When do you stop giving people what they ask for?

[tom_sprecher]

Jeez! Leave this place for a day to get some real work done and look what happens.

When you submit your findings, please also add the following:

A proposed rule that allows what you want but also does NOT allow any additional stucutural enhancement to the chassis other than what is already permitted in the ITCS...

"Two jacking plates are allowed, one welded under each side of the car at a balance point that must lift both front and rear tires of that side completely off the ground while having a total area of no more than 144 sqin each and shall not be less than .080" in thickness or exceeding .25" in thickness. Any other function or additional structural enhancement to the chassis is prohibited"

Now that that's done let's get on with it.

this REALLY bugs me. i think the "public sector" (read; government) is a huge catostrophic failure because...

Wow! I meant the private sector but I typed "public". My bad, and I do agree with you, but you have to admit the same does not apply to the private sector.

***but as anybody who works in the public sector knows, it is usually best to give your customers what they want or they tend to go elsewhere. ***

IMHJ, there are two choices now. Stay in Improved Touring with the rules as the are now written or move to Production where the rules have been so screwed over over the last 40 years that there are basically no rules. Oh, you want to build a car to no rules, how about you build a Grand Touring car. DO YOU SEE THE PROGRESSION?

I respectfully have to disagree with you in that there is a third choice which is what the topic of this thread has turned into.

[ddewhurst]

& I'll agree to disagree with you.

[Andy Bettencourt]

"Two jacking plates are allowed, one welded under each side of the car at a balance point that must lift both front and rear tires of that side completely off the ground while having a total area of no more than 144 sqin each and shall not be less than .080" in thickness or exceeding .25" in thickness. Any other function or additional structural enhancement to the chassis is prohibited"

Total of 144sq/in each or 72sq/in each?

How about 64sq/in on each side? How about not crossing over any seams?

I don't have any heartburn about jacking plates (although I don't understand why people get so worked up over it. Weld a plate to your freakin' jack...) but I do have an issue with people using your 144sq/in and correcting another problem with it (insert reinforcment, safety, repair, etc). What you have created is the need to judge a pieces 'intent to structurally enhance'...when that is exactly what it is for to begin with. How much enhancement is too much?

How have we been getting along for 20 years without these plates? Really?

[Matt Rowe]

"Two jacking plates are allowed, one welded under each side of the car at a balance point that must lift both front and rear tires of that side completely off the ground while having a total area of no more than 144 sqin each and shall not be less than .080" in thickness or exceeding .25" in thickness. Any other function or additional structural enhancement to the chassis is prohibited"

Perfect, the balance point of my car just happens to fall exactly where there is a gap between the front subframe and the beams that run back to the rear subframe. Of course, no one would accuse me of reinforcing the frame because that is the literally the only spot that would allow me to add jacking plates.

[tom_sprecher]

Total of 144sq/in each or 72sq/in each?

How about 64sq/in on each side? How about not crossing over any seams?

I don't have any heartburn about jacking plates (although I don't understand why people get so worked up over it. Weld a plate to your freakin' jack...) but I do have an issue with people using your 144sq/in and correcting another problem with it (insert reinforcment, safety, repair, etc). What you have created is the need to judge a pieces 'intent to structurally enhance'...when that is exactly what it is for to begin with. How much enhancement is too much?

How have we been getting along for 20 years without these plates? Really?

144 each, 72 each, 64 each, as you wish. Just give enough area so the typical jack used under the jacking plate will not crush or distort the .030" floor pan or frame the plate is meant to protect.

I understand your concern and have offered a suggested rule for it. If by chance the location of the jacking plate will correct another problem while still lifting both wheels off the ground, than bonus for the owners of that manufacture and model of car. The category is full of idiosyncrasies, large and small like you describe, yet no one bothers to prohibit a manufacture and model of car because of them.

How do you justify your fear of the possibility that someone may gain some small structural advantage while the GCR states that the purpose and intent of the class will give you a place to race your car but not guarantee you will be competitive? Having spent countless hours on the ITAC, what cars do you feel the addition of jacking plates based on the rule above could possibly benefit by instantly having a detectable advantage?

No need to judge 'intent to structurally enhance' has been created until someone protests someone else for their jacking plates. If that happens the guy might as well add "no washer bottle" to the protest as well.

Honestly, if you look at some of the other changes over the past 20 years (or the last 5 in particular) the allowance of jacking plates seems totally benign.

Maybe the answer is to do it on a Divsional basis using polling of drivers like I and Mr. Ellis-Brown have suggested. I'd prefer that the ITAC and CRB not lose control of the rule making process in such a manner, but if it's what the customer wants and he pays all the bills, who am I to say "no".

[lateapex911]

Maybe the answer is to do it on a Divsional basis using polling of drivers like I and Mr. Ellis-Brown have suggested. I'd prefer that the ITAC and CRB not lose control of the rule making process in such a manner, but if it's what the customer wants and he pays all the bills, who am I to say "no".

I'd be sad to see a response such as that, as I feel the localism* that already exists is excessive as it stands. We have national rulesets for good reasons, and regionally specific modifications can lead to even greater localism.

*Why, for example, at the ARRCs, arguably the biggest IT race of the year do we see more cars from Canada or Wisconsin or Michigan or New England or....(insert other 700 mile away tow location) than we do from Florida? Just sayin-

[Knestis]

...Maybe the answer is to do it on a Divsional basis using polling of drivers like I and Mr. Ellis-Brown have suggested. I'd prefer that the ITAC and CRB not lose control of the rule making process in such a manner, but if it's what the customer wants and he pays all the bills, who am I to say "no".

Go for it.

There's NOTHING keeping a region (or regions) from designing unique classes. Ignore the facts that (a) your drivers won't be able to take a legal car anywhere else (like the Festival), and (b) nobody will come spend their vacation racing dollars in your locale...

Personally, I would LOVE to have jacking plates but I understand how the long-term health of the category *might* be compromised by the change, and I have to put that ahead of what I want. Many marginal compromises make big changes over time.

David - and I'm serious when I ask this - as someone who submitted multiple proposals for rule changes this past year, how do you suggest we decide where to draw the line? I recall you had 8-10 (more?) specific new allowances that you asked the ITAC to consider...

How would you recommend that the ITAC should respond to that situation?

What if 30 other IT car owners each submit a similar number of requests...?

K

[lateapex911]

What if 30 other IT car owners each submit a similar number of requests...?

K

No, I can't...too easy... ...carry on..

[ddewhurst]

Been jacking up on the pich weld with the Spec Miata for two years. They still look great.

[dickita15]

Tom, while I do not disagree that we should be able to have a jacking plate provision, I for one am not willing to allow it at all costs and you seem to be willing. There has to be a way to write a rule that would allow a cage tube to protrude below the floor with a plate on it to jack up the car without giving creative builders a way to come up with a design that does a lot of other reinforcing.

[tom_sprecher]

Besides the tradition, the championship status for IT, and who can forget the excellent group of friendly, understanding and good natured people who put on the race, I would wager the weather in the Southland in November compared to that of our beloved Yankee brethren might be a contributing factor regarding the draw of the ARRC.

Granted, it is not nearly as nice as in FL, where their racing season is just starting, possibly explaining fewer FL drivers at the ARRC, but typically the days are warm, the skies are clear and the beer is cold. Typically.

As much as I appreciated this discussion, even though it did lack pictures of hot babes, at this point I am though with the jacking plate issue and have decided it will not be resolved considering the current stance of the ITAC. Really my whole point was that new members should be elected versus the current method of replacement. That is the only way I can see where the majority can effect change over the stance of a few, besides an increase in localism* of the rules that ultimately hold us all together, a condition I too would like to avoid.

Besides the Cermet coating allowance in IT7 in the SEDiv, I do not feel strongly about any other rule changes, including jacking plates, to where I will push any harder for than what has been stated here. Thanks to everyone for your input about a few solutions to the problem, and while the one I prefer is not legal, I have some choices to make.

[lateapex911]

Dear Tom-
Sorry we couldn't help you with your jacking plate request. however, please keep these images in mind while jacking. We are sure they will bring a smile to your face.

Love,

The ITAC

[ddewhurst]

Jake, my guess is that the SCCA will not appreciate you signing off "Love, The ITAC". I may be the minority but I expect more from a committee member.

For all those that haven't taken a shot at me in a while let er fly.

[JLawton]

Jake,

I would like to send my formal approval to the ITACs response to "jacking".

Thank you

(if they can't take a joke, f*ck 'em)

[tom_sprecher]

David, chill dude, Jake's cool.

Thanks for the babes!

[Knestis]

Racers being politically incorrect? NO WAY...!!

Kirk (who has some insight into a few board members' personalities so, while generally bothered by sexism, tries to maintain proportional outrage and is not particularly worried...)

[tom_sprecher]

Funny how you rarely hear women who are good looking, and know it, complaining about sexism...

[ddewhurst]

For those of you who think you have a handle on what the SCCA believes is correct & what is not correct are any of you aware of a National GTL car owner that was put on the carpet for something similar. Along with being told to clean up his sponser advertisement on his car he was reminded that the SCCA is a family org.

How about when some SCCA kids read this site?

Tom, no one is questioning about Jake being cool. Jeff has a respone for anyone who thinks Jake is not cool. Jake, Tom, Jeff, do you or have you exposed your children to these cool pictures & words?

[tnord]

For those of you who think you have a handle on what the SCCA believes is correct & what is not correct are any of you aware of a National GTL car owner that was put on the carpet for something similar. Along with being told to clean up his sponser advertisement on his car he was reminded that the SCCA is a family org.

yes, and i think that is total BS.

[lateapex911]

For those of you who think you have a handle on what the SCCA believes is correct & what is not correct are any of you aware of a National GTL car owner that was put on the carpet for something similar. Along with being told to clean up his sponser advertisement on his car he was reminded that the SCCA is a family org.

How about when some SCCA kids read this site?

Tom, no one is questioning about Jake being cool. Jeff has a respone for anyone who thinks Jake is not cool. Jake, Tom, Jeff, do you or have you exposed your children to these cool pictures & words?

Fact-

"SCCA kids" aren't some weird religious cult...they're kids like every other American kid. Which means they:

• Watch prime time TV and see more cleavage, underboob, side boob, ab, butt, and naked images on shows like Entertainment Tonight, TMZ, (and others I can't remember the name of) than I've posted here.
• Watch prime time network comedies and have seen more sexually explicit sights and jokes on Two and a Half Men that I've posted here.
• Go to American beaches like I do, and have seen more with their own eyes than I've shown here. As examples, I've seen similar, or greater sights at: The Cliffs in Norcal, Huntington, Newport, Balboa and Zuma Veaches in Southern California, Miami, Fort Lauderdale, and Tampa Bay area beaches in Florida, Compo, Southport, Fairfield, and Burying Hill Beaches in CT, and Nauset Beach in Cape Cod. ALL the above beaches are public beaches.
• Go to surf contests, in broad daylight on public beaches and see "Reef Girl" contests, which are open to the public. (Where these pictures were taken)
• Read teen magazines and other entertainment magazines, where pictures like this are the norm.
• Go to SCCA Pro Racing events like "Speed World Challenge", and see girls in tight tanks tops and painted on shorts and other clothes parade around holding SCCA flags!
• Go to Reef's website in numbers that would dwarf both this sites and the SCCA sites combined numbers.

and I could go on and on.....


Please, David. This was a clear response, in obvious humor, to a post directly above it....you are ripping it out of context.

If the BoD wishes to remove me from my duties due to the negative exposure I've given the club with my little joke to what....38 guys with an average age of 42 that frequent this site, well, I will gladly step down, because that will signal a BoD so out of touch with the realities of even 15 years ago, and so ignorant of the bigger issues and greater work being done, that it would signal the begining of the end.