July FasTrack is up

[Bill Miller]

http://www.scca.org/_FileLibrary/File/06-7-fastrack.pdf

[JeffYoung]

And here we go....

Before the deluge starts on ITR, I see at least two obvious errors:

1. RSX weight at 3600 lbs.

2. Porsche 928. That was supposed to be deleted.

Andy/Jake/George, how do we get that corrected?

Thanks guys. Ducking for cover, will come out of my hole in 2-3 weeks.

[Ron Earp]

Unfortunately, they have a very early version of that spreadsheet that contains more errors than what Jeff cited. Many of the flywheel estimates and calculations are off as well. Be that as it may, I'm sure if it comes to pass they will be using the correct process spreadsheet that was worked upon collectively. Don't think you need to run or duck for cover, debating this sheet is somewhat pointless due to errors present.

Ron

[Bill Miller]

I agree, looks like a couple of errors, probably an early version. Also, I thought we capped wheels at 8", not 8.5".

But, what I find really amazing is that it made it into FasTrack so fast!!!!

[Knestis]

Well, THAT'S a trip, huh?

The next time someone suggests that rule changes happen slowly because the system is resistant to change, point to this example: when someone WANTS change, it can happen very quickly.

It's a shame that the proposal went out without the most mature specifications proposal. That's going to complicate the process of final approval as it looks to some members as though the weights are being negotiated rather than computed by a process. That said, Jeff et al. should be very pleased with the impact that they've had on the category. It's going to be a good thing once the final details are worked out.

K

[JeffYoung]

I share responsibility for the "old" version of the spreadsheet getting out -- not quite sure how that happened? I have the latest and greatest from Andy and it has the last round of changes (Celica GTS to ITS, no 928, RSX fixed, other hp and weights fixed)...maybe I sent the wrong one. My apologies guys, if I just screwed it up.

Reiterate what Kirk said on weights: there was NO negotiation over that. It was all done by process. Where the "play" is is in the adders/deducts, and in the estimated flywheel hp in IT trim. If you guys see numbers that are wrong, let us know.

Andy/George/Jake -- how do we let the CRB know as a group that they have an early spreadsheet?

Jeff

[planet6racing]

Well, congratulations!! It's good to see that the process actually works.

I can say that, based on what I've read in this month's FasTrack, there may be a Saturn ITA car for sale soon...

[lateapex911]

No worries guys, blame it on ANDY!!! Why not....he's the evil empire, remember??

Annnnyway, lets make sure we are all in agreement on the latest and greatest, and resubmit. It shouldn't be an issue. The con call is coming up soon, we'll go over it then.

Ron?? Nice job.
Jeff?? Nice job.

Guys, Ron cooked this idea up a long time ago, and Jeff hammered it along, long before it ever hit this site. I knew about it, thought we needed to move on it, called Ron, and they have run with it and put a lot of effort into it. I think the collective group did a great job, and it was fun.

I am most impressed by their flexibility and persistance. Thanks guys!

[lateapex911]

Also, I thought the 944S was left in ITS???

Other BIG things:

24 classes ONLY at the Runoffs. THAT is what makes the rest of the changes possible. It signals a huge change....to a free market economy. The "Old guard" just lost the grip.

A, B, C, and D Prepared.

With a direct link to Touring. Can anyone else hear the crickets chirping over Prod cars??

(I bet there's some iteresting reading over on the Prod site!)

Yup...that was one of the most significant Fastracks to come along in a lonnnng time.

[turboICE]

I hope the inference that I have made to the following is wrong:

The usual letters were addressed from the Touring, IT, Showroom Stock, Production, Spec Miata , GT, Formula and Sport Racing categories. The letters always take up valuable time at these meeting[/b]

Should this be taken to mean that member letters are taking up time that would be better spent by CRB on something else? What would be a better use of time than to consider input from members?

[lateapex911]

yeah, but it went on to say:

But this meeting was different. There was time set aside and taken for Strategic.....
[/b]

I think it was not well written, but the main point was that this meeting was unusual in that the big picture was the main issue, and the day to day stuff was more in the background.

There's a TON to discuss in these meetings, and a lot of issues are dependant on other issues. It's a big balancing act. What seem like no brainer ideas hit roadblocks when larger picture considerations are brought in. I think that the CRB guys have a pretty good grip on the larger picture of the club.

I think that what they were trying to convey, is that they are (finally ) looking and doing something proactive, not just reacting to letters. ( I know it's been discussed for years internally, but.....)

Yes, letters are important, but thats not the entire role of the CRB.

Agreed though, not the best "wordsmithing" on that one.

All in all, I'm glad to see stuff that we've been talking about for years finally seeing the light of day.

[tnord]

if we already sent in our letter of support for ITR, do we need to send another now that it is officially posted in Fastrack?

between the financials, ITR, Formula 1000, runoffs limitations, Prepared, etc.....

the biggest fastract i've ever seen in my short 3yrs with the club.

[Geo]

Andy/George/Jake -- how do we let the CRB know as a group that they have an early spreadsheet?

Jeff
[/b]

Jeff, get us the latest and greatest. We have a conference call on Monday and can address it.

[Andy Bettencourt]

I have the latest and included it in our minutes to the CRB after our con-call. I will resend.

AB

[zracre]

ok im used to getting shot down...cant win unless you try...but my beef is that before I sent these in I requested a safety modification...relocate ballast to seat area...I have 100+ pounds of stuff bolted to my flimsy floor...I am dissapointed that this was not addressed. Oh well I will send it again!

[Z3_GoCar]

Wow,

Decisions, decisions.... Do I want to deal with my modifyed harnes and lack of stock computer housing and run ITR, or will I run in Prepared D and be run off eligable, and not hassle with all the non-legal mods. Down side is the SIR, and possible rewards weight.

James

[Bill Miller]

ok im used to getting shot down...cant win unless you try...but my beef is that before I sent these in I requested a safety modification...relocate ballast to seat area...I have 100+ pounds of stuff bolted to my flimsy floor...I am dissapointed that this was not addressed. Oh well I will send it again!
[/b]

Evan,

I thought that the ballast location rule was changing 1/1/07? BTW, never got to look in the trailer last night.

[JeffYoung]

Andy, thanks. Not sure what happened with that, but my guess is it is my fault and I submitted an early version.

My apologies to the group.

[zracre]

Evan,

I thought that the ballast location rule was changing 1/1/07? BTW, never got to look in the trailer last night.
[/b]

yes it is...i just thought with it being a bit of a safety issue it should be immediate. as a note the extra 115# ballast on the Integra and CRX was immediate and that was definitely not a safety issue!!LOL My car is in the paint shop and when it comes back it would be nice to put the weight in a more permanent spot....I have a seat there now acting as ballast...my car was way under and I really wouldnt feel safe having to put that much weight there...I am putting more bars in the cage to beef it up but that wont cut it...

[Jeremy Billiel]

Any update on FWD adders and subtractors in ITS? It seems as though this was discussed and they still want to monitor the FWD race cars a bit more.

Is this a good interpretation?