October Fastrack

[ScotMac]

Anyhow, if you're referring to Volvo rwhp, you're about 25 hp optimistic, give or take a few. And no, I don't believe a 10/10th's Volvo build will even beat your 137 lb-ft of torque at the rear wheels... keep in mind, they were only about 130 hp and 130 tq at the flywheel as delivered, ...

It does have better brakes and 50/50 weight distritbution is easily attainable. Equal corner weights... not so much. Why did they have to put a 35 pound battery in the extreme reaches of the LF corner????
[/b]

130 and 130...hmmm seems like more when they go by me on the straights.

You sound like me, in terms of the brakes. The only reason my car has actually *won* anything is because of the brakes. Was able to complete a twelve hour w/out replacing pads! ;-)

The question is... could you actually make 2470 w/driver? Legally?
[/b]

Yep, that is a valid question. I am actually about 50lbs overweight right now. But i haven't looked at the car and the rules enough to know how much more i can take off. Hopefully i take it off the rear end of the car. Someone else was talking about the polar moment of the mr2's...well they should try a Fiero. I have spun it at every track i have been to soo far. Driving it in the rain w/ slicks on is REALLY an interesting experience.

[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.

[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.

[keycom]

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.

[/b]

Read closer:
"DNS (Did Not Start) – A driver/car combination that qualified for, but did not start the race."

My bold emphasis.

[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?

[benspeed]

Maybe you guys won&#39;t care since this isn&#39;t IT related, but I want to express some great satisfaction with our classing proceedures. I submitted a letter to move my fuel injected, aluminum block stock car into GT2 or worst case GT1.

I received a call today from Stan Clayton with the CRB who had a list of very thoughtful questions about the car and information I needed to provide regarding the motor and the source for other sealed 400hp LS1 engines. He felt that there was a good opportunity the car might be classed in GT next year - no guarantees on competitiveness etc.

Its cool as heck that folks really take a well thought out, well articulated request seriously and care about getting a car classed to compete nationally.

It&#39;s Friday and I&#39;m going to go

Cheers!

PS- you don&#39;t want my SPO/GT drivel here, tell me another good forum to go post on

[JLawton]

PS- you don&#39;t want my SPO/GT drivel here, tell me another good forum to go post on
[/b]

Try: www.slowdriverswithbighorsepower.com











Sorry Ben, couldn&#39;t resist!! Come back and race with the fast guys!!

[benspeed]

That site&#39;s as good as www.moremoneythantalent.com/racing :-)


The Fiero still sits in the garage, the last dyno run didn&#39;t make the power. I think I might melt it down into some new fiberglass fenders for the stocker.

[924Guy]

The Fiero still sits in the garage, the last dyno run didn&#39;t make the power. I think I might melt it down into some new fiberglass fenders for the stocker.
[/b]

Ya know, Ben, racecars get a lot faster when they actually hit the track... hint hint...

I&#39;ve seen plenty of crap Fear-Os out there, raced against them, they&#39;re slow, but it doesn&#39;t stop them coming back... at a certain point you have to say, it&#39;s good enough, start turning laps!

A race build is never done, IMO... I&#39;m still building my car going on 9 seasons now!!! Got a lot of trophies in the meantime...

[Stan]

Thanks for the nice words, Ben. I know that the GTAC is very interested in your request (very well prepared, BTW), and are prepared to take action on it when the concerns we discussed are addressed.

Jeff, Jeremy does an incredible amount of work in support of our thousands of licensed competitors, but expecting him to fill out your paperwork might just be asking too much at times. Heck, I sent in a homologation package (think VTS, but for open wheel cars) last year....part of it got lost. I sent it in again last month...they never received it. Finally, I asked him to stand by the fax while I sent it yet again. Mission accomplished. I know that mud slinging on the intertubes is more fun, but a little civility and diligence on one&#39;s part generally gets more accomplished. In the meantime, take up Andy&#39;s offer.

To those of you who think properly accounting for everyone who shows up at a race in "BS", I urge you to take a deep breath and reconsider. I know that you scrape for every thousandth of a second in qualifying. Will you be happy to accept a slot two rows back because T&S rounded to the nearest second? Proper accounting is important to everyone in this hobby, and the changes you refer to are to standardize reporting across the country, and to be able to categorize every racer who shows up, even if they blow a motor on the first lap of practice, Regional or National.

Off to read the "what&#39;s wrong with IT" thread...

[lateapex911]

Ben...c&#39;mon...huge torque, mid engine goodness, great brakes, that car should be great at Lime Rock and NHIS...bring it out and give the A boys hell. (myself included, grrrrr, LOL)

[shwah]

Yeah the same car that was at BHF last fall (edit - with any luck we can make that record a moot point in October, we were .1s off that time in July, and at this point are probably not the fastest B VW running here). I don&#39;t know any detail on the numbers, they just tossed them out in a conversation telling me how good that car was for Road America, and wondering how we can even get around the corners with our tall VWs.

There may well have been some embellishment in those statements, but I can tell you that he was wayyyy faster than the rest of us down the straight.

[ScotMac]

There may well have been some embellishment in those statements, but I can tell you that he was wayyyy faster than the rest of us down the straight.
[/b]

Hmmm...i am about the same as the rabbits on the straights, and much slower than the Volvo&#39;s and 2002&#39;s. Wonder what he did to get the car to be that fast? I am not saying he is illegal, but can anyone think of something that would legally make his car that much faster than mine?

[shwah]

Oh I am not prepared to question legality of the car. That BHF record was set in perfect fast conditions, and I am not totally surprised that are car with 40% more displacement using a &#39;truck&#39; motor makes a bunch more torque than I do.

I just don&#39;t know enough about that animal to form an opinion one way or another.

If he shows up again I will try to ask some questions about what the tricks for that motor are.