Feb Fastrack

[spnkzss]

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

Item 1. Effective 11/1/08: Change section 5.10.3.B.4 as follows:
The driver information shall include: driver’s full name, hometown, state, region of record, car number, and car make ***strike out begin*** and model, and
car year as required per GCR. ***strike out end*** It is required that the competition license number be included in the driver information.

Beginning of the end of the VIN rule???

[Tkczecheredflag]

A "Doubting Thomas". or do the modes have to be in the original houusing?

On the issue of ECU mods - ITCS, Page 334, D-1-s still reads "all mods must be inside the original ECU housing."

This issue is still not cleaned up yet. Any thoughts about when that might happen? Is there any chance that this language/item will not change? Did I miss the deletion of this item (D-1-s)?

I'd like to believe ITCS. Page 331, D - 1 - a, 6 and 7 but I'm not there yet.

[JoshS]

I don't know what brought that results change about -- nothing is more annoying than results that don't say who was driving what, and now it's explicitly allowed. Sigh.

I'm sure it has nothing to do with the VIN rule.

[JoshS]

The ECU correction should make the next Fastrack.

[Tkczecheredflag]

The ECU correction should make the next Fastrack.

Josh - Interesting - How does that effect the IT guys racing in Florida on Feb 2 and 3?

[JamesB]

that is really odd. I have not looked at my printed GCR yet, but the PDF file has it updated.

6. The engine management computer may be altered or replaced. A throttle position sensor and its wiring may be added or replaced. A MAP sensor and its wiring may be added. Other existing sensors, excluding the stock air metering device, may be substituted for equivalent units.
7. Wires and connectors in the engine wiring harness may be modified or replaced.

[JoshS]

that is really odd. I have not looked at my printed GCR yet, but the PDF file has it updated.

Those are correct. The issue is that there is still a 9.1.3.D.1.s that needs to be stricken.

[JamesB]

doh, I see that now. smooth move.

[Dave Gomberg]

I don't know what brought that results change about -- nothing is more annoying than results that don't say who was driving what, and now it's explicitly allowed. Sigh.

The proposed change is because there are no places in the GCR where that information is required. It is a matter of cleaning up loose ends. If any region's T&S folks want to continue to ask for and provide that information in their results, they are free to do so.

Dave

[Greg Amy]

Who says they don't have a sense of humor?

P.8: Why are you adding the little comments after the canned responses (Garza). Thank you for your input.

[bldn10]

Most people, including those in Topeka, seem to have missed the fact that there have been not 1 but 2 rules dealing w/ ECUs. D.1.s stated the general rule that you could alter the ECU w/i in the box. D.1.a.6 created an exception for "Fuel injected cars" that allowed not only alteration but replacement. I.e. up until D.1.s is fixed [it should be just deleted in its entirety since new D.1.a.6 omits the limitation to injected cars] it is and has been illegal for carbed cars to replace the ECU even if inside the box.

[AntonioGG]

Who says they don't have a sense of humor?

P.8: Why are you adding the little comments after the canned responses (Garza). Thank you for your input.

That wasn't as funny as the "Against the philosophy of the class" response to "get your heads out of your asses" letter.

Here's what I wrote:
"Are you adding the little comments after the canned response?
Spec Miata
1. Allow additional camber adjustments (Bennett). The rule is adequate as written. SM is a spec class.

Why is it necessary to put "SM is a spec class" after that? If I were Bennett, I would feel disrespected by that response. I believe it was only last month or the previous that there was a similar response regarding ECUs. It's not necessary to state the obvious, and it makes me think you guys are putting those on purpose trying to be funny, or didn't re-read the letter to see exactly what was being written about and why. "

But this was in response to this letter to John Bauer who forwarded to the CRB since they're the ones with the smartass (or preceived to be...) replies...and this was sent while I was still a SMAC member. The original letter (about 250 words long) requesting the rule was incredibly thorough, civil, technical, etc. Even if the CRB thought it was not reasonable, there was logic and reason behind the request. They could have left the reply simply as: "Thank you for your input" or "Against the philosophy of the class" but why do they have to re-state the obvious? I know as an AC member, that kind of comment made our lives harder! Sorry for the rant, please continue.

[dickita15]

That is odd because I kind of take it just the opposite. I read it as because SM is a spec class that we find such an allowance contrary to what is needed for the class. I honestly felt it gave more information.
But again that is just the way I took it.

[AntonioGG]

That is odd because I kind of take it just the opposite. I read it as because SM is a spec class that we find such an allowance contrary to what is needed for the class. I honestly felt it gave more information.
But again that is just the way I took it.

You'd have to read the original letter to understand. It was an argument for something needed that would normally be considered outside the philosophy of the class. It was actually something that would have saved money and created more enjoyment for new drivers. It would have eliminated the need to pull SS tricks like bending parts to get camber, etc. That's why I wrote in complaining, they either didn't read the letter or they were just having fun with it.

[ddewhurst]

The amusing part of the Fastrack respones to me is it's similar to some communication we have on this site. People on both ends of the stick don't understand, don't care, don't have a clue or just flat ass don't................................

& on this site don't get to serious with all the WE know it all folks. People will go on for pages of posts about someting they couldn't change or can't get changed on the best day of their lives yet when someone (me) looks for a discussion of a serious driver protection issue all the smart assed responses come out. Pretty much the only horse I ride seriously is items related to driver protection.

Have Fun
David

ps: I agree with Dick on the value of SM is a spec class. We buy some some parts & race we don't modify to the bottom of the slipery slope.

[Andy Bettencourt]

The FT responses have been a bone of contention for me for a while. You want to explain the reason for a 'no' answer but it really is hard to encapsulate the entire discussion the ITAC (or any Ad-Hoc) has on the subject. As many have pointed out here, more words often result in more questions.

Bottom line? Each and every request is reviewed both pre-con call via a web board and on the con call. The same consideration is given to each request. Just because it doesn't get through doesn't mean it wasn't talked about. No disrespect is intended with the 'canned' responses. If anyone would like to help me develop a 'better way' on that front, I will gladly send it up the chain and push for it.

[AntonioGG]

Andy, but you know it's not the canned responses I had a problem with in this case. After I got in the SMAC I understood the limitations in time/resources as far as being able to explain everything completely. It's the extra stuff after the canned responses that serve no purpose. Are they for real when they reply "SM is a spec class" to a request to seal ECUs for the Runoffs? A simple "Thank you for your input" would have sufficed, I could have explained one on one to the person that wrote in, and everything would have been fine. Instead he tells me he's never going to write the CRB again.

Andy's right by the way, everything gets discussed in the forum and/or on the call. Some of the stuff we spend A LOT of time discussing, researching, etc. It will still get the same response unless a rule is changed as a result.

But face it Andy,
AndyB : "Thank you for your input" :: DonaldTrump : "You're Fired!"

[Andy Bettencourt]

Anything extra is added by the CRB to (hopefully) clarify. As you can see, it just serves to confuse...

[ddewhurst]

Here is a typical Fastrack response that is not called for.

Slow down the Prelude. (Brakke)

Jon, is way to far on the smart scale along with being on the PCAC to write a letter asking that the "Prelude be slowed down".

The other IMHJ major issue with the Fastrack responses is that a submitter name gets attached to the rejected requests (dunb ass) & no submitter name gets attached to the accecpted requests. Hey, no long winded dialog required about this issue. Name all the people who take the time to try to improve their club (or improve an issue for themselves). It would be interesting to get the accecpted requestors name at the get go...........Then we could realy say, Hmmmmmmmmmm or

Have Fun
David

[Andy Bettencourt]

Here is a typical Fastrack response that is not called for.

Slow down the Prelude. (Brakke)

Jon, is way to far on the smart scale along with being on the PCAC to write a letter asking that the "Prelude be slowed down".

Have Fun
David

But I assure you David that it WAS the gist of his letter...what would you have written to sum up a letter asking for additional restrictions on the Prelude (one or many) in order to limit it's performance? Without seeing the letter and understand what was being asked for specifically, it is certain that what he was asking was to slow down the 'Lude.