June Fastrack

[Knestis]

... What does that tell us? Nothing. It's just one of many reasons you can't use on-track as a measurement between classes - or even between drivers. You have to be able to quantify levels of prep (tires, shocks, hp, etc) AND driver ability all at single events - how do you do that? You can't.[/b]

Amen, Brother Andy. On THAT point we absolutely agree.

Guys - With respect, please don't let the red herrings get you. ANY time spent agitating about whether an SM and an ITA (whatever) are a good match competitively - 30 pounds here or an illegal exhaust system there - is yet another distraction from the really big issues at play here. Even if they ARE running the same lap times, do you want the system to shift toward one where cars of whatever specification are grouped by lap time, rather than by their mechanical attributes?

...expecting SM to change their ruleset so it is convienent for IT to gain a few more entries is just dumb. same is true of the reverse, which many here are arguing. it's dumb of IT to change their ruleset to allow a few more SMs to legally enter an IT race. ...[/b]

Absolutely. But if SM entrants banned together to change THEIR OWN rules, of their OWN accord, to allow them to more easily cross over to IT, that would be AOK as far as I'm concerned. If this initiative had come from a groundswell of ITA people enthusiastic about adding another route into their class, that would be a different thing than what we're seeing here. (I'd still think it's a bad idea, but making our own mistakes is at least a little more palatable than having them forced on us.)

K

[Andy Bettencourt]

Whew,

After reading ALL the posts, I can say that this is totally amazing.


So, in the class of unintended consequences, exactly how is a competitor to know which rule set a Miata is preped to if they are running in ITA? (being a some time tech inspector makes me think about this.) What if they want to protest that car? How could they ever protest the car for being illegal in some respect if they cannot find out what the exact rules for that car are? Is there going to be a public sign up sheet[/b]

Well, I am not sure you read all the posts Dave! We can go over it this weekend at the party...

If only the 90-97's are allowed, you don't have to know what 'they are' because no matter how they present themselves, it will always be 'less' than an ITA Miata. The IT rules exceed the prep level of SM in every way, except minimum weight. Rolling across the scales is easy. IF the 99+ were to be allowed (no chance), it HAS to be a pure SM. That ain't so hard to see.

The real question is exactly how many of the drivers with Miatas are there who need this rule change to "double dip"? In the Northeast, there is SSM and SM, so they can already double dip and still be competitive in BOTH groups. And there is ITA and SM in other parts of the country where they can be competitive in at least one of the groups, show why do we need a SM rules cam in ITA as yet another option?[/b]

Well I wonder what your guess would be for NER Dave? In the Opening Day Regional at NHIS, ITA had 23 cars pre-registered. 7 of those were double-dipping Miata drivers. In a region that HAS SSM and has it in a different run group! 30% of ITA were SM's.

And the logistics of assuring the SM, SSM and ITA are never in consecutive groups would be hell as well.[/b]

Your home Region runs it this way already!

Unintended consequences. The CRB needs to learn about that concept. [/b]

Again Dave, this CREATES nothing. It just legalizes what is already happening so that guys can be quilt and fear-free from protest.

It's obvious that the drivers don't want it. No problem, I see this going out for comment and dissappearing into history having gotten squashed. Let's just get the facts straight.

Absolutely. But if SM entrants banned together to change THEIR OWN rules, of their OWN accord, to allow them to more easily cross over to IT, that would be AOK as far as I'm concerned. If this initiative had come from a groundswell of ITA people enthusiastic about adding another route into their class, that would be a different thing than what we're seeing here. (I'd still think it's a bad idea, but making our own mistakes is at least a little more palatable than having them forced on us.)

K [/b]

And if the SM guys want it that bad, that may just be the way they need to go.

[Knestis]

Again Dave, this CREATES nothing. It just legalizes what is already happening so that guys can be quilt and fear-free from protest.[/b]

This is one of those "amnesty" things that I hear about on the radio, then?

Sorry - I'm a dumbass but it's just sinking in, what's being said here. The REAL problem is that SM owners are entering cars wholesale in ITA that aren't legal, so since some folks believe they should be SLOWER than a REAL ITA car, we are writing the rule to allow them to run as-is...?

A group of drivers decide to run illegal cars on the rationale that they aren't actually going to beat the fast guys, and the Club's response is to reward them by codifying their behavior as totally OK.

SERIOUSLY??

Argh.

I guess if I get OK with the idea, it will open up all kinds of interesting new opportunities.

K

[Joe Harlan]

So we can now refer to SM cars as illegal aliens?

no hable inglés

Nosotros no podemos seguir sus reglas

Queremos la posición Nacional y nosotros no dejaremos hasta nosotros lo obtiene.

[Conover]

So how high does the fence have to be to keep them out?

[Chris Wire]

So how high does the fence have to be to keep them out?
[/b]

We don't need a fence, we need "comprehensive reform"! And whatever fence is needed will be virtual.

I think there too much Miata-hating going on from all you Marque-sist IT guys. They just want to race and support their family and crew. It's un-American to treat them this way; America is the land of opportunity, right? Call your congressman/race board chair and tell them you want them to vote in favor of Spec Pinata AMNESTY!

Can't we all just get along, gringo? - Rodney King Rodriguez
[/remove tongue from deep in cheek]

[cmaclean]

Wow, this one came out of left field. As an ex-SM guy who is now running ITA exclusively I think both the explicit allowance to prep as an SM and run ITA AND especially allowing the '99 to run in ITA are both very, very misguided and just plain wrong decisions. Allowing the '99 in ITA is one of worst decisions I've ever heard of since being involved in SCCA. I sincerely hope this is reversed/clarified. A '99 SM is perfectly happy in ITS. If the goal is to facilitate crossover that's one thing; but how does reclassifying a car possibly do that??? It's just crazy...

I strongly believe, however, that any "hatin" should be directed at the people responsible for concocting this rule, not the folks who happen to be driving the cars since we had nothing to do with this. Jelly Beans have feelings too :P

[mlytle]

i nominate posts 204, 205 and 206 as the "posts of the week"!!!



marshall
i used to intercept illegal aliens for a living, now i evidently just do it for a hobby...

[dickita15]

excellent. recruit tech inspectors from the border patrol.

[Joe Harlan]

excellent. recruit tech inspectors from the border patrol.
[/b]

haha, we already have a catch and release program don't we?

[IPRESS]

Wow, this one came out of left field. As an ex-SM guy who is now running ITA exclusively I think both the explicit allowance to prep as an SM and run ITA AND especially allowing the '99 to run in ITA are both very, very misguided and just plain wrong decisions. Allowing the '99 in ITA is one of worst decisions I've ever heard of since being involved in SCCA. I sincerely hope this is reversed/clarified. A '99 SM is perfectly happy in ITS. If the goal is to facilitate crossover that's one thing; but how does reclassifying a car possibly do that??? It's just crazy...

I strongly believe, however, that any "hatin" should be directed at the people responsible for concocting this rule, not the folks who happen to be driving the cars since we had nothing to do with this. Jelly Beans have feelings too :P
[/b]

Colin, The anti Mazda sentiment is way overboard on this board. Mazda may throw their weight around on the National side, but Regional.........doesn't even cross their minds.
I think you and I are victims of Andy working his butt off to max prep his car and driving skills. Us everyday run of the mill ITA Miata folks get welcomed to any gathering......sort of makes me think I might be a chump! A good guy chump, but no threat. Leo D. was right it seems with this group.

[Joe Harlan]

Mac, Just to be clear this is not any anti mazda stuff from me. I would feel this way if it was a nissan that was getting a special allowance outside the IT ruleset. It is known i have never been a rotary fan but that does not cross over to the manufacture. As a car builder and competitor it is good to have all factories take part in our sport and that includes Mazda. Robert Davis, Tim Buck Steve Sanders have all done a great Job with their products and the support they give all racers. The fact is these deal is a special ride for one type of car and it does not matter if it is a chevy or a VW it should not be done.

[IPRESS]

Joe,
I am sure there are others on here that are not just Mazda haters, too. I am on the same side as you and others on this issue. Mazda seems to be taking a beating and probably no one (Tim or Steve) even knows this happened. Like I said Regional racing is not high on their list of racing support. Don't get me wrong, I think overall they do a great job. Regional racing doesn't do a lot for them (other then ARRC and they do support that) and they still give us the same service as National guys get (minus the contingency.) You really can't complain about them cause they do love racing.

I am not sure that many in the SM community had ever heard or thought of this rule change before Fastrack came out so I think throwing a load of bulletin board BS on them is misguided also. THe PTB came up with this one (maybe after talking with a SMer or two that like to crossover) all on their own.

I am at Memphis R/N/RR as we type, and no one that I talked to new anything at all about any of this.

I am sure the committees will get it fixed right at some point.

[lateapex911]

Mac, good call. This was most certainly not done with any Mazda influence. We'll go over it Monday night and report back.

We'll have a much better handle on the situation then. Sit tight, the sky isn't falling.

[JohnRW]

excellent. recruit tech inspectors from the border patrol.
[/b]

Two words to remember: "Cavity search".

[Bill Miller]

Mac, good call. This was most certainly not done with any Mazda influence. We'll go over it Monday night and report back.

We'll have a much better handle on the situation then. Sit tight, the sky isn't falling.
[/b]

Yeah, just like there was no mfg. influence that killed the T3/SSB consolidation.

[lateapex911]

Yeah, just like there was no mfg. influence that killed the T3/SSB consolidation.
[/b]

Bill, it's fine to be critical, but your comments on this thread have been rather disprespectful. This one in particular fell far short of appropriate...

Stan,

The term 'strained and tortured' comes to mind after reading your post. BTW, is that an easy transition from racer to politician? As the old saying goes, "same whore, different wig". uke: [/b]

In this case, you seem to be saying that there IS Mazda influence involved, and I am covering it up. Is that accurate?

[Bill Miller]

Jake,

First of all, don't put words in my mouth. I didn't say you were covering up anything. But, don't make it seem that it's out of the realm of possibility that these types of decisions are influenced by the mfg's. The T3/SSB thing is a perfect example that they are.

And while it's noble that you're sticking up for Stan, I think he can stick up for himself. And that notwithstanding, that was a totally BS comment from him. Look at some of the other posts in this thread, I wasn't the only one that called him on it. You know me well enough, I don't mince words, and I'll never be called PC.

[Tkczecheredflag]

Greg, I know you're pissed, but I'm thinking that taking a breather is best for all right now. (Note I didn't say "You taking a breather is...")

Let me provide some light on this, if i may. (I might be sticking my neck out a bit, but...)

The April con call was odd in that Andy wasn't there. If he's going to miss it or be late, or if theres a CHANCE of either, he will call me and ask me to run it. After a bit, I decided to press on, and started running it, sans Andy. Of course, Andy had the agenda, etc, so I was a bit behind the 8 ball. Now, it turns out Andy was stuck in a plane circling Logan with a no cel phone rule for 2 hours, so......

So, we went through the letters and eventually came to a letter from a guy with a Miata wanting to remove his vent window. As a point of rule, i objected, but I had been thinking about the egress issue independently, so we discussed making a categorical rules change, to improve safety. The discussion, as far as I recall (remember, i was taking notes, making up the agenda as we went along and trying to figure out who was saying what) got into the whole "double dipping" issue of Miatas, and we discussed the concept of SMs being allowed in IT. As you'll note, Andy wasn't present for the entire call, so forgive him his lack of info. And note, the first post of Andy's says something like "Jake and I are looking into this..."

My recollection of the discussion was that it had it's merits, but also it's drawbacks. But I don't remeber making a rules change, or anything concrete like that. Maybe I was confused or doing two things at once, but, I just don't remember it getting to that stage.

So, at this point, I'm wondering how it got put into Fastrack in the language it's in, and, to my eye, this would be a rules change that would need BoD approval. Of course, I'm not an advisor for things of that level, so I could be wrong on that.

But, nevertheless, I suggest we all take five while we (ITAC/CR dig further.
[/b]

Okay - "Post 58" - What I am hearing is that this needs BoD approval to be "law".

I would like to ask a question or two, please indulge me.

First, what "by-laws"regardng a CRB attendance and a quorum are followed (Roberts Rules??)? I am referrencing Andy B's attendance issue. Were others members not in attendance? Is a quorum required - if so did you guys have a quorum for this meeting?

Second, is there any misunderstanding about BoD approval - Is it required or not?

Third, if this is correct (BoD approval), other than this forum what part can the general membership play in communicating with the BoD regarding the "fairness and intent" of this proposal, and what is the "offical" process for doing do.

Finally, if BoD approval is not required (as it's already made Fast Track), is there an appeals procees that can be followed, if so what is it? In addition are there any "holes" in your procedure (CRB/ITAC), where an appeals process can be exploited - In other words - where any mistakes made that can be put to and "accountability test" regrading the process and procedures followed by CRB and ITAC?

Please note I am not savvy regrading, "your/our" by-laws, process, and procedure, regarding CRB, ITAC and the BoD, so if my questions seem inapproriate or stupid I plead ignorance. I am willing to be educated and I am listening.

Thanks for considering my questions and concerns.

[dickita15]

I have been thinking all weekend what started this idea of amnesty of SMs in IT ( great analogy by the way). I am pretty sure this was not thought up by the IT community or even the SM community. I heard no chatter about anything like this before fastrack came out. Contrary to some people’s reactions I do not believe that that Mazda cares enough about this to have a position.
My guess is that this may have come from the stewards at some level. One of the things stewards are taught is that a non compliant car should never finish higher than a compliant car. It has become common practice for some Miatas to run in ITA with insignificant non compliant issues. For a steward who is charged with making sure the rule book is followed to the letter this can cause some discomfort.
Given that a full prep SM is not as fast as a full prep ITA, I can see the leap of logic to think this proposal is a reasonable way to solve the problem.
What I believe was not taken into consideration is how much some of the IT community cares about the integrity of our rule set. Despite all the assurances that any SM changes will likely be more restrictive rather than less, the huge problem is this introduces a level of prep into IT that we, the IT community, and the ITAC have little or no control over. To use an absurd illustration if the SMAC approved turbos for SM next year we would have little recourse.
Now that the wheel rule has changed so the 15” wheels are legal there is very little preventing someone from building an SM car that is ITA legal as well. The only issue I can see is that the 1.8 cars have a restrictor that some may think a hassle to remove that is technically illegal in IT. So here is my proposed solution. Remove the 99’s provision to run in A and on the spec line in ITA and ITS put a note that the 1.8 Miatas can run in IT with or without a SM legal intake restrictor. This should allow simple legal crossover without compromising the IT rule set. Thoughts?