March fastrac

[lateapex911]

Exactly. And all this talk about not being able to police the old cars? Come on. They don't get much older than the Prod cars. Plus, IT cars are far less likely to release the toxic Lucas Smoke on track, thereby making it safer for the workers! [/b]

Yes, but lets look at the facts.

Prod is a much different animal. Each car has different allowances. A billet crank for this one, a different throttle body for that. All cars on Prod have been selected because the specs are either known, or are mandated by the club.

IT cars, on the other hand, were often added early on when the "no guarantee" clause really was the mantra. The CRB (at the time it was called something else) wasn't overly concerned with the scrutineer-ability of every car added to the ITCS. There are cars in IT that have, shall we say, dubious specifications. Certain British cars come to mind, from small manufacturers, who changed cams several times during the year, depending on which source had some at the right price. Which cam is in the service manual? Maybe someone knows for sure, but it does get sticky.

So, there ARE issues when it comes to making IT a Runoffs eligible category. Heck, right now it's an issue, but it hasn't reared it's head. The CRB is rightly concerned (I think) with the potential temptation that would exist for a less than up and up competitor to "create" a killer obscure car, win the championship, based on non existant or conflicting specs.

Is it a deal breaker? No, but it can't be overlooked, and it isn't easy.

[erlrich]

So, there ARE issues when it comes to making IT a Runoffs eligible category. Heck, right now it's an issue, but it hasn't reared it's head. The CRB is rightly concerned (I think) with the potential temptation that would exist for a less than up and up competitor to "create" a killer obscure car, win the championship, based on non existant or conflicting specs.

Is it a deal breaker? No, but it can't be overlooked, and it isn't easy.
[/b]

Jake, this reminded me of an letter I was planning to send to the CRB regarding SS cars. I have a couple of buddies who run in SSC in the MARRS series, and while shooting the bull one afternoon last year one of them was telling me about this nice Neon he had been racing up through the prior year, but was now sitting gathering dust because it was no longer eligible for SSC and he didn't want to go through the trouble of converting it to ITA. My thought was why wouldn't they allow SS cars to continue racing at the regional level, and just make them ineligible for national races after the 10 year period.

The same thinking could be applied to IT cars if they went national, couldn't it? Obviously the 10 year rule wouldn't work, but what about 15? Or 20? Wouldn't that rule out most of the potential problem cars, while still allowing the majority of current IT cars to compete?

[Joe Harlan]

Jake, this reminded me of an letter I was planning to send to the CRB regarding SS cars. I have a couple of buddies who run in SSC in the MARRS series, and while shooting the bull one afternoon last year one of them was telling me about this nice Neon he had been racing up through the prior year, but was now sitting gathering dust because it was no longer eligible for SSC and he didn't want to go through the trouble of converting it to ITA. My though was why wouldn't they allow SS cars to continue racing at the regional level, and just make them ineligible for national races after the 10 year period.

The same thinking could be applied to IT cars if they went national, couldn't it? Obviously the 10 year rule wouldn't work, but what about 15? Or 20? Wouldn't that rule out most of the potential problem cars, while still allowing the majority of current IT cars to compete?
[/b]

Erl, i have always felt the same way but the issue is, After 10 years the new factory parts supply is not real good for things like blocks,pistons, factory crate motors,transmissions, ect. There would have to be a regional set of SS rules written,(which IMHO was why IT was created) that allowed for minor overbores or restoing these parts back to factory sizing. I am pretty sure that even now in SS if you score a cylinder you replace the block because there is no provision for sleeving boring or repair. Just my take on it. Really no reasn that the car could not be runin IT with any changes is there?

[lateapex911]

Earl, that WOULD work, IF the cars with sketchy history were produced before the cutoff date, not after.

The solutions are:

1- Define the problem cars and eliminate them from national level competition
2- Define the problem cars and drw a line in the sand via a model year exclusion that eliminates them and all others older than them.
3- Define the problem cars and create defacto specs for them, where research cannot confirm legitimate specs.. (This may have the effect of making certain examples eligible, while others may wind up on the wronf side of the line. . As the cars are obscure, it's unlikely this would affect many, if anybody)


Of course, Items 1,2 may have policy issues other than the specific spec problems become involved, such as the deisre among some to eliminate older cars just on the basis of appearances, or other less concrete goals.

[cherokee]

There are cars in IT that have, shall we say, dubious specifications. Certain British cars come to mind, from small manufacturers, who changed cams several times during the year, depending on which source had some at the right price. Which cam is in the service manual? [/b]

That is BS.

I don't know about certain British cars but I do know about obscure German cars. When my car had its intake valve size adjusted it took paperwork up the wazzu to prove that cars came from the factory with 42mm intake valves. The paperwork exists the driver just has to find it if he wants to run the part in question, have the driver prove that the part is/was offered by the MFG. In my case the 40mm intake valve size was what was legal until someone did all the work (thanks) to prove past any shadow of a doubt, with MFG documents that 42mm was installed at the factory. The spec for a one cam grind might not be available so it ain't legal till someone puts forth the effort to prove to the SCCA that car came with this type of cam grind. (now you know why there are two types of intake valves listed on my spec line)

The bottom line is that there is some kind of spec for cams, carbs, compression, whatever. The spec that is available is the spec that is legal.

[lateapex911]

That is BS.

[/b]

?????

Perhaps Ron Earp or Jeff Young might want to chime in here and tell me I'm full of it, cuz' they run some old British cars....

[cherokee]

?????

Perhaps Ron Earp or Jeff Young might want to chime in here and tell me I'm full of it, cuz' they run some old British cars....
[/b]

The point is that specs are available. To make changes in the spec line as in my case, or to confirm the existing specs.

[planet6racing]

I'm actually going to agree with Cherokee here. It was my responsibility to make sure the specs for my car were correct. It is my responsibility to make sure I have a factory service manual. And it is my responsibility to field a properly prepared car. If I show up with something that doesn't match the GCR/ITCS/FSM, then I should be thrown out of there.

Is it easy? No. But the burden isn't on the scrutineers. They look at the rules, at the FSM, and make a determination if a car is or is not in spec. You can tell them your life story about how you dug through the annals of British Historical Cars to find the one cam that magically worked, but if it is not in the spec line or in the FSM or any other approved documentation, thank you for playing.

I know, I see it as a black and white issue. Somebody convince me there is a grey area, cause I'm not seeing it.

[cherokee]

eeeek....I hope I am not that far off base

[Brian Holtz]

IT going national won&#39;t raise costs to maintain your current finishing position??? <---that&#39;s me laughing hysterically from the perspective of one foot in the SM pond and one foot in the IT pond.
how is this a problem? this passes the buck from the BOD deciding who gets to play and forces the competitors to find a way to consolidate or die. sounds good to me. do you not agree that we have too many classes already (judging by other comments, it seems as though you don&#39;t).
if the BOD is concerned with legality enforcement in IT as it&#39;s own national class, how is it any less of a problem in Prepared? because they theoretically are uncompetitive? garbage.
yeah, we did, it&#39;s called ITR. it&#39;s the cheapest and easiest place to play for newer/faster vehicles. how in the world do you expect under 30yr olds making sub 50k/yr to buy, build, or maintain a Prepared vehicle? this is the BOD&#39;s solution to bringing new younger members?
do you not make the connection here? the more classes you have the fewer competitors there will be in each class. did you look at the NASA national championship entry list last year?
really? i&#39;m pretty sure it&#39;s an easy fix, and you guys had it figured out at one point then went and screwed it up. make every class national and the top 24/25 get to go; effective 2008. done. the only way it gets complicated is being to scared to alienate a very small group of people relative to the whole.
[/b]

Travis,

I’m just saying that we used to threaten classes with just the participation rule. Then when classes were looking at losing national status they would find ways to increase car entries. The other classes really had no part in the issue. Now, with the competition to qualify for Runoffs invitation people are paying a lot more attention to how their class is affected by actions within the other classes. I’m also not saying that we don’t have too many classes, I’m just pointing out that maybe we are not limited to 24 if we look at other ways to structure the Runoffs. Production limited prep only mirrors IT in some of the cylinder head preparation. I believe that there will be other things that will have to be looked at, specified and documented for IT to run for a national championship. It is entirely possible that the cost of building a Prepared car may be prohibitive. If so, I would expect the CRB to monitor the situation and ask for rule changes. I see this class as being in a development stage. I would hope that more classes would not dilute the fields but instead offer new opportunities for current drivers and ones that we don’t have yet. I’m a bit confused where you say we screwed it up, unless you mean that we should include IT cars in national racing. Let’s see what the CRB comes up with.

Brian

[Andy Bettencourt]

One of the other things that I have learned is that Prod had their chance with including IT cars. I guess they didn&#39;t want us so it seems disingenuous to complain about car counts in BP/DP...I didn&#39;t know this when I wrote my letter. Besides, I think an ITR car can be a damn fast car in DP...

I would think that the following would be just fine:

"Improved Touring-spec cars are eligible to run at National events in the Production and the Prepared classes as follows - ITR to DPrep, ITS to EProd, ITA to FP and ITB to GP and ITC to HP"

Would some Production cars get whooped? You bet - but not because the deck was stacked against them. Ain&#39;t no way in an apples to apples scenario that the IT cars win so they should have nothing to worry about except getting beaten by a better driver in a better prepared car. Car count issues would fade away.

[cherokee]

I believe that there will be other things that will have to be looked at, specified and documented for IT to run for a national championship. [/b]

What would they be?

[tnord]

Travis,

I’m just saying that we used to threaten classes with just the participation rule. Then when classes were looking at losing national status they would find ways to increase car entries. The other classes really had no part in the issue. Now, with the competition to qualify for Runoffs invitation people are paying a lot more attention to how their class is affected by actions within the other classes. I’m also not saying that we don’t have too many classes, I’m just pointing out that maybe we are not limited to 24 if we look at other ways to structure the Runoffs.
[/b]

you&#39;re (the BOD) paying lip service to the people that believe a participation rule is healthy by creating it, then when it becomes &#39;inconvienent&#39; striking the old rule and lowering the standards. you&#39;re also creating a problem for yourself with the addition of what, 4 new classes without any sort of plan for consolidation or elimination of other classes. maybe the BOD has one, but i don&#39;t see allowances made in the runoffs schedule for 4 more classes either. what are we at now, 29?

It is entirely possible that the cost of building a Prepared car may be prohibitive. If so, I would expect the CRB to monitor the situation and ask for rule changes. I see this class as being in a development stage. I would hope that more classes would not dilute the fields but instead offer new opportunities for current drivers and ones that we don’t have yet. I’m a bit confused where you say we screwed it up, unless you mean that we should include IT cars in national racing. Let’s see what the CRB comes up with.

Brian
[/b]

entirely possible that it&#39;s cost prohibitive? c&#39;mon....ex Speed WC cars run in this class, how much did you guys think they cost to buy/build/maintain? if the Prepared class has the potential for rule changes to make it less cost prohibitive, it&#39;s only moving in the direction that it will overlap IT. i&#39;m really befuddled as to how this class is going to coexist with IT, Prod, and GT. you want to create a national class that&#39;s appealing to a younger demographic, what&#39;s wrong with IT/SM?? you want a class similar to prod but for newer cars? ok, do that.

where the BOD screwed up is reneging on their "top 25 go to the runoffs/min 3.5 (or 3) avg entrants to keep national status."

brian, thank you for taking the time to volunteer your time and post on this board, and realize that when i say "you" i really mean the BOD as a whole. i just really disagree with a lot that has been said here.

[cherokee]

I would think that the following would be just fine:

"Improved Touring-spec cars are eligible to run at National events in the Production and the Prepared classes as follows - ITR to DPrep, ITS to EProd, ITA to FP and ITB to GP and ITC to HP"

Would some Production cars get whooped? You bet - but not because the deck was stacked against them. Ain&#39;t no way in an apples to apples scenario that the IT cars win so they should have nothing to worry about except getting beaten by a better driver in a better prepared car. Car count issues would fade away.
[/b]

I like this layout, I would not see why anyone would be opposed to something along these lines. Leave the IT class the way it is, Make the IT cars that want to run in prod have fuel cells and what not. What would the down side to this be? And I think you are right, car count issues in prod would go away.

[planet6racing]

One of the other things that I have learned is that Prod had their chance with including IT cars. I guess they didn&#39;t want us so it seems disingenuous to complain about car counts in BP/DP...I didn&#39;t know this when I wrote my letter. Besides, I think an ITR car can be a damn fast car in DP...

I would think that the following would be just fine:

"Improved Touring-spec cars are eligible to run at National events in the Production and the Prepared classes as follows - ITR to DPrep, ITS to EProd, ITA to FP and ITB to GP and ITC to HP"

Would some Production cars get whooped? You bet - but not because the deck was stacked against them. Ain&#39;t no way in an apples to apples scenario that the IT cars win so they should have nothing to worry about except getting beaten by a better driver in a better prepared car. Car count issues would fade away.
[/b]

Ding Ding Ding!!! We have a winner!!!

But, there should also be a "No guarantee of competitiveness" clause for the IT cars. If they want to be competitive in Prod, they have to get classified in Prod.

[Brian Holtz]

you&#39;re (the BOD) paying lip service to the people that believe a participation rule is healthy by creating it, then when it becomes &#39;inconvienent&#39; striking the old rule and lowering the standards. you&#39;re also creating a problem for yourself with the addition of what, 4 new classes without any sort of plan for consolidation or elimination of other classes. maybe the BOD has one, but i don&#39;t see allowances made in the runoffs schedule for 4 more classes either. what are we at now, 29?

where the BOD screwed up is reneging on their "top 25 go to the runoffs/min 3.5 (or 3) avg entrants to keep national status."

brian, thank you for taking the time to volunteer your time and post on this board, and realize that when i say "you" i really mean the BOD as a whole. i just really disagree with a lot that has been said here.
[/b]

Travis,

I don&#39;t know what you mean by striking the old rule participation rule and lowering the standards. The number was changed from 3.5 to 2.5, however it is now averaged across the country, not just in the top five divisions. See the BOD minutes in January&#39;s FASTRACK. The Runoffs schedule is still at 25 classes for this year and 24 next year. I think you need to revisit the rule as it is written. We now have 29 national classes. The four new ones are not eligible for this year&#39;s Runoffs. For the 2008 Runoffs only the top 24 classes from this year&#39;s pariticipation numbers will be eligible. This is why we now have classes competing against each other for Runoffs spots. I understand that you are taking issue with some of the things that the BOD has done. Please note that in my original post I was only speaking for myself. Also please note that I voted against the 24 class rule. My main issue at the time was the same as yours, as lack of planning for class consolidation.

Brian

[Bill Miller]

Brian,

Think about it from an outsider&#39;s perspective. You don&#39;t even have to have enough cars to fill the podium, yet the class retains National status. How do you explain to someone outside the SCCA how that qualifies as a race? Since Topeka now keeps track of Regional results, it would be interesting to see the average participation numbers for the IT classes from &#39;06.

[JeffYoung]

?????

Perhaps Ron Earp or Jeff Young might want to chime in here and tell me I&#39;m full of it, cuz&#39; they run some old British cars....
[/b]

Sorry guys, just picked up this thread.

We have that issue with the Jensen. A bunch of different cams were used, and there are no real cam specs in what Jensen laughably called a manual. You should see it, it is basically a bunch of photocopied pages with some notes and things and it WAS the factory manual. Cherokee, you are probably right, with an extreme amount of work involving field trips to various small speciality shops that handled the cars when new you MIGHT be able to get paperwork for them.

But, I think the JH is in an extreme minority due to the nature of the manufacturer. Jensen was very small. Opel and Triumph/British Leyland were large companies, and the shop manual I have for the TR8 is very comprehensive.

So I think you guys are both right. Jake, you are technically right that some oddballs will have a hard time finding shop specs. Cherokee is right practicially that for almost all cars, except maybe ONLY the Jensen, the specs are available if you look hard enough (or even if you don&#39;t, the TR8 stuff is easy to find).

[RSTPerformance]

I would think that the following would be just fine:

"Improved Touring-spec cars are eligible to run at National events in the Production and the Prepared classes as follows - ITR to DPrep, ITS to EProd, ITA to FP and ITB to GP and ITC to HP"

[/b]

Greetings from Tremblant, Quebec... Andy I like it... are we writting letters yet???


Raymond

[cherokee]

Greetings from Tremblant, Quebec... Andy I like it... are we writting letters yet???
Raymond
[/b]

I think this is a good idea I might write a letter myself.

I was thinking about this over the weekend, and thaught that something along these lines is what LP should have been. An IT car with prod safety and slicks....thats it. Sounds a lot more "limited prep" then what there is now, the only way an LP car would have anything change is if it changed in IT (like computers).

The things that pop into your mind while putting up a windmill.