July FasTrack posted

[Andy Bettencourt]

http://www.scca.com/_FileLibrary/File/07-f...-full-final.pdf[/b]</div>
</span>

[Gregg]

Andy-

Any idea on how many letters for and against the BoD/CRB/ITAC received on this issue?

[spnkzss]

It also looks like the NASCAR bars don&#39;t necessarily have to protrude into the doors anymroe for you to remove the glass.

[Speed Raycer]

C. Mounting Plates
a. Mounting plates welded to the structure of the car shall not be less than .080 inches thick. The maximum
area of each mounting plate in the American Sedan, Improved Touring, Showroom Stock, Spec Miata, and
Touring classes shall be 144 square inches. Plates may be on multiple planes.

Wow! 44 sq inches more to play with. No more triple calculations when I get to 98 sq. inches!

Let&#39;s hope they update the ITCS

[Joe Moser]

At first glance, this FasTrack appears to modify IT Roll Cage Requirements (Weight categories are modified).

Previously, an IT car at 2,200 lbs. + required a 1.500 x .120 DOM cage, and an IT car under 2,200 lbs. required a 1.500 x .095 DOM cage.

After this rules change, an IT car from 1,701 lbs. to 2,699 lbs. can have a 1.500 x .095 DOM cage?

If this is indeed the case, the 1.8L Miata can now be CORRECTLY classified in ITA at it&#39;s proper weight, according to the "process", no? Previously, it was not classified correctly due to IT Roll Cage Requirements, correct?

Andy, is this how you read this FasTrack? I could be reading it wrong....

[Andy Bettencourt]

Andy-

Any idea on how many letters for and against the BoD/CRB/ITAC received on this issue? [/b]

The ITAC proactively went back and rehashed the issue. We unanimously recommended it get pulled. Up until today, there were 2-3 for and 10 against. They started coming in as soon as the topic hit this BB but it was on our agenda before the letters started to acummulate. Most echoed the sentiments here, one was complaining that they get beaten &#39;Nationally prepped&#39; big-money SM&#39;s and actually suggestion that ALL SM&#39;s be required to run a restrictor to slow them to "Regional pace" but more importantly to discourage dual entries alltogether. (This letter was VERY well written and done with lots of respect. It just differed from all the others in its fundamental positon on the matter)

It&#39;s done. In the end the ITAC did decide that the integrity of IT was more important than the potential upside of a change. It can be handled on a regional level if there is a problem.

[Andy Bettencourt]

At first glance, this FasTrack appears to modify IT Roll Cage Requirements (Weight categories are modified).

Previously, an IT car at 2,200 lbs. + required a 1.500 x .120 DOM cage, and an IT car under 2,200 lbs. required a 1.500 x .095 DOM cage.

After this rules change, an IT car from 1,701 lbs. to 2,699 lbs. can have a 1.500 x .095 DOM cage?

If this is indeed the case, the 1.8L Miata can now be CORRECTLY classified in ITA at it&#39;s proper weight, according to the "process", no? Previously, it was not classified correctly due to IT Roll Cage Requirements, correct?

Andy, is this how you read this FasTrack? I could be reading it wrong....


[/b]

I haven&#39;t had the opportunity to run over the cage stuff yet. That is a CRB inclusion that never ran by the ITAC. The 1.8 Miata is actually classed a few pounds HEAVIER than it&#39;s process weight. There was a though to throw in some extra weight for fear it would be more than the sum of its parts. When that &#39;fudge-factor weight&#39; was added, it did put it outside the cage requirements for a 2380 lbs car so it was pulled back enough to allow it to fit. So again, it is heavier (by 10lbs IIRC) than it&#39;s process weight. HOWEVER, I am on file as having asked the CRB if this car proved to be an overdog that was upsetting the balance of ITA, could there be a min weight increase (based on new info like crazy power increases not predicted in the Process) and still have the cages remain. Jeremy T. told me there was precident for allowing such a thing. So that may be a moot request if you are correct on the new cage rules. EIther way, the Miata&#39;s, both 1.8 and 1.6 sit at or above Process weight.

[RSTPerformance]

My observations/questions...

You can be 14 and get a competition licence now?

Spanky... In Improved Touring if it doesn&#39;t say you can then you can&#39;t... The entire section that allowed you to remove door window glass, window operating mechanism, inner door trim panel, armrest, map pockets, and inside door latch/lock operating mechanism was deleted from the ITCS thus you cant remove any of it... Unless however it is to facilitate the instalation of side protection bars as stated in the "new" rules:

9.4. ROLL CAGES FOR GT AND PRODUCTION BASED CARS

D. SIDE PROTECTION
Two side tubes connecting the front and rear hoops across both door openings are mandatory. NASCAR-style side protection or one bar bisecting another to form an “X” is permitted. Door side tubes may extend into the door. In American Sedan, Improved Touring, Showroom Stock, Spec Miata, and Touring the door window glass, window operating mechanism, inner door trim panel, armrest, map pockets, and inside door latch/lock operating mechanism may be removed and the inner door structural panel may be modified, but not removed to facilitate this type of side protection. The stock side impact beam and the outside door latch/lock operating mechanism shall not be removed or modified unless specifically authorized in the category rules.

Raymond

[dickita15]

I applaud the CRB for taking a shot at consistent cage rules for different classes. Remember when looking at tubing sizes it looks like they took away the 180 pound driver deduction.

[Z3_GoCar]

Great, my cars no longer going to be legal in what&#39;s it called (used to be DP) becaus it&#39;s susposed to weigh 2700lbs and it&#39;s got 1.5" diameter tubing in the cage. Oh, happy day I get a new cage

James

[JoshS]

Great, my cars no longer going to be legal in what&#39;s it called (used to be DP) becaus it&#39;s susposed to weigh 2700lbs and it&#39;s got 1.5" diameter tubing in the cage. Oh, happy day I get a new cage

James
[/b]

James, not to worry. Right at the top of the new 9.4:

"All cars must utilize a roll cage compliant with the following specifications. These specifications apply to all vehicles registered (issued an SCCA logbook) after 1/1/08. Cars registered before 1/1/08 may continue to compete with their previous roll cage as specified in the 2007 GCR."

[Knestis]

At first glance, the revised cage rules (hooray for greater consistency among categories!) would seem to eliminate barriers to addressing some of the &#39;tweener cases, where individual makes/models can&#39;t be reclassified downward without exceeding the maximum weight allowed for a given roll cage tubing size.

I might be wrong but someone with a vested interest should look at it closely and see. I&#39;ll be Dave G. makes a pitch to get the MkIII Golf adjusted upward if this proves to be the case, since it may have benefited form a lower minimum because of the cap when it was moved from ITA.**

K

** Doesn&#39;t that seem amazingly stupid and ancient-history now, that this car was stuck in A for years??

[Andy Bettencourt]

** Doesn&#39;t that seem amazingly stupid and ancient-history now, that this car was stuck in A for years?? [/b]

Yes!

[Greg Amy]

The 1.8 Miata is actually classed a few pounds HEAVIER than it&#39;s process weight...[/b]

Uh, close, but not exactly.

"Close" as long as the 128hp of the &#39;94-&#39;95 is used for the formula. "Not exactly" if the 133hp of the &#39;96-&#39;97 - same spec line in the IT rules - is used; at that point the car is 105 pounds underweight.

Per our private conversations (late &#39;05 or early &#39;06, IIRC), you revealed that the process weight of the &#39;94-&#39;95 would be 2395#, but that it was placed at 2380# so that the SM cages would be legal. Fine, I won&#39;t dither over 15 pounds. However, when ones takes into consideration that the cars - with legal swaps - can start with 133 ponies as a base, then I&#39;ve got a problem shoe-horning them in at that weight, just as I would with any other car - mine included, if applicable - not subjected to the same weight/process classification process.

So, in that respect, Joe&#39;s correct.

I understand what you&#39;re saying in total in that post, Andy, and normally I wouldn&#39;t call you out on this, but I cannot stand for public repetition of such memes as given fact... - GA

[IPRESS]

Check out Mazda&#39;s history.... they always overstate HP by 10 or so.

[Conover]

It&#39;s done. In the end the ITAC did decide that the integrity of IT was more important than the potential upside of a change. It can be handled on a regional level if there is a problem.
[/b]

Bravo!

[Andy Bettencourt]

Uh, close, but not exactly.

"Close" as long as the 128hp of the &#39;94-&#39;95 is used for the formula. "Not exactly" if the 133hp of the &#39;96-&#39;97 - same spec line in the IT rules - is used; at that point the car is 105 pounds underweight.

Per our private conversations (late &#39;05 or early &#39;06, IIRC), you revealed that the process weight of the &#39;94-&#39;95 would be 2395#, but that it was placed at 2380# so that the SM cages would be legal. Fine, I won&#39;t dither over 15 pounds. However, when ones takes into consideration that the cars - with legal swaps - can start with 133 ponies as a base, then I&#39;ve got a problem shoe-horning them in at that weight, just as I would with any other car - mine included, if applicable - not subjected to the same weight/process classification process.

So, in that respect, Joe&#39;s correct.

I understand what you&#39;re saying in total in that post, Andy, and normally I wouldn&#39;t call you out on this, but I cannot stand for public repetition of such memes as given fact... - GA
[/b]

And, as you know, the 128hp was used during the classification because that was the version that was requested. The 133hp version was not classed until another letter came in asking for that car to be included. And as you also know, the 128hp and 133hp cars are identical mechanically except for the OBD-1 to OBD-2 ECU swap that resulted in the extra 5hp. Since ECU rules are open, there is no difference in the cars in IT trim, hence the 133hp car appearing on the same line at the 128hp car. I won&#39;t get into this again. I understand you have a fundamantal issue with that, but the ITAC and CRB didn&#39;t. It would be applied the same to any car given the same circumstances (and probably is with some Honda varients).

The real question is whether or not the 94-95 and the 96-97 should be on different spec lines given the 5hp difference attributed to the ECU. Since I have a 1994, it doesn&#39;t affect me.

[spnkzss]

My observations/questions...

You can be 14 and get a competition licence now?

Spanky... In Improved Touring if it doesn&#39;t say you can then you can&#39;t... The entire section that allowed you to remove door window glass, window operating mechanism, inner door trim panel, armrest, map pockets, and inside door latch/lock operating mechanism was deleted from the ITCS thus you cant remove any of it... Unless however it is to facilitate the instalation of side protection bars as stated in the "new" rules:

9.4. ROLL CAGES FOR GT AND PRODUCTION BASED CARS

D. SIDE PROTECTION
Two side tubes connecting the front and rear hoops across both door openings are mandatory. NASCAR-style side protection or one bar bisecting another to form an “X” is permitted. Door side tubes may extend into the door. In American Sedan, Improved Touring, Showroom Stock, Spec Miata, and Touring the door window glass, window operating mechanism, inner door trim panel, armrest, map pockets, and inside door latch/lock operating mechanism may be removed and the inner door structural panel may be modified, but not removed to facilitate this type of side protection. The stock side impact beam and the outside door latch/lock operating mechanism shall not be removed or modified unless specifically authorized in the category rules.

Raymond
[/b]

Thank you sir. I apparently missed the may be modified, but not removed to facilitate this type of side protection

[Greg Amy]

And, as you know, the 128hp was used during the classification because that was the version that was requested.[/b]

And, "as you know", that in itself was not without controversy. Witness not only the nod towards letting the car run slightly light to allow Spec Miatas to compete (deja vu) - we can dig up the old threads on this board if you&#39;ve forgotten - but months before it was officially announced in the October 2005 Fastrack I had numerous discussion with you (and other ITAC members) that the car&#39;s classification weight was far too light given its historical outstanding characteristics.

Since ECU rules are open, there is no difference in the cars in IT trim...[/b]

OK, well except for 5hp and potential 105 pounds, you&#39;re right: they&#39;re exactly the same car.

It would be applied the same to any car given the same circumstances (and probably is with some Honda varients).[/b]

If you can support that statement with examples, it would be enlightening to compare those circumstances and their resulting outcomes.

The real question is wheather or not the 94-95 and the 96-97 should be on different spec lines given the 5hp difference attributed to the ECU.[/b]

My suggestion is that they should. Why? Because what I predict would happen would be:

- the 105-pound-heavier &#39;96/97 would be found to be a very good round-a-bout fit into the existing ITA structure
- the &#39;94/95 would be found to produce identical output in terms of horsepower
- the cars would eventually be classified on the same line, using the heavier weight of the &#39;96/97

Instead, what happened was the ITAC/CRB - who you indicate does not "have a fundamental issue with that" - decided to classify both cars using the lower of the two available horsepower ratings, rather than taking the conservative tact of using the higher of the two.

This is the same "fundamental issue" I&#39;ve been describing to you for approximately two years now. I seem to recall getting a phone call on the pending re-classification in mid-July when I was vacationing in California -- exactly two weeks after I had sold my 1.8L SM. I also remembering being pretty pissed off that I had not kept that car for another two weeks, as I knew right then and there it was to eventually be the car for the class...

Since I have a 1994, it doesn&#39;t affect me.[/b]

It ain&#39;t all about you, Andy...it&#39;s about a car. Same as it was before you built the car. My tune has been consistent...

You can blow off these concerns with a wave of your hand; doesn&#39;t mean they go away or are magically resolved. - GA

[Andy Bettencourt]

And while everyones concernes are welcomed, the ITAC/CRB doesn&#39;t agree with all of them. Until the &#39;destrcution&#39; of ITA is upon us because of this decision, that&#39;s all they are - concerns that have yet to be validated. Could they be? Sure - but we don&#39;t think so. Given the info and knowledge the ITAC and CRB had, we tried to go conservative on the 94-95 car (ended up only being 10lbs) but not ultra-conservative (by classing both cars 105 lbs over based on an item that was &#39;free&#39; anyway.

(On edit - it doesn&#39;t run slightly light. It just doesn&#39;t run all the &#39;fudge factor weight&#39; we were considering putting on it. Fudge factor weight is something I am SURE people here would have had a problem with - including you - should it have been a different car. &#39;Equality for all&#39; chants heard round the world. We WERE trying to be conservative, but the cage rules mitigated that. We do what we think is right, it may not always be the same - ala a formula, but it is consistant - ala a process.)

YMMV, and obvisouly does. Many see the logic in the classification. I am done.