June Fastrack

[lateapex911]

Read and smile..or read and weep, LOL.

[GKR_17]

I realize this issue should be long dead, but since they're bringing the rule back I'm not clear what is legal.

Per the most recent fastrack:

9.3.31 Lights (effective 11/07)
Exposed glass headlights shall be taped. Rear brake lights may be taped with transparent tape. Turn signals, front parking lights, backup lamps, and side marker lights may be taped. Fog/driving lights mounted on or below the bumper shall be removed, and all resulting holes shall be covered to prevent air passage through said holes.

And our current ITCS:

9.1.3.D.8.b:
...Where an air dam/spoiler is used, two total openings may be cut in the front valance to allow the passage of up to a three (3) inch diameter duct leading to each front brake/rotor assembly. Where no air dam/spoiler is used, two total openings of a maximum size five (5) inches by seven (7) inches maybe cut in the front valance so that brake ducts can be added with a three (3) inch diameter hose leading to each front brake/rotor assembly.

So do both of these rules apply? If so, you can cut holes right next to the former fog lights, but can't use the fog light holes that already exist (as is common practice currently). I doubt that was the intent.

Grafton

[JoshS]

The intent here is to move the light-taping rules from each individual ruleset to the generic GCR ruleset, so that all classes are consistent -- right now, the wording, and therefore the rule, varies. It is not intended to have any other significance.

I don't know if we need to change the IT rules to compensate or not (I'll think about it), but it is certainly the intent that A) the foglights below the bumper are removed, and foglight ducts can be below the bumper, with a maximum size, and C) any other space left there from the removal of the foglights must be filled.

[Chris Wire]

My quick-read is that the ITCS trumps the GCR. Therefore, if you have fog lamps, you must remove them. If you use the holes for brake ducting, and they meet the other criteria for brake duct hole sizing, you are fine. If you don't use them for brake ducting, they must be covered.

[Greg Amy]

You know, the Spec Miata BS is really starting to piss me off.

Seriously.

So, now we're not only going to have to police cars to the Improved Touring Rules, but to the fuggin SPEC MIATA rules too? Why don't we just go ahead and eliminate all classes except Spec Miata, and be done with it?

Jeezuz H friggin keerist.

"You guys" are doing your damndest to completely destroy a good thing. Congratulations.

I cannot IMAGINE what you are thinking.

[IPRESS]

Greg, I am not far off from your position. I don't understand the 99 in ITA. It is classified for ITS already. I guess you could run a 99 in ITA and then again in ITS and cap it off with a SM race too if they were all in seperate run groups.

I maybe should step back and think about this, but I am trying to figure out why this rule is being put in. My only guess is that with the constant "SM weekly rule changes" the SM cars could be SM legal but be out of sync with IT rules - update / backdate. (Rear diffs are being swapped around in SM and before it is over SM might be any year miata with whatever legal parts you want on them... no year model different from the other.) Hell I helped start the class, but national racing has turned it into a "Bitchfest" with a bunch of genuises (the SM forum rules nuts) trying to fix something that is not broken. I have related to the SMAC, (the ADHOC before them,) and the CRB that just leaving things alone for a couple of years would be best. Too many loud voices want Utopia racing and stuff like the subject of your post is the fallout.
99+s are already the "devil car" in SM as they are being projected as overdogs. The SM moaners are out to get the 99+ and put it back in the pack. Putting this rule in just makes the SM haters that much madder. I am all for letting SM cars run in IT, but they need to be IT legal not just SM legal IMHO. (Or maybe they will let me cross back over and run my A car in SM. In my case, with my talent, the bunch I run with would let me in! (And crease my fenders in the process!)

Now.... I am open for the reasons this is a great idea that Greg and I have not thought of.
Ears are open!

[Greg Amy]

An email I just sent to the CRB. I'm so fuggin ripped on this I could spit, Mac...this is totally unacceptable. I - and many others in my circle - are going beyond being Miata "dislikers" and quickly becoming Miata haters.



In regards to June 2007 Fastrack, Club Racing Technical Bulletins, specifically ITA items 3, 4, 5:

These are rule changes, not technical clarifications. Rule changes are REQUIRED to go through a full membership feedback process; it is contrary to the bylaws of the organization to change the regulations without going through the notification and feedback process.

Ergo, I insist that the changes allowing Spec Miatas to run in Improved Touring under Spec Miata rules be withdrawn.

To create an entire sub-prep of the rules - in a category that has become difficult enough as it is to enforce - is nothing short of absurd.

It is VITAL to require vehicles competing in IMPROVED TOURING competition to compete under the IMPROVED TOURING preparation rules. To do otherwise by creating a "special" set of rules only applicable to specific vehicles is UNACCEPTABLE and contrary to the philosophy of the class.

Vehicles prepared to Spec Miata rules currently meet the minimum prep requirements, and are ALREADY legal to the rules: early cars in ITA and later cars in ITS. It is obvious that the subtext reason for these wholesale changes is to allow the currently-classified-in-ITS later-model Miata to circumvent the existing rules and compete in ITA instead of ITS. THIS IS TOTALLY UNACCEPTABLE and contrary to the existing regulations.

It is your RESPONSIBILITY to follow the GCR and club rules and withdraw this recommendation, at least or until you go through the full process.

Greg Amy
Middletown, CT
SCCA 287196

[Andy Bettencourt]

An email I just sent to the CRB. I'm so fuggin ripped on this I could spit, Mac...this is totally unacceptable. I - and many others in my circle - are going beyond being Miata "dislikers" and quickly becoming Miata haters.



In regards to June 2007 Fastrack, Club Racing Technical Bulletins, specifically ITA items 3, 4, 5:

These are rule changes, not technical clarifications. Rule changes are REQUIRED to go through a full membership feedback process; it is contrary to the bylaws of the organization to change the regulations without going through the notification and feedback process.

Ergo, I insist that the changes allowing Spec Miatas to run in Improved Touring under Spec Miata rules be withdrawn.

To create an entire sub-prep of the rules - in a category that has become difficult enough as it is to enforce - is nothing short of absurd.

It is VITAL to require vehicles competing in IMPROVED TOURING competition to compete under the IMPROVED TOURING preparation rules. To do otherwise by creating a "special" set of rules only applicable to specific vehicles is UNACCEPTABLE and contrary to the philosophy of the class.

Vehicles prepared to Spec Miata rules currently meet the minimum prep requirements, and are ALREADY legal to the rules: early cars in ITA and later cars in ITS. It is obvious that the subtext reason for these wholesale changes is to allow the currently-classified-in-ITS later-model Miata to circumvent the existing rules and compete in ITA instead of ITS. THIS IS TOTALLY UNACCEPTABLE and contrary to the existing regulations.

It is your RESPONSIBILITY to follow the GCR and club rules and withdraw this recommendation, at least or until you go through the full process.

Greg Amy
Middletown, CT
SCCA 287196 [/b]

Did you send the same letter when IT cars were allowed in DP?

[Greg Amy]

Yes, Andy, as a matter of fact I did.


"On edit" edited out. It's best I walk away from the keyboard for the evening...

[Andy Bettencourt]

Jake and I are looking into this. A few requests have come in requesting specific allowances to continue the facilitation of crossover. The removal of the drivers side vent window (for egress purposes) and the allowance of a second diff choice. The first spawned a categorical recommendation, not a car specific allowance and the second was denied.

Allowing the SM's that are currently eligible for ITA (90-97) to run in ITA seems redundant but given the tiny little tweaks here and there, to be 100% legal the allowance was recommended. The 99+ car (ITS) was NEVER put on the table as far as I can tell. This may have been a CRB decision. I don't like it because it does create some additional required knowledge but in application, the on-track effects are no different than that of the 90-97. We will find out what happened. I am not for it but it certainly is not unprecidented.

[MMiskoe]

Foregive me for not reading through the GCR but first impression is to allow cars to run IT w/o the problems of changing the few items that are SM legal but not IT legal. Off the top of my head the only one I can think of is the exhaust. For what ever reason its OK for an SM car to have it end under the car whereas we must exit beyond the car.

If one wanted to get picky, wouldn't a restrictor plate be illegal in IT?

Greg - Thanks for pointing out the need for member input. Although not quite as insenced as you, I do agree this is a bad move.

Under this same thinking, ITC-B-A cars would be able to move 'up' a class if they chose to.

[Andy Bettencourt]

Yes, Andy, as a matter of fact I did.

And you?


On edit: So, if I send in a letter requesting classification in Spec Miata with an appropriate restrictor, I should be able to get that, right? Or, maybe I request that I get classified in ITB with an appropriate weight break; no problem, right? Even better, maybe I can get into Showroom Stock with a note saying I can compete under IT rules?

No? How come? OH, OF COURSE!! Wrong manufacturer, make, and model...!

Sorry, Mr. ITAC member, but you keep trying to take shots like that and I'll really start to unload... [/b]

No I didn't. I thought it was a good idea...except I actually expanded on the thought process with my follow-up letter asking IT cars be cross classed in Production.

I asked the question seriously. That letter would have never been sent to the ITAC because it was a DP-related comment.

Relax Greg. It's not a shot. Unload? Do what you need to do to serve yourself and 'your circle'.

Foregive me for not reading through the GCR but first impression is to allow cars to run IT w/o the problems of changing the few items that are SM legal but not IT legal. Off the top of my head the only one I can think of is the exhaust. For what ever reason its OK for an SM car to have it end under the car whereas we must exit beyond the car.

If one wanted to get picky, wouldn't a restrictor plate be illegal in IT?

Greg - Thanks for pointing out the need for member input. Although not quite as insenced as you, I do agree this is a bad move.

Under this same thinking, ITC-B-A cars would be able to move 'up' a class if they chose to. [/b]

You are right on the RP and the exhaust. Just another couple of those little things making crossover technically illegal.

[IPRESS]

Andy, I think the crossover cars would be IT legal in most cases before this rule. The people doing it are usually looking for track time, and not running max prepped SMs in IT races. (Not to say at some places an SM can't be a winner.)
With me being a Mazda and an SM guy I still agree this is not the right way for those cars to be included. Save the real or perceived Mazda influence for something way more important then this. It sort of comes across as being favortism (even if Mazda iteslf could care less about the SM / IT relationship.)

I like to see the SMs out there (Greg should too as it gives him more cars to lap. :P ) But if their rules were in the least bit STABLE this wording would have never come up.

[seckerich]

Illegal is illegal--period. No gray area there unless you choose to ignore it. I'm a Mazda man but this is a total crock to invent more places to run the same friggin car 50 times a weekend. We already get the shaft with run groups because of them as it is. Lets just make a Miata legal for every class and screw with the weight until it fits everywhere. I bought one for my wife and already hate the friggin thing before it even runs now.

[Andy Bettencourt]

Andy, I think the crossover cars would be IT legal in most cases before this rule. The people doing it are usually looking for track time, and not running max prepped SMs in IT races. (Not to say at some places an SM can't be a winner.)
With me being a Mazda and an SM guy I still agree this is not the right way for those cars to be included. Save the real or perceived Mazda influence for something way more important then this. It sort of comes across as being favortism (even if Mazda iteslf could care less about the SM / IT relationship.)

I like to see the SMs out there (Greg should too as it gives him more cars to lap. :P ) But if their rules were in the least bit STABLE this wording would have never come up. [/b]

I hear you. Like I said, Jake and I are looking into it. The 99+ issue is not something I support - proceedural questions aside.

[JeffYoung]

The question for me on this is why do it? Other than wheel sizes, can't all SMs save the 99 run in ITA as is?

Seems to me that it is time to let the unbeleivable amount of changes to the ITCS and car sets for IT settle for a while. Change just to change or because it's just the latest brainstorm is not a good idea. A lot of changes, almost all good, have been made the last two years. I think it is time for a breather.

And the idea of putting the 99 SM in ITA using SM specs is just silly. Why have a dual classification for that car in IT? That should only be done in very RARE situations, like the recent issue with the ITR/S 325.

This is a small change that I'm sure came up as part of a "yeah that sounds good!" idea when it really is not. More a product of the culture of change than any real need itself.

[Andy Bettencourt]

The question for me on this is why do it? Other than wheel sizes, can't all SMs save the 99 run in ITA as is?

Seems to me that it is time to let the unbeleivable amount of changes to the ITCS and car sets for IT settle for a while. Change just to change or because it's just the latest brainstorm is not a good idea. A lot of changes, almost all good, have been made the last two years. I think it is time for a breather.

And the idea of putting the 99 SM in ITA using SM specs is just silly. Why have a dual classification for that car in IT? That should only be done in very RARE situations, like the recent issue with the ITR/S 325.

This is a small change that I'm sure came up as part of a "yeah that sounds good!" idea when it really is not. More a product of the culture of change than any real need itself. [/b]

Actually Jeff, wheels in SM are perfectly legal in ITA. The above mentioned 'little' items make SM's technically illegal for ITA even though they are underprepared compared to their IT sisters.

- 90-93 diff allowance (different carrier as it applies to IT)
- Exhaust rule
- Restrictor plates

So even though many run double duty, they are potentially illegal (a 90-93 with Mazdacomp exhaust and 3 of the 4 allowed diffs would be 100% legal I believe). Requests have come in to avoid this situation. I would also hesitate to liken this to a dual classification. The ITR/ITS 325 is competitive and designed to fit in both as listed. The 99+ SM would be NO FASTER than the other SM's crossing over. The beef I have is that the other years would be able to mix and match IT-legal parts and still be technically legal so little would have to be 'worried about'. The 99+ would have to be signed, sealed and as delivered in SM trim to compete...just not worth the hassle IMHO. You could also run your 99+ in SM, ITS and ITA now. I just don't see the need. Just because it 'could', doesn't mean it 'should'. I can run my car in 3-4 classes now - just like many of us...IT(your class), ITE, DP and maybe a Prod class...so why do these guys double and triple dip - and we don't?

Eliminating the 99+ for a moment, why would the 90-97 be a BAD idea as you state?

[JeffYoung]

Andy, I forgot the wheel rule was changed. It used to be (this was an issue for us when we ran in ITA and SM in our SMs) that SMs had to run 15s and ITA 900-97 Miatas had to run 14s, which was the biggest issue in trying to run in two classes. My bad on that.

The other items you mention are either choice items, not really an issue or easily fixable:

1. The restrictor can be removed very quickly;

2. The differential allowance is just that, and if you want to run your Miata in IT you should be required to adhere to the IT rule set which means no late Torsen in your early SM. Giving Miatas this allowance is in my view like allowing the Achieva to run rear discs. Shouldn't be done in IT.

3. What is the issue with exhaust? Isn't an SM exhaust legal in IT?

Allowing the 90-97 to run in IT under SM specs is a bad idea (some of this is repetitive of the above, sorry) for the following reasons:

1. Not necessary, car can already run in ITA if prepped as an SM in a manner that allows it to legally run in both classes. This is the "price" for the competitor of having the ability to run two races in a weekend.

2. Giving it the allowances (and in particular the alternate diff for the early cars) is entirely contrary to the IT rules.

3. Just a "gut reaction" that doing this is change for change sake and not fixing any real problem (and creating some). As Greg and Steve mentioned above, this means if a fast SM shows up (and here in the SEDiv at many tracks a fast SM is just as fast as teh top ITA cars even though they really shouldn't be) the ITA guys (not me, not an issue in S) have to be cognizant of the SM rule set and able to "police" that. At a more base level, the way IT is supposed to work is that we DON'T give allowances to make it easier for a specific car to run in IT. We make rules that apply to everyone and then you build your car and you take your chances.

Andy, I know the ITAC didn't intend it this way, but this gives the appearance of favoritism to the Miata to give it allowances in an effort to create more places for it to run. I have absolutely no problem with someone running their SM in IT and SM in a weekend. More power to them if they can. But they should have to comply with both rulesets in order to do so. That's the price of getting to run two races.

[Ed Funk]

<_< Gee, last fall when I brought up the issue that it seemed that Mazda and Miata were trying to take over the club and maybe rename it to SMCCA, a bunch of you guys who have posted above jumped in and told me what a great thing was happening to the club and what great cars Miatas were. Well, now that it looks as if the goal is for Miata owners to be able to show up and run in nearly any class they want, it appears that some attitudes have changed.

Why don&#39;t we have 25 classes for Miatas and 1 class for the rest of us, we can call it Spec WTF! I rarely agree with everything that Greg Amy says, but about this I whole heartedly do!

Oh well, time for me to get back to saving lives and easing suffering! Carry on, smoke &#39;em if you got &#39;em!

Oh yeah, flame away! It won&#39;t bother me since I&#39;m smart as a horse and hung like Einstein!

[iambhooper]

Under this same thinking, ITC-B-A cars would be able to move &#39;up&#39; a class if they chose to.
[/b]

Jeff, look out... once I fugure out how to "legally" get an additional 70 or so HP out of the the Crx, I&#39;m aiming for ITS! Of course, I will petition the commitee to allow me to keep the car at it&#39;s current weight

As for the 99&#39;s I hope they aren&#39;t serieously considering moving those to ITA? If that&#39;s the case, tehn I will moste definatly not be building an A car. Or perhaps it&#39;s time to go take a ride with the "dark" side?

hoop