June Fastrack

[Joe Harlan]

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.
[/b]

Jake please show me the grey part in the IT rules set that say you can take the quarter window out? This is exactly why you are in the wrong position your self. you dont have the ability or the courage to enforce the rules as written. The yellow flag deal is EXACTLY the same issue because it is a rule. If we can bounce a competitor at the runoffs for .001 on the exhaust valve then a noncompliant car has to be treated the same or there is no need for rules period. Oh and as normal you have overstated what I said in an effort to berg me. I said they should not have their national license's if they can't enforce the rules I did not say they should be run out of the club...NICE TRY.

[lateapex911]

Jake please show me the grey part in the IT rules set that say you can take the quarter window out? This is exactly why you are in the wrong position your self. you dont have the ability or the courage to enforce the rules as written. The yellow flag deal is EXACTLY the same issue because it is a rule. If we can bounce a competitor at the runoffs for .001 on the exhaust valve then a noncompliant car has to be treated the same or there is no need for rules period. Oh and as normal you have overstated what I said in an effort to berg me. I said they should not have their national license's if they can't enforce the rules I did not say they should be run out of the club...NICE TRY.
[/b]

OK, guys, I'm sorry. I promise, this is my last post, LOL.

1- I'm not in the position of rules enforcement...except when I drive. My record on protests is clear, I neither lack the ability nor the courage.

2- The window situation is something you should keep your eye on.

3- Sorry to overstate...removing an stewards lic is about the same as removing him from the club, depends on the individual stewards, but we're splitting hairs.

4- I said earlier that I respected your opinion of the situation, but that there were other sides. I never siad I agreed with either! But I suggest you try looking at all the sides of issues, and while you don't have to change your mind, you might accept that they have some degree of merit.

Thats all.

[DavidM]

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.
[/b]

I think I could live with a line item allowing a RP on the 1.8 as well. The verbiage should specifically apply to SM crossovers. Everything else has to be IT legal and all non 1.8 cars have to be completely IT legal. It should be clearly spelled out. If you want to race your SM in IT then make sure it's IT legal.

I can definitely see a scenario where two guys are sharing a car and one runs in SM and one in ITA. I'm not a big fan of giving the SM cars yet another class to run in, but if it gives guys a place to race and increases IT car counts then so be it. I'm a slower ITA car (for now anyways) and if it means I get pushed back a couple spots then I guess I need to get faster.

David

[RKramden]

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]

and

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[/b]

From the GCR:

C. Powers of the Chief Steward
The Chief Steward may:
1. Disqualify a driver or an ineligible car.
...
8. Prevent an ineligible car from competing.
...

The key word here is "MAY". It doesn't say MUST or SHALL. It is the Chief Stewards choice.

Personally, I would be greatly disappointed in and have little respect for a Steward who allowed an ineligible car to run. I cannot understand how they would ever have any expectation of being respected by the drivers and other officials. The only exception I could see would be to allow a novice driver to participate in a drivers school with a car the meets all safety requirements but might be ineligible due to some performance items.



Last year, one of the Stewards at an event protested the Chief Steward at that event for "Failure to uphold the GCR". The protest was upheld. I don't remember if it was for a "request for action" or a "chiefs stewards action" that the Chief Steward failed to act on but it was because the Chief Steward was not enforcing some of the rules. I know it was upheld, but I don't know what the resulting action taken was.

(Request for Action is how things are passed to the Stewards of the Meet. It's like a protest from a driver.
The CSA is an instant penalty given out by he Chief Steward. CSA penalties are much more limited that those of a RFA or protest. And, if you don't like the CSA penalty, you can protest the Chief Steward in any case. See section 8 of the GCR.)

At another race, I spoke with a Chief Steward about one of the operating stewards doing nothing when a SM driver jumped the start (all three starters said they saw it, and he did jump the start.) I know it caused waves, as the steward we spoke about will not speak to me now. The Stewards program does have a "peer review" process in the division, and I expect that something will be done, but I haven't a clue what it might be. In other divisions, it is more of a "good old boys" network and there is almost no transparent process.

[Knestis]

LOL - moderator edited Greg's comments at specmiata.com! What a hoot!

K

[AntonioGG]

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.



[/b]

Except that I thought the point was to make rules such that at that point SMs would meet the rules. Or did you mean the OLD rules?

Knestis, yeah I will put a manual rack in my car. My car is a 94 so I don't have to remove the subframe brace. I do have a restrictor, and my exhaust doesn't exit from under the car, it terminates under the trunk area (turn-down). The exhaust and restrictor would not allow me to easily cross over.

I can already see old timers replying telling me "big deal" about changing the exhaust and removing the restrictor.

For a 2nd class run, or sharing with a buddy, that would be my threshold of "pain" as far as how much effort I want to put into it. So I would rather skip it.

I still see most of you saying the biggest opposition is about what's fair with one class being allowed to easily cross over.

[shwah]

The shame is, to me, this has nothing to do with Spec Miatas. It is just an issue of maintaining the integrety of a nicely functioning class rule set.

While it is easy to poke fun at the SM class for lead fisted driving, I don't read a lot of what is in this thread as being much beyond that - poking fun. I guess it all depends on your perspective though after reading on the SM forum about all the SM hating in IT. I only dislike the ones that are slow enough to get in the way of my ITB race

edit - but I dislike the ITS cars that do that even more...

[Greg Amy]

Now that *IS* a hoot. Jim Drago ("Moderator") edited out all the quoted references I made to Puskar et al's childish immature comments on this issue, and it looks like Puskar followed up soon thereafter to edit his.

Primarily, Danny Puskar, owner of Carbotech brakes, made TERRIBLY disparaging comments about Improved Touring drivers (one of the reasons, among many including piss-poor customer service, that I won't give them another dime of my money) and Jason Holland told me to "sit and spin" when I suggested they break out of the SM groupthink (yet Drago wasn't bright enough to remove Holland's quoting of the original post to which he refers. Sharp one there, Jim). I see the "troll" comment is still there, from someone that was probably in diapers and sucking on his thumb when I started racing, as well as other attacks...

Wasn't it one of them on that thread that said "you can't unring the bell"? Looks like they're trying...with enough coordination, it's possible I guess! Ah, well, ignorance is bliss...

BTW, In addition to their piss-poor service and products that did not work (all while telling me I didn't know what I was talking about), Puskar/Carbotech never made good on the contingency they owe me from the ARRC 2006, so take their sponsorship offers with a BIG grain of salt.

GA, big www.RacerShopper.com fan for brake stuff

[Knestis]

Except that I thought the point was to make rules such that at that point SMs would meet the rules. Or did you mean the OLD rules?

Knestis, yeah I will put a manual rack in my car. My car is a 94 so I don't have to remove the subframe brace. I do have a restrictor, and my exhaust doesn't exit from under the car, it terminates under the trunk area (turn-down). The exhaust and restrictor would not allow me to easily cross over.

I can already see old timers replying telling me "big deal" about changing the exhaust and removing the restrictor.

For a 2nd class run, or sharing with a buddy, that would be my threshold of "pain" as far as how much effort I want to put into it. So I would rather skip it.

I still see most of you saying the biggest opposition is about what's fair with one class being allowed to easily cross over.
[/b]

Yeah. Never said that.

Sorry - the point was what, again? Why in blazes should the IT rules be changed so that existing SMs meet them?? It's been tossed out here before but I really want to be a fly on the wall when someone suggests to a crowd of SM drivers that they should realign their rules with the IT category, to help those who want to "easily cross over."

BTW, your exhaust is IT-legal if I get your description. So, if I'm following the details, there's ONE WHOLE THING that keeps you from being in compliance with the IT rules. There are SM entrants who aren't motivated enough to work around that problem themselves but are willing to lobby to change a reasonably stable national rule set to suit their individual needs...?

Forgive me if I think that's pretty small minded. Which makes me a Miata hater, too I guess.

K

[Greg Amy]

Forgive me if I think that's pretty small minded.[/b]

I dunno, Kirk, I'm slowly kinda starting to come around. There's a lot of advantages to aligning all the club's various categories so that SMs can enter any class they choose...

Besides, I clearly remember how removing the intake restrictor from my '94 SM for that one ITS race I did was SUCH a bitch...

GA, slowly yet surely becoming reformed in "the ways"...

[Knestis]

You didn't sleep next to a pod, did you??

[Bill Miller]

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. [/b]

That's a real hoot Antonio, and very telling of your viewpoint on the whole thing. I don't see many (any?) of the IT folks complaining about the new specification process or how close it's getting the weights. But you seem to think that it's not good enough for the SM folks, and that nobody would have a handle on the performance level. Well, here's some news for you. The chairman of the ITAC happens to be a pretty good shoe and happens to drive a pretty well prepared ITA Miata. While he and I may not agree on everything, I am 110% confident that he has a handle on the potential of the car, and could figure out how much lead it would need to dial it back to the SM performance target.

For the people that keep putting up the argument that letting the SM's run in ITA helps generate more entries/facilitates sharing of cars, that's nothing more than a red herring. You can do that today w/o any rules changes. Run the car in ITE. If that's not good enough for you, then I submit that you're after a bit more.

Why didn't the SM folks (or whoever started this whole thing) push to have the cars classed, as is, in GProd? I may have said this before, but it could have probably saved GP's Runoffs slot as well as their National status.

Oh, and I seem to recall, back when SM was in the process of getting included in the GCR, that the rules were really much closer to SS than IT. Why not ask to have them included in SSB, where some of them still run?

And anyone that actually believes that the SM rules will move in a direction that will slow the cars down, hasn't really been around the SCCA for very long.

[IPRESS]

You guys are MAD typers over an issue that is probably going to be fixed quick.
I am on both these BBs....IT and SM. I run in both classes (not in the same car) but mainly IT now. The jist of this thread was: Is this new rule, letting SMs crossover more easily, good or is it bad froman IT perspective. The large majority here says bad. I happen to agree ONLY because I don't want IT rules bent. I want SMs crosssing over as much as possible. Except for your larger IT subscribed Divs, for the most part IT fields need numbers. Crossover is good.
AGs 94 SM only needs the RP pulled to be legal. Most 1.6s only need the (SM added) rear brace removed to be legal. I guess a bunch of SMs have the power rack blocked off and might be called on that one, but if you wanted to crossover all the time you should change the rack. On the vent window deal, I have seen very few SMs with that gone. Mainly it is just not very hard to be legal in both classes. If two guys are sharing the changes needed would not be that tough at all. If you run a 1.6 either drop the rear bars between races or don't run them in SM (we didn't for years and they are more weight then help.)
It is pretty dang easy.

Now you guys getting in spitting contests over on the SM BB....... That is going to happen when you go over to someone elses home territory. Also in some case I won't name names but there is more history involved then just this issue. Attacks work both ways. If you get attacked and want it removed PM the Mod just like any BB.
I will say this on the subject, I don't ever recall hearing anybody on the SM BB say they disliked, hated, or thought IT guys or classes were a problem or out to screw them over. I have seen some of that from the IT side towards the SM group. As far as the banging reputation, I don't run SM very much due to that, but at super competitive IT events (ie. The ARRC) there was plenty of bent sheetmetal just like SM. I have found there is less banging in IT, but there is probably less in SM these days also. I also think this negative persona towards SM from this bunch is a BB thing and is not really present at the track.... or so it seems.

BTW Bill,
Antonio (AG) is on the SMAC with Andy. He knows about Andy's top levl A car. He is just presenting some of the same reasons Andy used as a defense of the new rule. I disagree with the rule but not his statement about the SM being underprepped in SM trim fotr IT. For me, and I think most, that isn't the issue. Lets see if the PTB gets things back in order. Let the Sms remove a bar or pull the RP and go IT racing (under IT rules.)

[Andy Bettencourt]

FWIW, the only official requests that have come in WRT SM drivers 'lobbying' for a rule change were for a diff carrier allowance and the vent window allowance. As has been stated, the vent window allowance will probably go IT-wide as it is a good idea.

With many letters, one simple request can spawn an entire philisophical debate. Some are short lived, and some are not.

[AntonioGG]

Sorry - the point was what, again? Why in blazes should the IT rules be changed so that existing SMs meet them?? It's been tossed out here before but I really want to be a fly on the wall when someone suggests to a crowd of SM drivers that they should realign their rules with the IT category, to help those who want to "easily cross over."


[/b]

First, I never lobbied to have the IT rules changed.

Second, it was one of those things that was there "available". EVERYONE knew the issues, but nobody made a big deal about it when people crossed over...until now.

All I'm saying is that now that this whole issue came up, it seems to me that SMs (in SM prep) in ITA is over. It looks like SFR will do ITSM. Maybe other regions will as well. That's good I think if ITA guys still want to race...but if we're considered as out of class and we don't want to be raced against, then I guess the whole crossover is dead, since I don't race for points, but to race against other guys/gals.

My point was merely to say I thought it was a good idea and that I didn't understand the outrage. I can understand the opposition but not what I read here and in the SM forums (which has been deleted).

I also don't understand why this got personal, and why you guys find it easy to be a Miata hater (does that mean you're a Miata driver hater?).

Mac, I have lexan vent windows with NACA ducts...I don't believe it is legal in IT to replace the glass as of yet.

I don't know, maybe if the vent window thing goes IT-wide, I'll try an ITA race WITH the restrictor just to see if anyone protests me for something that purposely makes my car slower.

[lateapex911]

I don't know, maybe if the vent window thing goes IT-wide, I'll try an ITA race WITH the restrictor just to see if anyone protests me for something that purposely makes my car slower. [/b]

The vent window thing should be IT wide, as it's been recommended as such. It's in the hands of the CRB, et al.

And nobody is likely to protest you, but there are ITA cars that, even in top form struggle to keep up with a SM, so you will be racing equal cars.....lets not forget that ITA isn't JUST about the top cars...it's a performance envelope....not all cars can hit the front of the class. (And before we spawn into a "Why not" discussion, lets just remember back when the whole "process" was being discussed, and we all came to the conclusion that stability was most improtant, and we'd try to get the cars close, but in some cases, they might be a little offf. We simply can't make every car exactly the same...)

Which leaves some people, in, perhaps, an uncomfortable position, including officials.

But what interests me, or befuddles me, is how the obvious solution goes on being ignored.

In some regions we hear that IT numbers are low. In others, we here that the groups are overflowing.

So why not allow the Regions to solve their problems, or better put, make the best of their oppurtunity??

Simply add a class called IT"X" to a run group with low counts and the same approximate speed. ...Allow whatever cars you want to run IT"X"...SMs SSMs, SMTs, whatever!

To me, this is a situation that varies from region to region, and can be handled easily within the region. Heck, regions bordering other regions would be wise to do it to attract more business. And SM drivers can get this done with a simple web search to find the names of their regions drivers reps far easier than rewriting a National ruleset. Why aren't those in favor of more places for SMs to run on the phone calling their region now???

Of course, allowing the SMs to run with a restrictor plate in place via a line on the ITCS would work, and is relatively harmless, and some IT drivers might welcome more cars to race against. And it could help numbers for struggling regions, if the IT drivers don't stay away because of the inclusion...but theres a regional solution as well that avoids larger and more permanent changes. Or am I really missing something?

[AntonioGG]

Jake, I agree with you ITX, ITSM or whatever would work well if--like I mentioned before--other ITA guys don't mind racing against ITSM (I mean really racing). I only mention this because in our division, there isn't much crossover so I wouldn't expect a lot of ITSM vs. ITSM racing if that comes to happen, and that would be boring. In other regions like SFR, you might as well call ITA and ITX SMT2 and SMT3 because a big chunk are SM cars double and triple dipping. It almost seems like in SFR SMs are half the total entries on a regional weekend.

[Andy Bettencourt]

Isn't that effectively now called ITE? To me, adding an 'ITSM' is exactly what people are bitching about here. Don't add more classes so someone can double dip. This affects track time for everyone else. The structure is there to double dip for all of us.

The difference I see here is that the 90-97 cars are already classed in ITA so this isn't creating anything additional for them. Since it is possible to do a legal ITA / SM Miata, is there anyone in favor of Dick's idea? Adding a spec-line allowance to the 94-97 Miata line that reads: "May run appropriate SM restrictor for year"

[shwah]

What? Come on, you have to be kidding.

I don't care if SM drivers have 6 classes to race their car in over a given weekend, as long as I still have a place to run ITB.

The majority of the arguments I have read here focus on bastardizing the IT rule set by dropping a different set of rules smack dab into the middle of it. If you got something different out of the discussion then either those of us making that point are really bad communicators, or you want to hear something different than what we are saying.

I'm already on record here as supporting the restrictor note on the spec lines. I'm also on record here suggesting that regions needing more Miata run groups can create them without affecting the IT national rule set.

This thing is nuts - so much heat and smoke, but no fire. I'm tired of running in circles.

[Andy Bettencourt]

What? Come on, you have to be kidding.

I don't care if SM drivers have 6 classes to race their car in over a given weekend, as long as I still have a place to run ITB.

The majority of the arguments I have read here focus on bastardizing the IT rule set by dropping a different set of rules smack dab into the middle of it. If you got something different out of the discussion then either those of us making that point are really bad communicators, or you want to hear something different than what we are saying.

I'm already on record here as supporting the restrictor note on the spec lines. I'm also on record here suggesting that regions needing more Miata run groups can create them without affecting the IT national rule set.

This thing is nuts - so much heat and smoke, but no fire. I'm tired of running in circles.[/b]

Chris,

Compromising the IT rules is the main crux of the issue but I could go back and quote a myriad of posts that bitch about how much track time a Miata can already get - you would be in the minority in not caring that Miata's had '6 classes to race'. THAT is at the core of the Miata-hating.