June Fastrack

[Bill Miller]

Excellent point. I think the answer is that one group governs all the rules. The CRB. If there was a major shift 'up' in the performance envelope for SM, I would EXPECT the rule to change. They control BOTH ends of teh issue. Not only do I not see SM's rules expanding, they are in effect getting more restrictive. If they added a performance component outside the IT ruleset, the allowance doesn't 'work'.
[/b]

Andy,

I know you're not that naive. Matt's point is spot on. They can tell the SM folks that they can't run ITA anymore, but the Regions will scream because they're counting on those entries. They'll make up the lost revenue somehow (by raising the entry fees for everyone, most likely).

Do what's best (and right) for IT and stop this thing now.

[JeffYoung]

This is starting to feel like gang up on Andy, which I don't like, but one last point since I think I at least am at a dead end with this:

The diff allowance in SM is a reliablity enhancement. It is therefore a performance enhancement. Time and time again this have been appropriately shot down in IT, except for that stupid Olds rear brake deal. This is just ONE item, I know, but it is a big one. If SMs in IT get to replace diffs that don't last a season, can I please replace my LT77 tranny that usually breaks once a year with an easy to upgrade to R380? Please?

I don't mean to sound ticky tacky but this one item right here is a BIG deal in granting SMs the allowance to run in IT without meeting the IT ruleset. It IS a performance advantage and you would immediately shoot down, as an ITAC member, any such request for any other car.

[Andy Bettencourt]

Andy,

I know you're not that naive. Matt's point is spot on. They can tell the SM folks that they can't run ITA anymore, but the Regions will scream because they're counting on those entries. They'll make up the lost revenue somehow (by raising the entry fees for everyone, most likely).

[/b]

If the regions have to raise entry fees because they loose out on double dipping Miata's (or DD IT cars, or DD SPO cars, etc), then I respectfully submit that a 'no' to this idea caused it. You have actually predicted something tangible to a rejection of the idea. And that thing is raised costs to the racers if regions loose this current or future increased revenue. No? Maybe I am over-reading it.

This is starting to feel like gang up on Andy, which I don't like, but one last point since I think I at least am at a dead end with this:

The diff allowance in SM is a reliablity enhancement. It is therefore a performance enhancement. Time and time again this have been appropriately shot down in IT, except for that stupid Olds rear brake deal. This is just ONE item, I know, but it is a big one. If SMs in IT get to replace diffs that don't last a season, can I please replace my LT77 tranny that usually breaks once a year with an easy to upgrade to R380? Please?

I don't mean to sound ticky tacky but this one item right here is a BIG deal in granting SMs the allowance to run in IT without meeting the IT ruleset. It IS a performance advantage and you would immediately shoot down, as an ITAC member, any such request for any other car. [/b]

No worries Jeff! Thick skin is a requirement in this (and any) volunteer position. You dish it, you have to take it.

The reason things like this in IT get shot down is because there are hundreads of models. In SM, there is one. Since it doesn't make a car go faster, no 'other' SM'ers had a problem with it. Is it 'fair' to everyone else, probably not...but is that 'negative' enough to not allow the crossover? Again, those standing on the principle will say no - and I respect that, I just don't agree. I THINK I am looking at this from 10,000 feet, maybe it's 6 feet under... The diff issue is a red-herring. Only certain pockets of the country seem to have the problem. There is no one single point of failure. For every 1 that pops in a year, there are 10 that go for 3+ years. I have seen the letters, and I have seen the data. You can make these kind of allowances in a spec class.

And Ed, I am not sighing AT you. I am sighing at the thought that revisionist history is getting put out there. Opportunity to respond to the idea of a process was solicited. Yes, the station wagon issue was a change put forth but it was from a member request. Is there anyone that needs that amount of granularity? If you do, I submit you have no idea the quantity of things you will need to review.

In the end, I look at the idea and weigh the factors. The baggage SM brings to this idea is minimal IMHO. Especially for 50+ extra entries it already/could bring to some regions in a weekend. But like Jeff says, the overall preservation of the integrity of IT needs to be considered as a primary goal...is this a fatal chink in the armor? I submit no but could obviously be wrong.

[Greg Amy]

The reason things like this in IT get shot down is because there are hundreads of models. In SM, there is one. [/b]

Wow...what arrogance...!

Andy, if there's only "one" model in NASA's SE-R Cup, and my power steering system tends to overheat badly and destroy pumps, and since we want to be inclusive for the purpose of increasing entries, shouldn't we allow the Nissan B13s to remove the power steering system?

Where does it end, my friend?

I'm simply dumbfounded that you brought that up as an example...

[Andy Bettencourt]

Wow...what arrogance...!

Andy, if there's only "one" model in NASA's SE-R Cup, and my power steering system tends to overheat badly and destroy pumps, and since we want to be inclusive for the purpose of increasing entries, shouldn't we allow the Nissan B13s to remove the power steering system?

Where does it end, my friend?

I'm simply dumbfounded that you brought that up as an example... [/b]

Greg, you need to quit reading stuff that isn't there.

The simple point being made is that with a single marque class, you can make single allowances without upsetting anyone else. In NASA's SE-R Cup, if they wanted to allow the removal of the PS system, it wouldn't hurt anyone. Unfortunatley, allowing the inclusion of classes from other sanctioning bodies that the SCCA has no control over like Spec Neon or SE-R Cup is dumb. I used it as an example to show it can be ok for one class in SCCA and not in another. The 'baggage' I speak of is exactly these types of things. You accept the bad with the good if you want to make a change. I just see the 'bad' as miniscule.

[Greg Amy]

The simple point being made is that with a single marque class, you can make single allowance without upsetting anyone else.[/b]

EXACTLY.

Yet, the CRB has dropped this single-marque class (we'll ignore the three distinct models described, simply 'cause they have the same name) into a widely-diverse-marque class, ergo causing all changes made to the single-marque class - heretofore in isolation - to, in effect, affect an extremely large number of vehicles. Detrimentally? Positively?

Who's to say?

Are we getting closer...?

[ed325its]

There is no revisionist history in anything I said and you statements otherwise are an insult to us all. I challenge you to identify where any of my examples including RP and IR's, station wagons, or SM intrusions were put to member input according to the rule making process and rules of the SCCA.

Until then I am done with this thread.

[Joe Harlan]

Greg, you need to quit reading stuff that isn't there.

The simple point being made is that with a single marque class, you can make single allowances without upsetting anyone else. In NASA's SE-R Cup, if they wanted to allow the removal of the PS system, it wouldn't hurt anyone. Unfortunatley, allowing the inclusion of classes from other sanctioning bodies that the SCCA has no control over like Spec Neon or SE-R Cup is dumb. I used it as an example to show it can be ok for one class in SCCA and not in another. The 'baggage' I speak of is exactly these types of things. You accept the bad with the good if you want to make a change. I just see the 'bad' as miniscule.
[/b]

It is fine for a single marque class to do what ever it wants until the day it blows up from all its allowances. My issue is if we accept these cars with diffs and with restrictors than we now have the door open to have to allow this in other cars. If the miata's want to run IT then they need to run IT as IT cars. The bad is when in a year the SM guys feel they need another adjustment for a special part that a car needs we will be forced to accept it also...Pretty soon SM's have more trcik shit than a gt car and we are all wondering how the hell we got there. Sorry Andy but even just the tip will knock you up.....

[Andy Bettencourt]

EXACTLY.

Yet, the CRB has dropped this single-marque class (we'll ignore the three distinct models described, simply 'cause they have the same name) into a widely-diverse-marque class, ergo causing all changes made to the single-marque class - heretofore in isolation - to, in effect, affect an extremely large number of vehicles. Detrimentally? Positively?

Who's to say?

Are we getting closer...?
[/b]

Now we are. If the 'allowances' were of any significance (read: increased the performance beyond IT-level) I would undertand the push back. But in practical application, I see the allowances as a drop in the bucket. Maybe it's foolish to think that way and the ABSOLUTE integrity of IT is more important.

There is no revisionist history in anything I said and you statements otherwise are an insult to us all. I challenge you to identify where any of my examples including RP and IR's, station wagons, or SM intrusions were put to member input according to the rule making process and rules of the SCCA.

Until then I am done with this thread.



[/b]

Ed, what about the request for input on a classification process? THAT is the single biggest issue you raised and you were wrong. I have no issues with anyone wanting more grainularity. Just don't complain about the quantity when it comes your way.

[Andy Bettencourt]

It is fine for a single marque class to do what ever it wants until the day it blows up from all its allowances. My issue is if we accept these cars with diffs and with restrictors than we now have the door open to have to allow this in other cars. If the miata's want to run IT then they need to run IT as IT cars. The bad is when in a year the SM guys feel they need another adjustment for a special part that a car needs we will be forced to accept it also...Pretty soon SM's have more trcik shit than a gt car and we are all wondering how the hell we got there. Sorry Andy but even just the tip will knock you up..... [/b]

Your point is a valid one Joe. I just have more faith in the CRB - they govern both classes so they control the destiny. IT can stay on birth control until the CRB wants to stop...and trust me when I say that SM is going BACKWARD in terms of prep level, not forward.

[Greg Amy]

If the 'allowances' were of any significance (read: increased the performance beyond IT-level) I would undertand the push back. But in practical application, I see the allowances as a drop in the bucket.[/b]

Andy, dude, if these allowances were NOT increasing performance beyond IT-level then there would be no need to create the exceptions.

Are you telling me it's therefore OK for early-model ITA 1.6L Miatas to convert to the Torsen diff? It's OK for Miatas to have currently-illegal exhausts? It's OK for ITA Miatas to remove their vent windows?

So, anything that ITA competitors do that they consider to be "a drop in the bucket" is OK, as long as they're not, practically speaking, competitive in ITA or increasing performance in any manner?

Andy, seriously man, read this again. It's one thing to informally overlook minor prep inconsistencies in order to be able to include the SMs in ITA competition (something I support wholeheartedly); it's a totally different can of worms to codify it.

I am amazed you don't understand (or are willing to admit?) that.

I just have more faith in the CRB - they govern both classes so they control the destiny. [/b]

Andy, do you truly and honestly believe that when the SMAC (of which you are a part) and the CRB is considering changes to the National SM rule set that they will give even a moment's consideration to the effect it will have on the Improved Touring category? And that at that point they will either give that weight and choose to not implement and/or divorce the SMs from the IT rules?

You don't really believe that, do you?

This is getting silly, man! Are we in the same club here or am I in some alternate universe?


I'm done for the evening; my head is spinning with all this. I honestly can't wait until the morning to read what next juicy tidbit you provide...

[Joe Harlan]

Your point is a valid one Joe. I just have more faith in the CRB - they govern both classes so they control the destiny. IT can stay on birth control until the CRB wants to stop...and trust me when I say that SM is going BACKWARD in terms of prep level, not forward.
[/b]

Andy, Being a car salesman"trust Me" beneath you. It is not the CRB of today I have an issue with it is the the CRB of the future that has no notes and no history on this one deal. As far as SM going backards please to borrow from Bill "dont piss in my ear and tell me its raining" Let me just say Trojan Horse buddy and it is bullshit. Again Next year when SM gets standalone ECU's cause they can't be policed or removal of the Airflow meter cause they are getting cheated anyway we will have a backdoor method to have all these bullshit allowances in IT...Trust this I will start writing letters to fight this also, but some of us are gonna get tired of this all together and just go away.

[Conover]

It is so simple. Improved touring cars follow improved touring rules. That's it. It's wicked easy.

[Andy Bettencourt]

Andy, dude, if these allowances were NOT increasing performance beyond IT-level then there would be no need to create the exceptions.[/b]

Huh? What allowance increases PERFORMANCE outside the level of IT? Not talking about outside the philosphy here...

Andy, seriously man, read this again. It's one thing to informally overlook minor prep inconsistencies in order to be able to include the SMs in ITA competition (something I support wholeheartedly); it's a totally different can of worms to codify it.

I am amazed you don't understand (or are willing to admit?) that.[/b]

Maybe this is where we have the disconnect. If you are willing to overlook something, why aren't you willing to SAY you are willing to overlook something?

Andy, do you truly and honestly believe that when the SMAC (of which you are a part) and the CRB is considering changes to the SM rules that they will give even a moment's consideration to the effect it will have on the Improved Touring category? And that at that point they will either give that weight and choose to not implement and/or divorce the SMs from the IT rules?

You don't really believe that, do you?
[/b]

If/when the rules ever intermingle, then it is the RESPONSIBILITY of the PTB to give such consideration. To not would be irresponsible at a bare minimum. I believe in the people and the system. As a point-in-fact, the PCS is getting re-written as we speak. The Prod guys are very concerned with items that prohibit easy transition from IT to Prod. The SCCA's cage rules are being melded for this same reason. Inter-catagory cohesivness IS a thought process the current PTB work with every day.

[ner88]

So, this isn't a good time to talk about getting SSM Miatas into ITB?

[Joe Harlan]

[/i]

Huh? What allowance increases PERFORMANCE outside the level of IT? Not talking about outside the philosphy here...
Maybe this is where we have the disconnect. If you are willing to overlook something, why aren't you willing to SAY you are willing to overlook something?



If/when the rules ever intermingle, then it is the RESPONSIBILITY of the PTB to give such consideration. To not would be irresponsible at a bare minimum. I believe in the people and the system.

[/b]

Naive at best complicate at worst, Andy, performance level change? Why not let the 240z run an R200 gears are pleantiful and part is much stronger. Same basic deal on the SM is it not? Am I to take it from what greg said that you are now sitting on two AC's?

[davidb72]

So, this isn't a good time to talk about getting SSM Miatas into ITB?
[/b]

Smartass...

[Andy Bettencourt]

[/B]
Am I to take it from what greg said that you are now sitting on two AC's? [/b]

I have been for 3 years. Funny thing is that I tend to be more of a 'forward thinker' on the ITAC and a general stick-in-the-mud on the SMAC...and my thought processes are the same. Gives you an idea of the respective ages of the classes.

*Disclaimer - 'forward thinking' and 'sticking-in-the-mud' are not neccesarily optimal...

[Joe Harlan]

Shoving things down the collective throats of a group of people does not = forward thinker....Forward thinking was allowing cars to be clessed under a formula that gave each one a better shot at the front half of the field....The rest is just plain old creep and nothing more...

[Andy Bettencourt]

Shoving things down the collective throats of a group of people does not = forward thinker....Forward thinking was allowing cars to be clessed under a formula that gave each one a better shot at the front half of the field....The rest is just plain old creep and nothing more... [/b]

Thanks Joe, glad I answered. Never said it was a positive - and actually 'disclaimered' it so. Just trying to drop some perspective on ya'll. Time for a break from the BB.