June Fastrack

[Andy Bettencourt]

The ITAC/CRB contingent allowing this to go through is inexcusable.

Joe Moser

[/b]

Post #58 needs to be required reading.

[planet6racing]

There are enough strong points in this thread, and I won't recite them all. Maybe the ITAC will let me run my currently-prepped-to-NASA H4 CRX in ITA, rather then making me change everything back to ITA ruleset. Sure would be easier, and I'm sure there are plenty of other H4 cars that would love to race in ITA with the NASA H4 rule set. Yeah, asinine isn't it, well its just how this change looks and feels.
[/b]

Joe:

Maybe you should ask! Can't hurt, anyway!!

So, for those of us that wanted the IT cars classed in production, was that just an understanding that the IT cars would have spec lines in the Prod category, but still need to meet the minimum Prod specs?

Also, this is already done in the club with Solo and IT. Though IT cars are beyond the prep level of SP in some aspects, but restricted in others, IT cars can run SP for their appropriate class (last time, for the Saturn, it was DSP).

Eh, well, I guess it really doesn't matter to me. In the five years, this will be but a blip on the radar (if that) and we'll all have bigger things to worry about as we bow down to our new Spec Maserati overlords!

[ltblouis]

Hey Andy!! I am going to back to ITA with my CRX can I get the old weight back ??????





Louis

[Knestis]

... every letter that comes in (well ok, 99%) are requests that affect that writer in positive way.[/b]

Like my request to list a Honda in ITB so I have more people to race against. My point about reactive catering to "MEs" supported just a little more.

... The goals behind those proposals aren't even in the same galaxy as the "SM in IT" issue. Trying to equate them says one of two things, either you really don't understand how this whole thing works, or you think you can blow smoke up someone's tailpipe. ...[/b]

...OR it's possible (yet again) that inconsistencies are evidence that the public rationale for the various proposals differ from the ones that are actually driving the changes. ANY time things don't seem right, it's possible that they aren't.

K

[Ed Funk]

. ANY time things don't seem right, it's possible that they aren't.

K
[/quote]
K, is that like saying if it looks, smells, feels and tastes like BS it's a good thing we didn't step in it?!?!

[MMiskoe]

Even the guys over on the SM page think most of this is a bad idea. This alignment between SM and IT must be noted as a once in a lifetime happening.

What month was it this past spring/winter when Fast Track had the letter printed that asked for the CRB to remove their collective heads from their bungholes? That one had to do w/ Production changes.

Might need to get a copy of that letter and apply it here.

[gran racing]

How does is this simply fall into "car classifications are authorized"? The Miata is already classified in ITS & ITA. This IS a change to the ruleset, for better or for worse. Sure, using a loose definition there could be existing cars classified with a note on the spec line "CRXs are now also allowed in ITR with a turbocharger, the ITA RX7 can go also go into ITR with a ported rotary" etc. Not trying to pick a fight with you Stan, but that's a pretty liberal way getting this in there.

While this may seem trival to some, what doors will this open up?

[Andy Bettencourt]

Even the guys over on the SM page think most of this is a bad idea.
[/b]

Actually Matt, only one guy who is not a cross-poster (Greg and Mac) is complaining - so far! But I wouldn't expect them to dislike the idea.

[dickita15]

Yes, I can disagree. A rule change is defined as a change to the verbiage of (in this case) the ITCS, and is subject to the process of member notification and discussion, and ratification by the BoD. OTOH, car classifications are authorized, and are done directly by, the CRB without going through those additional steps. This happens all the time, including other cars in the latest Fastrack (see the two Hondas immediately above the SMs...).

[/b]

this is a lot more that a classification. the CRB has added another level of prep to a class that currently has just one. That is a rule change.

IT does not have a tradition of single spec line exceptions. how long ago was the Oldsmobile exception made, that is still brought up as a precident.

[mustanghammer]

...and any region that wanted to could create additional class opportunities to generate more entries - ITSM, if you will.

The biggest beef, Bill is that we have just got the IT category rules and specs settled down and are swinging the barn door open again with special exceptions, inconsistent with the big picture.

Some of the smaller issues (differences between the rules, competitiveness of SMs in ITA) are red herrings. Go back to the first principle and get concensus on that, THEN think about the piddly stuff.

Do we think it's a good idea to have some cars classified for competition in IT classes, running to rules different than those that apply to the category as a whole?

|_| Yes

|_| No

K
[/b]

NO.

The CRB used the "this creates another prep level" argument against a GP/RX7 proposal I submitted a year ago. If that logic applied then it needs to apply now. Ifwe can't have what we want then a little consistency would suffice.

[Andy Bettencourt]

More Devils Advocate:

So for all those who don't want 'two prep levels'***, would you be including in your letter to the CRB a request to recind the Limited Prep rules in Prod and the IT cars in DP rules already on the books or is this issue only applicable to the world we live in? I would think that if you are against it fundamantally and catagorically, you would be against it 'globaly'. Not sure, just guessing.

***Again, I am NOT for the inclusion of the 99+, that to me really creates a new prep level that would require policing. But the 90-97's? Come on here. We are talking about 3 nitpicky little items that nobody cares about anyway for cars ALREADY IN THE CLASS. SM's are UNDERPREPPED for IT. This is happening NOW. Does it make sense that with a one-sentence rule, that everyone can be legal? You don't have to worry about policing it because any performance-enhancement would be already legal.

The CRB could have just as easily put these items on the spec line and called it a day. No rule change, no proceedural outcry, done.

My impression from most of you is that you would rather allow what is already happening to just happen under the table instead of trying to proactively avoid issues should someone decide to throw weenie-paperwork. That is a valid position I suppose as well.

Standing on princinple is fine. Greg's thought process that this opens us up for future issues is a concern. I don't think it WILL happen but I have no way of guaranteeing it obviously. Keeping the walls around IT is not a bad thing from some aspects.

Other than the proceedural issues, and the 99+ policing issues, is it such a big deal to allow for simple and easy cross-over of a huge pocket of cars that allows car counts to rise and regional revenues to fill out? I just don't see the doom and gloom...I see guys running every weekend getting huge track/dollar ratios and seeing VALUE in the SCCA.

Trying to start a civil debate on why this is a bad thing (90-97) because I am not buying what I have read so far...but I could be 'off' as I have not seen much support although I have had 3 PM's wondering what the fuss is about and not wanting to get flamed for saying so.

Read Post #58

[DavidM]

I just stepped in something and it stinks badly. I think it's this proposed (already passed?) technical bulliten/rule.

So spec miata guys want to run in IT? Cool. Let them prep their cars to the IT rule set and they can come play. They don't want to do that, they can go run SM. If you want to run IT then come run IT. If you want to run SM, the run SM. You don't get to have it both ways and that's what they are trying to do. This "rule" is a crock. How many classes can Miatas run in? And you don't think that's just a little biased?

As for the whole IT in prepared thing, I don't know that any IT racers actually asked for IT cars to be classed in prepared.

David

[JeffYoung]

Andy, I would be:

1. In favor of always maintaining "one" set of rules for IT. If SMs wanted to run in IT with some minor deviations (although I disagree with you about the importance of the diff allowance) and chance a protest, well I for one wouldn't be a protestor. But then again I don't drive an A car.

I see a LOT of value in preserving our rule set and avoiding at all costs different levels of prep within it.

2. I would similarly vote to rescind the idea of IT cars in DP, LP cars and would be against IT cars in Prod TO THE EXTENT THE RULES WOULD ALLOW THEM TO RUN IN THOSE CLASSES WITHOUT COMPLYING WITH THE EXISTING RULES FOR THE CLASS. When I said a month ago I saw no downside to IT cars running in production, I don't think I fully comprehended the idea that this would require allowances and exceptions to the PCS.

In short, I think the foundational value is worth preserving here at nearly all costs, save extinction of certain regions and regional events due to low car counts which I believe you indicated was not a real possibility or concern.

One other pragmatic point that I hestitate somewhat to bring up.

Here in the SEDiv, SMs already run nearly at, at or below the ITA track record at several tracks (Roebling, CMP and VIR). Hell, while I am not a top level S car or driver, at Rockingham I finished second in ITS and immediately behind the first place SM (Bob Thornton). This is no knock on the local A cars, but rather I think the testament to what a fully max prep, max driven SM can do. It ain't slow. The top SMs here in the SEDiv would beat most of the best A cars.

Andy, some of your position seems based on the fact that empirically, an SM should not be competitive in A. I have seen with my eyes for several years here in the SEDiv that they can. We can discount that as unreliable track results, but I think if we do we are shortchanging an important part of the debate and we are already IMPLICITLY giving some value to on track results by assuming that allowing this wouldn't create any competitive issues because SMs can't run competitively in A. The fact is they can, and do.

[RSTPerformance]

Is this entire issue over the 99+ SM car being allowed to run in ITA with a restrictor plate vs ITS without a restrictor plate, or is the issue that SM cars do not meet the IT rules we already have?

Raymond "More to follow after a simple reply..." Blethen

[cherokee]

I don't have a dog in this hunt as I am one of those old farts with an antique that is going to Prod from IT, but I do have to say....

Cut the guy some slack, at least he is a on the board trying to tell you the why's and what for's on this deal.
This speaks volumes to me.

Salute to you Andy for being on the board and telling us what is going on, you have a thicker skin then I, guess thats why I am not in a public office.

[tnord]

i stayed out of this as long as i could....

More Devils Advocate:

So for all those who don't want 'two prep levels'***, would you be including in your letter to the CRB a request to recind the Limited Prep rules in Prod and the IT cars in DP rules already on the books or is this issue only applicable to the world we live in? I would think that if you are against it fundamantally and catagorically, you would be against it 'globaly'. Not sure, just guessing.
[/b]

correct, and you can check the archives for my letter against the IT in DP thing as well.

***Again, I am NOT for the inclusion of the 99+, that to me really creates a new prep level that would require policing. But the 90-97's? Come on here. We are talking about 3 nitpicky little items that nobody cares about anyway for cars ALREADY IN THE CLASS. SM's are UNDERPREPPED for IT. This is happening NOW. Does it make sense that with a one-sentence rule, that everyone can be legal? You don't have to worry about policing it because any performance-enhancement would be already legal.

The CRB could have just as easily put these items on the spec line and called it a day. No rule change, no proceedural outcry, done.

My impression from most of you is that you would rather allow what is already happening to just happen under the table instead of trying to proactively avoid issues should someone decide to throw weenie-paperwork. That is a valid position I suppose as well.
[/b]

that's pretty much where i stand. it wasn't really a problem in the first place.

Other than the proceedural issues, and the 99+ policing issues, is it such a big deal to allow for simple and easy cross-over of a huge pocket of cars that allows car counts to rise and regional revenues to fill out? I just don't see the doom and gloom...I see guys running every weekend getting huge track/dollar ratios and seeing VALUE in the SCCA.
[/b]

ignoring the 99+ thing which is just plain stupid, it's not so much what was done, as how it was done. same deal as the backroom dealing with the 99+ in SM to begin with. remember that one?

[JohnRW]

... only one guy who is not a cross-poster (Greg and Mac) is complaining - so far! [/b]

I'm still trying to imagine what kind of dress a 'cross-poster' wears. Are there stiletto heels involved ?

[tnord]

So spec miata guys want to run in IT? Cool. Let them prep their cars to the IT rule set and they can come play. They don't want to do that, they can go run SM. If you want to run IT then come run IT. If you want to run SM, the run SM. You don't get to have it both ways and that's what they are trying to do. This "rule" is a crock. How many classes can Miatas run in? And you don't think that's just a little biased?

[/b]

a SM can be an ITA car, but an ITA car can not be a SM, that's really your problem.

many SMs don't need to change a damn thing to be IT legal.

[its66]

More Devils Advocate:
..I see guys running every weekend getting huge track/dollar ratios and seeing VALUE in the SCCA.

Read Post #58
[/b]

Andy,
You are correct in that this will help racers increase the dollars/fun ratio. However, this is only the guys with SM's. This will potentially decrease the dollars/fun ratio for every other class. Perhaps you can help me see how this change will help an ITS guy, or ITB, or anyone other than SM. I see more entrants(same number of cars) in our already crowded IT fields, and the possibility of yet another run group. This will decrease the available track time to everybody EXCEPT SM. I realize I could be planning for a worst case scenario which might not happen. Isn't that what helps decide a good judgement call-weighing the potential benefits with the potential losses?

If I have missed something, please explain it to me, Greg, Steve, Dick, David, and the others who are wondering the same thing. How is this good for IT, or Club Racing as a whole? As I see it, this is good for one group, and one group only. The IT-> DP thing is similar in that it was out of the normal rules set, BUT, it doesn't appear to have the potential to hurt any other group. That is why nobody was complaining(that I know of).

[Andy Bettencourt]

Andy, I would be:

1. In favor of always maintaining "one" set of rules for IT. If SMs wanted to run in IT with some minor deviations (although I disagree with you about the importance of the diff allowance) and chance a protest, well I for one wouldn't be a protestor. But then again I don't drive an A car.[/b]

The diff is not a speed advantage. We don't class cars or make allowances for enduros...

I see a LOT of value in preserving our rule set and avoiding at all costs different levels of prep within it.[/b]

High moral ground I can sink my teeth into.

One other pragmatic point that I hestitate somewhat to bring up.

Here in the SEDiv, SMs already run nearly at, at or below the ITA track record at several tracks (Roebling, CMP and VIR). Hell, while I am not a top level S car or driver, at Rockingham I finished second in ITS and immediately behind the first place SM (Bob Thornton). This is no knock on the local A cars, but rather I think the testament to what a fully max prep, max driven SM can do. It ain't slow. The top SMs here in the SEDiv would beat most of the best A cars.

Andy, some of your position seems based on the fact that empirically, an SM should not be competitive in A. I have seen with my eyes for several years here in the SEDiv that they can. We can discount that as unreliable track results, but I think if we do we are shortchanging an important part of the debate and we are already IMPLICITLY giving some value to on track results by assuming that allowing this wouldn't create any competitive issues because SMs can't run competitively in A. The fact is they can, and do. [/b]

On this, I think you have to look outside the local flavor. Your top-prep SM cars (of which there are MANY) meet or exceed the prep level of 99% of IT cars. The math is simple. You can get more power, a better suspension and use better tires on an ITA Miata...and one can argue that the ITA Miata is not the class of the field at most tracks. The NX2000, CRX, 240SX, Integra etc are all in the mix. There is NO other reason for 'less than' SM lap times in an ITA Miata other than lack of prep or driving...none....and that is fine - been there. We all work at our own pace and what our budgets allow. We can't compare max prep and max driven SM's to mid-level anything, S or A cars. Just not valid. Can they compete? Sure - but not because the slight differences in the rules give them an advantage - because they are already close in parts, above in prep and who knows in driver.

Why I don't buy the competitive issues is that these cars are already legal for ITA. Anything you do to enhance competitivness over 'SM trim' is already legal. Heck, the things already have springs, bars, intake (in some cases), exhaust, etc. You can't 'exceed' IT trim/speed with an SM. I just see it as simple math. Maybe it isn't. Throughout all the BS, there is a potential shift in fundmentals. I just don't see the shift as a bad thing - but as Greg and others point out, that may be at the detriment of the long-term health of the class. I don't buy it, but the potential is there.