February 2012 Fastrack

[Dave Gomberg]

These are posted at http://www.scca.com/assets/January3meetingFebruaryFastrackprelim_minutes.pdf and http://www.scca.com/assets/prelim_TB_12-02.pdf

Dave

[Knestis]

Sorry, but LOL

ITR
1. #6578 (Dale LaGasse) Classify 1982 El Camino for ITR
Thank you for your input. Since this vehicle was not manufactured with a manual transmission, it cannot be classified to run in Improved Touring.

K

[Ron Earp]

Sorry, but LOL

ITR
1. #6578 (Dale LaGasse) Classify 1982 El Camino for ITR
Thank you for your input. Since this vehicle was not manufactured with a manual transmission, it cannot be classified to run in Improved Touring.

K

While a manual might not have been available in 1982 (I'm not clear on that), it was available in other years that make up that generation, 1978 to 1987. But none of the engine output levels would land it in ITR. ITA or ITS is where it'd be classed.

[Greg Amy]

While a manual might not have been available in 1982 (I'm not clear on that), it was available in other years that make up that generation, 1978 to 1987. But none of the engine output levels would land it in ITR. ITA or ITS is where it'd be classed.
YEAH, BABY!!!!

http://www.v8utes.com.au/includes/showimage.php?table=gallery_images&id=3059&idf=image_id&image=image (http://www.v8utes.com.au)

[preparedcivic]

That request reminds me of that Acura ZDW dude who got all of our panties in a bunch here a while back.

[JS154]

Sorry, but LOL

ITR
1. #6578 (Dale LaGasse) Classify 1982 El Camino for ITR
Thank you for your input. Since this vehicle was not manufactured with a manual transmission, it cannot be classified to run in Improved Touring.

K

Run that sucker in STU with an engine from an HHR.

[Ron Earp]

Run that sucker in STU with an engine from an HHR.

Bzzzzzzt. Silly ST 1985 year cut off screws him on that one. Or maybe not, seems I recall something about a chassis that spanned years previous would be allowed.

Hmmmm, Fox bodied Mustangs started in 1979 and ran through 1993, and even into 2004 as the basic chassis. Maybe they'd all be eligible.

[Andy Bettencourt]

Still nothing on the Vette and 240SX ITS car?

[JeffYoung]

We had a bit of a philosophical debate on the El Mullet. Some where in favor, some not. The 'no manual' gave us an easy out.

Andy, a recommendation was made on the C4 Vette. We are still doing research on the ITS 240sx.

[Ron Earp]

El Camino has a manual, someone requests the year with a manual then it should be classed. Philosophical debate as in "we don't want THOSE cars in IT?" Somewhat similar to the one that almost knocked Pony cars out of ITR?

240sx, it is classed already. Is there a problem with the classification?

[Andy Bettencourt]

240sx, it is classed already. Is there a problem with the classification?

Yup. Not at 25%.

[Ron Earp]

Yup. Not at 25%.

So I don't have to look it up, classed too heavy?

[Greg Amy]

So I don't have to look it up, classed too heavy?
One can easily assume. I mean, other thank Kirk, is anyone going to request a reclassification because they're too light...? ;)

[Andy Bettencourt]

One can easily assume. I mean, other thank Kirk, is anyone going to request a reclassification because they're too light...? ;)

Me! ITAC didn't like my 50lbs adder for DW rear.

Yes, too heavy on the 240SX.

[Greg Amy]

Me! ITAC didn't like my 50lbs adder for DW rear.
That's 'cause it was only 50 pounds. You were supposed to make it 100...

;)

[Ron Earp]

One can easily assume. I mean, other thank Kirk, is anyone going to request a reclassification because they're too light...? ;)

Well, your competitor could be asking to have your car reclassified because s/he feels it is too light. You don't have to own a car to request it reclassified.

[GTIspirit]

We had a bit of a philosophical debate on the El Mullet. Some where in favor, some not. The 'no manual' gave us an easy out.

Andy, a recommendation was made on the C4 Vette. We are still doing research on the ITS 240sx.

I've wondered about this no automatic transmission rule, why is it there? Are automatic transmissions really faster and a performance advantage? Less and less cars are being sold with manual transmissions and sometime in the future they might not be available at all as everyone trends towards DSG type transmissions. So is a VW DSG, Porsche PDK, Ford Powershift, e.g. considered manual or automatic?

[CRallo]

automatic=slushbox

[Andy Bettencourt]

I've wondered about this no automatic transmission rule, why is it there? Are automatic transmissions really faster and a performance advantage? Less and less cars are being sold with manual transmissions and sometime in the future they might not be available at all as everyone trends towards DSG type transmissions. So is a VW DSG, Porsche PDK, Ford Powershift, e.g. considered manual or automatic?

I think the issue WAS that autos weren't up to the rigors of road-racing. Too much heat, too much wear to survive without extra allowances to beef them up.

[Ron Earp]

I think the issue WAS that autos weren't up to the rigors of road-racing. Too much heat, too much wear to survive without extra allowances to beef them up.

I suspect it was more along the lines of "cars that don't have manual transmission options aren't proper sports cars and they don't need to be racing in the SCCA".

I don't like the exclusion of automatics with no provision in the rules to fit a manual transmission. But fitting a manual transmission presents a host of problems starting with what manual transmission can be fitted? Someone might like to race a Buick Reatta but should they be allowed to fit a six speed transmission to it?

I don't see automatics being included into IT anytime soon, with or without manual transmission retrofits.

[Chip42]

I'm not about to support inclusion of autos or of allowing manual swaps into cars that never cam with a manual (trim levels ok, but not whole models)

however, dual clutch and otherwise computer controlled "manual" gearboxes, with pairs of gears and selectors, I personally have no issue with, though they may need a weight penalty to account for the reduced off throttle time vs. an H-pattern box.

[ShelbyRacer]

With discussion on classification of the Vette, and the auto/manual debate:

How will the 4+3 be handled? If it is to go to the straight 4 speed, will the + (auto) section be removed?

[Ron Earp]

With discussion on classification of the Vette, and the auto/manual debate:

How will the 4+3 be handled? If it is to go to the straight 4 speed, will the + (auto) section be removed?

There is nothing auto about it as far as I know with respect to typical automatic transmissions and torque converters etc. I thought it was just an overdrive gear that could/would be engaged in the top three gears via the ECU. The transmission is still 100% manual. If what I think it correct then a C4 racer can do with it as they please.

[JeffYoung]

Yes, there was opposition to cars like the El Mullet from a "they don't belong in IT standpoint." Mostly the thinking was that they were trucks, not cars. I personally pushed the idea that these things are on the same chassis as a Chevelle/Monte Carlo (the El Mullet) and a Torino/LTD (the Ferd Bandelero). I suspect the vote would be not to class them if one with a manual was requested.

Did the 84 Vette only come with the 4+3? Or could you get a "straight" four speed?

As Chip notes, DSG (have one in my cracked Audi) is a different bird from autoboxes and probably something we will have to deal with in the future. Not sure about a weight penalty though.....hard to quantify the advantage and different DSGs are way better than others.

[ShelbyRacer]

While it does not have a torque convertor, it does use a planetary gearset engaged via hydraulic control, governed by electronics. That said, I'm not thinking the unit will be an advantage... On the contrary, I'm wondering if it can be removed. Obviously, unless a specific allowance was made, it could not. I'm just wondering how much thought was put into that particular issue. You could just allow a ZF 6speed swap...:rolleyes:

Edit-

Jeff, only the 4+3 or the 4L60 (auto) were available in the 84 Vette.

[mossaidis]

This kills me. Why not allow cars with open trunks? Are there IT cars currently spec'ed that have leaf spring rears? I believe so, why not allow also 4x2 trucks? If CRB/BOD is so stuck up on this regional/national division crap, what's the fricken hangup? it's IT!?!?!?!?

http://thegazette.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/05/cartman_angry-123x112.jpg (http://thegazette.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/05/cartman_angry.jpg)

Have we become such primadonnas?!?!? (me thinks: "Loosen the tie Poindexter"...) Oh, this might spill over to National... oh.. vomit.

[Matt93SE]

I dont' see anything wrong with an El Mullet in SCCA. Performance-wise, I've seen a few do quite well in the drift circles with 500hp. However, I think they're too big/heavy/slow for IT.
I do, however see it as something more along the class of AS or something.. Where would you put 80s landbarges like these or a Monte Carlo in club racing? AS? GT1? heh.. that'd be fun, watching a GT1 Viper or Vette get spanked by a mullet.

According to the gospel of Wiki, they had anything from a 3.8L V6 to a 454. Some even came with 3 and 4 spd manuals.. so it's not necessarily out of the realm of "pony car with an open trunk".

[Andy Bettencourt]

Easy there Micky. A lot of this stuff is a carry over from yester-year when it may have actually been applicable. The issue is that since there is little-to-no demand for a revision, it has stayed on the books. Rancharos? Who cares as long as they had a manual option.



This kills me. Why not allow cars with open trunks? Are there IT cars currently spec'ed that have leaf spring rears? I believe so, why not allow also 4x2 trucks? If CRB/BOD is so stuck up on this regional/national division crap, what's the fricken hangup? it's IT!?!?!?!?

http://thegazette.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/05/cartman_angry-123x112.jpg (http://thegazette.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/05/cartman_angry.jpg)

Have we become such premadonas?!?!? (me thinks: "Loosen the tie Poindexter"...) Oh, this might spill over to National... oh.. vomit.

[Andy Bettencourt]

I dont' see anything wrong with an El Mullet in SCCA. I do, however see it as something more along the class of AS or something.. Where would you put 80s landbarges in club racing?
According to the gospel of Wiki, they had anything from a 3.8L V6 to a 454. Some even came with 3 and 4 spd manuals.

Sounds too big for ITS, too heavy/slow for ITR, but maybe AS or (hehehe) GT1. :)

Class them where they fall. 170hp V8 craptastic with a 4-speed? Put it in ITS with the V8 process numbers and set it free. Who cares? It is what it is.

[mossaidis]

Class them where they fall. 170hp V8 craptastic with a 4-speed? Put it in ITS with the V8 process numbers and set it free. Who cares? It is what it is.

Thank you... :happy204:

Ever try passing a 3750 lbs SSB Camaro with 2270 lbs ITA Civic? It's goin happen.

[JeffYoung]

Yep.

I did the research on the car. Last year with a manual (a 3 speed!) was 78 I think in the El Mullett, not sure about the Bandelero.

I'd vote to class one if the right request was made. Last year for 4 speeds was early 70s in both cars I think. Have to watch the power outputs back then, they were hefty.

[Andy Bettencourt]

Thank you... :happy204:

Ever try passing a 3750 lbs SSB Camaro with 2270 lbs ITA Civic? It's goin happen.

Only when I'm lapping them. :D

[ShelbyRacer]

It's real fun passing them in an ITB car. In the rain. At Pocono. :)

[JoshS]

Yep.

I did the research on the car. Last year with a manual (a 3 speed!) was 78 I think in the El Mullett, not sure about the Bandelero.

I'd vote to class one if the right request was made. Last year for 4 speeds was early 70s in both cars I think. Have to watch the power outputs back then, they were hefty.

If I were still on the ITAC, based on this info, I'd vote against classing them. My objection has nothing to do with the "pickup" or "truck" thing -- I'm all-inclusive on body styles, I'm the one who got station wagons allowed back in -- but it has to do with the transmission and age thing.

1) Don't class any more early-'70s cars. For sure if it wasn't spec'ed with SAE horsepower, it shouldn't be added. They don't fit into the modern process and although there's an method for handling exceptions, the value of this classification isn't high enough to make it worth it.

2) Don't bother classing it if it was only available with a 3-speed transmission. No one is going to build one of those. I'm sure the original requester thought he'd be able to stuff in an updated drivetrain.

[JeffYoung]

Our rules say the cutoff is 1968. If someone wants to class one, and requests it, and is willing to build it even though it's doomed to failure, why should we stop them?

The only reason would be that we don't want "old cars" clogging up the class, or ruining its appearance. While I don't favor any rules that attempt to assist "old cars," I also don't favor any rules (or classification philosophies) that banninate them.

[JoshS]

Our rules say the cutoff is 1968. If someone wants to class one, and requests it, and is willing to build it even though it's doomed to failure, why should we stop them?

The only reason would be that we don't want "old cars" clogging up the class, or ruining its appearance. While I don't favor any rules that attempt to assist "old cars," I also don't favor any rules (or classification philosophies) that banninate them.

I understand and that's a good point. Although I'd advocate that the rules should be changed such that instead of an arbitrary model-year cutoff, the rules should allow only those spec'ed with SAE horsepower (realisticly, that moves it to about '72-'74), and grandfather in the existing listings that don't comply. And the primary justification is because it's very difficult to assign fair weights to pre-SAE cars under the process.

[JeffYoung]

Valid point. The pre-SAE stuff is hard to class, I agree.


I understand and that's a good point. Although I'd advocate that the rules should be changed such that instead of an arbitrary model-year cutoff, the rules should allow only those spec'ed with SAE horsepower (realisticly, that moves it to about '72-'74), and grandfather in the existing listings that don't comply. And the primary justification is because it's very difficult to assign fair weights to pre-SAE cars under the process.

[JohnW8]

Yep.

I did the research on the car. Last year with a manual (a 3 speed!) was 78 I think in the El Mullett, not sure about the Bandelero.

I'd vote to class one if the right request was made. Last year for 4 speeds was early 70s in both cars I think. Have to watch the power outputs back then, they were hefty.



My Dad had a 81 GMC Caballero and it had a 305 V8- with a manual trans. I had a 86 El Camino that was by no means a truck. It was a Malibu with a bed attached. Couldn't haul/carry anything. The suspension was too soft but it could smoke a set of tires for miles. These could be classed but probably not raced for better options.

[JeffYoung]

Was it a three on the tree?

I couldn't find any indication of the 3 speed being offered after 78 when the cars were downsized.

I wonder if your dad's was a conversion?

[JeffYoung]

I'll be damned. I think I was wrong.

81 Factory 4 speed, 305:

http://www.oldride.com/classic_cars/403625.html

[Chip42]

I wish that you weren't. easy button -> trash, "truck" debate -> on.

[JohnW8]

I can't imagine trying to balance an El Camino. They were quite nose heavy.

[mossaidis]

Class them where they fall. 170hp V8 craptastic with a 4-speed? Put it in ITS with the V8 process numbers and set it free. Who cares? It is what it is.


I wish that you weren't. easy button -> trash, "truck" debate -> on.

LOL - seriously, is the person that made the original request serious about building an El Mullet IT car? Or just "kicking our tires"?

[Ron Earp]

I'll be damned. I think I was wrong.

81 Factory 4 speed, 305:

http://www.oldride.com/classic_cars/403625.html

That thing is sweet.

[Chip42]

gotta treat it seriously even if you think it's ridiculous.:shrug:

[Ron Earp]

gotta treat it seriously even if you think it's ridiculous.:shrug:

Definitely should if you're going to serve on the ITAC and serve member interests. What difference does it make to any of us racers if someone wants to race an El Mullet? If the process works, and we think it does, and the car fits into an IT class based on power then class it up.

That "spoil the look of the class" thing is a bunch of shit. That almost stopped V8 Pony cars in ITR and would probably stop the C4 Corvette if it'd persisted. Spoil the look to whom? Some white suit in Topeka who hasn't turned a wheel in 25 years?

[Dano77]

Making the El Camino handle is not that hard. Everyone of them is raced on any given weekend at every circle track in the world. The A body and the G Body chassis was available from 72ish to 88 in everything from the almighty# 3 monte carlo to the Buick Regal GNX Cop Car to the Richard Petty Pontiac Aero Coupe. They are all the same.

Why shouldn't it be classed? Its just a body on a frame.

[Chip42]

Definitely should if you're going to serve on the ITAC and serve member interests. What difference does it make to any of us racers if someone wants to race an El Mullet? If the process works, and we think it does, and the car fits into an IT class based on power then class it up.

That "spoil the look of the class" thing is a bunch of shit. That almost stopped V8 Pony cars in ITR and would probably stop the C4 Corvette if it'd persisted. Spoil the look to whom? Some white suit in Topeka who hasn't turned a wheel in 25 years?

ron - I agree completely, and at the same time, this car would not fit "my" view of IT. every one of us drives a car someone else thinks is ridiculous. class it, let him come and play, and maybe we will all be surprised. and maybe not. but it's not up to us to decide if a car is "right" for IT, only if it meets the basic performance envelope (yup) and has the required equipment (manual gearbox, no blower, etc...). straight math, assuming the 210hp number quoted in the add (I'm ignorant about these cars) would be 3105# in ITR: 210*1.25*11.25+150 (torque).

we might have been wrong in our reason to not class the mullet, but that error saved us from the possibility of stating that we will not class it, or others like it, so we can debate that further. there's disagreement over the definition of these vehicles as car or truck (El camino, baja, brat, VW FWD pickup,...), it's a bit less overt than the pony car "look" argument, but I think the opinions are truly intended to the good of the class, even if some of us disagree.

[JeffYoung]

We are going to need to re-review this based on the discovery of the unicornish manual El Mullet.


ron - I agree completely, and at the same time, this car would not fit "my" view of IT. every one of us drives a car someone else thinks is ridiculous. class it, let him come and play, and maybe we will all be surprised. and maybe not. but it's not up to us to decide if a car is "right" for IT, only if it meets the basic performance envelope (yup) and has the required equipment (manual gearbox, no blower, etc...). straight math, assuming the 210hp number quoted in the add (I'm ignorant about these cars) would be 3105# in ITR: 210*1.25*11.25+150 (torque).

we might have been wrong in our reason to not class the mullet, but that error saved us from the possibility of stating that we will not class it, or others like it, so we can debate that further. there's disagreement over the definition of these vehicles as car or truck (El camino, baja, brat, VW FWD pickup,...), it's a bit less overt than the pony car "look" argument, but I think the opinions are truly intended to the good of the class, even if some of us disagree.

[GTIspirit]

I think the issue WAS that autos weren't up to the rigors of road-racing. Too much heat, too much wear to survive without extra allowances to beef them up.

What happened to warts and all? If someone really wants to race a "slushbox" why should they be excluded? Cars with small brakes aren't excluded because they are more prone to overheating and fade..... I'm sure an external trans oil cooler would be allowed same as one is allowed for engine oil. So if someone really wants to race an automatic, why should they be excluded because the snooty nose folk think that kind of trans doesn't belong in a proper race car?

Same as if someone wants to race El Mullet, more cars on the track are a good thing, right?

And yes, I agree with the statement that DSG, PDK, whatever it's called should get a weight penalty in the process because shift times are like nil compared to a driver operated manual trans.

[Knestis]

Conversations when we were writing the NW Region IT rules - before the national set was released - was that "race cars don't have automatic transmissions." We retained in our draft the "no autos" restriction from the CA rules that started it all but decided wagons would be fine - partially because we couldn't reconcile it with the Rabbit GTI that most of us were falling in love with.

K

EDIT - personally, I don't care if someone wants to race an automatic 'box, but it would require some purposeful attention to what would be allowed for them, if anything.

EDIT EDIT - FURTHERMORE (and I got a chuckle out of this) since the rationale printed in Fastrack was "no manual available," by inference the car (truck? whatever) has to be allowed if it's proven that it IS available in that configuration. ITAC red herring fale...! :)

[Kai Noeske]

YEAH, BABY!!!!

http://www.v8utes.com.au/includes/showimage.php?table=gallery_images&id=3059&idf=image_id&image=image (http://www.v8utes.com.au)

PA commentator at Mt Panorama: "Thay handle as well as the ayverage Ayrcraft cayrrier..."

A lot of rubbing and bumping in that series... and a teenie tiny Advan spec tire that tends to overheat towards the end of the few-lap races :happy204:

[mossaidis]

Valid point. The pre-SAE stuff is hard to class, I agree.


I understand and that's a good point. Although I'd advocate that the rules should be changed such that instead of an arbitrary model-year cutoff, the rules should allow only those spec'ed with SAE horsepower (realisticly, that moves it to about '72-'74), and grandfather in the existing listings that don't comply. And the primary justification is because it's very difficult to assign fair weights to pre-SAE cars under the process.

I agree with Josh, this is a valid point.

[Greg Amy]

I argee with Josh, this is a valid point.
I think Mickey has a good point.

[mossaidis]

^ ok, you're poking fun, right? :) I will write a lengthy letter to the CRB.

[Andy Bettencourt]

^ ok, you're poking fun, right? :) I will write a lengthy letter to the CRB.
Greg's point that Mickey's point that Josh has a good point is actually a good point.

[Andy Bettencourt]

What happened to warts and all?

While I agree in principle, the issue for me would be puking trans fluid all over the track. Unless you allowed a series of upgrades, these older units simply are not up to the duty cycles.

[R2 Racing]

Still nothing on the Vette and 240SX ITS car?


We are still doing research on the ITS 240sx.
Jeff,
The shop I do my tuning at also does ~90% of the prep work on a very nice 240sx. I know the owner of the shop and the car very well, and I bet I could find out about anything I wanted on it. If there's any info you're looking for, I could do some asking. It's a really nice car, but yeah, the feeling I've always got was "too heavy".

[seckerich]

Classing anything that old just pushes us further towards ancient status. Should not even be considered. Could not wait for that boat to miss a breaking point. I guess they could run tail gate down for better aero.:023:

[ShelbyRacer]

Dr. Samuel Johnson's right about Olson Johnson being right.

Oh, and the hp thing makes sense too.

[Ron Earp]

Classing anything that old just pushes us further towards ancient status. Should not even be considered.

So....we should eliminate those pesky Z cars as they too are ancient (wow, they are as much as 12 years older than El Mullet!) and spoiling ITS?

Whoa, the El Mullet even has vented front discs, a technological improvement over the Z cars. I suspect the car is lighter than most of the folks on this forum would estimate. US "muscle cars" are not as heavy as the average racing enthusiast thinks.

Oh, Mythbusters didn't like the tailgate down configuration for fuel efficiency. It was the worst of the configurations tested out of no tailgate, tailgate up, bed cover, mesh, and nothing at all. Not sure how that might affect the El Mullet IT racer.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r3aqHbD-O9E

[Bill Miller]

Dr. Samuel Johnson's right about Olson Johnson being right.

Oh, and the hp thing makes sense too.

LOL @ Blazing Saddles reference. :happy204::happy204:

[JeffYoung]

Kevin, thanks. Just saw this and sent you a PM.

Appreciate any help you can offer.

Jeff


Jeff,
The shop I do my tuning at also does ~90% of the prep work on a very nice 240sx. I know the owner of the shop and the car very well, and I bet I could find out about anything I wanted on it. If there's any info you're looking for, I could do some asking. It's a really nice car, but yeah, the feeling I've always got was "too heavy".

[Andy Bettencourt]

Only on modern trucks. Me thinks the El-Ranch-a-mino is a different story.





So....we should eliminate those pesky Z cars as they too are ancient (wow, they are as much as 12 years older than El Mullet!) and spoiling ITS?

Whoa, the El Mullet even has vented front discs, a technological improvement over the Z cars. I suspect the car is lighter than most of the folks on this forum would estimate. US "muscle cars" are not as heavy as the average racing enthusiast thinks.

Oh, Mythbusters didn't like the tailgate down configuration for fuel efficiency. It was the worst of the configurations tested out of no tailgate, tailgate up, bed cover, mesh, and nothing at all. Not sure how that might affect the El Mullet IT racer.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r3aqHbD-O9E

[iambhooper]

... you guys do realize that you have essentially had a 4 page thread on including a '70's redneck "truck" in IT, right?

[dickita15]

... you guys do realize that you have essentially had a 4 page thread on including a '70's redneck "truck" in IT, right?

it is winter

[iambhooper]

it is winter

true, but if you guys are all bored, your more than welcome to come to GSO and help me pound out the MeeOtter :D

[seckerich]

Damn Hoop, I was just getting specs together for my sierra classic in ITR. :023:

[iambhooper]

http://memimage.cardomain.com/ride_images/3/3224/1521/33058260001_large.jpg

Steve, have you been visiting my Jackson County kinfolk? :D (I know, the truck in the pic is to shiny to be from JC, but it's the best I could find)

[ShelbyRacer]

Su-weet! It's got rains and everything!

Not to take away from the trucklet discussion, but can anyone on ITAC or otherwise weigh in on my other question about the 84 Whore-vette? Will the O/D need to be locked? Removed? Left in place and operational? It certainly both a potential performance issue, as well as a real concern for longevity if it must stay. I know- warts and all- but I was still wondering if anyone even considered the issue...

[JeffYoung]

Matt it was not considered but I don't see any allowance in the rules for anything other than the stock 4+3 box and the requirement that it be used in stock form.

[Greg Amy]

Feb 2012 Fastrack and GCR are up:

http://www.scca.com/assets/12-fastrack-feb.pdf
http://www.scca.com/assets/2012GCR-updatedFebruary.pdf