June Fastrack

[Ed Funk]

Hoop,

If you want to run against Miatas, it would be more practical and a lot more likely to happen if we make Miatas legal in itc. A simple swap of tires to Sears Road Handler M&S should do it. They'd be even slower in the corners and still smoke us on the straights, and since most are very good at blocking, they'd be a natural for yet another class winner!

Maybe I should do a GA and walk away from the keyboard.

Oh, I forgot to mention, I used to be BUYsexual, if I ever got any, it was because I had to buy it!

[ddewhurst]

Hey Andy, as long as you & Jake are going to smooth everything over relative to the Miatas how about a request that something be done with ALL the illegal side hoops in Spec Miatas & ITA Miatas.

Ya, that's comming from someone building a car for the dark side.

I saw absolutly the best road race of my short time (11 years) being at road racing tracks this past weekend at the Farm National race. 6 cars at the point pack fighting for the sharp end like a pack of dogs after RED MEAT.

[gran racing]

It sort of comes across as being favortism (even if Mazda iteslf could care less about the SM / IT relationship.)[/b]

Just a bit.

[Greg Amy]

OK, so, after having walked away and slept on this overnight...I'm still ripped as all get out.

So, riddle me this (more questions to come, no doubt):

- Will these cars have to declare at registration to what rules they're prepped? How will that be declared/enforced? Whose responsibility will it be to ensure they're properly declared/registered? ITA competitors? Fellows SM'ers? Registration? Tech? Andy Bettencourt?

- Is pre-declaration required?

- How are these "special" cars (SMMAACs: "Spec Miatas Masquerading As 'A' Cars") going to be externally identified as being either ITA or SM prep rules so that competitors - the persons primarily tapped with the responsibility for ensuring rules compliance per the GCR - can know what to expect? Are we to ASSUME that any car with an "SM" on the side is properly – and legally - prepped to SM rules, and thus can weigh 2325/2350 (SM weights) versus 2255/2380 (ITA weights)?

- Once (if?) SMMAACs are physically, externally identified somehow, who's going to take the initiative to police the required restrictor plates (easily a sub-5-minute R&R), spec shocks, springs, bars, and wheel weights so that this "special" group can run heretofore-ITA-illegal modifications? Does that fall upon the ITA competitors? Tech? Andy Bettencourt?

- When I protest a SMMAAC do I protest them to the ITAC specs or the SM specs? Or both?

- When a pre-declared (?) SMMAAC is found illegal to SM rules but legal to ITA rules, are they really illegal? i.e., Can they suddenly claim they prepped to ITA rules, not SM rules? Can these cars pick and choose what category they're prepped to during the course of the weekend?

- If they change prep rules during the weekend, is this a new registration, requiring a new entry and all that that implies?

- When the two classes (SM and ITA) are grouped together, how will drivers identify which category they're in? i.e., Am I dicing with an ITA/SMMAAC (same class) or an SM (different class)?

- Finally – but most importantly – will the point in each weekend where all Miata drivers line up and drop trou so we can kiss their collective asses be codified in the GCR, or are the Regions responsible for writing that into the Supps?

As someone mentioned above, this smacks (har-de-har!) as something done as a feel-good knee-jerk idea (was alcohol and a napkin involved?), but not seriously thought through. Oh, you may THINK you did, but you didn't. RIGHT NOW select "Bookmarks/Bookmarks This Page" 'cause this one will go down EXACTLY like the The Other Miata Debacle We've Been Discussing Lately that I predicted to you three years ago:

"I Told You So."

GregA

P.S. Speaking of which, the ONE good thing to come from this is now the CRB/ITAC can properly classify weight on the "real" ITA Miatas without hiding behind that last bit of MKAL ("Miata Kiss Ass Legislation"), spec'ing weights such that SMs can play in ITA with their existing rollcages…

"Bring Back the Miata 105!"


On Edit: Note that I INTENTIONALLY left out the currently-classed-in-ITS-'99-into-ITA" issue. That part is just plain RETARDED. Just wait 'til the first time a '99 SM hands Andy his ass on a plate at LRP and we'll hear the screaming...(don't forget, sweetheart, that "National SM" Regional racing does not necessarily require a spec tire...)

[Ed Funk]

Man, I never thought that this would come to pass, but AMEN, Greg!!!

[JeffYoung]

Greg, a lot of good points, but let's let the system work and see if this gets corrected before we start flaming the ITAC. I do think there was a good intention here -- SM drivers asked to make it easier to run in IT, the ITAC thought on its face this was a good idea and recommended it. I agree that it does not look like a lot of thought was put into this, but it is just a recommendation and there is a lot of thinking going on here.

If this gets corrected, meaning the recommendation is withdrawn, this is all good and the system worked.

The ITAC is not all (or even mostly) Mazda guys, so again a bunch of folks with no ties to Mazda or Miatas thought this was a good idea.

[Knestis]

It sure does seem to be all about the ME-ottas.

Do this for ME.

This is best for ME.

Make ME happy.

I'm doing my "set it free" dance again and am going to be a spectator for this dorked up deal. Carry on.



K

[JamesB]

makes me happy I chose to run in ITB.... Kirk pass the pop corn.

[seckerich]

The 99 crosses over fine to ITS. Anything else is creating a new level of prep inside IT and will not be good long term. I know some of the CRB are lurking here and need a wake up call if they just missed this one. Letters should be sent now.

[Andy Bettencourt]

Greg, a lot of good points, but let's let the system work and see if this gets corrected before we start flaming the ITAC. I do think there was a good intention here -- SM drivers asked to make it easier to run in IT, the ITAC thought on its face this was a good idea and recommended it. I agree that it does not look like a lot of thought was put into this, but it is just a recommendation and there is a lot of thinking going on here.

If this gets corrected, meaning the recommendation is withdrawn, this is all good and the system worked.

The ITAC is not all (or even mostly) Mazda guys, so again a bunch of folks with no ties to Mazda or Miatas thought this was a good idea. [/b]

Take the 99+ out for a moment. Not a lot of thought? What is the downside? The 90-97 cars are already classed in ITA. The only thing this does is allow a few piddly little non-performance allowances to not get anyone 'weenie-protest' buttons pushed. Again, let's review:

Exhaust: no turn-down required but nobody runs a shorty exhaust which doesn't exit away from the body. It would melt the inner rear bumper cover.
Restrictor Plate: If you have a complaint about this one ("Hey, he IS running a RP, he is illegal. I want him to remove it so he is legal to the letter - but he will be faster") you need some help.
Diff: An alternate carrier is permitted (from the 94+ 1.8's) Since the IT rules permit open R&P, there is no advantage as you can get a 4.88 and the Comp limited slip in the stock housing.

So to faciliate legal crossover, it was recommended. It's already happening but there are some concerned folks out there who want to be legal - and they asked to be. It changes nothing.

If this allowance is for the 90-97 only, then it doesn't matter if you mix or match parts. The sum can NEVER be greater than that of a 'real' ITA Miata. The only people who need to be worried about 'parts' are the SM guys.

And to Greg: National SM racing DOES require a spec tire.

To Kirk: Isn't EVERY letter we get a 'ME' request?

Just wait 'til the first time a '99 SM hands Andy his ass on a plate at LRP and we'll hear the screaming...[/b]

From who? Based on what? They only people screaming about perceived on-track performance is the 'circle'.

[JeffYoung]

Andy, two lists of downsides (a short one, mine) and a long one (Greg's) are above. Respond to them when you get a minute, I know we all have to do things like work during the day.....lol....

But what is boils down to is a philosophy issue. There SHOULD NOT BE a special allowance to allow an SM to run in IT under SM specs that is DIFFERENT FROM THE IT RULESET. That is a basic foundation of what I believed the IT ruleset and the ITAC to be about. Now, we are starting down the path of fudged allowances here and there to make things easier. I am with Kirk on this, that is a HUGE problem.

Last point -- I thought that the allowance for the Torsen in the early Miatas required an entire change of teh carrier (at least it did on our car) so it is completely different than the R&P allowance in IT. The Torsen diff and carrier is beefier and lasts longer than the readily available Mazdacomp early Miata diff and carrier. So this to me smacks of giving the early Miatas a "realiability" allowance when running under SM specs in IT.

And as Greg says, we now have to check the rear end on an SM/IT car to make sure it complies with the motor prep?

Enforcement of the rules here will be a nightmare and simply not possible.

Andy, Jake, others, this is a BAD idea.

[Andy Bettencourt]

Andy, two lists of downsides (a short one, mine) and a long one (Greg's) are above. Respond to them when you get a minute, I know we all have to do things like work during the day.....lol....

But what is boils down to is a philosophy issue. There SHOULD NOT BE a special allowance to allow an SM to run in IT under SM specs that is DIFFERENT FROM THE IT RULESET. That is a basic foundation of what I believed the IT ruleset and the ITAC to be about. Now, we are starting down the path of fudged allowances here and there to make things easier. I am with Kirk on this, that is a HUGE problem.

Last point -- I thought that the allowance for the Torsen in the early Miatas required an entire change of teh carrier (at least it did on our car) so it is completely different than the R&P allowance in IT. The Torsen diff and carrier is beefier and lasts longer than the readily available Mazdacomp early Miata diff and carrier. So this to me smacks of giving the early Miatas a "realiability" allowance when running under SM specs in IT.

And as Greg says, we now have to check the rear end on an SM/IT car to make sure it complies with the motor prep?

Enforcement of the rules here will be a nightmare and simply not possible.

Andy, Jake, others, this is a BAD idea. [/b]

And from a philisophical standpoint, I agree with your position. Write your letter - but a note to all, don't make it about Miata's or Mazda, because it isn't. It's about the biggest pocket of revenue for the SCCA. We are trying to listen and facilitate certain things that some think is good for the club overall. If this was about 'Spec GTI' in ITB or 'Spec GSR' in ITS, I would have voted the same way. Bad for the class? I just don't think so but I have been wrong before.

I don&#39;t need to respond to Greg&#39;s issues. They are moot if the 99+&#39;s are out as I have stated above. <Devil&#39;s advocate hat on> Enforcing the rules not possible? I think you need to look at this practically. Other than the diff CARRIER, the IT rules exceed those of SM in every way. What is so difficult? Why would you even NEED or WANT to check it? It&#39;s no advantage as you know.

[JeffYoung]

Andy, thanks. I again think you guys are trying to do what&#39;s best, I just think this one is not good for IT. I&#39;ll write my letter and let the chips fall where ..... they......may.

It&#39;s not about Miatas. It is about allowances in the IT rules for a particular car (regardless of make). That runs directly contrary to what IT is about, and in this case is rewarding a popular car in order to give it more places to run.

(One small beef, I think a lot of Greg&#39;s downsides apply to the early Miatas as well)

[Greg Amy]

And to Greg: National SM racing DOES require a spec tire.[/b]

And, you REALLY need to read the rules if you&#39;re going to be involved in recommendations for rules changes.

And that just about says it all, right there...

[seckerich]

I have to agree if the 99 is out of the picture. Cross classing with seperate prep starts down a bad road. The rear dif is a wash but it has been an understood point that we ignore it. I have much less of a problem with letting it slide at races than writing it into the rules and starting a bad precedent. Has there ever been a protest of a SM running in ITA getting bumped for a diff? Let it Gooooooooo.

[Andy Bettencourt]

And, you REALLY need to read the rules if you&#39;re going to be involved in recommendations for rules changes.

And that just about says it all, right there...
[/b]

Well help me out and quote the rule. Here is what I come up with:

c. Tires:

1. National Competition

All cars shall use the Toyo Proxes RA-1 (205/50R15)[/b]

</span>


How do you &#39;read&#39; the rules?

[JeffYoung]

Response to the devil (that is a joke):

The added reliabilty of the diff carrier is, for example, a HUGE advantage in enduros. Ask me how I know.

But I agree with you, it is mostly a philosophy issue but we are taking about the golden rule of IT here.

[RickyBobby]

I will be submitting the following ideas to the CRB for further consideration…

It is felt that Miata’s do not get enough track time on any given weekend. To rectify this situation, please allow Miata’s to remove fenders, quarter panels, and the top thereby making Miata’s legal to participate in all open wheel run groups. Arm restraints will be at the Miata driver’s discretion. Any other rules they choose to follow will be at the Miata driver’s discretion as well.

In order to facilitate the highest finishing position possible, allow Miata drivers to declare what class they are running on the last lap of a race. If the race is shortened for any reason, allow this declaration to take place in impound, but only after a review of the provisional finishing positions.

[Greg Amy]

If this gets corrected, meaning the recommendation is withdrawn, this is all good and the system worked.[/b]

Jeff, it&#39;s not a recommendation; it&#39;s a rule change effective 10 days from now, without user input or commentary. Notice it&#39;s under the "Technical Bulletins" area with the note "All changes are effective 6/1/07 unless otherwise noted."

I can&#39;t think of strong enough words to describe this...

Yes, Andy, I&#39;m ripped.

How do you &#39;read&#39; the rules?[/b]

Uh, with my eyes (I don&#39;t know Braille)...?

SMCS, p GCR 496 of the 04/07 updated edition (incorporates Fastracks to date, available online):

9.1.8.C.6c. Tires:
1. National Competition
All cars shall use the Toyo Proxes RA-1 (205/50R15)
2. Regional Competition
Any DOT approved tire is permitted. Racing, recapped, or regrooved tires are not allowed. Tire size is unrestricted. The only modifications allowed to tires are having treads
“shaved” or “trued.” Individual regions may require spec tires for regional races. Supplemental regulations for specific events should be checked.

Really, son, if you&#39;re missing the small stuff like this, then the big picture is really, really, cloudy...

Take the 99+ out for a moment.[/b]

Why? Divide and conquer? Try to get arguments about the benefits/detriments to each individual rule, whereas they&#39;re being presented as a package? Try to get folks arguing about different points while ignoring the "big picture" effects of this whole idea?

Sorry. No bueno.

Fine, you don&#39;t agree with that part; well guess what? It&#39;s an integral "slippery slope" result of fundamentally changing the IT/SM relationship. Even if the 99s were not part of this rule change (and it&#39;s most decisively a rule change, not a technical clarification as it&#39;s being presented) I&#39;d still oppose it because adding in the "equal" 99s is the next logical step for such an action! I&#39;m actually damned surprised that the CRB didn&#39;t think of proposing it as two separate actions!

Can&#39;t say enough about how bad an idea this is. I&#39;ll certainly try, though.

Next?

[Andy Bettencourt]

Uh, with my eyes (I don&#39;t know Braille)...?

SMCS, p GCR 496 of the 04/07 updated edition (incorporates Fastracks to date, available online):

9.1.8.C.6c. Tires:
1. National Competition
All cars shall use the Toyo Proxes RA-1 (205/50R15)
2. Regional Competition
Any DOT approved tire is permitted. Racing, recapped, or
regrooved tires are not allowed. Tire size is unrestricted.
The only modifications allowed to tires are having treads
"shaved" or "trued." Individual regions may require spec
tires for regional races. Supplemental regulations for
specific events should be checked.

Really, son, if you&#39;re missing the small stuff like this, then the big picture is really, really, cloudy...

Next? [/b]

Well I admit that I read your first post wrong. "National SM" Regional racing? What was the purpose of the two terms? To point out a &#39;pro&#39; effort? I focused on the quotes...and it should have been obvious enough to think we had a miscommunication when you saw my response - &#39;National SM racing DOES require a spec tire&#39; - because it DOES.

Don&#39;t let it get personal Greg. The cheap shots are beneath you.