June Fastrack

[charrbq]

Interesting history report. A few years ago, when I raced an older model Civic Si in ITA, I (and several others) lobbied like crazy to get the car changed to ITB. Even though the rules were different then than now, it was not unprecedented as the RX7's had been changed from ITS to ITA only shortly before. I was told by several members of the ITAC committee, at the time, that the last thing the SCCA wanted to see was Hondas running in every class available to them. Just a history lesson.

If we really want to get the SM mess to go away, all we have to do is find a way for SCCA Enterprises to take over the class. It wouldn't be something unprecidented...ask Carrol Shelby.

And if we really want to hear some screaming, lets see if we can't get BP/DP to running regional races with any car/class '90 or later. Possibly include limited prep Miata's in FP in ITS/ITA.

All this would take would be a conference call with no agenda and a letter from a competitor.

[its66]

Where's Matt when you need him!!!!

[JeffYoung]

Edit: Jim! No! No! NO!....lol...by the way, how have you been? Good season? Hope to make it down to Daytona next year and make a nother try of it. Maybe I will see you then.

Andy, I did type/say that a while backat the very start of the discussion on the whole IT cars in Prod debate and it was precisely the type of thing that I have learned from this thread is WRONG -- a knee jerk, hey! that looks like a good idea! reaction.

So, let me be clear and consistent that allowing a Miata or any other car operating under a particular rule set to run in a different class under that same ruleset is a bad idea.

If a car can be prepped in a way so that it can run in two classes at once (i.e. an IT car can run in Prod without ANY allowances or deviations from the PCS), then so be it. But it is the allowances that are an issue, and a bad idea.

Healthy debate, just wish it were a bit more polite (and I think Andy has tried to be polite).

[its66]

Jeff,
I'm doing well. busy busy busy. I'm making every effort to come up there and see you guys at VIR in October. Drop me a line at [email protected] and I'll fill you in.

[shwah]

My take:

There is no reason to make this rule change. SM cars have a place to run now, and if they like can often run twice a day in different SM classes. Then if the grouping gods are nice to them they can choose to build their SM car to IT legal specs and have 3 places to run. There is no logical reason to pandor to this particular model.

Since the IT -> Prod discussion was brought up, I still think the only sensible thing to do there is to proactively class popular IT cars in Prod as LP cars.

I view this more as effort being wasted on a bad idea when it could have been spent untangling the mess that is Prod, or coming up with a good reason why we have National and Regional events, or speeding up the timeline on the ECU rule review (not that I mind waiting for next season).

The Pro arguments sound hollow, as they are based on catering to drivers of one specific car and making it easier for them to grab more track time. You just can't do that - or you have to start doing it a lot more for the rest of the members too....which you just can't do. The statement that the items that don't fit our ruleset do not improve performance is retarded. I can argue that using A4 VW rear brake calipers makes it easier to find parts with no performance advantage, but it IS NOT LEGAL IN IT.

[Xian]

So if Spec Miata's can run in SM trim in ITA can I run my ITA prepped car in SM races? Maybe I can run one of the Prepared classes too? Makes perfect sense, eh?

Christian, who'd love to show up at a Miata race with a Honda

[IPRESS]

DAMN!!!! What a cluster. This little thread is bringing out plenty of hidden info as to why some things are the way they are.

Yes I said the IT to Prod sounded OK to me. But I don't think it got put in the rules without the Prod guys having their say. (And in reality, I don't give a hoot either way.)

I also can assure you Greg that lining up to Kiss this Miata drivers butt would be most distateful! Mainly because my miata is pretty dang far from being an SM and couldn't catch your sled with Senna himself at the wheel. Trying to stay on the same lap with that Nissan rocket made me sweat down in Georgia. (That is the distasteful part. ) So if Andy has you Yankees thinking the ITA miata is the absolute nuts then his is one in a million. It is just decent in ITA for the most part, across the country.

Andy, SM cars should be able to run IT (that is where my first one started running before we had any SM classes.) they just need to be running under the same IT rules. A ton of them already are doing just that.

Jake, I can see how the idea came up, and I hope you can find out how it went all the way to a rule without any IT feedback. They sure do use the funny little rejection lines to thwart ideas the rules makers don't want.

Last but not least, YOU GUYS..... don't hate on mfgs. We need mfgs. support. Mazda is not the bad guy here. Miatas are not the bad guys either. In fact I would bet this is just a case of something not being given enough thought to find problems in the idea. I am sure no one really thought WE would care. Evidently IT folks (me included) do care. Throw the thing out and you won't miss a beat.

[Doc Bro]

Firstly I believe Miata's are good for the SCCA, however, an SSM Miata can run (in 10 days) in SSM, SM,ITA, SPU, and ITE on any given weekend. All under the same ruleset?? When do we say enough is enough??

Thank God were not about spectators....how do you explain the same car in 5 races to your friend??


R

[Conover]

A friend called me tonight and asked me if I had seen this, I said no, he told me what was going on and my reply,
'that's absurd!"

Please, for heavens sake, cars racing in IT should be prepped and protested under IT rules.

The first time I see a SM racing in ITA under this allowance, I'm going to urge ITA competitors to protest it, for anything it doesn't matter what, I'll pay the $25. When the Stewards have to deal with this catastrophe they will not be happy either. I think this should be rescinded with the quickness! Please, I hadn't totally lost faith in the process, save me before it's too late.

[Andy Bettencourt]

The first time I see a SM racing in ITA under this allowance, I'm going to urge ITA competitors to protest it, for anything it doesn't matter what, I'll pay the $25. [/b]

Now that's the spirit!

[Conover]

Andy, protests are allowed, expected, and part of the process in IT.

If you want to talk about spirit lets talk about the spirit of the rules, let's talk about the spirit of the the technical bulletin.

Don't try to embarrass me just because you need company.

[zracre]

I have nothing against Miatas...or mazdas for that matter...I have a SM and just raced a RX8 at Laguna in GAC. Zoom Zoom. My thoughts on this are that it is rediculous. SM cars are not legal for ITA with the most basic prep(how many SM cars have P/S? Manual racks are like hens teeth and I don't think they came on 99's)...now 1.6 cars can change to a 99 diff...I think the outrage is that they are making an allowance for a now national class to race in a regional class...the opposite is there for us (only if it is a 1990+ car) in DP but that is a new class. IT needs to keep its dignity and not allow this kind of stuff...how can they expect growth if they are giving a car special classifications and stuff? The current class will just dwindle. Its just wrong. It wasn't broke don't fix it.

[Andy Bettencourt]

Andy, protests are allowed, expected, and part of the process in IT.

If you want to talk about spirit lets talk about the spirit of the rules, let's talk about the spirit of the the technical bulletin.

Don't try to embarrass me just because you need company. [/b]

Seriously? The way I read your post, you said you would protest an SM in ITA if the allowance went through. Not because it's illegal, but to make a point and make life difficult for all involved. If that isn't what you meant, it sure came off like that.

[jjjanos]

Seriously? The way I read your post, you said you would protest an SM in ITA if the allowance went through. Not because it's illegal, but to make a point and make life difficult for all involved. If that isn't what you meant, it sure came off like that.
[/b]

Well how about a protest that, even though the car is classified as legal, it is not consistent with the philosophy of the class? How about a protest that the adoption of the rule did not follow established Club procedures and thus the rule itself is illegal, ergo the car is illegal. If memory serves me correctly, the BMW guys at the Runoffs got screwed by a variation of this.

Bottom line, and one that you seem to be ignoring, is that this was done without member input and contrary to the procedures as understood by the membership at large. Whether this is or is not a good idea, the failure to follow established procedures and traditions makes this a terrible decision.

[Andy Bettencourt]

Well how about a protest that, even though the car is classified as legal, it is not consistent with the philosophy of the class? How about a protest that the adoption of the rule did not follow established Club procedures and thus the rule itself is illegal, ergo the car is illegal. If memory serves me correctly, the BMW guys at the Runoffs got screwed by a variation of this.

Bottom line, and one that you seem to be ignoring, is that this was done without member input and contrary to the procedures as understood by the membership at large. Whether this is or is not a good idea, the failure to follow established procedures and traditions makes this a terrible decision.
[/b]

Then your beef is with the CRB, not with 'a guy' at a race. That is my point. Raise holy hell with the PTB, not some dude running legal under a rule 'we' don't like.

I am not ignoring it. I am trying to debate the merits of the actual idea. If/when it gets out for member comment, it's still up to them to decide. I see more upside than down (99+ nowithstanding) because the cars are 99% there already. Many have contrary opinions which are valid. Make sure you all read post #58 again before you send your notes to the CRB. Jake and I believe the CRB thought this was a recommendation by the ITAC, when it seems it was not. Either way, they made the call and went with it. We should be able to reel it in if the members don't want it. Errors and ommissions...

[Conover]

I admit I had not read #58, and it does make me feel a little better, a little, thanks for pointing it out.

That said. Improved touring is a category with a set of rules. I believe that all cars displaying IT*.* should be subject to and allowed the same set of rules. K.I.S.S.

[zracre]

Also how easy would it be for a 99 to pop his plate out and put Hoosiers on "just for fun"? Even if he doesn't win it is downplaying our class. the cars have plenty of playgrounds.

[gran racing]

Start reeling.

<div align="center"></div>

Look Kirk, I even added a picture in there for ya!


Many of us are upset because of how this did not go though the proper process. Am I for this new rule change? Right now no, but I could be convinced otherwise if through a discussion there is good justification. Andy was literally up in the air, and being a Miata guy it surprises me this would go through with out getting his input. Have you even had an opportunity to fully think this through Andy? I know you&#39;ve been busy in a defensive mode, so I wonder if some comments and even view points now are made from that perspective.

You guys (CRB and ITAC) need to slow things down with this and take a few steps back. There&#39;s no way this should have gone through this way no matter how brilliant of an idea it is, or little impact some may feel it has. ITAC, CRB & member input, right?

Tabled for further discussion or errors & omissions - you choose. It&#39;s gotta happen.

[Matt Rowe]

Cheating is unacceptable no matter if you are racing for 1st or 20th so please don&#39;t tell me that getting beat by a SM running as ITA is fine just because I&#39;m not at the pointy end of the field. As a mid pack racer I have built my car to a set of rules and expect to compete against people who have done the same. I find it insulting to be told I shouldn&#39;t worry about this rule change because an SM is too slow to win in ITA. That may be true but they are still fast enough to beat other drivers that make up the bread and butter of the ITA field. Loyal IT racers that consider the idea and the method a slap in the face.

Facts:

• This is neither a benefit to ITA or IT in general.
• This is not a tech bulletin, it is a rule change that includes not only new cars but a new level of prep.
• There is a process for rule changes and this does not follow that.
• The only group to benefit is a single class of car that already has several places to run

Can you disagree that any of these facts are true?

If not I fail to see a good reason for this change. Much less a good reason to ramrod it through.

[JoshS]

That said. Improved touring is a category with a set of rules. I believe that all cars displaying IT*.* should be subject to and allowed the same set of rules. K.I.S.S.
[/b]

This is a good argument, I like it.

Can we please get all of the regions to change the name of ITE?