December Fastrack

[MMiskoe]

Well thanks for the support on the jack points, for those in favor, write the letter, see if it ever gets another day in court. Frustrating that so little response comes from it and that the CRB can define detail down to wrist pin diameter for AS, but can't find a way to word a proposal for jack points that works. Even after I wrote 90% of it for them.

My letter on the process didn't ask for the process to be published, it asked why it wasn't offered up when asked for. So when they say it was previously addressed they either didn't read the question or don't have a real answer.

Andy provided a polite & well written answer a few posts up. Is it too much for the CRB to do the same in the FT? Its OK to respond by saying "its subjective & we don't have time or attention span to deal w/ the resulting questions" but not responding is unprofessional and creates more questions.

I still say that even w/ Andy's response it would not be out of the question to document what cars were reviewed (or which ones not reviewed, which ever is easier) target class pwr/weight ratio, estimated power, list the adders included and indicate how the adders were applied.


Matt

[Knestis]

Hey Kirk,

The Borgward 1.8 DOHC is requested for classification in ITB. Target pw/weight is 17. FWD, Struts all around and 118 stock hp. From what you have 'learned' on this site, what would teh weight be for IT? [/b]

Heck if I know. The process is totally subjective.



Actually, I'm on vacation and just got done eating a heap of Portillo's Italian beef, sausage, and Chicago-style 'dogs, washed down with too much cheap beer. I'm too dazed to do math.

K

[vr6guy]

Well thanks for the support on the jack points, for those in favor, write the letter, see if it ever gets another day in court. Frustrating that so little response comes from it and that the CRB can define detail down to wrist pin diameter for AS, but can't find a way to word a proposal for jack points that works. Even after I wrote 90% of it for them.

My letter on the process didn't ask for the process to be published, it asked why it wasn't offered up when asked for. So when they say it was previously addressed they either didn't read the question or don't have a real answer.

Andy provided a polite & well written answer a few posts up. Is it too much for the CRB to do the same in the FT? Its OK to respond by saying "its subjective & we don't have time or attention span to deal w/ the resulting questions" but not responding is unprofessional and creates more questions.

I still say that even w/ Andy's response it would not be out of the question to document what cars were reviewed (or which ones not reviewed, which ever is easier) target class pwr/weight ratio, estimated power, list the adders included and indicate how the adders were applied.
Matt
[/b]

you must have confused them with your intillect.....

[spdmonkey]

Regarding the FIA 1986 suit standards...It was first published in fastrack maybe July I think. I instantly wrote the CRB and BOD regarding this ridiculous ruling and to date have heard zip. I too have a former high dollar Sparco suit that becomes worthless in SCCA. Frankly it makes no sense but since no-one took the time to acknowledge me from scca and my letter never showed up in Fastrack I consider it a dead issue. I will however write again if we can get a group of people to start a movement. With the FIA suits there is no "patch" to replace as the certification is stitched into the back of the collar. Its a bogus ruling and frankly I don't have the budget to replace my suit with one of equal safety values. I wore the undies too. I had a fire in a Firehawk car many many years ago and you never forget and you never can have enough fire protection. It kills me when I see guys on the grid with t-shirts and single layer suits.

db

[Matt Rowe]

I think the issue with the suits is that suits were being produced that used the specified fabrics but were not being tested. This was extremly limited but it probably highlighted that there was really no control over the suits out there.

[vr6guy]

but my FiA "1986" suit meets or exceeds what the almighty SCCA wants to see. My suit is almost brand new, its not a helmet, its a fire retardent suit. Ive already sent an email to topeka. Lose a racer, and a national chief steward. choice is yours.....

Marc Rider

[Matt Rowe]

I'm not sure you can really say the 1986 automatically meets or exceeds the SFI spec. The SFI test has a higher heatflux, different heat source, and different load applied during the test. So passing the SFI test isn't a given and the FIA no longer allows the 1986 spec. At that point the lawyers probably take over and say we can't allow a FIA spec that the FIA no longer allows.

It sucks but I'm curious how you got an almost new 1986 suit when that spec hasn't been allowed since 2004?

[vr6guy]

So your saying that with my 3 layer suit and the appropriate long underwear is not sufficient?

[Matt Rowe]

Personally, I don't have a feeling one way or the other. I'm just guessing at the logic behind the rule.

[lateapex911]

. Frustrating that so little response comes from it and that the CRB can define detail down to wrist pin diameter for AS, but can't find a way to word a proposal for jack points that works. Even after I wrote 90% of it for them.[/b]

I understand the frustration, but...the AS wrist pin is a rule...it needs detail or it isn't a rule. And while you might have written 90% of the proposal for jack points, it is possible they disagreed with it.

My letter on the process didn't ask for the process to be published, it asked why it wasn't offered up when asked for.[/b]

I'm missing something. How will they "offer it up" without publishing it?

So when they say it was previously addressed they either didn't read the question or don't have a real answer.

Andy provided a polite & well written answer a few posts up. Is it too much for the CRB to do the same in the FT? Its OK to respond by saying "its subjective & we don't have time or attention span to deal w/ the resulting questions" [/b]

Yea, THAT would go over really well!

but not responding is unprofessional and creates more questions.[/b]

No, they did respond, but not in the manner you prefered. And regarding more questions, see below.

I still say that even w/ Andy's response it would not be out of the question to document what cars were reviewed (or which ones not reviewed, which ever is easier) target class pwr/weight ratio, estimated power, list the adders included and indicate how the adders were applied.


Matt
[/b]

And you seriously don't think that wouldn't result in more questions and debate??

Look, I'm not argueing for or against here...but, we've been down this road before. In certain cases I have tried to get the ITACs communications with the membership at large to be more complete. The ECU member request is one. Can you rember a rules change that was so completey laid out? But, the policy on answers to requests has been to keep it short and to the point, for a variety of reasons.

I understand thats not what you want, but, try to look at it from another point of view. Your glass is getting fuller. Communication between the members and the boards that make the rules is trending in a good direction. 4 years ago..heck, even as little as 2 years ago, you wouldn't have guys like me and Andy sticking our collective necks out answering questions on forums like this. And Andy, (and I) try to be accessible and reachable at all times. My emails in my sig, and plenty of members have used it. And they've gotten answers...they might not have liked them, but each seemed gratified with the attempt.

Things are a lot better than they used to be.

[Andy Bettencourt]

Things are a lot better than they used to be.
[/b]

And while Jake is right, don't take that as a sign of complacency. We want to get better. We NEED to get better.

On the jacking point request - the ITAC is divided. Some see value, some see a rule that we have been getting by without for decades with the possibility for parsing and torturing. A split decision on the ITAC means no recommendation goes to the CRB for a change.

The Process issue has been addressed. A 'reason' was given after the first request. There is nothing to hide, but we also don't want to create more confusion. The core process has been spelled out here multiple times. MULTIPLE. Many people know how to use it after some exchange of information.

The reason I challenged Kirk to 'class' that car is that I bet he nails it...because the info is out there, he has asked the questions, I think he understands and he has paid attention.

[seckerich]

Heck if I know. The process is totally subjective.



Actually, I'm on vacation and just got done eating a heap of Portillo's Italian beef, sausage, and Chicago-style 'dogs, washed down with too much cheap beer. I'm too dazed to do math.

K
[/b]

K--you suck. I can not believe you are in Chicago at Portillos and don't bring some Italian sausage back. I am down to my last box of italian roast beef!! Enjoy the good food, my dad just got home from eating there.

[Knestis]

Hee, hee, hee...

And now I'm back from doing the Turkey Trot 5K in Elmhurst (Chicago 'burb) in "30*F, feels like 19*F" with 5000+ other idiots, many of whom were either already drunk, dressed in some goofy costume, or 7 years old with no sense of direction. Neighbors actually had Bloody Mary stations set up in their front yards.

Anyway, on topic - I have notes on my computer at home that remind me of the outline of the process but frankly, I've gotten spoiled. With Jake, Andy, and other ITAC represention on the public boards and more than happy to share the information, I just post my questions and get answers. If you don't recognize the value of that, then frankly you are yet another IT racer who should take IT History 101 and sit through my boring lectures. The REAL test is whether you get the same answer from Andy and Jake (inter-rater reliability) and it's been my experience that they are within just a couple of percentage points, each using the process independently.

Now, I am not necessarily comfortable with some of the assumptions where we have unique make/model cases and "known power gains" get down to a one-car level of granularity - it's just too close to competition adjustments (bleah!) for my tastes, but that's a tiny complaint relative to the goodness that is the current system.

On that topic, it came up in the Mazda/SCCA conflict thread somewhere that the root of some of those problems are just inherent to first assumptions applied in the SS category. I couldn't agree more and it's a shame that the National office can't apply some real strategic thinking, and apply the current IT rules - including the classification/specification process - to new cars. But that's a very different thread...

Happy Turkeyday everyone!

K

[ScotMac]

Hey Kirk,

The Borgward 1.8 DOHC is requested for classification in ITB. Target pw/weight is 17. FWD, Struts all around and 118 stock hp. From what you have 'learned' on this site, what would teh weight be for IT?
[/b]

Since Kirk is on vacation, i'll answer for him.

2507...maybe a bit less for the struts/FWD. Easy to do. You gave us everything, except the multiplier for the stock to IT HP. I used 25%, since it has been stated MANY times.

Happy Thanksgiving everyone!!! :snow_cool: :snow_cool:

[Andy Bettencourt]

Since Kirk is on vacation, i'll answer for him.

2507...maybe a bit less for the struts/FWD. Easy to do. You gave us everything, except the multiplier for the stock to IT HP. I used 25%, since it has been stated MANY times.

Happy Thanksgiving everyone!!! :snow_cool: :snow_cool: [/b]

And you would be right on - except that it gets -50 for FWD and + 50 for big brakes (a detail I forgot to add in the original question - so no deduction )

And you get a nice rounded down figure of 2500 - guess what car it is?

[Knestis]

I'd have to look back at the original "Miller Ratio" spreadsheet (c2001) but it would be damned close to our archtypical ITB car.

New Mini?

K

[Andy Bettencourt]

I'd have to look back at the original "Miller Ratio" spreadsheet (c2001) but it would be damned close to our archtypical ITB car.

New Mini?

K [/b]

Cha-ching.

[Bill Miller]

Hey Kirk,

The Borgward 1.8 DOHC is requested for classification in ITB. Target pw/weight is 17. FWD, Struts all around and 118 stock hp. From what you have 'learned' on this site, what would teh weight be for IT?
[/b]

Can I play Andy? I didn't read any of the responses past your post, because I didn't want anything to influence my estimate. Based on your scenario, I would say 2500#.

/edit/ Interesting that you used big brakes as the adder to offset the FWD subtracter. I used IRS (I assumed that you got that w/ the struts all around).

Question for you, since you identified it as an actual car that would be up for classification in a couple of years. Wouldn't it actually fit better in ITA at a lighter weight? I figure the ITA weight should be somewhere around 2225-2250.

[ScotMac]

Question for you, since you identified it as an actual car that would be up for classification in a couple of years. Wouldn't it actually fit better in ITA at a lighter weight? I figure the ITA weight should be somewhere around 2225-2250.
[/b]

You didn't know it was a mini. Since i think the mini's curb weight is over 3000lbs, i say it fits better at the ITB 2500lbs. Anyway, ITA is doing much better, so throw us ITB guys a bone.

Edit: Curb weight is 3300lbs!

http://www.caranddriver.com/cars/3965/mini-cooper.html

[RSTPerformance]

Yeah SCCA and SFI you dorked up another one! Now a 3 layer "FIA 1986" suit in great condition with carbon-x underwear isn't up to snuff, but the jacka&& in the SFI 3.2a/1 $99 special with some really thin nomex underwear is fine...brilliant.

Glad my suit is a FIA 2000 and even "glader" :P I don't race with SCCA.
[/b]

Whom do you race with, I would like to get out of SCCA and into an organization that is far more stable and fun. Two things SCCA is seriosly getting away from IMO.

My suit is fine, but I've got to wonder why they felt a need to "improve" the standard.

What was wrong with the old standard? The existence of a higher rated suits are not neccesary and sufficient conditions to justify it . I really would like to see the cost-benefit analysis on this one and I doubt that this has been done. Given the driver burn rate I've seen over the last ten year - 1 burn/thousands of on track hours - I'm guessing that the cost far exceeds benefits.
[/b]

I would also like to see those numbers and the real reason to push more budgeted racers out of racing.

DING DING DING DING.......how do I appeal this one? My suit was barely used and is in in mint condition, and the FiA rating I have exceeds the necessary SFI rating. SCCA, really knows how to screw things up
[/b]

yup, they sure seem to have screwed a lot of things up in the last 12 months.

I never had to wear the long underwear before, so if I wear them then that increases my burn transfer rate. This rule is one of many that is not thought out too well.......

again, where do i appeal this one?

I feel like I just entered a three ring circus
[/b]

the three ring circus is lame compaired to SCCA... I am also interested in how to appeal this one.

Raymond "future purchaser of the cheapest allowed suite and thong fireproof undies" Blethen