June Fastrack

[charrbq]

I'm getting tired of popcorn. Think I'll go for a Coke and a hot dog, or maybe nachos. I have a dog in this hunt, but I'm saving him.

[Joe Harlan]

A few thoughts from the last page or so...

A "second level of preparation" isn't an entirely accurate description of what we're talking about. It's actually an entirely different set of rules being wedged into an existing category. It's not just about the Miata, or even ITA since an allowance like this is the camel's nose under the tent flap of the entire IT rule set. Before you know it, you've got the hairy beast in your bedroll.

If Dickita's hypothesis (cha cha cha) proves out and this change is the result of someone wanting to make SMs legal in IT simply to eliminate a bunch of cheating ex post facto, then it REALLY does stink. However, I disagree with Joe that the stewards should be the genesis of all actions against illegal cars. Under the CURRENT system and culture, it's up to us as the entrants but we COUNT ON the stewards to uphold the rules as written - not interpretations that make their lives simpler. We've had conversations about this issue manifesting itself in other ways in the past, and THAT should be a point of criticism for those in charge.

The flip side is that I also don't buy the suggestion (Jake?) that a lack of protests is evidence that we "seem to be OK with [noncompliance]." Who could have read the Protest Story and not been discouraged from participating in that process? It IS supposed to be fun and being the rules cop isn't. But it should NOT be about enforcement: The point has been well made here that if we really wanted to change the rules, we could try. And I dare say that if the weight of category entrants was behind it, pretty much any change could make it through the process.

MOREOVER, Dick's further suggestion that puts washer bottle protests on the same level with codifying the inclusion of non-IT cars in IT classes falls way short in my book.

There's a lot to disagree with here tonight.

Another opportunity for reflection: Would you prefer a system that classes cars based on their on-track performance, considering all factors including driver skill? It would be like run-what-you-brung bracket drags, where you could race your mid-pack ITA car against the most poorly piloted Formula Ford and the best ITC package in the country. Or do you want the classes defined by the mechanical aspects of the car, as has been the case for so long?

Please, ITAC'ers - just help make this issue go away.

K
[/b]

Kirk, I feel honored to have been noticed except I think I am not typing what I am meaning or something. I don't feel stewarts are responsible to generate all protests but I do feel that a stewart cannot and should not ignore an illegal item when he knows about it.

[dickita15]

Ok this has gotten off point and I apologize for my part in that. Let put the points I have been trying for more simply. These are the truths I believe in.

The latest fastrack declaration is unacceptable.

IT cars have to run IT rules.

I have no problem with SM cars running in IT if they are IT legal.

You can build an SM that is IT legal.

Now is there any spec line addition that the ITAC can make on ITCS Miata spec line that could make crossover easier without compromising the integrity of the IT rules. My suggestion was that we could add that 1.8 cars can run with or without a SM restrictor in order to be more user friendly to these guys and save them the hassle of pulling the restrictor between sessions.
This would be part of OUR rules which are the only rules that we should have to use.

[Bill Miller]

Ok this has gotten off point and I apologize for my part in that. Let put the points I have been trying for more simply. These are the truths I believe in.

The latest fastrack declaration is unacceptable.

IT cars have to run IT rules.

I have no problem with SM cars running in IT if they are IT legal.

You can build an SM that is IT legal.

Now is there any spec line addition that the ITAC can make on ITCS Miata spec line that could make crossover easier without compromising the integrity of the IT rules. My suggestion was that we could add that 1.8 cars can run with or without a SM restrictor in order to be more user friendly to these guys and save them the hassle of pulling the restrictor between sessions.
This would be part of OUR rules which are the only rules that we should have to use.
[/b]

Dick,

While it may seem like semantics, I think it is important. "You can build an SM that is IT legal" would be better stated by saying "You can build a car that is legal for both SM and IT". One of the things I've gotten a greater appreciation for, after reading several years of Kirk's posts, is just how important language is. It may not seem like much, but think about the position that it comes from.

As far as your question goes, the short answer is no, you can't allow cars from a different category to run in IT w/o compromising the integrity of the IT rules. Look how often the ITS GM Quad 4 rear brake issue is brought up. Nobody seems to know how or when that got slid in, but I have yet to see someone that doesn't think that it's a significant departure from the intent of IT.

People know what the rules are up front. You pick the class you want to build for and the car you want to build. You want to run your car in IT, you build it to the IT rules, you want to run your car in SM, you build it to the SM rules. You want to run your car in IT and SM, you build it so that it complies to both sets of rules. And if you decide you want to build a 1.8 car and run it in both ITA and SM, you know up front that you have to swap the RP between sessions.

If these folks want to double dip their cars, let them either build them in such a manner that they're legal for both categories, or let them go through the exercise of changing them over between sessions. There's no point in re-typing all the reasons why it's a bad idea to adulterate the IT rules to allow this current proposal.

However, if it's going to go through, it should go both ways. All IT-legal Miatas should be able to run in SM, as is, w/ only the addition of a determined amount of lead added. Oh yeah, and that goes for Nationals as well. Float that on the SM board and see how far it goes!

[dickita15]

While it may seem like semantics, I think it is important. "You can build an SM that is IT legal" would be better stated by saying "You can build a car that is legal for both SM and IT". One of the things I've gotten a greater appreciation for, after reading several years of Kirk's posts, is just how important language is. It may not seem like much, but think about the position that it comes from.
[/b]

Point well taken Bill. You have pointed out a better choice of words. I too have learned much from the professor.

As far as your question goes, the short answer is no, you can't allow cars from a different category to run in IT w/o compromising the integrity of the IT rules.
[/b]

okay that is one for no.

Look how often the ITS GM Quad 4 rear brake issue is brought up. Nobody seems to know how or when that got slid in, but I have yet to see someone that doesn't think that it's a significant departure from the intent of IT.
[/b]

that is true though what I am suggesting is not a performance enhancement where the Olds was. Why however do I not hear complaints about the Golf Cup cars in ITB. that is really a closer analogy.

[ddewhurst]

Hey Sweetie, the pop corn is GONE again. It would appear the beat is slowing down a bit.

[jhooten]

At the Sunday race hosted by Lone Star region the SMs in ITA were protested. Outcome, Protest not filed in a timely manner.

[Bill Miller]

that is true though what I am suggesting is not a performance enhancement where the Olds was. Why however do I not hear complaints about the Golf Cup cars in ITB. that is really a closer analogy.
[/b]

While I agree that the Olds/Pontiac deal IS a performance enhancement, the justifications that I've heard was that it was done for safety/reliability issues, as the rear drums would fail (not unlike the front hubs on a Rabbit).

As far as the Golf Cup cars, read it a little further, it requires the cars to be built to IT specs. I'm not sure how this got in, but it's my understanding (and take that for what it's worth), is that it was done to allow the cars to compete even though they had no VIN #'s. You want to run one of those cars, you have to make sure it meets the same specs as a Mk II Golf that was purchased from a dealer. No allowances for any Golf Cup specific parts (other than the tub). I'm sorry Dick, I don't see the analogy. Now, if it was something like allowing a Miata BiW (Body in White) to be built into a car that required a VIN #, but the car had to be built to whatever class specs, that would be a similar situation. Note: I am assuming that a BiW does not have a VIN #.

[dickita15]

I am not a VW guy but I thought there was some metal missing from a golf cup car that exceeded the gutting rules of IT. If that is not true then the comparison is a bit weaker.

[lateapex911]

You and jake both don't read, I said if the Stewart KNOWINGLY lets a car run that is illegal for the class then they shouldn't be stewarts....If a competitor knowingly lets a car run illegal then they are almost as guilty as the party running the car.....Sorry boys but if your gonna kiss the tip you may as well take the whole thing you still smoked it....Cheating is cheating period.

Oh and BTW Jake as I stated in most regions there are plenty of opportunities for a SM car to double dip legally with no issues and in the regions that don't have that then if the numbers are there I am sure it could be done....It again bothers me to think that you are pushing an agenda that will alter IT from what has and continues to be the best multi-marque set of racing classes in SCCA. [/b]

Joe, with all due respect, I would be pleased if you could be a bit more respectful, and leave the barbs and insults out, as I don't see where i sent any your way..

Please show me where I have "pushed an agenda" here... I'll save you some trouble. Here are my qualifying comments from one of my few posts on this matter:

I

think that those "for" the concept think that:[/b]

bla bla bla...(repeated major points made by others
and......

I think that those 'against" feel that:

[/b]bla bla bla, (repeated major points made by others...except there was , if anything, more of these and more detail..

Facts:
You don't know who "created " this concept, who discussed it, who pushed for or against it, or how it came to Fastrack. if you do, please share for the edification of all.

You also have no idea of my stance on the concept, and have no knowledge of my vote or position on it.

Finally, you also shouldn't apply your concept of my beliefs to my comments about the workings of stewards. I was merely trying to illustrate Dicks point, and pointing out that Stewards exist to run events...racing events, and at the risk of sounding like Mattberg, they serve the interests of the racer. If they see 25 SMs in ITA with missing vent windows, for example, and nobody in ITA is saying anything, nobody is grumbling, and nobody is writing paper, I bet (and I think this was what Dick was saying..he's a lot closer to the tech community than I) they wonder if throwing 25 guys out is the thing to do. You feel that it is the thing to do, and that they are remiss in their duties, and shouldn't be allowed to be officials, as they are "knowingly" allowing non compliant cars to race.

........ then they should loose their license for not stopping it until there is a rule change. If you allow a non-compliant car to run knowing full well its not compliant then you shouldn't be an official...Its BS!
[/b]

And that's fine...it's your opinion, and I respect that.

[AntonioGG]

However, if it's going to go through, it should go both ways. All IT-legal Miatas should be able to run in SM, as is, w/ only the addition of a determined amount of lead added. Oh yeah, and that goes for Nationals as well. Float that on the SM board and see how far it goes!
[/b]

I know you're just making a point, but there's a huge difference between allowing an under-prepared car that may not meet all IT rules vs. allowing an over-prepared car that who knows what kind of performance it may have.

I can sympathize with you guys that are in divisions/regions where SM has more than one group. I can also see the point of having to deal with multiple prep level cars in case you want to protest (IMHO it's a minor issue since I can only think of a couple of things the SM has better in prep than IT: depowered rack, and rear subframe brace). What can happen though is that all this reaction may affect the guys crossing over in areas (like SOWDIV) where IT is VERY weak. And realize it's not just a crossing over issue, sometimes guys on a budget share a car. One will race in SM one will race in IT. We can generalize this discussion (forgive me if you have, I skipped several pages since some of the stuff was nasty and repetitive) to just any multiple prep-level type of crossover. Let's say Spec Neon in their own spec group + some IT group.

Some of you don't like say an IT7 in G-production (or any IT in production) since you see it as a way to strengthen a weak class, and diminish a strong class (in some regions). Well, the same is true here in this division except in this division, IT is the weak category. And this is not just a problem of not having enough cars to race against, it's also a problem of not having enough guys turn out to a double regional, such that you can have an affordable fee with enough cars, or enough cars to turn a profit (or break even).

I've raced an SM in ITA and it was fun. I was signed up to race ITA in my SM locally (weather prevented me from making it out), and you guys saw me post about my concern with having a de-powered rack. I was told not to worry and they were happy to have another ITA car. It seems things have changed?

I'll probably be changing to a manual rack mostly because my shoulders can handle it better, but I doubt I'm going to be changing exhausts between sessions. So this means I probably won't get to race ITA at all in my division without a threat of protests. That means one less entry for the region, and one less car to race against.

As far as an ITA CRX protesting an SM with a junkyard motor, I'll put that in terms you guys understand, it's like protesting an IT car for a missing washer bottle.

Anyway, I hope some compromise can be reached ...hell I'd be happy with ITSM at a regional level if the ITA guys aren't mad if we want to race them.

[Joe Harlan]

No jabs or barbs there Jake, As stated you didn't read. SO if that same steward see 25 spec miata's pass under yellow but it was no har no foul and no RFA or turn report. SHould He/She ignore it? As for the agenda you clearly have been part of this move if you were discuccing it at an SFR event what 1 month or 2 months ago?

[mattbatson]

I know you're just making a point, but there's a huge difference between allowing an under-prepared car that may not meet all IT rules vs. allowing an over-prepared car that who knows what kind of performance it may have.

I can sympathize with you guys that are in divisions/regions where SM has more than one group. I can also see the point of having to deal with multiple prep level cars in case you want to protest (IMHO it's a minor issue since I can only think of a couple of things the SM has better in prep than IT: depowered rack, and rear subframe brace). What can happen though is that all this reaction may affect the guys crossing over in areas (like SOWDIV) where IT is VERY weak. And realize it's not just a crossing over issue, sometimes guys on a budget share a car. One will race in SM one will race in IT. We can generalize this discussion (forgive me if you have, I skipped several pages since some of the stuff was nasty and repetitive) to just any multiple prep-level type of crossover. Let's say Spec Neon in their own spec group + some IT group.

Some of you don't like say an IT7 in G-production (or any IT in production) since you see it as a way to strengthen a weak class, and diminish a strong class (in some regions). Well, the same is true here in this division except in this division, IT is the weak category. And this is not just a problem of not having enough cars to race against, it's also a problem of not having enough guys turn out to a double regional, such that you can have an affordable fee with enough cars, or enough cars to turn a profit (or break even).

I've raced an SM in ITA and it was fun. I was signed up to race ITA in my SM locally (weather prevented me from making it out), and you guys saw me post about my concern with having a de-powered rack. I was told not to worry and they were happy to have another ITA car. It seems things have changed?

I'll probably be changing to a manual rack mostly because my shoulders can handle it better, but I doubt I'm going to be changing exhausts between sessions. So this means I probably won't get to race ITA at all in my division without a threat of protests. That means one less entry for the region, and one less car to race against.

As far as an ITA CRX protesting an SM with a junkyard motor, I'll put that in terms you guys understand, it's like protesting an IT car for a missing washer bottle.

Anyway, I hope some compromise can be reached ...hell I'd be happy with ITSM at a regional level if the ITA guys aren't mad if we want to race them.
[/b]

Very well said...
I have re-read most of the posts, and even spoke with my wife about this.

Neither of us can see the rationale for not allowing SM into ITA. It is an underprepared car, so there is no advantage to the SM. ITA already has miata's in it, why not allow miata's that cannot be prepped to the full extent of the IT rules?

I'm sorry but from a neutral observer it makes no sense not to allow SM's into ITA.


I have seen a lot of emotion on here in reference to this subject. I think some are so clouded by this that they cannot see the logic.

As I stated in another thread, if the old VW Cup class still existed, at a lower prep level than ITB, I would rejoice at the recommendation to allow them into my class. They HAVE NO ADVANTAGE over the ITB cars (if anything, a disadvantage), so it would be great for beefing up the ITB fields.

[shwah]

Actually Dick makes a good point that I did not consider earlier.

You can build a car that is totally legal for BOTH IT and SM, except for the SM required restrictor (if your particular model requires one).

With that in mind, I have absolutely no objection to making a spec line note for the affected cars that allows them to run a performance reducing restrictor plate when competing as IT cars. It does not create any additional level of prep, or need to know additional rules to self police the class. With such an allowance it will not matter if the restrictor is present or not. All else on the car will be IT spec, or illegal.

One other 'special' thing that I beleive would be appropriate to list on the Miata spec lines, is a requirement that they display the class they are competing in (and only the class they are competing in) on the rear of the car. Some regions do not have 50 car SM fields, and drop them in with IT run groups, so we find ourselves racing with more than one type of Miata. If I were an ITA competitor I would appreciate a way of knowing which ones I was racing against, likewise if I were an SM competitor.

[Chris Wire]

Now is there any spec line addition that the ITAC can make on ITCS Miata spec line that could make crossover easier without compromising the integrity of the IT rules.
[/b]

In letter-of-the-law speaking, the answer is no.

However, there are clearly additions to the spec lines of certain vehicles that do not pertain to the IT group as a whole. (Allowances for 16" wheels, OE body kits, the bloody Olds rear brake deal, etc.) I would have no problem with a spec line addition that read, "SM restrictor plate allowed" for the 1.8 cars. That would negate the necessity of anyone, officials or racers, having to police an item that clearly is a detriment to the car's performance. I can't really go any further than that. The diff issue with the 1.6 SMs is beyond the reach of acceptibility in my opinion, as is the vent window. As far as the exhaust, hey, stick a turndown on it. Is that really too hard?

The RP spec addition does nothing but slow the car down, and I can live with that one. A single spec line entry would take care of it, and clearly would not result in IT going up in a big ball of fire. You guys will have to quibble amongst yourselves over the rest of the issues.

[Greg Amy]

Bill, I could not have said it any better.

It is an underprepared car, so there is no advantage to the SM....I'm sorry but from a neutral observer it makes no sense not to allow SM's into ITA....I think some are so clouded by this that they cannot see the logic.[/b]

Therein lies a perfect illustration of the distinct differences in philosophy.

Matt, I would venture to say that EVERYONE sees your "logic"; it's just that there's a very large contingent, myself included, that flatly doesn't agree with it.

Said differently, you are implying that as long as a car - in this case, a Spec Miata - does not have a chance to be as fast in the class, or is "underprepared" to the rules, it should be allowed to compete in that class, regardless that its preparation does not meet the rules.

Well, what if I have a near-stock Honda CRX Si, maybe with just safety equipment installed; since I'm demonstrably not as fast as the pointy-end ITB cars, why can't I be allowed to compete there instead of getting my butt handed to me in ITA?

Further, why can't cars prepped to ITC rules be allowed to race in ITB, cars prepped to ITB allowed to run in ITA, and all three classes should be allowed to run in ITS and ITR? After all, there's no chance of them winning the class...

How about Spec Racers? They're not any faster than ITS and ITR cars, so why can't they enter there?

In fact, why have category prep rules at all? Why not create some kind of structured system - call it, oh, Performance Touring or something like that - start the cars in a base class, and as long as they don't prep above a certain level allow them to compete in any of the "faster" classes they wish?

That's the fallacy of your "logic", Matt. We don't do that. Instead, we design category preparation specifications, with specific opportunities of modifications to which all cars may be prepped. We break down that category into five performance classes, and classify individual vehicle to the same preparation specifications. We do NOT give discrete exceptions to vehicles that cannot or do not choose to prep to the limit of the rules.

Surely you see the "logic" in all this? We simply CANNOT start classifying cars, offering differing and discrete levels of prep based on potential performance, and still maintain the philosophy and consistency of the category.

No.

[Knestis]

... I can only think of a couple of things the SM has better in prep than IT: depowered rack, and rear subframe brace). What can happen though is that all this reaction may affect the guys crossing over in areas (like SOWDIV) where IT is VERY weak. And realize it's not just a crossing over issue, sometimes guys on a budget share a car. One will race in SM one will race in IT. ...[/b]

Can you legally run an SM WITHOUT depowering the rack and adding the rear subframe base, facilitating crossover albeit by compromising SM competitiveness? (I honestly don't know if an underprepared SM is legal, like an underprepared IT car is.) If so, there's the answer - make compromises to achieve personal goals. I've done it with the Golf. I can't make minimum weight with a big fuel cell for enduros but I'm not whining for another 100# on the spec line of all ITB cars to achieve parity with MY DECISION.

Some of you don't like say an IT7 in G-production (or any IT in production) since you see it as a way to strengthen a weak class, and diminish a strong class (in some regions). Well, the same is true here in this division except in this division, IT is the weak category. ...[/b]

So a regional problem requires a regional solution. Create ITSM, write your own rules, and put the SM crossover cars in the IT group. This is not about preventing anyone from making their local programs work: It's about poking holes in an entire national rule set to achieve the desires of a minority of people with specific wishlists. Your solution would take a weekend of talks and some action by your regional board. Done. Or if your local ITx guys are totally OK with you running an illegal car, just freakin' do it. But it's not reasonble to ask an entire nation of cars built to a specific rulebook to accommodate individual needs.

...Neither of us can see the rationale for not allowing SM into ITA. It is an underprepared car, so there is no advantage to the SM. ITA already has miata's in it, why not allow miata's that cannot be prepped to the full extent of the IT rules? ... I'm sorry but from a neutral observer it makes no sense not to allow SM's into ITA.[/b]

That's not what's being proposed. An underprepared ITA car is totally legal as long as any of the things that HAVE been done to it are not ILLEGAL. This proposal suggests allowing illegal modifications but beyond that, it proposes simply taking cars of the "same or lesser performance" and plunking them in another category. With respect, you may not have the experience watching classes morph into things they were not supposed to be, to recognize the potential - yes, POTENTIAL - harm.

I have seen a lot of emotion on here in reference to this subject. I think some are so clouded by this that they cannot see the logic.[/b]

It's completely logical, when viewed from a perspective that only considers on-track performance in a micro sense. Again - do you want to go bracket racing or racing based on classes with specific rules for modification?

K

[Matt Rowe]

Neither of us can see the rationale for not allowing SM into ITA. It is an underprepared car, so there is no advantage to the SM. ITA already has miata's in it, why not allow miata's that cannot be prepped to the full extent of the IT rules?[/b]

Others have already pointed out some other ideas to consider but one other thing you are missing. Although the ITAC and "the process" have gone a long way to equalizing cars and competition in IT that doesn't mean everyone is equal. There exist tweener cars that are not competitive where they are classed but for various reasons can not be bumped down a class. Those who own those cars may have come to terms with that but now you are throwing in another group of cars that can potentially outperform even the fully prepped, well driven examples.

It's not enough to say the car CAN'T be as fast as an ITA miata, it's still NOT and ITA miata and if they do not want to meet our rules they shouldn't compete against us.

As many have said the way to do this is create a regional only class in those areas where this is a concern and group it within IT.

One other thought, why wasn't the approach taken to throw them into ITS where the 99+ is already classified? If competitiveness isn't the issue then this should be acceptable to SM? Now, I am suggesting this as it is still a corruption of the IT rules but it would be interesting to see the SM response to that idea.

[lateapex911]

No jabs or barbs there Jake, As stated you didn't read. SO if that same steward see 25 spec miata's pass under yellow but it was no har no foul and no RFA or turn report. SHould He/She ignore it? As for the agenda you clearly have been part of this move if you were discuccing it at an SFR event what 1 month or 2 months ago? [/b]

Joe, I don't want to take the thread off stream too often, so I'll comment on your points and leave it at that.

1- I'm not saying the Stewards should or should not act on 25 SMs in a class missing vent windows...I'm saying that there is more than one side to the situation and I, and others, can see that it can be a difficult decision. It's within their rights to write 25 RFAs, but I presume they temper that call with other factors previously mentioned. I will say that I wouldn't ask for their removal from the club for NOT doing it though...it's a multi faceted situation.

The yellow flag situation is a poor analogy, as it's on track and a clear safety violation. Maybe thats drawing lines, but, .....life is gray, and every situation can't be boiled down to black and white.

2- being at an event, and being very surprised to see Non ITA cars out number real ITA cars TEN to ONE, made me wonder what the real ITA guys thought of that. I'm a curious guy...ask anyone who knows me...asking a question doesn't equal an agenda. Again, you are massively off the mark on this.

[JoshS]

One of our fastest "real" ITA guys told me this weekend that he stopped racing his ITS RX-7 and switched to the ITA RX-7 this year precisely because he noticed that some of the spec miata guys running in ITA were getting really fast, and he thought he'd have better racing in ITA than in ITS.

I'm not sure how the slower ITA guys feel about it though.