June Fastrack

[JIgou]

One other little piddly thing for the weenie protest list: SMs can de-power the steering rack; unless I've missed a change, that's not allowed in IT.

Jarrod

[Greg Amy]

Oh, so you misread, made an ass of yourself, and it's my fault?

First, "National SM" is a commonly-used term to differentiate SM from other regional forms for Miatas, such as SSM and SMT (Spec Miata Tire). I'm amazed you're unaware of it.

Second, why the hell would I give an F about National racing specifics in the context of discussing a regional-only class? Doesn't it make more sense to read the rules thoroughly and be concerned with the points at hand?

Third, why would you stop reading at the word National, given the word "Regional" is right below it and far more applicable to the discussion at hand?

Finally, don't be condescending and try to tell me (or infer to others) what's below me; trust me, I can go WAAAAAAY much lower. Keep trying.

This is indefensible.

[stevel]

One other little piddly thing for the weenie protest list: SMs can de-power the steering rack; unless I've missed a change, that's not allowed in IT.

Jarrod
[/b]

yes it is, at least for the 94-97 it is because there were models that came with manual steering from the factory. Since they are all on the same spec line they are allowed thru update/backdate. To be legal you have to do a full manual rack swap, not just loop the lines and yank the pump out.

i don't know enought about the 90-93 (did they even come with power steering?) or the 99+ to comment on those.

s

[zenbutcher]

Well, I gotta say - I am not in any 'circle' that I know of. I do know that I thought I left crap(asinine rules changes) like this behind when I left Prod racing. IT was appealing mainly for it's stability and rules consistency. This change just doesn't pass the smell test.

It has been joked about for a few years as the Mazda CCA, but now that it's a reality it scares me. Who's club is this? The members or biggest contributors?

Peter Baumgartner
ITA Fiero

[Andy Bettencourt]

Oh, so you misread, made an ass of yourself, and it's my fault?

First, "National SM" is a commonly-used term to differentiate SM from other regional forms for Miatas, such as SSM and SMT (Spec Miata Tire). I'm amazed you're unaware of it.

Second, why the hell would I give an F about National racing specifics in the context of discussing a regional-only class? Doesn't it make more sense to read the rules thoroughly and be concerned with the points at hand?

Third, why would you stop reading at the word National, given the word "Regional" is right below it and far more applicable to the discussion at hand?

Finally, don't be condescending and try to tell me (or infer to others) what's below me; trust me, I can go WAAAAAAY much lower. Keep trying.

This is indefensible.
[/b]

I disagree 'National SM' is a commonly used term. What SM circles do you run in again that you hear this?

I said I made the mistake of focusing on the quotes included in your confusing terminology. Bottom line, we were arguing different things and both of our statements hold true. You made a cheap statement even when my quote was clear. It's ok. I know I misread. You did too - or you just refused to conceed a miscommunication before you threw a couple witty ones my way.



I am done. It's obvious to me that you are letting other things fire you up. Get low if you have to. You know how everyone will view it.

The members or biggest contributors?

Peter Baumgartner
ITA Fiero [/b]

Aren't the biggest contributors also members?

Seriously, I can see the backlash from a categorical standpoint - and write your letters. I will suport that point of view. But like I said, it has nothing to do with Mazda. It could be any make or model that brings 30+ cars to the table every weekend.

[JeffYoung]

So if I rounded up every other car that shows up at a regional event (which generally exceeds the SM field) and got them all to say no SMs in IT AT ALL, should that control? No, it shouldn't.

The point is this. IT has a rulest. If you want to run your SM in IT, you can but you have to follow the IT ruleset. It is really that simple. This really shouldn't be a debate.

[RacerBowie]

yes it is, at least for the 94-97 it is because there were models that came with manual steering from the factory. Since they are all on the same spec line they are allowed thru update/backdate. To be legal you have to do a full manual rack swap, not just loop the lines and yank the pump out.

i don't know enought about the 90-93 (did they even come with power steering?) or the 99+ to comment on those.

s
[/b]

Not quite. In IT you are not allowed to "de-power" the rack. You have to go to the manual rack.

[stevel]

Not quite. In IT you are not allowed to "de-power" the rack. You have to go to the manual rack.
[/b]

true. I missed the de-power and just thought manual steering. You can have manual steering and still be legal in IT. That's why I said what I did.

To be legal you have to do a full manual rack swap, not just loop the lines and yank the pump out.
[/b]

[Andy Bettencourt]

The point is this. IT has a rulest. If you want to run your SM in IT, you can but you have to follow the IT ruleset. It is really that simple. This really shouldn't be a debate. [/b]

Jeff,

Trust me when I tell you that I understand this position. HOWEVER, when I proposed IT cars - AS IS - into Production, you wrote:

Andy, I see no downside to this and think the idea of giving IT guys a taste of national racing is a good one (and will cause most of them to come running back to regionals!).[/b]

So here is where I get lost. You support extra places for IT cars to run under IT rules in Production, but you don't support SM cars in IT under SM rules. Can you have it both ways?

Mac, you are in the same boat. You wrote:

Actually there are good reasons for going in this direction no matter if you are in a "strong regional program" region or in a weak one (like ours.)
Come on guys.... it is another group to get some racing in. We may not have a chance in hell to win, but by having the chance to compete it will make me that much better in the IT race. I can get the extra practice + a longer race + I have a reason to go for an entire weekend.
I don't see it as taking anything away from IT (regional racing.)[/b]

And Dave Gran, same for you. You mentioned support for my IT to Prod idea but yet this is somehow different.

If you are against this from a fundamental and 'intermingling' standpoint, then you can't be for it when IT gets the benefit and not for it when some other class gets the benefit.

- On a side note, Greg has obviously walked away realizing our banter wasn't productive. I will do the same.

[gran racing]

What???

I just agreed that...

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

I do recall saying this in the previous discussion:

I suppose a lot of this depends upon the goals of the club and how IT fits into that.[/b]

I am not a big fan of IT cars in Prod / National class. I am also not a big fan of this move. If we're doing this, I guess I really don't understand why it would be so horrible to dual class a few of the tweener IT cars - in particular the ITA RX7. It's even a Mazda!

Kirk, can you pass me some salt for my popcorn?

[Greg Amy]

On a side note, Greg has obviously walked away realizing our banter wasn't productive.[/b]

Yes, in a manner of speaking. Greg simply walked away realizing that "the club" is going to do whatever the hell it wants to, regardless of the long-term effects of the actions or the desires of the majority of the "members" of the club, all to curry the favor of a select self-serving group of people.

And no matter how much you try to reason to the contrary, there's always going to be some bonehead trying to defend it, so why bother?

Seems not much has changed in a half a century, 'cept most of the names...hey, at least we should be happy that this time they gave us 10 days' notice...

Bookmark this spot...and talk to me in a couple of years. - GA

[Andy Bettencourt]

Bookmark this spot...and talk to me in a couple of years. - GA
[/b]

I hope someone does...but to really get an 'I told ya so' in, maybe your top 3 negative repercussions of this new allowance would help us cheer you on when they are proven.

[jjjanos]

So here is where I get lost. You support extra places for IT cars to run under IT rules in Production, but you don't support SM cars in IT under SM rules. Can you have it both ways?[/b]

Not that this was addressed to me, but yes, I can have it both ways. With the exception of ITC, IT is a set of vibrant, well-subscribed classes and production is fading away slowly for a variety of reasons. As far as I am concerned, allowing IT cars to run in Prod under the IT rules is less about giving IT drivers another place to play and more about saving Prods aging and decrepit butt.

If you are against this from a fundamental and 'intermingling' standpoint, then you can't be for it when IT gets the benefit and not for it when some other class gets the benefit.[/b]

Well, there is a fundamental difference between Prod and IT. IT is a pretty standard set of modifications and Prod is all over the map based on the car and engine used. Adding IT is simply adding another layer to an already complex situation. Then again, I view IT in Prod as a benefit to Prod, not IT. I don't view adding SM to IT as a benefit to the group getting the added layer of complexity.

In addition, the way in which this has been done is extremely offensive. It might have been put up for member input, but I don't recall seeing it. That alone is reason enough to oppose it and demand its IMMEDIATE retraction.

As for adding IT cars to BP and DP, again, that is to their benefit and is simply the way in which the Comp Board and BoD has decided to back door these classes into the Runoffs.

[Greg Amy]

Beautiful:

Numero Uno: Making significant rules changes out of scope of regulations, without timely membership notification or opportunity for membership feedback, and distributing them as "technical bulletins". You've opened this door and it'll never close. Processes? We don't need no steenkin' process!

Numero Dos: Creating a sub ruleset of prep applicable to only specific cars, a la Production. Why create category specs if we're going to adjust them as we see fit for particular makes and models? Rules? We don't need no steenkin' rules!

Numero Tres: Dual-classification of specific vehicles dependent on prep. "We" opened that door with the BMW, SWEARING it was a one-time thing, and now the door creeps yet wider. Even worse, this time we're not even leaning on standard rules prep for guidance...Consistency? We don't need no steenkin' consistency!

Thought it was tough writing a protest a couple of weeks ago for a car built to consistent, reasonably steady prep rules? Hah! Good luck on the next one...assuming anyone chooses to wade this quagmire to make it happen.

You - as in the rulesmakers that made this change happen, e.g., the ITAC and CRB - have opened a Pandora's box that you can NEVER close. Ever. Even worse, you're doing it with a "we know best" attitude in dark secret rooms, revealing it to the world in a brilliant, and non-reversible, flourish.

Congrats. You should be proud.

[Andy Bettencourt]

Beautiful:

Numero Uno: Making significant rules changes out of scope of regulations, without timely membership notification or opportunity for membership feedback, and distributing them as "technical bulletins". You've opened this door and it'll never close. Processes? We don't need no steenkin' process!

Numero Dos: Creating a sub ruleset of prep applicable to only specific cars, a la Production. Why create category specs if we're going to adjust them as we see fit for particular makes and models? Rules? We don't need no steenkin' rules!

Numero Tres: Dual-classification of specific vehicles dependent on prep. "We" opened that door with the BMW, SWEARING it was a one-time thing, and now the door creeps yet wider. Even worse, this time we're not even leaning on standard rules prep for guidance...Consistency? We don't need no steenkin' consistency!

Thought it was tough writing a protest a couple of weeks ago for a car built to consistent, reasonably steady prep rules? Hah! Good luck on the next one...assuming anyone chooses to wade this quagmire to make it happen.

You - as in the rulesmakers that made this change happen, e.g., the ITAC and CRB - have opened a Pandora's box that you can NEVER close. Ever. Even worse, you're doing it with a "we know best" attitude in dark secret rooms, revealing it to the world in a brilliant, and non-reversible, flourish.

Congrats. You should be proud. [/b]

Tough to quantify the effects of your bullets as IT is arguably as strong or stronger than it ever has been but I have saved them in a document with a side of crow to eat at a later date.

[Greg Amy]

Tough to quantify the effects of your bullets as IT was arguably as strong or stronger than it ever ha[d] been...[/b]

Corrected that for you. It's simply a matter of time before people get tired of tripping over Miatas and choose to spend their money elsewhere, just as many Miatas are currently looking to run places besides with other Miatas (like ITS and ITA...if that's not telling, nothing is...)

Enjoy it while you can.

(That ITB Geo Storm is lookin' mighty interesting right about now...)

[Fastfred92]

Kinda funny......... I asked a year and a half ago to move the 99 miata to A and was told I would not have a snowballs chance in hell,,,, actually i was told I would have a better chance of getting the 944 to A than I would the 99+ cars...... Full circle

[lateapex911]

Yes, in a manner of speaking. Greg simply walked away realizing that "the club" is going to do whatever the hell it wants to, regardless of the long-term effects of the actions or the desires of the majority of the "members" of the club, all to curry the favor of a select self-serving group of people.

And no matter how much you try to reason to the contrary, there's always going to be some bonehead trying to defend it, so why bother?

Seems not much has changed in a half a century, 'cept most of the names...hey, at least we should be happy that this time they gave us 10 days' notice...

Bookmark this spot...and talk to me in a couple of years. - GA
[/b]

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.

[Knestis]

Mmm. Crunchy. But dammit - I'm getting sucked into the plot.

It could be any make or model that brings 30+ cars to the table every weekend. ...[/b]

For consideration - one reason we have checks and balances in federal government is (supposed to be) to prevent a majority from running roughshod over the rights of a minority. "So, we rich white guys voted and determined that black people should be treated as property rather than people..." Uh, sorry - no.

That a rule change (sorry - technical bulletin) should be implemented with the intent of keeping a majority happy to boost near-term revenue streams, without regard for existing first principles of IT as a category, is pretty disappointing. And silly comments about Mazda corporate conspiracy theories are completely unnecessary, when money-grubbing drives what should be strategic decisions about the Club Racing program.

I'm certain that interest in the MkIII Golf would increase with just a few little allowances - starting with a different gearbox. But that would only bring in a few new entrants, huh? How many is enough to bulldoze the system?

And for the record, at least I'm consistent in thinking that the crossover allowances are stupid. I can't quantify it but my experience tells me that a jumbled-up program of too many ways into what is already too many classes hurts our program in the long run.

Kirk (who's outlasted LITERALLY hundreds of thousands of short-timer ME's in this organization, many of whom got precisely what they wanted when they opened their wallets)

[Andy Bettencourt]

Corrected that for you. It's simply a matter of time before people get tired of tripping over Miatas and choose to spend their money elsewhere, just as many Miatas are currently looking to run places besides with other Miatas (like ITS and ITA...if that's not telling, nothing is...)

Enjoy it while you can.

(That ITB Geo Storm is lookin' mighty interesting right about now...) [/b]

Don't correct anything Greg. It's pure speculation on your part. If you have a categorical issue, then moving to ITB ain't going to help you.

Kinda funny......... I asked a year and a half ago to move the 99 miata to A and was told I would not have a snowballs chance in hell,,,, actually i was told I would have a better chance of getting the 944 to A than I would the 99+ cars...... Full circle [/b]

Fred,

Of course this is NOT the same thing as getting the 99+ Miata classed in ITA. It's a perfectly good ITS car.