Quote:
This is my last one on this topic, so everyone can now give a big sigh of relief.[/b]
No way. If you have a beef, bring it up. The ITAC is willing to get the thought processes out there, no matter if it's popular or not. Better to speak up than to let it fester.
Quote:
As I see it ITAC and CRB made a big mistake by trying to deal with p/w ratio inequities by setting unattainably low weights for some of the older cars.[/b]
This is why I keep going back to your car. We don't think, nor have we seen, that these weights are unattainable. They may seem low given poor classification in the past, but given all the info we have to date, they are attainable.
Quote:
- the process is not sustainable. As better p/w ratio cars time out of SS and want to get into IT it will not work to address the p/w ratio problem by just knocking a few more hundred pounds out of the Z-cars. We need a very different approach.[/b]
The process is absolutely sustainable - and frankly has been for years. How many rejections has the Z32 300ZX gotten in the past when requested for classification? The ITS performance envelope has been nailed down - and as faster cars trickle down - they go to the newest IT class, ITR - with a whole new envelope. The Z cars are locked...as is every other car in IT until we get info of an error.
Quote:
- the assumption that lower allowable weights will lead to 'lighter, faster, safer' cars is very questionable. Very likely lighter and faster. But I wonder about safer. I suspect that very few people who start chopping metal out of a monocoque structure are doing it by other than guesswork, so I am a bit fearful of the effects on structural integrity. [/b]
Bill, I am not sure how many times we have to say this but what you are describing is neither safe NOR LEGAL. Nobdoy is suggesting that anyone chop up a car, just prep to the rules.
Quote:
No roll cage is 'overbuilt' at the moment it saves your life and who is to rationally decide which pieces should be taken out to reduce weight now that we have lower allowables. [/b]
The SCCA has a required minimum cage design for safety. Anything you would like to do above and beyond may add to that safety but it also adds weight and takes away from your competitive situation. It's your call but that 'option' can't be factored in when minimum weights are being set.
Quote:
I know my car could lose some weight but I'm not sure I want it to when I consider all three parts of -'lighter,faster,safer'. And I definitely don't want to find out about a wreck in which a driver suffers as a result of structural failures caused by unenlightened attempts to take advantage of new and lower allowable weights.[/b]
To state it again, legal and safe weight reduction is what we are talking about here. Nothing more, nothing less. For most people, it's getting all the sound deadening out of the car and then taking a real long hard look at the parts they have on the car - or COULD have on the car that would safe significant weight (like wheels, radiator, sway bars, seats, struts, etc)
Quote:
I just don't like where this process is headed and would like ITAC and CRB to do some rethinking.
And to those who have genuinely tried to be helpful with ways to take adavantage of the new weight for my 280Z - Thank You.
Best Regards - Bill Miskoe[/b]
Bring it out to NHIS and I will find you some weight savings. Prepare to bust out the wallet though... :D
Quote:
The fundamental decision appears to adjust the older cars. I guess it was assumed that not penalizing new cars and allowing benefits to old cars was the recipe for keeping the most folks happy, or at least not pissed off. That certainly is a logical approach. Bill's point of view is that you have an established population of cars, and that if anyone should have to adjust, it should be the new ones. That is not illogical. And, if the intended benefit given to the older cars is to a sigificant degree illusory, that is not a good solution. Like it or not, it looks like a change is a'comin'. The older cars will be given some leeway to become more "improved" but that will require new creativity, money, and effort. And that's all I have to say about that. [/b]
Bill D - while your anaysis of the perception is correct, we have tried to explain that in reality it is not. Using terms like 'old' and 'new' is the wrong thing to do. A performance envelope was established and the 240Z was a core car. One of the oldest cars in the ITCS. Some newer cars lost weight, some old cars gained weight, some new cars gained weight and some old cars lost weight. Bill's just happened to be one that lost. Are we actually suggesting that we should have done this excersize in such a way that NO CARS lost weight - even if it was possible? Just add to everyone and be done? There was no predetermined goal based on age. Cars we set according to the process. Weights seeminly are attainable based on research and educated guesses. WHAT MORE DO WE WANT?
Nothing is a'comin'. It's all done - was done on Feb of 06. It's over, the foundation has been set for the future. If you have a car that can't make the new weight - prove it and it will get consideration for a change.