September Fastrack...

[turboICE]

I believe as a proposed rule change asking for member comments for or against is putting it out for input.

------------------
Ed.
240SX ITA

[turboICE]

Two things - the errors/typos/ommissions are in item 5 of the GCR changes not in item 3 of the ITCS changes.

Am I reading ITCS change #2 correctly here:

Should the change be taken to mean that we can now change intake parts between a MAF and the throttle body? I think it does.

Otherwise I don't see any point in the change to the wording - it was clear as previously worded. If the intent is not to basically free up all parts in front of the throttle body except for the MAF itself then they really did nothing but make the wording more labored.

If I am off base here please explain the wording change purpose.

------------------
Ed.
240SX ITA

[Bill Miller]

Originally posted by turboICE:
I believe as a proposed rule change asking for member comments for or against is putting it out for input.

Good point Ed.



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

[Banzai240]

I'll have to go read what was actually printed again, but on the air intake... The "intent" of the rule is to allow you to replace the entire air-intake tube all the way to the throttle-body, with the EXCEPTION of the MAF or Air-Metering-Device... So, the only real change to this rule is that the but between the metering device and the thottle body can now be replaced... Looks to me like they forgot to strike out one of the items in the parens ("air mass meter"), but the rest looks correct...

I don't see how one can say it's laboured, when mostly words were removed, and I think that it's pretty clear what can and can't be done... consise is the term I'd use... This has been on the table for some time (and out for member comment for a LONG time), and we went round and round with the wording... mostly involving what to do about controlling the LOCATION of the MAF device... This is the end result... You can replace the tubes, but you must leave the MAF operational and unmodified, just as before... The location of the MAF will be dictated by the wiring, mounts, etc.... that's about the best we could do without laying out a book full of parameters concerning the MAF location that would have certainly just caused confusion... over something that really isn't going to matter much...

The reason this was done is that there are cars that had an "unfair" advantage due to the wording of this rule allowing them to replace their entire air intake assembly right to the throttle-plates, while other were limited by the metering device location...

Plus, it'll let your competition waste their money on shiney aluminum "bling" tubes that heat up the air-charge and reduce their HP Potential, allowing you to pull them in the straights because you spent your money on good tires...

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


[This message has been edited by Banzai240 (edited July 27, 2005).]

[turboICE]

Darin, thanx for the response. The new language only would have been labored if the parts between the MAF and the throttle body were still restricted. With your explanation of the intent and if the last item in parens is in fact going to be eliminated - I agree that it will be concise.

MAF relocation would only make sense for me if battery relocation were allowed. I would love to pull air from the intake manifold side of the car rather than the exhaust manifold side.

But I will be glad to improve both the shape and the heat resistance over the OEM parts I have.

I guess this edition has quite a few edits that weren't quite complete in the proposed changes.

------------------
Ed.
240SX ITA

[This message has been edited by turboICE (edited July 27, 2005).]

[whenry]

Finally the H-word intake rule is being exposed and addressed. Yes, I know that I am not guaranteed a competitive car but writing a rule that allows one brand a very real competitive advantage is also wrong. I will say that the original rule was written back when the staff at SCCA was different(and racing H-word products). YMMV

[RacerBowie]

Darin, is this a rule as of 10/1/05, or is it still up for debate? I have to buy a new intake for the repair of my wrecked car and this could make a difference for me.

Thanks,

Bowie

Originally posted by Banzai240:
I'll have to go read what was actually printed again, but on the air intake... The "intent" of the rule is to allow you to replace the entire air-intake tube all the way to the throttle-body, with the EXCEPTION of the MAF or Air-Metering-Device... So, the only real change to this rule is that the but between the metering device and the thottle body can now be replaced... Looks to me like they forgot to strike out one of the items in the parens ("air mass meter"), but the rest looks correct...

I don't see how one can say it's laboured, when mostly words were removed, and I think that it's pretty clear what can and can't be done... consise is the term I'd use... This has been on the table for some time (and out for member comment for a LONG time), and we went round and round with the wording... mostly involving what to do about controlling the LOCATION of the MAF device... This is the end result... You can replace the tubes, but you must leave the MAF operational and unmodified, just as before... The location of the MAF will be dictated by the wiring, mounts, etc.... that's about the best we could do without laying out a book full of parameters concerning the MAF location that would have certainly just caused confusion... over something that really isn't going to matter much...

The reason this was done is that there are cars that had an "unfair" advantage due to the wording of this rule allowing them to replace their entire air intake assembly right to the throttle-plates, while other were limited by the metering device location...

Plus, it'll let your competition waste their money on shiney aluminum "bling" tubes that heat up the air-charge and reduce their HP Potential, allowing you to pull them in the straights because you spent your money on good tires...

[Banzai240]

On the Air Intake rule... If the Fastrack doesn't specify a date, then it's a CRB recommendation that won't be in effect until 2006, and only if the BoD approves the change in it's August or December meetings... unless I'm reading something wrong...

Not sure about the cage rules... There is a typo in there I think that makes it sound like it won't be allowed until 10/2006, but it then says 10/2005...

In most cases, these announcements for GCR or ITCS rule change recommendations do not take effect until the BoD officially approves them in their August or December meetings...

I'm confident the proposals will be approved, but it IS possible they won't be... (I'm thinking HIGHLY unlikely this will happen... The BoD has trusted us to this point...)

Hope this helps...


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


[This message has been edited by Banzai240 (edited July 27, 2005).]

[lateapex911]

yeah...I have to agree...I'll bet the cage ruling is as good as done.

My completely inaccurate rumour gathering device has this rule is part of a larger "We gotta look at the cage rules" movement by the CRB, and it is obviously a safer and wiser set up. I HIGHLY doubt the BoD will overrule the wants of the CRB, and more importantly, the insurance commitee on this.

They'll hammer out the wording, but I *bet* the desire (Note I avoided the word 'intent', LOL) is to have both sides match, and that the club would like to see cars that can put any form of "NASCAR" bar in to do so, and is willing to throw us all a bone in the form of a gutted door, as further temptation.

Works for me, I just wish I could just do it now!

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

[This message has been edited by lateapex911 (edited July 27, 2005).]

[Knestis]

Okay - minority view, perhaps but I don't buy that NASCAR-style door bars on the passenger side make a car safer.

All that pushing the bars into the door cavity do is gain the driver some physical space between his/her elbow and the tube. That benefit doesn't happen on the passenger side.

It seems to me that this is being motivated by someone's view of "what a racing car should look like."

k

[JeffYoung]

Guys, bear with me, but I am not sure there was a clear answer to this question:

Does an "X" style side protection on the passenger side satisfy the new two-tube rule? I would argue that it does, but saw one post (dewhurst) that indicated it did not. Wouldn't the X constitute "two tubes" between the front and main hoops?

By the way, I'm with Kirk on this. Just what does door bars on the passenger side have to do with safety? The chances of a side impact on the passenger side coming anywhere near me are slim to none.

[turboICE]

My view is that if it keeps objects further from inside my compartment it is an improvement. Between accusump, cool suit cooler, ballast and who knows what else over on our right - I like the idea.

Keep in mind that nothing has been advanced requiring a NASCAR style door bar to be installed on your car if you don't want it as long as you do not gut the door. The option is being given and I think it is a good thing to have the option for those who want it whether for safety or because of their view of what a race car should be.

If there is ever a time when NASCAR bars are proposed as a requirement rather than an option - by all means communicate to the CRB any disagreement with it as a requirement.

------------------
Ed.
240SX ITA

[Knestis]

It's a little immaterial if it's required or not. If NASCAR passenger side door bars were argued as a "safety" enhancement, it's just another example of disengenuous rationale applied to satisfy the "IT cars are REAL race cars" mythos. That's just one more nail in the rules creep coffin.

K

[Banzai240]

...It never fails...

[tderonne]

One aspect of the safety argument that recently came to light in my world.

At Waterford (and similar in SCCA) we have insurnace that covers our race weekends. We hear a lot about how insurance drives safety improvements. Sounds simple.

Question:
We're going to hold a vintage race. What to do about insurance? Some vintage cars (pre-war) don't even have roll bars.

So what to do? Suck it up and pay some huge rate? Something else?

Answer:
Nothing, same insurance. They don't care. Wheel to wheel racing is wheel to wheel racing.

So much for the insurance drives safety argument.

[dyoungre]

Would the ALLOWANCE of Nascar bars make the IT cars more suitable to hold a passenger, say for a driver's school, or HPDE event? While adding Nascar bars to the passenger side may provide minimal safety improvements for a driver, I expect it could pay dividends to a student in the passenger seat.
One could argue that having curved bars protruding into the door may also help reduce passenger side impact Gs by absorbing a higher percentage of the energy by bending before the whole side of the car pancakes. Thoughts?

------------------
Dave Youngren
NER ITA RX7 #61

[turboICE]

Passenger considerations was the primary original reason I sent a letter in May asking for what they are now proposing. I wanted to see it for many reasons - but consideration for an instructor when one of my friends wants to use the car for a PDE event was what actually caused me to write them. That discussion can be seen in the "driver's side glass" thread right below.

------------------
Ed.
240SX ITA

[ddewhurst]

***Does an "X" style side protection on the passenger side satisfy the new two-tube rule? I would argue that it does, but saw one post (dewhurst) that indicated it did not. Wouldn't the X constitute "two tubes" between the front and main hoops?***

Jeff, my thought of the "X" not being two tubes is the same as main hoops, main hoop diagonal, main hoop horizontal, front hoops side hoops & rear hoop braces. Do we make these TUBES out of more than one piece of tubing ? The basic purpose of the roll care is to protect the driver..................

For driver protection I'll take the NASCAR side protection. For chassis strength I'll take the "X".

This whole deal is really quit simple. The TWO tubes connecting the rear & front hoops are required at a future date. To those who feel better with the "X" I'll bet your overall design could be such that you could do both the TWO tubes & the "X" THREE tubes.

Have Fun
David

[JIgou]

Originally posted by dyoungre:
One could argue that having curved bars protruding into the door may also help reduce passenger side impact Gs by absorbing a higher percentage of the energy by bending before the whole side of the car pancakes. Thoughts?

One could also argue that strong steel bars extending into the door and attaching the remainder of the car's structure could, rather than absorb the impact forces, transmit them directly to the rest of the car - including the squishy part in the seat(s).

Having destroyed my Miata this past Sunday and had very little soreness during the ensuing days, I'm now a BIGGER believer in letting the chassis absorb the impact as much as possible. YMMV.

Jarrod

[turboICE]

I am not so sure that NASCAR bars eliminate chasis force abosrbtion from a crash.

They do not extend beyond the a-pillar and b-pillar. There is still a wide area of dispersion of force in front of and behind the door bars. The car may rotate differently to distribute the forces around the door bar - but I don't think NASCAR bars are going to eliminate chasis absorption and transfer forces to the driver directly. I would prefer direct transfer over compartment intrusion though.

I am strapped into a comfortably tight seat so that points of contact will spread through my whole body. Except of course my head flopping around.

Great these conversations always make me go to the Isaac site... I gotta make the budget for that.
------------------
Ed.
240SX ITA

[This message has been edited by turboICE (edited July 28, 2005).]