 100% true. Brake sizes, wheelbase, whatever needs to be documented. Good policy. If you don't want to fill out the sheets, then you don't want a car classed that bad.

[Knestis]

Like anyone cares but yeah - what they said. Someone "told" the ITAC that the MkIV Golf was the "same" as a MkIII Golf under the skin, but then after it was listed we found out that the front brakes are substantially larger. Lesson learned.

K

[RSTPerformance]

Even if we had data from the Audi Coupe, I'd still be asking for a VTS sheet for the 4000Q. It's NOT the same car, it wouldn't go on the same line, it's got plenty of differences, even if the engine itself is shared. We are just simply not going to classify any new cars without VTS sheets. I explained that to you on the phone. I don't think that should be a tough policy decision to swallow. We don't to make sure that someone has done due diligence on any new listing, and that we have a record of it.


Josh-

I agree with you and the others that it is not unreasonable to have a VTS sheet done on every car. I was suprised though that some of the basic information needed was not available from the FWD version of the car, especially after the CRB looked things over so well - or so thay said. When you told me that no VTS sheet existed on the Coupe it was the icing on the cake for me that the CRB is an unresponsable group of individuals that should not be in the position they are.

Also Josh, I would like to point out that you have been excellent at communicating and you have sent me SEVERAL e-mail reminders to complete the VTS sheets for the quattro. I keep forgetting to ask my brother to get me the shop manual and/or fill out the sheet for me. Last night I posted it because I came on here for the first time in several weeks to put up an update for the Impact Racing issues and read this thread which reminded me about it. I know my brother lurks and posts so he would see it. We don't live that close to each other so we don't get to see each other everyday like we used to.

Thansk again for your commitment Josh, if I get the VTS sheet in on time we will see how this all plays out;

Raymond

[seckerich]

This has to be a 2 way street. If we are going to hammer the CRB and ITAC to some extent on car classing, we have to hold ourselves to the same standard. That standard requires a VTS and any related material needed to class a car regardless of what was done in the past. Lets do our part to do it the right way and EXPECT them to do the same.

[JeffYoung]

Agreed on the VTS sheets. They are a bit of a PITA, but not terrible.

[lateapex911]

Josh-

. I keep forgetting to ask my brother to get me the shop manual and/or fill out the sheet for me. Last night I posted it because I came on here for the first time in several weeks to put up an update for the Impact Racing issues and read this thread which reminded me about it. I know my brother lurks and posts so he would see it.

Raymond

Psst..Raymond. This Dude...named Bell, says he invented this device called a telephone. Yea, somebody elses disputes him, but whatever. And now, it's actually wireless! So you could like, ummmm CALL your brother?? Or, and this is another "phone" thing, you can type a little message to him and send it from your phone to his!! Wild, I know! It's called 'texting"...all the kids are doing it.

Then there's this other invention, which I know you have, cuz you typed on it to post here, called a computer. You can even use it to send a message to him! Sooo many options...it's just mind boggling!

[Jeremy Billiel]

Psst..Raymond. This Dude...named Bell, says he invented this device called a telephone. Yea, somebody elses disputes him, but whatever. And now, it's actually wireless! So you could like, ummmm CALL your brother?? Or, and this is another "phone" thing, you can type a little message to him and send it from your phone to his!! Wild, I know! It's called 'texting"...all the kids are doing it.

Then there's this other invention, which I know you have, cuz you typed on it to post here, called a computer. You can even use it to send a message to him! Sooo many options...it's just mind boggling!

Jake come on know... Don't you know that in NH they don't have such amentities?

[lateapex911]

Ha ha....yea, they ARE in the sticks, LOl. (Although...Have you seen Raymonds house? He's not exactly slumming it!)

We'll see who contacts Stephen first...I sent him a message over facebook.

[JeffYoung]

Raymond, trying to get back up to speed on this.

Which engine went in the 4000? The 2.2 or the 2.3?

Which is in your Coupe?

Is it the 2.3?

Stock hp rating?

Thanks --again, just trying to get my numbers right.


I am not trying to get more ITAC member to leave...

No disrespect to Josh, he is a nice guy and has been very good at communicating with me but I wish that the ITAC members that left never did. They had a backbone and the bold moves they made were ignored by SCCA. I am suprised you are all still members to be honest.

Raymond

[RSTPerformance]

I agree with all it is MY responsability to do a VTS sheet and Josh has gone above and beyond IMO with friendly reminders that I appreciated... He has been excellent.

Jeff they both have the 2.22

Raymond "Living the dream world with a nice house, hot fiancé, and $7 bank account at the end of the month!" Blethen

[StephenB]

We'll see who contacts Stephen first...I sent him a message over facebook.

He actually called me! But I'd rather respond to you: ) so next Wednesday he is riding to NY with me so I am grabbing the Bentley and he WILL fill it out and send in the VTS before he heads home. But my concern is that IF he is going to build a new car he should build the 90 coupe quattro I gave him. And I thought that VTS already went in. My x-type request can be set aside, I have made the move in another direction.

Stephen

[JoshS]

But my concern is that IF he is going to build a new car he should build the 90 coupe quattro I gave him. And I thought that VTS already went in. My x-type request can be set aside, I have made the move in another direction.

The VTS sheet for the 90-based Coupe Quattro was received with letter #640 (not from you though, it was from someone else) and we discussed it last month. It's on the CRB's agenda now.

We never got a letter about the Jaguar X-Type.

[pfcs]

"Jeff they both have the 2.22"

Correct. And here we go again! The 4000Quattro has a JT engine, isted in ETKA @121hp (factory/current spec) whereas Bently (old/non-factory) spec is 115 @5500.

The Coupe GT has a different engine code-KX @120hp (ETKA/mfgr) vs 110 in Bently.

[The Bentley manuals are NOT factory. They are not "factory" shop manuals. (there is a problem in the rules regarding workshop manuals/what is real/true-for most cars factory no longer exist in print and what is, isn't official mfgr info or the final word) When I got my factory 142 Volvo manual from Volvo NA in 1984, it was one of two they had; they kept the last one for archiving. Audi went to repair/tech information on microfilm over 30 years ago, and now on DVD or online. The requirement to carry a factory manual is nearly impossible to comply with. The issue of Audi HP, however, illustrates the problem of relying on unofficial info]

Other considerations?: better weight distribution, MUCH better brakes, real (upper/lower dbl "wishbone" type) rear suspension, better aereo?
And, of course, the best 4wd system around.

And the 80/90Q-they have the 2.3L NG hi comp/133hp engine like the 87 "SuperCoupe"

[RacerBill]

OK, the moderators may want to start a new thread with this post, but Rules and Regs is a good place to start.


CRB Sound language

Merideth/Sheridan, motion to approve the following GCR change:
Approved: Butler, Creighton, Gordy, Kephart, Langlotz, Lewis, Lybarger, Merideth, Noble, Sheridan, Wannarka. Abstain: Patullo.
Effective immediately 3/9/10.

5.7.3. Standards

A sound level instrument (meter) that meets American National Standards Institute (ANSI) S1.4-1983 Class 2 or better shall
be used. The primary maximum for SCCA Sound Control shall be a sound pressure level of 103dB “A” frequency weighted

(dBA) measured on the fast response setting at 50 feet (+/- 2 feet) from the edge of the track pavement, and/ or artificial

markers indicating track edge. Lower (Other) maximum levels may be imposed at specific venues or events. These lower

(alternate) levels shall be noted in the Supplemental Regulations. All sound readings shall be truncated to the lower whole
EFFECTIVE FIRST DAY OF THE MONTH UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED April 2010



number. (Anything after the decimal point is ignored.)

Change the sentence “Lower maximum levels may be imposed at specific venues or events.” to read, “Other maximum
levels may be imposed at specific venues or events.” The next sentence would also drop the word “lower” and replace with
“alternate”.

BoD discussion on enforcement of sound rules, intended for exceptions and on a track by track basis. Some Divisions may
determine not to enforce sound based on local tracks. Exec Stewards with Regions will make determination. Sound will still
be monitored.

What's the opinion of the group on this change? Good? Bad? I was Chief of Sound Control for two regions for 18 years, so I have my opinions.

[Z3_GoCar]

In So-Pac, our neighbor is King-Cotton. I guess he went deaf somtime during the war of Northern Aggression, because he's never complained about the sound. Oh, and our last chief of sound moved out of the area and no one's replaced him yet.

[JoshS]

What's the opinion of the group on this change? Good? Bad? I was Chief of Sound Control for two regions for 18 years, so I have my opinions.

I'd love to hear what the impetus was for this change. I think it's a bad idea for amateur motorsports to ever reduce the requirements to be quiet (even if in this case it's just a potential, not an actual change.)

Racing would not change much if we all had to be at 96 dBA vs. 103dbA.

[Andy Bettencourt]

Racing would not change much if we all had to be at 96 dBA vs. 103dbA.

Says the guy without a rotary! LOL

[seckerich]

Don't be too sure Andy, I make more power and torque at 97db max than I ever did with louder systems. Most of my readings are in the high 80's.

[lateapex911]

Don't be too sure Andy, I make more power and torque at 97db max than I ever did with louder systems. Most of my readings are in the high 80's.

Does that transfer to the 12A, and, can the system be made light...without resorting to titanium?

[Ron Earp]

I bet so.

Steve E's cars have always been fast and NOT loud. Very much different from other RX7s and a welcome change from the usual "weedeater madness" sound.

[lateapex911]

The issue with the 12A has been space and the lack of available pounds. Few cars with normal drivers can hit weight, and it has a big affect on that car. And there's not a lot of space under there for the noise controlling items.

I'm not saying it can't be done, but, it's not an easy slam dunk

[Andy Bettencourt]

Don't be too sure Andy, I make more power and torque at 97db max than I ever did with louder systems. Most of my readings are in the high 80's.

Would love to get my hands on THAT stuff!

[Ron Earp]

The issue with the 12A has been space and the lack of available pounds. Few cars with normal drivers can hit weight,

Put them over in ITB and it won't be a problem at all. Imagine that, a class change based on sound requirements.......