Jan 07 Fast Track is up

[Andy Bettencourt]

http://scca.com/_FileLibrary/File/07-1-fastrack.pdf

For those afraid of National status, you are safe!

"C. Based on member input, a Regional Class meeting or exceeding with participation levels 0.5 above the participation requirements outlined in paragraph 9.1.12.A. for one (1) year two (2) successive years may be considered for inclusion in the National Championship racing program, except Improved Touring."

[JoshS]

And some other changes we've heard of: the BOD *rejected* the weight sticker proposal. And you can now legally remove your speakers, amps and other radio-related whatnot in IT.

[Andy Bettencourt]

I am not so sure on the wight stickers. Why would they re-write the section and bold new text only to have it 'rejected'? There is also no clear END to that section. Could one logically assume that the original wording was rejected and this new wording is the new rule? It sure is less stern than the GCR is right now...I will have the stickers on...

<div align="left">D. Minimum Weight Decals</div>
<div align="left">The specified minimum weight shall be displayed on both sides of the racecar. The numbers shall be sufficient in size and legibility to be read from a distance of ten feet. If the displayed number should be found at any time to be lower than the current specified minimum weight, this shall be considered a violation of the rules.</div>
[/i]

[tnord]

http://scca.com/_FileLibrary/File/07-1-fastrack.pdf

For those afraid of National status, you are safe!

"C. Based on member input, a Regional Class meeting or exceeding with participation levels 0.5 above the participation requirements outlined in paragraph 9.1.12.A. for one (1) year two (2) successive years may be considered for inclusion in the National Championship racing program, except Improved Touring."
[/b]

under current structure, i&#39;m glad IT is remaining regional only.....BUT; i think it&#39;d be best for the club to completely do away with the distinction of national/regional, and the top 24 classes go each year. i can&#39;t remember who layed out the structure of this, perhaps it was jake? anyway...i really liked the idea.

[GKR_17]

Nothing on the ECU proposal?

The fuel cell note is clearer now for all the BMW&#39;s, but still no correction on the ITR BMW 328i/is specs.

Also, seems odd they added the 318i/is models to the 318ti line, since the chassis is very different between those cars. Would have made more sense to add it to the other E36 318 line (even though the engine is different, the same is already true of the ITS 325&#39;s).

[Knestis]

Nothing on the ECU proposal?

The fuel cell note is clearer now for all the BMW&#39;s, but still no correction on the ITR BMW 328i/is specs. ...
[/b]

That makes no sense to me. They&#39;ve taken a clause ("same size as stock") that didn&#39;t make any sense, or have any stated rationale, and applied it to more cars from the same manufacturer.

Consistent + Dumb = Consistently Dumb

K

[lateapex911]

under current structure, i&#39;m glad IT is remaining regional only.....BUT; i think it&#39;d be best for the club to completely do away with the distinction of national/regional, and the top 24 classes go each year. i can&#39;t remember who layed out the structure of this, perhaps it was jake? anyway...i really liked the idea.
[/b]

Yup, that&#39;s ]me. Some CRB guys like IT going National, others don&#39;t. Some think if we do we should just merge with Limited Prep Prod. Some (All?) ITAC guys start sweating REALLY badly when they hear that, LOL

Nothing on the ECU proposal?

The fuel cell note is clearer now for all the BMW&#39;s, but still no correction on the ITR BMW 328i/is specs.

Also, seems odd they added the 318i/is models to the 318ti line, since the chassis is very different between those cars. Would have made more sense to add it to the other E36 318 line (even though the engine is different, the same is already true of the ITS 325&#39;s).

[/b]

ECU proposal is on the way ib Jan Fastack.

The BMW thing...that sounds odd. We&#39;ll have to check into that... and the fuel cel thing too.

[tnord]

merging with limited prep prod is a BAD idea. where would would be the point of entry for new racers? does EVERYONE go through SM then?

if you want to merge classes, merge GT2/GT3.

or, merge prepared and prod.

or, merge FC and F1000.

or SSB and T3.

there are a lot better places to combine classes than IT into prod. i won&#39;t even get into the nature of the PTB to talk out of both sides of their mouth by continuing to accept mfg money and creating more and more Touring classes, but wanting to combine classes because we have too many. i agree, we have way too many classes (who are we, NASA?), but you can&#39;t solve this problem by creating 2 prepared classes, 2 touring classes, an IT class, and a formula class without having a plan of where you&#39;re going to trim fat.

ersonal rant over:

[GKR_17]

That makes no sense to me. They&#39;ve taken a clause ("same size as stock") that didn&#39;t make any sense, or have any stated rationale, and applied it to more cars from the same manufacturer.

Consistent + Dumb = Consistently Dumb

K
[/b]

As for the fuel cell, what doesn&#39;t make sense? These cars can run any size cell if within one foot of the stock location (like every other car). But since it is much more difficult to put the cell within one foot of the stock location in those cars, they are allowed to place it in the trunk. The size limit is almost surely to stop people from using it as ballast. The change just clarifies that it doesn&#39;t have to be in the trunk.

[Andy Bettencourt]

As for the fuel cell, what doesn&#39;t make sense? These cars can run any size cell if within one foot of the stock location (like every other car). But since it is much more difficult to put the cell within one foot of the stock location in those cars, they are allowed to place it in the trunk. The size limit is almost surely to stop people from using it as ballast. The change just clarifies that it doesn&#39;t have to be in the trunk. [/b]

100% correct.

[Matt Rowe]

As for the fuel cell, what doesn&#39;t make sense? These cars can run any size cell if within one foot of the stock location (like every other car). But since it is much more difficult to put the cell within one foot of the stock location in those cars, they are allowed to place it in the trunk. The size limit is almost surely to stop people from using it as ballast. The change just clarifies that it doesn&#39;t have to be in the trunk.
[/b]

No offense to the ITAC but when did level of difficulty matter. Whatever happened to living with the good AND bad points of the horse you chose? And please don&#39;t say it&#39;s a safety issue and that argument is never acknowledged as holding water.

The statements made in the past are that we are trying to cleanup single spec line exceptions and now we are adding a dozen? I think that needs a little more clarification than it&#39;s too difficult to follow the rule the rest of us live with.

[tnord]

i&#39;m with matt on this one.

it&#39;s hard to keep a 1.6L miata diff from blowing up, can i switch to a torsen like in SM for safety reasons?

[gprodracer]

Not to stir the pot...

Most of the people I&#39;ve talked to are not "afraid" of IT going National, it&#39;s a rational conclusion (for those of us on this side of the fence) that it&#39;s not necessary to add all the "issues" that come with National classification to a perfectly good class as it exists today.
Again, just my 2 cents.

Mark

[Knestis]

100% correct.
[/b]

Okay - i must have missed the memo that there was a commonly understood rationale for the spec-line exception. Last time it came up, there was a lot of theorizing but I didn&#39;t remember any actual answer from folks who know.

I kind of agree with Matt too but what&#39;s done is hard to undo.

K

[GKR_17]

No offense to the ITAC but when did level of difficulty matter. Whatever happened to living with the good AND bad points of the horse you chose? And please don&#39;t say it&#39;s a safety issue and that argument is never acknowledged as holding water.

The statements made in the past are that we are trying to cleanup single spec line exceptions and now we are adding a dozen? I think that needs a little more clarification than it&#39;s too difficult to follow the rule the rest of us live with.
[/b]

It&#39;s not as if this is a new issue. This has been permitted on some cars for over a decade now. At some point, the word "allowed" was lost on the spec lines. Now it&#39;s back, and applied to the cars that make sense. Not just BMW&#39;s by the way.

Do you also have a problem with allowing the cage to go through the rear window (which can be replaced with lexan)? I count 12 or so cars with that allowance.

[Andy Bettencourt]

It&#39;s not as if this is a new issue. This has been permitted on some cars for over a decade now. At some point, the word "allowed" was lost on the spec lines. Now it&#39;s back, and applied to the cars that make sense. Not just BMW&#39;s by the way.

Do you also have a problem with allowing the cage to go through the rear window (which can be replaced with lexan)? I count 12 or so cars with that allowance. [/b]

Again, 100% correct.

[Matt Rowe]

It&#39;s not as if this is a new issue. This has been permitted on some cars for over a decade now. At some point, the word "allowed" was lost on the spec lines. Now it&#39;s back, and applied to the cars that make sense. Not just BMW&#39;s by the way.

Do you also have a problem with allowing the cage to go through the rear window (which can be replaced with lexan)? I count 12 or so cars with that allowance.[/b]

I&#39;m not arguing with the cars that have already had this on their spec line but i see no justification in adding additional cars and I don&#39;t care what make they are. And furthermore the point is that we have come along way in the last decade in NOT making additional spec line exemptions so why do we suddenly need this? Everyone&#39;s car has lot&#39;s of item that are difficult to do, why pick this exception.

As for the allowance for bars through the rear window, that is an allowance made that is required to install a required cage element. This is an allowance to install optional equipment but maybe you can enlighten me as to why it isn&#39;t possible to install a fuel cell by following the current rule.

[lateapex911]

BMW guys, help us out here by describing the stock fuel tank. Isn&#39;t it kinda under the rear seat, and fills both sides, ...almost like two tanks? And is it even possible to mount a cell in the trunk and stay within the 12" rule, keeping in mind the axle/diff is there?

[GKR_17]

The stock tank is located under the rear seat for the BMW sedans. The driveshaft runs right through the middle of it. The earlier cars actually have two tanks connected with a hose that runs under the driveshaft. The trunk is on the other side of the rear differential from the tank. It varies somewhat by model, but the nearest part of the trunk is roughly 18" or more away from the stock tank location. Without the exception, the only way to get a cell (of typical capacity) would be to cut out the rear seat area and go up and/or put it in the passenger compartment. I doubt anyone believes those are good ideas.

[Z3_GoCar]

Yup, that&#39;s ]me. Some CRB guys like IT going National, others don&#39;t. Some think if we do we should just merge with Limited Prep Prod. Some (All?) ITAC guys start sweating REALLY badly when they hear that, LOL
ECU proposal is on the way ib Jan Fastack.

The BMW thing...that sounds odd. We&#39;ll have to check into that... and the fuel cel thing too.
[/b]

Jake,

All the 2.8l BMW&#39;s need to be seperated between &#39;98 and &#39;99. In the Z3 the chassis is the same but there&#39;s enough of a change that they should be considered different motors with different wire harnesses and different stock ECU&#39;s. In the sedan this is where the e-36 and e-46 part ways, again with different wire harnesses and ECU&#39;s. There&#39;s also the fact that the double VANOS has more potential as it&#39;s continuously variable verses the off/on nature of the single VANOS and has a larger range of adjustment. Should be worth at least 10hp from talking to someone who built one up for USTCC, and that&#39;s before really optimizing it.

James