June Fastrack

[spnkzss]

http://www.scca.com/documents/Fastra...track-june.pdf

No mounts for you.

But I get to vote on whether to give the CRX/Civic around 5 extra Ponies. Bring on them crank triggers.

So the question is, if the masses say motor mounts, and they say no, and the masses say no to the crank triggers does that mean yes? Need to go write my letter for no now.

[lateapex911]

this should get you close:

http://www.scca.com/contentpage.aspx?content=78

highlight, or should I say "You've GOT to be f-ing kidding me after a HUGE amount of response, biggest ever by far, over 95% in favor of it, it's a LOWLIGHT", the CRB and or ITAC has rejected the concept of engine ounts, but if fine if you want to go weld up some rod ends and attach to your valve cover.

The IT Advisory Committee and the CRB do not recommend changing the IT rules to allow modified or unrestricted motor mounts at this time. We wish to remind members who are having issues with their engine mounts that the stayrod allowance will alleviate most motor mount problems. The ITAC and the CRB are engaged in discussions concerning IT philosophy and the future of the category. The motor mount issue will remain as part of these discussions as will other issues such as crank fired ignitions. Members will be asked for their input on specific items and more general questions about whether members want the class to drift toward Production, or remain as a much more restricted category. We wish to thank the many members who took the time to comment on this issue.

I've heard all the arguments, I haven't heard one that holds water as to why this is a bad idea. I think they've gone too far....

HOWEVER, they DID decide recommend allowing you to modify your shifter by shortening it....

AND they want to know if you think IT cars should be allowed Crank Fire ignitions...
(cuz yea, THAT"s a low tech mod...)

I DO applaud the better and more complete answers that shed light on reasoning that were used in many of the responses, and appear to becoming the norm. Good job in that department.

[spnkzss]

So Jake is the reason I can't delete the post and jsut add to yours. Bastard.

[tom91ita]

from the letter writing thread:

just not sure why we think the CRB is going to listen to this any more than they did other topics.

but i agree with the fact that if the ITAC was split 4-4 on this, the CRB did the right thing and did not approve it.

it pains me to say this, but for this instance, the ITAC was the issue.

[quadzjr]

Baffled on the motor mount rulling though personally against it.

I do know of a 2.0L honda that would benefit from a crank trigger Though I am also against it. Though I am also agasint open computers as well??

What is the deal with the FIA seat mounts? on person swayed the vote of the CRB? and the rest aare stuck with it?

[lateapex911]

I called my director, and he wisely (he's very wise) pointed out Toms point, which is that the CRB supported the ITAC.

Agreed, they did, ....kinda...and on one hand I can't fault that. Even so, a split vote sent to the CRB is a "you decide" vote ....
BUT, there's more here that's not so black and white.

The CRB knew:
- The previous ITAC was much more in favor of it.
- The new ITAC was split evenly.
- The membership was VASTLY...nearly unanimously in favor, in the largest input in the history of the category.
- The dissenting members of the ITAC were, in one case, NOT even driving IN IT, and in another, pretty out of touch with the category and membership, and the new votes were likely swayed by these members. So to my eye, one of those votes shouldn't even COUNT.

Based on all that, AND the fact that the CRb knows it's already in trouble in the eyes of the IT membership, I'd have thought they would have:
- taken the "No recommendation positive OR negative", and made a call to support the obvious wants of the membership,
-or, refused to make a call and returned it to the ITAC for a clear vote.

But really, WHY is it that the CRb can reject the ITACs VERY CLEAR recommendation of adjusting the weight on say, the MR2, which was an admitted ITAC error, yet REFUSE to make the right call on this??

Or, when the ITAC ran the numbers on the BMW 528, it placed it in ITB. The CRB rejected that saying "It doesn't look like an ITB car, the engine is too big", and insisted that it go to ITA, where everyone knows it can't make weight. So, the ITAC redid the recommendation, this time for ITA, and the CRB approved that one......so, the CRB has shown it will ignore recommendations and force it's hand when it sees fit.

Error 404: Logic not found.

[almskidd]

I DO applaud the better and more complete answers that shed light on reasoning that were used in many of the responses, and appear to becoming the norm. Good job in that department.

I am pretty happy about that too.

[spawpoet]

this should get you close:

"You've GOT to be f-ing kidding me after a HUGE amount of response, biggest ever by far, over 95% in favor of it, it's a LOWLIGHT"

I agree. Seriously, why should we ever offer our input when in the face of overwhelming member opinion, the members are ignored?? I don't believe in apathy, but this result doesn't exactly encourage member response and participation. From an image standpoint they'd have been better off never asking if we wanted the change. Clearly the decision did not involve us or our opinions, so why bleeping ask???

[quadzjr]

I agree. Seriously, why should we ever offer our input when in the face of overwhelming member opinion, the members are ignored?? I don't believe in apathy, but this result doesn't exactly encourage member response and participation. From an image standpoint they'd have been better off never asking if we wanted the change. Clearly the decision did not involve us or our opinions, so why bleeping ask???

It looks better to ask, they don't post the results of the letters wone way or the other. But it looks like, ot the person not on forums, that they are in the best interest.

<sarcasm>
They also asked about H&N Restraints.. twice... how did that go?
</sarcasm>

[lateapex911]

As far as I'm concerned, the results of the member input should be posted. As well as voting records for individual committee members. Some will say that individuals won't feel 'free' to vote their preference, for fear of reprisals, but,in my eye, if I can't defend my vote, then I shouldn't make it.

When I was on the ITAC, I kept the roll call votes of every member on all the issues for about the past year or so. I'd love to see the notes released on some website.

[Ron Earp]

http://www.roadraceautox.com/showthread.php?t=29312

[Greg Amy]

What is the deal with the FIA seat mounts?

Oh, gawd, not this AGAIN. I fought this battle ten years ago, now we have to do it again...? First I lobbied the SCCA to allow FIA seats to not have seat back braces, because EVERY manufacturer blanches at the thought of having their FIA-tested and -certified seat installed with a pole mounted to it. Then I had to lobby the SCCA to make the wording reasonable, as no manufacturer was willing to do what the SCCA wanted (see attached).

This organization is manic depressive. First they want to lean on "standards" so they have someone to point to to reduce liability, now they want to remove standards because they found a problem in the inspection process?

What a mess.

GA

[RacerBill]

In a lot of ways, IT allows far more mods than Production did when I first joined SCCA in 1966!

[tom91ita]

....Some will say that individuals won't feel 'free' to vote their preference, for fear of reprisals, but,in my eye, if I can't defend my vote, then I shouldn't make it.......

at least the ones that don't race do not have to worry about any NASCAR like "bump & runs"

[tom91ita]

great letter Greg!

[JeffYoung]

That is a good letter.

[joeg]

I like the letter and I think any form of brace--even one just resting on the back of an FIA seat rather than "firmly attached"--destroys the safety of such a seat.

This is plain nuts.

[Chip42]

submission #1475 - my letter in opposition to the seat back brace rule change proposal

I am opposed to the seat back brace requirement proposal from the June 2010 fasttrack for the following reasons:

1- Many FIA seats were not designed to accommodate such a brace. Steal frame seats offer few suitable mounting locations, and carbon fiber and fiberglass seats may be structurally compromised by unregulated modifications to accomplish the requirement - adding dangers where currently they do not exist.

2- Suitable mounting is already an unregulated requirement left to the discretion of the competitor and scrutineering staff. A back brace is not a magic bullet to repair this problem, it in fact offers more opportunity for damages to the driver in a collision / accident than no brace due to the potential for failures of design and the necessary proximity of the brace to vital organs and the head.

3- Suitable language controlling the mounting of an FIA seat in agreement with FIA testing procedures and instructions for the tech shed to aid in evaluating such mountings is a much more desirable and workable alternative. in the end liability shall fall upon the competitor or his agents, not the club. The GCR and many event sups indemnify the club, regions, and tracks from damages resulting from faulty safety gear. this language may be able to be made more specific to the limited liability of the technical volunteers and organizers.

It is understood that a properly installed seat and brace combination can be demonstrated to be safer than a seat without a brace, even when mounted properly. given the variety of cars, seats, competitors' size and budgets, a catch all such as this proposal may lead to is likely more dangerous than it is helpful, and certainly a hindrance on the membership.

thank you for your time.

[lateapex911]

Maybe it's late, but, does this sentence help you case?

It is understood that a properly installed seat and brace combination can be demonstrated to be safer than a seat without a brace, even when mounted properly.

[tom91ita]

submission #1475 - my letter in opposition to the seat back brace rule change proposal

i am thinking more about going this the opposite way and ask they require the seat back. given that we do not actually know what event or design issue is the real cause of this requirement, we are effectively shooting in the dark.

i think my note will be more along the lines of this:

My aluminum seat was not intended to be mounted with a seat back brace as evidenced by the mounting instructions sent with the seat. Since i am required to install something that is stupid, dangerous and unnecessary, so should those with FIA seats.