October Fastrack

[Greg Amy]

...is now posted.

http://www.scca.com/documents/Fastra...strack-oct.pdf

On edit: After reading through it, I take back the above statement; it's not Fastrack, it's a new GCR in PDF format...

[77ITA]

It's been over two months and still no mention of classing the Toyota MR2 spyder for IT. Yes, I filled out a VTS (despite one already being on file for SS, stood on my head, barked like a dog, and said my ABCs backwards.

They sure don't make it easy to get a car classed

On a separate note, I wonder when we can expect a ruling on open ECUs.

[JamesB]

GA - I agree, I got through 3 pages and said eh, ill read it later when they send me my new copy.

[Andy Bettencourt]

The MR2 Spyder has never hit our letters list. Just forward your request and sheet again to the CRB, we will get it classed asap. No problems.

[Matt Rowe]

GA - I agree, I got through 3 pages and said eh, ill read it later when they send me my new copy.
[/b]

James, one of the items you missed was it looks like you and I will be in the same class next year.

[Greg Amy]

James, one of the items you missed was it looks like you and I will be in the same class next year.
[/b]

Yup, I caught that. I think it's a fine idea. 'Course, many folks will be unhappy with a torquey 2.2L engine in ITB (especially the less-torquey ITB 2.0L Honda engine owners...) I am glad, though, that "they" finally got around to recognizing there wasn't a whole hell of a lot of difference between the white-label Turismo/Charger and the "Shelby" Charger; though 110 pounds difference seems excessive...and what's with yet another 100+ pounds for the Daytona and Shadow?

Should make for a fun time, though!

[tom91ita]

... (especially the less-torquey ITB 2.0L Honda engine owners...) ...Should make for a fun time, though!
[/b]

gee, how about the less than less-torquey ITB 1.5L honda owners?

but i agree with the should be a fun time, though! more the merrier!

[p.keane]

77ITA, I would like to know who you stood on my head, barked like a dog, and said my ABCs backwards for?

Greg, hopefully we can have a conversation in Atlanta. Maybe we can go on a black helicopter ride.

[Spinnetti]

Ok, I just scanned through it, and saw the bit for GT and production about yo-yoing back on cage rules? Whats going on? I just gutted my doors and am modifying the cage for NASCAR bars.. is that going to yo-yo back too? What If I wanted to then go to production? tear it all out and do it over again? I sure hope I'm reading this wrong... they need to leave the basic cage rules alone. I'm sick of having to modify it over the years.

[shwah]

Actually the whole point of the cage stuff is that they are trying to make the cage rule compatible across more classes.

The 2.2 motors coming into B can't be more torquey than the 2.5 Fieros we race with now. The local one here tells me he gets about 108hp and 190 lb-ft . It sure does leap off the corners. I am glad to see all of the cars moving into B.

[Tkczecheredflag]

It was interesting to see the change in "philosphy of safety standards", lessened/reduced/compromised/relaxed, (not sure what word I am looking for here), as it relates to the minimum roll cage tube requirements and car weight standards, change. Not sure what the original thinking was for the heavier cars in the middle category when the standards (1.50x.120) were published, and what the new thinking is, for those heavier cars now at the 1.50x.095 reduction. I am thinking that I will leave my safer, heavier, thicker wall cage in place dispite the new thinking (actually I need the weight too).
Can anyone shed light on what the new thinking was/is, who might have benefited, and, if minimum weight and money aren't an issue, should I consider cutting out my old cage?

Crazy Joe my guess is you loose - No Holiday Macy's window for you Bro.

[77ITA]

77ITA, I would like to know who you stood on my head, barked like a dog, and said my ABCs backwards for?[/b]

I'm glad you asked.

I stood on my head by having to do more than simply request the car to be classified. On July 04th, I sent a letter of consideration to the CRB (using the appropriate online form). The car is already classified in SSB, so as I explained in that letter; There should be no reason for me to submit a VTS. Jeremy Thonnes replied on the 6th and told me to send a VTS anyway, because "We have a factory repair manual for the Spyder but not a VTS".

Isn't a factory repair manual going to have all the info from the VTS and more? I most certainly didn't have all of the info requested on the VTS. Connecting rod mass? Coil spring material and thickness? uh.... yeah.. I also have it on good authority from someone that used to work in the clubracing department that there should be no reason to send a VTS to get an SS car classified in IT.


I barked like a dog because you can't simply fill out the VTS, save it, then e-mail it back to the CRB.



Whomever drafted this document originally set it up so that it can not be filled in, then saved. It's not a big deal to have to print it out and mail it in the old fashion way, but it certainly makes it more of an effort. (I tried the document on multiple computers, so I know it's not just me that can't save it with the info filled in)

I said my ABCs backwards by sitting on my bum since then waiting for the car to be classed. It's hard enough to decide on building a different car, but even harder when you have three less months to do it in.

Lastly, it appears I will do a double back-flip on a skateboard by having to go through the whole process again because my second letter (with the VTS) was apparently lost in the snail mail.

I hope you can understand my frustration.

[Andy Bettencourt]

Jeff,

Here is the easy way:

Look in the GCR for what the SCCA publishes for info on the Spec lines for each car in the ITCS. Write an e-mail to the CRB (crb AT scca.com) with that info (brake sizes, etc) plus stock hp and torque numbers. I will do the rest.

AB

[RacerBowie]

If you have Acrobat Writer you can save stuff into the VTS form via "Save a Copy". If you have Acrobat Reader (the free one) you can't. Strictly a function of the software.

Perhaps they could also make the VTS form available as a word document to fix this? I dunno, that might not work for reasons of formatting.

[JamesB]

James, one of the items you missed was it looks like you and I will be in the same class next year.
[/b]

Matt,

I did not get down that far, too much to read and my brain was all mushy after 7 hours of trouble shooting a rather tricky and elusive problem with an entire hospitals LAN switches randomly having amnesia.

Yup, I caught that. I think it's a fine idea. 'Course, many folks will be unhappy with a torquey 2.2L engine in ITB (especially the less-torquey ITB 2.0L Honda engine owners...) I am glad, though, that "they" finally got around to recognizing there wasn't a whole hell of a lot of difference between the white-label Turismo/Charger and the "Shelby" Charger; though 110 pounds difference seems excessive...and what's with yet another 100+ pounds for the Daytona and Shadow?

Should make for a fun time, though!
[/b]

I dont know the only daytona I race with is a rookie and trying to get his program together.

[RacerBill]

James, one of the items you missed was it looks like you and I will be in the same class next year.
[/b]

Glad I did not invest in any 15" x 6.5" or 15" x 7" light weight wheels!

Anybody have a source of reasonably priced lighter wheels 15" x 6" ?????????

[AntonioGG]

How about this one:

Item 10. Effective 1/1/08: Change section 9.1.12 Note 1 as follows:
For the purposes of this section, “entrants” shall be defined as drivers classified in the final official race results of National races as finishers, did-not-finish (DNF), did not qualify (DNQ), did-not-start (DNS), or disqualified (DQ). <strike>Drivers classified as did-not-start (DNS) shall not count as entrants.</strike>

[tnord]

How about this one:

Item 10. Effective 1/1/08: Change section 9.1.12 Note 1 as follows:
For the purposes of this section, “entrants” shall be defined as drivers classified in the final official race results of National races as finishers, did-not-finish (DNF), did not qualify (DNQ), did-not-start (DNS), or disqualified (DQ). <strike>Drivers classified as did-not-start (DNS) shall not count as entrants.</strike>
[/b]

BS.

goes back to my complaints in the &#39;what&#39;s wrong with IT thread.&#39;

just finding more and more ways to allow dead classes to survive.

[cmaclean]

BS.

goes back to my complaints in the &#39;what&#39;s wrong with IT thread.&#39;

just finding more and more ways to allow dead classes to survive.
[/b]

Wow, you&#39;re right. If I simply sign up for the race and don&#39;t show up at the track I get a DNS so I&#39;m counted towards the national participation numbers? NICE. BS indeed.

Who should we write to to express our displeasure? That really is not right at all. Lots of decisions are made based on those participation numbers. That&#39;s really, really bad.

[JoshS]

Now that all of those items (DNS, DNF, DNQ, finishers, entrants) have been clarified ... are the participation numbers still counting "entrants?" Or, for example, are they now counting the combination of DNF+finishers?