May Fasttrack is out

[Jake]

Comments from the peanut gallery?

[JohnRW]

ITS Neon and Nissan owners are smiling. About time.

Shock rule - sanity corrects conflicted language.

Round 'Roccos could be the new killer car in ITC. Wish I still had mine.

'Ludes in B ? The Golf III's have some new competition.

All good signs that the CRB is making progress cutting thru the fog of the last 100 years.

Edit - fingers not connected to brain.

[This message has been edited by JohnRW (edited March 24, 2004).]

[RR]

Coil-overs are now permitted. ITs about time!

[Jake]

Greg - welcome to ITA. (about dang time!)

Dave, it looks like you are going to ITB even though they screwed up the specline. (good thing you never bought those 13x7 wheels!) You're car should do VERY well in ITB. Order those Hoosiers soon!

Can't wait to see how the Protege and Neons do with the CRX's.

Nice to see the 87 Toyota FX-16 go to ITB. Too bad the MR2 is "correctly classified" in ITA even though it is about the same weight and uses the same engine. I guess in the 15 years that the MR2 has been in IT, no one has explored its "performance potential"

[This message has been edited by Jake (edited March 24, 2004).]

[gran racing]

Waaahooo! Yipee! (Dave jumping around the office and everyone wondering what new wonder drug I've just taken.)

Are these items final? I see that the IT Advisory Committee and the Club Racing Board is recommending that it be classified...what else needs to happen (other then correct the car's model year)?

Bet you can't tell I'm at all excited, now can you?

------------------
Dave Gran
NER #13 ITA
'87 Honda Prelude

[gran racing]

And yes Greg, congrats!

------------------
Dave Gran
NER #13 ITA
'87 Honda Prelude

[924Guy]

Yeah, it seemed kinda odd to me also that they'd say the FX16 is obviously in the wrong class, yet the MR2 isn't! Doesn't add up, to me... But yes, it's a welcome sign.

Now let's remember all, it's not effective yet, now's the time to stoke the fires and tell the CRB what we think!

------------------
Vaughan Scott
Detroit Region #280052
'79 924 #77 ITA/GTS1
www.vaughanscott.com

[Banzai240]

Originally posted by 924Guy:
Yeah, it seemed kinda odd to me also that they'd say the FX16 is obviously in the wrong class, yet the MR2 isn't! Doesn't add up, to me...

I've tried to argue this (to get the MR2 moved to IT, but apparently, there are those that think otherwise... Sorry...

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

[Jake]

My 2cents: Sure I'm pissed about the MR2 (not even a "we'll see how PCA pans out" or yeah, but we want to add some weight, but a flat denial!). Can I join Spec RX7, pleeeeasse?!!?

But that said, I think this is a huge move in the right direction for IT. What we are beginning to witness is a big (overdue) shuffle that will get a greater variety of cars in IT. ITA is begining to look a LOT like we envisioned IT2. For those who said this will NEVER happen....

[Jake]

Thanks Darin. I guess I still don't get it. Do they think that having the engine in the back is like having another 20hp? (Putting my Kirk hat on).... I wish whoever made this final judgment (more like a nail in the coffin for ever running this inexpensive and fun car in IT) would justify why they think the MR2 is too fast for ITB.

On another note, anyone want to buy used MR2? Only driven on the weekends! Engine oil changed every 500 miles. Rare and expensive 14x7 wheels.

[RSTPerformance]

WOW... very happy as well... people in my office are asking why I am smiling... then they come to my computer and see me looking for pictures of a Toyota FX-16...

I am very glad to see that things are changing as a WHOLE, not for any individual people or cars. (That has been my gripe in the past).

I don't see how anyone can comlain this month!!!

Raymond Blethen
RST Performance Racing

PS: Dave looking forward to racing with you, don't think we wont be watching you this year... next year lets catch those darn Volvo's!!!

[RSTPerformance]

Ok in the CRB recommendation it talks about weights (competition adjustments), reclassification and/or intake restrictors. It also indicates to me that the cars will be shuffled only for the first 4 years, after that no changes... Am I reading that right?

As of now there are reclassifications (even if we don't think their are their have been) so that is not my question, more so if weights can be changed after 4 years??? If not what is the plan with the current 4+-year-old cars?

Raymond Blethen

[Greg Amy]

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Waaahooo! Yipee!</font>

Ditto! I don't have time to read this thoroughly, but I'm likin' what I see...

Anyone want to buy a partially-built Spec Miata...?

Very cool.

<grin>

[tderonne]

What has 5% more power and torque, .5" bigger brakes, 3% less weight, and 45% vs. 64% front weight than an FX16? Yup, MR2. All in a smaller, more aerodynamic package.

Not that the MR2 is an ITA car, just that even though it shares a similar motor with the FX16, they are not the same. Heck the oft glorifed power to weight ratio of the MR2 is almost 10% better than the FX16.

Just means the MR2 crowd needs to sharpen their pencils. The CRB has finally shown an openess to some rethinking!

[gran racing]

Raymond - I'm looking forward to it as well. I still need to shave some time off to keep up with you, but have a little more motivation now. (I just hope the classification stays this way.)

Will you be at the LRP race on 5/9?

Jake, don't know what to say. You know how I feel - that your car should be in ITB.

As happy as I am about my specific reclassification, I am really happy with the way SCCA is moving.

------------------
Dave Gran
NER #13 ITA
'87 Honda Prelude

[Jake]

td- actually the have the same hp and torque. The lower spec weight doesn't help if you can't get there. Sharpen pencils? How about empty our wallets? I have a friend who's got $30K in an MR2 already. (I don't want to go there...)

Ok, deep breath. These changes are for the good of all IT. I don't want to be "that guy". Greg - if you want out of the Spec Miata, send me an email. I may be interested.

[This message has been edited by Jake (edited March 24, 2004).]

[Banzai240]

Originally posted by RSTPerformance:
...more so if weights can be changed after 4 years??? If not what is the plan with the current 4+-year-old cars?

Raymond Blethen

I'll try to explain this in type, though it's much easier to just tell you in person. It's not NEARLY as confusing as it sounds in writing...

The bottom line is that the language you are quoting specifically addressed NEW classifications. If you read carefully, you'll see that newly classified cars are subject to UNSOLICITED, or otherwise as-needed review by the CRB and adjustments can be made without a request being written, should initial specifications prove to miss the mark.

Otherwise, the mechanisnm is open to any car that clearly shows that it is misclassed, or that it's specifications are incorrect for it's current class. For example, if the MR2 is deemed too fast for ITB, but is clearly NOT competitive in ITA, then the CRB has the option, most likely pending a request, to make a weight adjustment to this car, or reclassify it. This mechanism is mostly meant to apply to overdogs, but it appears by the language used to be open to any car.

Basically, it simply gives the CRB the ability to adjusts weights for IT cars... something that traditionally hasn't been allowed.

The restrictor part was added by someone on the CRB, and I can't explain that part, except to say that, in my opinion, this would be an option that simply would almost never get used... That's just my opinion, but it's based on the feeling I get from the rest of the ITAC...

Hopefully this helps you better understand what is happening with this "PCA" proposal.

Keep your eyes peeled for more interesting news/developments... coming soon to a Fastrack near you!



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

[joeg]

Show support by dropping a letter in the mail to Topeka; I just did!

[Blix]

well gee greg...what kind of partially built SM and how far along? I might be interested...

Eric
NER SSM #12

[Banzai240]

Originally posted by gran racing:
Are these items final...

Actually, the reclassifications, according to the wording they chose to use, are NOT final, unless the BoD approves the use of PCAs...

This is the result of the long standing "tradition" of not allowing cars to be reclassified WITH a weight adjustment. Apparently, adjusting weight has "traditionally" been considered a CA unto itself, and has been considered taboo to do when reclassifying a car in IT.

HOWEVER, I and others on the ITAC are in discussions with the CRB currently concerning this issue. There is a strong consensus (not all, but most of us) believe that the process of "re-classifying" a car actually INVOLVES and actually MANDATES re-evaluating the specifications of the car... In other words, when you classify a car, you pick a class and set an appropriate weight, so when you RE-classify a car, would you not do this again? There is further support for this line of thinking in the GCR. Don't have the number at hand at the moment, but I think it's 17.1.12 - Change of Specifications.

The bottom line is that most of us believe that, since reclassification is the only authorized form of CA in the ITCS, a proper definition of "re-classification" is as I've described above... As of the printing of this latest Fastrack, apparently the CRB has yet to be convinced.

We'll have to talk to then some more about it at tomorrows con-call!


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