September fastrack

[dickita15]

http://scca.org/_FileLibrary/File/07-fastrack-sept.pdf

slow month but:
Improved Touring
1. ITA – Reclassify the SOHC Neon in ITB (Pritchett). The car is classified appropriately.
2. ITA – Reclassify the MK1 MR2 to ITB (5 letters). The car is classified appropriately.

not moving the MR2 makes no sense to me. we have a procees to get the wieght right so why not

[77ITA]

The SOHC Neon is definitely too fast to be an ITB car.

On another note, I was very surprised to see only two people besides myself wrote letters in protest of the suggested "open engine management rules". I've heard a lot of negative opinions on this topic, so don't forget to put your pens to paper if you have strong opinions on the topic.

SM guys, what is the story with the '94 flywheel?

[Andy Bettencourt]

SM guys, what is the story with the '94 flywheel? [/b]

The 94 flywheel is slightly heavier than the 95-97. There is an allowance in SM for the 94's to run the later flywheel. The later flywheel is all that is produced now and has superceeded the early one. That request baffled the SMAC because essentially, the requestor was asking for it to be made legal for teh later cars to be able to run the heavier, rarer, and out of production flywheel. Why would anyone want that? We think it was a confusion in what is currently legal.

[Greg Amy]

The 94 flywheel is slightly heavier than the 95-97.[/b]

It just gets betterer 'n betterer...

[Joe Harlan]

It just gets betterer 'n betterer...
[/b]

[Rabbit07]

The SOHC Neon is definitely too fast to be an ITB car.

[/b]

I think that after I went from 12th to 6th in the Sunday IT Fest race, there isn't going to be much happening for Neons in the near future. I believe that I have finally shown that it can be competitive.

[Bill Miller]

Another item that was clarified is the p/s NASCAR bars and subsequent gutting of the door. The way the proposed change reads, all the bars have to do is protrude into the door cavity to remove all items that are allowed to be removed.

[Andy Bettencourt]

not moving the MR2 makes no sense to me. we have a procees to get the wieght right so why not [/b]

Given the information we have from people doing full builds using the right year tub, the weight in ITA has been deemed acheiveable for the foreseable future unless some new information comes out. Similar situation to the 944 8V in ITS.

The vote was not unanimous.

[Gregg]

Given the information we have from people doing full builds using the right year tub, the weight in ITA has been deemed acheiveable for the foreseable future unless some new information comes out. Similar situation to the 944 8V in ITS.

The vote was not unanimous.
[/b]

I never knew that the weight being achievable or not was actually the issue at hand. I (and most MR2 drivers, I'm sure) would love to know how these "full builds" do in the heat of battle, even though we all know that classing is never based on on-track performance.

[dickita15]

Given the information we have from people doing full builds using the right year tub, the weight in ITA has been deemed acheiveable for the foreseable future unless some new information comes out. Similar situation to the 944 8V in ITS.

The vote was not unanimous.
[/b]

Cars that fit the process can have some expectation of being competitive.
So if you get the exact right tub and do an expensive, time consuming build they can probably make a weight in ITA that fits the process.
Or you can build a car that meets the process weight in ITB without all the extra effort.
I though the idea behind Improved Touring was to take a stock car and change the thing that are required to turn it into an effective race car, not to have to be required to do a complicated, expensive build in order to make weight.
If the car can race at process weight in either class, why in the world do we make harder than it has to be.

[benspeed]

Here's a question for some of the rules experts. I am interested in getting some opinion on the liklihood of having my SPO stock car classed in GT2 to compete in some national races where there will hopefully be more cars to compete against. It is 2750 with driver and makes 435 HP. Curious about what is the best approach to drafting my letter, providng any supporting evidence etc.

On paper it looks like it would fit well in that class when compared to the Panoz Esperante GTS and the Porsche 911 GT3.

The car will not be competetive in GT1 but if I couldn't get GT2 I'd settle for GT1. The only thing holding that back is the aluminum block LS1 - gotta be iron. I'm in no mood to drop $15K for a GT1 motor.

Down south they are classifying this car regionally as GTA. These late model cars with sealed motors ran in the last year of the Trans Am series classed as GTA to fill in space. There are no GTA cars in the NE besides mine that I'm aware of. Before Trans AM went bust my hope was to run in a few pro races.

The car is an ASA national touring series car and still has the sealed motor tags etc. to demonstrate it has not been modified. Any shot at GT2?

[MMiskoe]

Why won't they publish the weight process. I understand there may be some 'subjective' parts to it, but cripe, there should be more non-subjective data going into it. Someone must have a list of all the IT cars, their OE HP, their IT expected HP and the weight their IT minimum weight. Then another checklist of stuff like FWD vrs RWD, carbs/FI, rear drums/disks etc. About half of it they publish in the GCR every year, why not just hand out the rest of it.

The only excuse would be that it is not in a format that they can easily distribute, but if that is the case, how do 'they' sit around and make decisions about cars as a group?

Seems odd to me.

[mlytle]

Why won't they publish the weight process. I understand there may be some 'subjective' parts to it, but cripe, there should be more non-subjective data going into it. Someone must have a list of all the IT cars, their OE HP, their IT expected HP and the weight their IT minimum weight. Then another checklist of stuff like FWD vrs RWD, carbs/FI, rear drums/disks etc. About half of it they publish in the GCR every year, why not just hand out the rest of it.

The only excuse would be that it is not in a format that they can easily distribute, but if that is the case, how do 'they' sit around and make decisions about cars as a group?

Seems odd to me.
[/b]

you a fan of the original snl seasons? remember the fake ads? picture the one for the "bass-o-matic". we on the itac call the process the "class-o-matic". put in basic ingredients, add a few odd items that change regularly, blend well, and presto! the cars get classed appropriately.

kidding of course....

marshall
itac newbie

[DavidM]

Why won't they publish the weight process. I understand there may be some 'subjective' parts to it, but cripe, there should be more non-subjective data going into it. Someone must have a list of all the IT cars, their OE HP, their IT expected HP and the weight their IT minimum weight. Then another checklist of stuff like FWD vrs RWD, carbs/FI, rear drums/disks etc. About half of it they publish in the GCR every year, why not just hand out the rest of it.

The only excuse would be that it is not in a format that they can easily distribute, but if that is the case, how do 'they' sit around and make decisions about cars as a group?

Seems odd to me.
[/b]

Heh. That was my letter. I requested that the ITAC publish *exactly* how each car's weight is derived and even suggested it go in the GCR. I think that info should be publicly published. The ITAC doesn't. I'll leave it at that and you can ask yourself why they wouldn't want to publish that info. I've already been back and forth with Andy privately on it.

I also sent in a letter opposing the new ECU rule. 5 letters total (for/against) is pretty pathetic considering how much debate was had just on this forum.

David

[Tkczecheredflag]

Heh. That was my letter. I requested that the ITAC publish *exactly* how each car's weight is derived and even suggested it go in the GCR. I think that info should be publicly published. The ITAC doesn't. I'll leave it at that and you can ask yourself why they wouldn't want to publish that info. I've already been back and forth with Andy privately on it.

I also sent in a letter opposing the new ECU rule. 5 letters total (for/against) is pretty pathetic considering how much debate was had just on this forum.

David
[/b]

David - I have to tell you, I am pretty ignorant to the procees for all proposed rule changes - My own fault, I know I should know - I plead guilty as charged.

Would someone be interested in starting a thread that explains the process and how we are supposed to act and react to proposed changes. What is the role of the CRB and ITAC - who gets selected and how? I've been around for a while but I don't know the policies and procedures. Heck - I'm looking up what ITAC stands for right now.

[dominojd]

. Heck - I'm looking up what ITAC stands for right now.
[/b]

Jeez Timmy I even know that one Improved Touring Advisory Commity.

You must have been the kid that sat in the back of the class room and paid attention even less than I did.

[Tkczecheredflag]

Jeez Timmy I even know that one Improved Touring Advisory Commity.

You must have been the kid that sat in the back of the class room and paid attention even less than I did.
[/b]

Joe - Maybe it was just easier for me to follow and understand Fastrack when I could bring a copy of SportsCar in the can with me to read the insert. Honestly though - I think had a senior moment regarding ITAC - ya think?

[Chris Wire]

I also sent in a letter opposing the new ECU rule. 5 letters total (for/against) is pretty pathetic considering how much debate was had just on this forum.

David
[/b]

You're right, David. I just sent my letter.

[planet6racing]

I also sent in a letter opposing the new ECU rule. 5 letters total (for/against) is pretty pathetic considering how much debate was had just on this forum.

David
[/b]

I think there are more letters. These notes are from the meeting held on August 7th, 2007. I'm pretty certain that is on or about when I sent my letter. Wait, check that. I sent my letter 7/25/07. So, I guess I'm one of the 5! That doesn't make me feel so good...

[nip_mr2]

Yes the weight is acheivable in ITA for an MR2. I currently went acroos the scales at Summit during MARRS 7. The car was 2293, 23 pounds over weight. I ran my ass off During the race. Finished 6th in class. ( thanks to alot of other driver's at the IT Fest. ) Going to ITB the weight was 2540. Gee sounds like fun. Look at the time sheets for ITB at Summit, then look at mine. I'm within the top 4 in ITB. Add the weight and GEE, I go right back to the same finishing postion. The weight and power have a lot to do with these cars. I just so sick of trying to inform the people who are not informed about the car, I'm thinking of perposing a spec class for the car. SPEC MR2 or ITMR2. Hey the RX7's got the wish.