Fastrack 04-02

[Banzai240]

Latest Fastrack is up:

http://www.scca.org/news/tech/fastrack/04-...-02Fastrack.pdf

Before you guys start shooting across the bow after reading it... Let me assure you that you are not the only ones who are unhappy with a few things...




------------------
Darin E. Jordan
SCCA #273080, OR/NW Regions
Auburn, WA
ITS '97 240SX

[Knestis]

Golf III years are fixed - kuul.

I'm intrigued by the recommendation that the '94-95 Civic EX be moved from S to A effective 1/1/05 (emphasis mine). One the one hand, it's nice that the CB is willing to consider this obvious change - since it didn't require an adjustment, errr, weight change - but 2005?

K



[This message has been edited by Knestis (edited December 19, 2003).]

[planet6racing]

Hmm... Very interesting. Saturn Ion Redline classified in T2. FC may go to open engine formula like FA (can you say Saturn powered Formula car? I know you can!).

Curiously, though, no comments about the PCAs. This has been out for comment for at least 6 months now. Are they waiting for the January meeting to discuss it?

And, why are the FasTracks coming out so early now? I -just- got my January Sports Car this week and the next FasTrack is already out?


------------------
Bill
Planet 6 Racing
bill (at) planet6racing (dot) com

[Greg Amy]

"...the Competition Board still feels that the Neon would be too fast for ITA."

Well, there melts my snowball...

<font face=\"Verdana, Arial\" size=\"2\">...no comments about the PCAs...</font>

Why kill off the golden opportunity they have left to defer reclassification requests out of ITS?

<font face=\"Verdana, Arial\" size=\"2\">...why are the FasTracks coming out so early now?</font>

I'm guessing this is a one-time deal in order to get the last business of 2003 out to the membership prior to 1/1/04. I'm sure they don't want to re-experience the black eye that the club got from the Z4/SSB Runoffs debacle.

Anyone want to buy a very-well-built Nissan NX2000? It would make a hell of a nice autocross car...It's past time to pull the plug on this project, stop wasting my finances and energy, and go race Spec Miata.

GA

[Maddog]

Originally posted by planet6racing:
And, why are the FasTracks coming out so early now? I -just- got my January Sports Car this week and the next FasTrack is already out?

It goes up on the website about the same time it goes to the printer for the next magazine.

About 4 weeks before Sports Car hits the mail box is about normal.

[planet6racing]

Greg:

Doesn't it still go by the issue date, not the date published to the web? I remember them talking about changing it, but it, like everything else, got tabled (or forgotten about)...

------------------
Bill
Planet 6 Racing
bill (at) planet6racing (dot) com

[Bill Miller]

Well, I see that the reclassification requests that I sent in in late October/early November didn't even get mentioned.

I find it amazing that they say that they can't adjust the weight of the Neon if they move it from ITS to ITA, yet they can correct the VR6 Golf and Jetta weights. Pretty funny that both the Golf and Jetta have the same spec weight now as well. Especially since the Jetta weighed more than the Golf. How can these people do this w/ straight faces? BTW, since they've corrected two more car's weights, I guess I need to write yet another letter asking for the basis of the correction.

I also find it funny that one request is shot done because the weight is 'correct as specified', yet two other cars are corrected.

I'm also puzzled by the need to wait until 1/05 for the Honda move. If they feel that the car is incorrectly classed, why does it have to wait another year?

As far as the Golf III goes, I didn't see any specs listed for the new cars.

On the upside though, I got a 100# early X-mas present. I get to take another 100# of my HP Rabbit. YES!!!!

And since we're on the subject of Prod cars, I can't believe they're moving the Lotus/Caterham 7's from FP to EP. Jerry Hinkle owns the EP record at Summit Point in a Lotus 7.

[Renaultfool]

Interesting, the 1.7 Renault Alliance in HP. In the specs you can mill the head to achive 10.5 to one compression, but this head is flat with no combustion chamber so you can mill all you want and nothing will happen compression wise. I wonder if you can mill the block, that would help.

[lateapex911]

My sources indicate that PCAs are still alive and kicking.

Keep in mind that there is a lot that occupies the CBs time other than IT issues. The recent Runoffs was very, umm , 'active'. and there have been some issues requiring copiuos amounts of CB time. Darin, care to enlighten me regarding your alluded to internal disention? I feel like I missed something.

------------------
Jake Gulick
CarriageHouse Motorsports
ITA 57 RX-7
New England Region
[email protected]

[Greg Gauper]

Originally posted by Renaultfool:
Interesting, the 1.7 Renault Alliance in HP. In the specs you can mill the head to achive 10.5 to one compression, but this head is flat with no combustion chamber so you can mill all you want and nothing will happen compression wise. I wonder if you can mill the block, that would help.

FYI - the two legal methods of raising compression in production on a limited prep engine are to either a) mill the head or run alternate pistons with any profile i.e. dished/domed, etc to raise compression. The rules aren't like IT in which the exact same configuration/shape/type/etc are specified.

I don't know if that makes a difference with your particular engine or not, but unless you are running an old flathead Ford, I would think different pistons would help....

[BVNitta]

Hmm...most annoying..The Opel compression ratio gift given to us in August of 9:1 was reduced back down to 7.6:1, in the Tech Buletin Errors Omissions.. Section. Alright, who ratted ? Come on out !

Good thing I was lazy and didn't pull my engine yet..but seriously, is anyone winning or even being remotely competitive with Mantas any more ?

Bhima

[Knestis]

Ack. You're not suggesting that a car's spec CR should be based on whether or not it is winning, I hope? Please tell me that you're kidding.

K

[BVNitta]

The story behind the CR spec for the Mantas is long and complex (which means I know little of it...someone like Bob Legere can fill in) and has nothing to do with CA's. I was under the impression that the west coast Opel drivers (Bob Dennard ?) had successfuly petitioned SCCA with the legitimacy of the higher CR spec for Mantas. Apparently not..

Bhima

[Chris Wire]

Also interesting is a comment that they are considering a new D Prod class.



------------------
Chris Wire
Team Wire Racing
ITS Mazda RX7 #35
[email protected]

[Geo]

Originally posted by Chris Wire:
Also interesting is a comment that they are considering a new D Prod class.

I remember DP and CP. Lot of 924s in DP and the 240Z ruled CP. Hell, I even remember BP, but that was before I could even drive. I think some higher P classes would be a good thing - especially if it provided a more logical progression for IT cars to move up.


------------------
George Roffe
Houston, TX
84 944 ITS car under construction
92 ITS Sentra SE-R occasionally borrowed
http://www.nissport.com

[Knestis]

Amen.

[Bill Miller]

George,

You and I don't often agree, but I'm w/ you on this one. With the exception of GT1 and GT3 (and GT1 is a totally different animal anyway), the other GT classes had pretty low participation (two didn't make numbers for two years).

I'd love to see higher performance level Prod classes.

------------------
MARRS #25 ITB Rabbit GTI (sold) | MARRS #25 HProd Rabbit
SCCA 279608

[itmanta]

I am too short on profanity to express my true feelings. I have a fresh 9:1 Opel motor on a stand ready to be installed and they change the rules back on me now! I have no recourse. I am at least $2000 down the hole. How can the SCCA do that? Pure B.S. I tell you.

------------------
Peter Linssen
ITB Opel Manta
Pacific NW Region

[Banzai240]

Originally posted by itmanta:
How can the SCCA do that? Pure B.S. I tell you.

The only way they are suppose to do this is if the documentation shows that the models and years in question had 7.6:1 compression from the factory. I know very little about Opels, but if there is factory documentation that shows the specifications were otherwise, you need to gather it and send it to the Technical department along with a letter explaining the error.

I went back and looked, and the ITAC received a letter way back last March asking that the specifications be corrected for valve sizes and compression. The CB was suppose to validate the data and correct it. They seem to have found something that caused them to change their minds. One can't really assume what that might have been, so the prudent thing to do would be to get whatever information you have that shows the factory compression ratios for all the years in question and send it to the appropriate people.

If the factory documents do indeed show the compression ratio as 7.6:1, then surely you must have questioned the change to 9.0 in the first place, and a red-flag would have had to been raised in your brain saying 'there is a conflict here... I should double check this before spending $2000'

Sorry, but the CRB, BoD, and ITAC can't possibly know the specs for EVERY car out there, and mistakes do get made when dealing with this much data... That's why you are required to have the factory manual for your car...

If the data exists to validate the compression ratio, I suggest you gather it and send it in with a letter to correct the correction. You'd be suprised how persuasive the correct documentation can be...

Feel free to contact me with any questions...

Good Luck,




------------------
Darin E. Jordan
SCCA #273080, OR/NW Regions
Auburn, WA
ITS '97 240SX

[Knestis]

It is utterly crappy that you have to pay the price, Peter but c'mon - who honestly believes that there was a 9:1 CR ANYTHING imported into the U.S. in the early-mid '70s?

If I saw a FasTrack bulletin that said I could build an ITB GTI with a 11:1 engine, I sure wouldn't spend money on one today...

K