July 2013 Fastrack

[pfrichardson]

...are posted:

http://www.scca.com/clubracing/content.cfm?cid=44472

[StephenB]

How would one find out the status of a letter?

Stephen

[JeffYoung]

ITAC recommended approval of your letter expanding the RX8 spec line. Not sure what happened to it after that, CRB may still be considering it.

[StephenB]

Thanks Jeff!

[ShelbyRacer]

Actually, I think it's still in our queue, but due to be sent to the CRB.

You *should* get an email from the system every time the letter changes hands.

[Chip42]

mea culpa. our last call was rescheduled for memorial day leaving 1 day between in at the CRB's, so they had no preview time AND I didn't get everything up the night of the call. they'll have it for August and I expect it will go through with no issues.

[CRallo]

Are the links on the SCCA page not working, or am I doing something wrong?

[Greg Amy]

Final:

http://www.scca.com/assets/13-fastrack-july.pdf

[CRallo]

look like Ima have to choke a bitch! Someone is picking on one of my cars and is none too brilliant. ughhh freaking obnoxious!

[Dano77]

look like Ima have to choke a bitch! Someone is picking on one of my cars and is none too brilliant. ughhh freaking obnoxious!


Sooooo your upset about haveing to have the rules the car complys with, with you at the track?

Or are you upset about the 79-85 RX7 not being moved to ITB. When was that member request???????

[Flyinglizard]

Rallo,Reference?

[lateapex911]

Sooooo your upset about haveing to have the rules the car complys with, with you at the track?

Or are you upset about the 79-85 RX7 not being moved to ITB. When was that member request???????

It was discussed years ago, when I was on the ITAC, and I'd talked to every IT7 guy I could about it, from New Hampshire to Atlanta and lots of places in between, and nobody ever made a good case for the move.

So, in internal discussion, it never went anywhere.
The core issue is that the Process would treat it equally in ITB as it does in ITA. People forget that, thinking it's doing ITB times, essentially, so it would be a good ITB fit.
But in actual practice, the ITAC will do the math, and it will gain a few hundred pounds. (XXX whp x ITB factor plus minus adders...same as ITA, except for the factor)
And be on 6" rims.
So, its really a waste of time.
Why sell all the rims and tires, just to maintain the same lack of competitiveness?

Even IF the weight stayed the same, the rim switch would be expensive and would affect performance. And IF the weight remained constant (which would mean a change in Process inputs) why couldn't that change be applied to ITA instead, saving the swapping of tires??

(The ITAC showed no interest or any flexibility beyond what they had done at the last adjustment in terms of Process changes when I was on board. I of course submitted my numbers, but other 'senior' member said he had heard higher numbers, so those were used. As an owner of the car, it would be improper of me to debate excessively or campaign for things too much. I presented my info, and thats all I could do.
To some degree I fear that the cheating guys that have come before have put performance numbers up that are impossible to achieve legally. I know I've raced hard against guys and been eeked out going down the straight, just to have them later admit that the engine was ported. So changing perceptions is tough. We get what we sow)

I'm unaware of any recent official request to move it.
Chip?

[Dano77]

[QUOTE=I'm unaware of any recent official request to move it.
Chip?[/QUOTE]

I was aware of the past. This is what I was asking about. When did the request for input come up again.

It would be a real fix if the ECU on an RX7 could be changed to the Holly 500- 4bbl:rolleyes: Just kidding.

[Knestis]

To some degree I fear that the cheating guys that have come before have put performance numbers up that are impossible to achieve legally. I know I've raced hard against guys and been eeked out going down the straight, just to have them later admit that the engine was ported. So changing perceptions is tough. We get what we sow.Not the only place this dynamic created problems. Much of the issues in ITB were a result of the same situation - cheater 2002s, GTIs, and Volvi.

K

[JeffYoung]

It was discussed years ago, when I was on the ITAC, and I'd talked to every IT7 guy I could about it, from New Hampshire to Atlanta and lots of places in between, and nobody ever made a good case for the move.

So, in internal discussion, it never went anywhere.
The core issue is that the Process would treat it equally in ITB as it does in ITA. People forget that, thinking it's doing ITB times, essentially, so it would be a good ITB fit.
But in actual practice, the ITAC will do the math, and it will gain a few hundred pounds. (XXX whp x ITB factor plus minus adders...same as ITA, except for the factor)
And be on 6" rims.
So, its really a waste of time.
Why sell all the rims and tires, just to maintain the same lack of competitiveness?

Even IF the weight stayed the same, the rim switch would be expensive and would affect performance. And IF the weight remained constant (which would mean a change in Process inputs) why couldn't that change be applied to ITA instead, saving the swapping of tires??

(The ITAC showed no interest or any flexibility beyond what they had done at the last adjustment in terms of Process changes when I was on board. I of course submitted my numbers, but other 'senior' member said he had heard higher numbers, so those were used. As an owner of the car, it would be improper of me to debate excessively or campaign for things too much. I presented my info, and thats all I could do.
To some degree I fear that the cheating guys that have come before have put performance numbers up that are impossible to achieve legally. I know I've raced hard against guys and been eeked out going down the straight, just to have them later admit that the engine was ported. So changing perceptions is tough. We get what we sow)

I'm unaware of any recent official request to move it.
Chip?

You are mixing issues I think Jake. There was a recent request to move the 12A RX7 to B. We said no for the reasons listed above - good summary.

There have been several requests to reduce the weight on the A2 Rabbit (? I don't know my Volkswagens). The car I think is processed based on 30% from before my time on the committee. We are told on committee this number is accurate and there has been limited dyno data showing it to be close.

[Knestis]

The source of the "what we know" about VWs - the MkI and MkII, anyway - lost a substantial amount of his credibility later in my tenure on the committee.

K

[CRallo]

Sooooo your upset about haveing to have the rules the car complys with, with you at the track?

Or are you upset about the 79-85 RX7 not being moved to ITB. When was that member request???????


I don't have a problem with it. I already have said specs. Just with more extraneous text on the specline and being singled out. obviously I will not be choking any bitches, they have been doing good work, I'm just annoyed with the recent themes of not thinking things through and picking on certain *evil* cars.

The Rx7 thing is annoying though :/


Rallo,Reference?

See above.

[Flyinglizard]

When IT7 ran with ITB the lap times were very close (IT7 was alittle bit quicker, maybe 1sec @ Sebring)2:43, vs 2:44-5 ).
The Rx killed me on the straights, sucked in the brakes and turns. Too much power for ITB at the IT 7 weight for sure. Add 150# and it would be close.
But as mentioned why?

[quadzjr]

IT7 is running at ITB times sideways on old RA1s. Throw a seet of sticky tires (choose your potion) and they are going to br considerably faster. At current weight is was walking mk3 vw in the straight line.

[lateapex911]

IT7 is running at ITB times sideways on old RA1s. Throw a seet of sticky tires (choose your potion) and they are going to br considerably faster. At current weight is was walking mk3 vw in the straight line.

Lap records and ARRC race results don't agree, (And the ARRC is likely the ONLY place where at least the top cars are sniffed for legality).
But, it's a non starter no matter what. Unless core issues in the Process are looked at there' is no point in doing anything.

And frankly, I bet the ITAC is disinterested, as it's really not a significant issue. They have an IT-7 class that's available to them nearly nationwide, the numbers are dwindling because of unobtanium parts, and they are in the early stages of conversion to the Renesis in the SE.

Sadly, the time to be aggressive and fix the situation passed nearly 10 years ago.

[mossaidis]

Sadly, the time to be aggressive and fix the situation passed nearly 10 years ago.

^

[Bill Miller]

There have been several requests to reduce the weight on the A2 Rabbit (? I don't know my Volkswagens). The car I think is processed based on 30% from before my time on the committee. We are told on committee this number is accurate and there has been limited dyno data showing it to be close.

So you're saying that this has met the confidence level threshold, and that the dyno data have been presented to the ITAC?

[Chip42]

So you're saying that this has met the confidence level threshold, and that the dyno data have been presented to the ITAC?

yes. to the degree that it's within ±50lbs and we have much bigger fish to fry. all of ITB is getting reviewed to make sure everyone is on the same playing field, after that we'll go back and do reclassification requests based on actual numbers and starting from better documented and (as) verifiable (as is realistically possible in a class like ITB ) baselines.