Where's the October Fastrack?

Printable View

09-23-2010, 12:11 PM
titanium

Where's the October Fastrack?

Normally, it's the 20th.
The website says it will be up on the 22nd.
Today is the 23rd, and still no dice.
Anyone have a idea as for the delay?
Did everyone go to Wisconsin and forgot they had to upload it?
09-23-2010, 12:13 PM
dave parker

It is probably in someone's briefcase or laptop at Road America. I would not expect it to show up too soon (like after the Rub-Offs).
cheers
dave parker
09-23-2010, 12:47 PM
JoshS

It's up. http://www.scca.com/documents/Fastra...strack-oct.pdf
09-23-2010, 01:15 PM
gran racing

So nothing about the IT rule proposal? :(
09-23-2010, 01:18 PM
JoshS

Quote:

Originally Posted by gran racing

So nothing about the IT rule proposal?

That is pending the next BOD meeting. As you can see in the Fastrack, the BOD minutes published here are from their August meeting.
09-23-2010, 01:19 PM
gran racing

When is the next BOD meeting?

Found this interesting and too bad: Stats show that if 100 people join year zero, only 15 renew by year 4.
09-23-2010, 01:20 PM
jjjanos

Did I read this correctly?
Person asks for a change in the STU rules to allow roadster production rule
Denied.
Reason - Not permitted within the rules.

So the reason for denying a request to change the rule is because the rules need to be changed?

Huh?
09-23-2010, 01:34 PM
JoshS

Quote:

Originally Posted by gran racing

When is the next BOD meeting?

Not 100% sure, but I think it's early October.
09-23-2010, 02:12 PM
GKR_17

So we now get the BMW E46 330 up to 2006.

Did anyone consider the ZHP option package that was available in 2004? Better camshafts for 10 more hp stock, plus a 6-speed transmission. Had that package been available in the original model years the car would have weighed nearly 150 lbs more. Can we expect this to be fixed?
09-23-2010, 02:15 PM
JoshS

Quote:

Originally Posted by GKR_17

So we now get the BMW E46 330 up to 2006.

Did anyone consider the ZHP option package that was available in 2004? Better camshafts for 10 more hp stock, plus a 6-speed transmission. Had that package been available in the original model years the car would have weighed nearly 150 lbs more. Can we expect this to be fixed?

Yes, just an oversight. Can you please write a letter to crbscca.com so it gets tracked and corrected?
09-23-2010, 02:16 PM
titanium

How about this, near the bottom of page 4.
"Runoffs 2012 - Need to start discussing process. Current contract runs thru 2011. Need to determine if we want to extend current
venue or pursue new venue. Some discussion about possibility of Austin."

Austin?
Austin?
Where have I heard something about a race track in Austin?
09-23-2010, 02:18 PM
Chip42

Quote:

Originally Posted by jjjanos

Did I read this correctly?
Person asks for a change in the STU rules to allow roadster production rule
Denied.
Reason - Not permitted within the rules.

So the reason for denying a request to change the rule is because the rules need to be changed?

Huh?

I think they were tryign to suggest that the ST category rules forbid changing the factory silhouette outside of allowed mods, and as such wasn't going to be changed specifically for the STU class.

but it does read pretty f'ed up.

corrolla XRS to ITS. same motor: celica GT-S? ITR. both FWD, IRS, etc... someone please 'splain.
09-23-2010, 02:21 PM
GKR_17

Quote:

Originally Posted by JoshS

Yes, just an oversight. Can you please write a letter to crbscca.com so it gets tracked and corrected?

Done - #2764

Thanks
09-23-2010, 02:26 PM
lateapex911

Quote:

Originally Posted by titanium

How about this, near the bottom of page 4.
"Runoffs 2012 - Need to start discussing process. Current contract runs thru 2011. Need to determine if we want to extend current
venue or pursue new venue. Some discussion about possibility of Austin."

Austin?
Austin?
Where have I heard something about a race track in Austin?

I don't see how they could possibly think about Austin. A track that has JUST been introduced to the local politicians, and has had NO studies done on traffic, drainage, and on and on. NO permits have been applied for to my knowledge, much less approved. HOW they will get this built in time, while going through the normal channels is beyond me. This isn't some other country that will fasttrack such a project....if a group of neighbors decides to fight, and hires a lawyer, even the approved permits will get brought to court and then that decision will be appealed. It could take years....
09-23-2010, 02:47 PM
Z3_GoCar

Quote:

Originally Posted by jjjanos

Did I read this correctly?
Person asks for a change in the STU rules to allow roadster production rule
Denied.
Reason - Not permitted within the rules.

So the reason for denying a request to change the rule is because the rules need to be changed?

Huh?

No convertible made in the past 30 years has a removable windshield. Why allow the removal of a major piece of structure now?

Quote:

Originally Posted by titanium

How about this, near the bottom of page 4.
"Runoffs 2012 - Need to start discussing process. Current contract runs thru 2011. Need to determine if we want to extend current
venue or pursue new venue. Some discussion about possibility of Austin."

Austin?
Austin?
Where have I heard something about a race track in Austin?

The next venue will be Orlando, many in Cal-club are already bemoaning the extra drive time. After that maybe Miller.
09-23-2010, 02:59 PM
rsportvolvo

Quote:

Originally Posted by lateapex911

I don't see how they could possibly think about Austin. A track that has JUST been introduced to the local politicians, and has had NO studies done on traffic, drainage, and on and on. NO permits have been applied for to my knowledge, much less approved. HOW they will get this built in time, while going through the normal channels is beyond me. This isn't some other country that will fasttrack such a project....if a group of neighbors decides to fight, and hires a lawyer, even the approved permits will get brought to court and then that decision will be appealed. It could take years....

You must live in Connecticut and not Texas.

I'm just glad a new track is proposed for my general area.
09-23-2010, 03:03 PM
Z3_GoCar

Quote:

Originally Posted by rsportvolvo

You must live in Connecticut and not Texas.

I'm just glad a new track is proposed for my general area.

Since your economy is doing so well, and land is reasonablly cheap, why not encourage your region build their own track?
09-23-2010, 03:04 PM
Knestis

>> Stats show that if 100 people join year zero, only 15 renew by year 4.

Not even remotely surprising. I got my current member number in the early '80s (103210). If someone joined today, what would their number be? The difference is the number of people who've been through the revolving door.

My "try not to get sucked in" motivation generally keeps me from delving into stuff like board minutes but I did get a kick out of this:

>> BoD in general would like to see more turnover in the advisory boards, but with structured succession.

They certainly got that this past year or so, huh? The first part, anyway... :)

K
09-23-2010, 03:14 PM
gran racing

You mean like in Palmer, MA? :happy204:
09-23-2010, 03:14 PM
rsportvolvo

Quote:

Originally Posted by Z3_GoCar

Since your economy is doing so well, and land is reasonablly cheap, why not encourage your region build their own track?

My point was/is the Texans consider Texas another country.

There are 2 good tracks within 1.5 hours of Houston, depending on where in the urban sprawl one lives. Texas World Speedway and Motorsport Ranch Angleton. No need for a new local track here, especially since it's flat. Austin is in the hill country and the elevation changes will be welcomed.
09-23-2010, 03:17 PM
Z3_GoCar

Nice to know that I'm part of the 15%ers having had my comp license since May '06.
09-23-2010, 03:28 PM
Andy Bettencourt

Quote:

Originally Posted by Z3_GoCar

Nice to know that I'm part of the 15%ers having had my comp license since May '06.

They talking about comp license or general membership to the club? I didn't read it but I bet it's the latter.
09-23-2010, 06:56 PM
lateapex911

Quote:

Originally Posted by Andy Bettencourt

They talking about comp license or general membership to the club? I didn't read it but I bet it's the latter.

yea
09-30-2010, 04:08 PM
Bill Miller

Pretty funny stuff in the CoA section. At the end of Jon Farbman's is the following:

Quote:

Originally Posted by CoA

Appellants are reminded that the Court of Appeals normally requires new evidence that was not available to the First Court as a basis for a well-founded appeal. Procedural errors by the First Court may also form a well-founded appeal. Simply asking for a second opinion without basis is not well-founded.

This was after finding Jon's appeal not well founded. But in the very next listing (Matt Green's), they state the following:

Quote:

Originally Posted by CoA

Mr. Green offered no new evidence or information that was germane to the body contact portion of his case.

Yet the deemed Matt's appeal to be well founded. The only additional documents or evidence that was rec'd in Matt's case vs. Jon's case was an email from the SOM Chairman, Dan Hodge. I know if I was Jon, I'd be pissed for this apparent lack of consistency in determining what is and is not a well founded appeal.