June Fastrack

[RSTPerformance]

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 I think this should be rescinded with the quickness!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.
[/b]

I know you may have changed your position, but I did want to point out... The Stewards would have to find the car legal as it would be concidered legal in the Rule Book... That doesn't mean that I or any steward agrees with the rule, but we do have to govorn by the rules that are in place.

This is a good argument, I like it.

Can we please get all of the regions to change the name of ITE?
[/b]

I think that the IT in ITE originated from a requirement that the ITE car must meet "IT" safety standards.


As for all the rest of this thread and the "dual classing" of cars. I am ALL FOR dual classing of cars, however I feel that the cars must meet both class rules/requirements. Basically I think that Prod/IT rules should be modified to allow cars to be legal in either/both classes (obviosly an IT car would not be competitive in Prob if it also was meeting the more strict rules of IT). If SM needs to be allowed in IT, then change the rules for all of IT to allow such modifications that are allowed in SM or change the SM rules to meet IT rules. If some of the SM rules do not meet the class "philosophy" (to lazy for spell check tonight) then either those rules need to be changed or the IT philosophy needs to be changed for ALL cars/classes.

Raymond "JMO (Just My Opinion)" Blethen

[Knestis]

...If SM needs to be allowed in IT, then change the rules for all of IT to allow such modifications that are allowed in SM or change the SM rules to meet IT rules. If some of the SM rules do not meet the class "philosophy" (to lazy for spell check tonight) then either those rules need to be changed or the IT philosophy needs to be changed for ALL cars/classes.
[/b]

So, Raymond - you are now saying that you might actually consider changing fundamental aspects of the entire IT category to accommodate Spec Miatae?

Seriously?

Bloody hell.

This is sounding more and more like a deal that got poked through the CRB without any real input from the ITAC. Andy is stuck defending something that got sprung on him and I hope that doesn't come back to bite him. Jake is rightfully pleading ignorance.

K

[pfcs49]

Raymond-if you've been using spellcheck, you ought to get it checked. I think it has a problem.
And as for changing IT rules to accomodate SM-that's a bad plan.

[ddewhurst]

K, fresh pop corn please the stuff on the site is stale. ZOOM ZOOM ZOOM................

For a moment I thought I was reading a thread on the Production site. They are constantly

[planet6racing]

I just want to be sure I understand. SM cars may get to run in ITA. The biggest bone of contention is that the CRB version includes the 99 model year. The other biggest bone of contention is that the CRB did not put this out for member comment before making a rule.

Let me ask this: If they did, would the outcome be any different? Also, if they restricted it to the 90-97 MYs in ITA and put the 99 in ITS, would most everyone feel better?

We've all been seeing the SMs get more and more run groups. This really isn't new to any of us. Surely, this isn't the ITAC's fault (though they are easy to blame, especially Jake because he drives a Mazda, even if it is a lowly RX-7 ).

I say we start a letter writing campaign to get the SMs listed in GT1, also. They need a numbers boost, too, right?

[JeffYoung]

Bill, a little more complicated than that for me anyway.

In addition to your issues above, the biggest beef I have is that an allowance is being made to the IT ruleset. 90-97 Miatas can run in IT using SM rules, which are different in some ways. People are disagreeing if those differences are significant or not, but I think even the proponents of the rule agree that it is a shift away from one of the basic (to date) principles of IT -- the rules are set down, and all cars have to adhere to them (a single ruleset).

I don't find the lack of member input to be an issue, yet. I don't think the ITAC rushed this through. I think it came up, seemed like a simple, good idea and was passed to the CRB as a recommendation. The CRB immediately adopted it. No one really had the time or even the need to think it through in the detail we are thinking it through here.

Where the "rush through" becomes a problem is if the entire IT community opposes this (and it appears they do) and it still stays a rule simply because "most Miata drivers want it, and there are a lot of Miatas."

I have heard from one person that some of this is bring driven by financial considerations. Without allowing Miatas to do this, easily, regions not nearly as healthy as SEDiv, MidAtlantic, NER, etc. may cut or eliminate their regional programs.

This is a non car specific NEED for the rule that if true, MIGHT be a justification for allowing this assuming there is no othe way to do it (allow Miatas in IT using SM rules). I still don't think it is that hard to prep a Miata to run up front in SM and still be somewhat competitive in ITA without much trouble. And if that is true, then I think even with the financial problems some regions are facing then there simply is no need for a rule that will cause a lot of trouble in the regions in which regional events are already full or close to it.

[Andy Bettencourt]

I have heard from one person that some of this is bring driven by financial considerations. Without allowing Miatas to do this, easily, regions not nearly as healthy as SEDiv, MidAtlantic, NER, etc. may cut or eliminate their regional programs.
[/b]

However true or not true for the singular person you spoke with, that most certainly is NOT on the radar of the ITAC. This type of move does not make the balance sheets go from red to black...besides, these guys are already crossing over so the money is there now.

[JeffYoung]

Andy, thanks. I am glad that is the case, because that removes the one pragmatic reason I see for varying the IT ruleset. Without it, this is an easy call (for me anyway).

Again, thanks for clearing that up.

[Knestis]

...and any region that wanted to could create additional class opportunities to generate more entries - ITSM, if you will.

The biggest beef, Bill is that we have just got the IT category rules and specs settled down and are swinging the barn door open again with special exceptions, inconsistent with the big picture.

Some of the smaller issues (differences between the rules, competitiveness of SMs in ITA) are red herrings. Go back to the first principle and get concensus on that, THEN think about the piddly stuff.

Do we think it's a good idea to have some cars classified for competition in IT classes, running to rules different than those that apply to the category as a whole?

|_| Yes

|_| No

K

[Joe Harlan]

Jeff,

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

The support was to allow regional cars to try national racing Miata's already have both of those worlds and about every other class in SCCA. I am positive that this kind of allowance is NOT a good thing for this catagory.

[Bill Miller]

Sorry I'm late to this, but I had to go out and get more popcorn.

To Kirk: Isn't EVERY letter we get a 'ME' request?
[/b]

Andy,

I'm pretty much at a loss for words over that comment. You've been around here HOW long?


Trying to make sense of this whole thing is about as easy as a Westerner trying to understand what makes an Islamic suicide bomber tick (no pun intended). I read all 5 pages and couldn't find one post that had a logical, reasoned defense for this change. I can't believe the multi-level prep/dual classification/etc. didn't throw up all kinds of red flags w/ the ITAC and the CRB, but hey, what do I know. How many times have requests for cars in Prod been shot down w/ the "it would create another level of prep" line (DD, that one's for you)? What's next SM in HProd or GProd (they missed the boat on this one, as they could have probably saved GP w/ it).

And please don't bring the "IT cars in DP" or the "IT cars in Prod" into the discussion. The goals behind those proposals aren't even in the same galaxy as the "SM in IT" issue. Trying to equate them says one of two things, either you really don't understand how this whole thing works, or you think you can blow smoke up someone's tailpipe.

For those that say this isn't a Mazda thing, guess what, perception is reality.

I'm going to go back to my popcorn, as there are plenty of others that have this thing covered. I'm just glad I don't support this kind of nonsense anymore.

[Ed Funk]

Check the open wheel, production and GT forums. Those guys are upset also that Me Otters are getting more and more places to run and everyone else are losing out because of it. This is either a club of all the members who are treated equally or it's a club going down the tubes.

Someone, please post the e-mail address of CRB (I know, I should be able to find it, but I'm old!)

[Bill Miller]

Someone, please post the e-mail address of CRB (I know, I should be able to find it, but I'm old!)
[/b]

[email protected]

[Andy Bettencourt]

Andy,

I'm pretty much at a loss for words over that comment. You've been around here HOW long?
[/b]

Bill, the point of my comment was that every letter that comes in (well ok, 99%) are requests that affect that writer in positive way. Whether it's 'class my car', 'reduce my weight', 'add weigh to the other guy', 'allow me to do this', etc, etc...nothing more, nothing less.

[RSTPerformance]

My comments were not meant to say that I think that we (IT) should need to change to meet the SM rules, I would be against that. I am just saying that for dual classing in general we should have it a normal practice to alter the rules in both or one of the classes so that cars can legaly fit into both classes. I don't believe in the idea of allowing "exceptions" to the rules to allow dual classing of cars no matter what class it is.

We (IT) have a good thing going, and I don't think that any rules need to be changed, maybe some fine tuned and clarified, but not a total revamp of the rules to meet SM or any other class rules. If they want to play with us, then have them change thier rules.

Raymond

[charrbq]

Looks like, once again, we're getting screwed, and those doing the screwing are sending in the attack dog to justify the screw and convince us to stop kicking and screaming.

[Bill Miller]

Bill, the point of my comment was that every letter that comes in (well ok, 99%) are requests that affect that writer in positive way. Whether it's 'class my car', 'reduce my weight', 'add weigh to the other guy', 'allow me to do this', etc, etc...nothing more, nothing less.
[/b]

Not even worth getting into a discussion over. In fact, I'm not sure why I'm even posting this, as it's not my problem any more.

My comments were not meant to say that I think that we (IT) should need to change to meet the SM rules, I would be against that. I am just saying that for dual classing in general we should have it a normal practice to alter the rules in both or one of the classes so that cars can legaly fit into both classes. I don't believe in the idea of allowing "exceptions" to the rules to allow dual classing of cars no matter what class it is.

We (IT) have a good thing going, and I don't think that any rules need to be changed, maybe some fine tuned and clarified, but not a total revamp of the rules to meet SM or any other class rules. If they want to play with us, then have them change thier rules.

Raymond
[/b]

Raymond,

Maybe you should try racing w/ EMRA if this is what you're after. This is no dig against EMRA, as I think they're a great organization. It's just that they give you the ability to move your car around (class-wise) depending on what you want to do w/ it. I'm pretty sure that's also the way NASA's PT thing works as well.

[Stan]

Facts:

• 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.

Can you disagree that any of these facts are true?[/b]

Yes, I can disagree. A rule change is defined as a change to the verbiage of (in this case) the ITCS, and is subject to the process of member notification and discussion, and ratification by the BoD. OTOH, car classifications are authorized, and are done directly by, the CRB without going through those additional steps. This happens all the time, including other cars in the latest Fastrack (see the two Hondas immediately above the SMs...).

And now back to your debate in progress...

[Joe Moser]

The ITAC/CRB contingent allowing this to go through is inexcusable.

There are enough strong points in this thread, and I won't recite them all. Maybe the ITAC will let me run my currently-prepped-to-NASA H4 CRX in ITA, rather then making me change everything back to ITA ruleset. Sure would be easier, and I'm sure there are plenty of other H4 cars that would love to race in ITA with the NASA H4 rule set. Yeah, asinine isn't it, well its just how this change looks and feels.

I'm sure the ITAC can see how thoroughly the IT community rejects this change, and I'm sure they'll do the right thing. There is no sense in alienating the core IT-drivers for some fly-by-night Spec Mayham trend. Short term gains RARELY equal long term profits.

Joe Moser

[RacerBill]

Do we think it's a good idea to have some cars classified for competition in IT classes, running to rules different than those that apply to the category as a whole?

|_| Yes

|_| No

K
[/b]

My vote is NO!!!!!!!