Results 1 to 15 of 15

Thread: April Fastrack

  1. #1
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    CT/NY/NJ
    Posts
    1,157

    Default April Fastrack

    http://www.scca.com/documents/Fastra...april-club.pdf

    Have at it kids!

    Time to send letters in about wipers and such? Is it actually gonna happen? what's next? Is it part of the 2012 end of the world?!

    Still have to laugh about some of the things they let happen in SS and Touring...

    I like the proposed brake allowance for STU! I feel this is very appropriate for the class!

    Sups for the runoffs for anyone planning to make that pilgrimage...

    and more!
    Last edited by CRallo; 03-22-2011 at 02:06 PM.
    Chris Rallo "the kid"
    -- "wrenching and racing" -- "will race for food!" -- "Onward and Upward"

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Orlando, FL
    Posts
    1,391

    Default

    the new minutes certainly took the thunder out of this fastrack.

    good to see the STU brake propsal in there. the other STU and L proposals are also good additions. the oil drain plug thing was always the catch for a "run it in STU" car.

    I like that we are discussing the removal of the washer bottles etc... in IT, but haven't decided if I'm for it (they are totally unneeded and free to remove) or against it (there's no REASON to remove them if they may be deactivated, the plumbing and asociated cabling removed, etc..). on the one hand it makes for a more presentable package with less crap to worry about (potentially) and some more real estate under the hood for working or allowed mods (headers, intakes). on the other, it's a bit of rules creep and while I don't think it (the proposed rule) in itself is dangerous, the precedent MAY be.

    one thing I'm affraid of is that the proposed washer removal rule needs to better define "holes in the body" because all I can think of are those left by removing washer jets on the hood. I think the intent may be to have any cold air source through an inner fender (etc) exposed by such removal covered over, and the GCR technical glossary already disagrees with that reading through the definition of body. if the intent IS in agreement with the GCR definition of body - then this rule will have irregularly beneficial results for performance (all modification allowances do, based on inherant differences in the cars).

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Silicon Valley, CA
    Posts
    1,381

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Chip42 View Post
    one thing I'm affraid of is that the proposed washer removal rule needs to better define "holes in the body" because all I can think of are those left by removing washer jets on the hood. I think the intent may be to have any cold air source through an inner fender (etc) exposed by such removal covered over, and the GCR technical glossary already disagrees with that reading through the definition of body. if the intent IS in agreement with the GCR definition of body - then this rule will have irregularly beneficial results for performance (all modification allowances do, based on inherant differences in the cars).
    Actually, the intent was for outside holes, such as those left from removing windshield washer jets and any holes left in the rear from removal of a rear wiper assembly. Was trying to keep it simple but if it's not clear enough, we're definitely open to alternate wording. That's one reason it goes out for member input.
    Josh Sirota
    ITR '99 BMW Z3 Coupe

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    Ligonier, PA, USA
    Posts
    1,676

    Default

    Oh gee, you mean we need winshield bottles in our IT race cars !!??
    WTF....over

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Orlando, FL
    Posts
    1,391

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by dj10 View Post
    Oh gee, you mean we need winshield bottles in our IT race cars !!??
    WTF....over
    dude, where have you been?

    Josh - the rule as proposed and your stated intent are in agreement. I was under the suspicion that you meant for potential sources of cold air to the engine created by the allowance to be blocked.

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Mar 2002
    Location
    Black Rock, Ct
    Posts
    9,594

    Default

    Wait...now I'm confused..and will stick my foot in my mouth...

    You mean if I remove my washer bottle, and I now have a hole in my header (radiator) support, I'm free to use it for a nice big whopping cold air inlet?

    Ummm, I hope that's not the case.....
    Jake Gulick


    CarriageHouse Motorsports
    for sale: 2003 Audi A4 Quattro, clean, serviced, dark green, auto, sunroof, tan leather with 75K miles.
    IT-7 #57 RX-7 race car
    Porsche 1973 911E street/fun car
    BMW 2003 M3 cab, sun car.
    GMC Sierra Tow Vehicle
    New England Region
    lateapex911(at)gmail(dot)com


  7. #7
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Orlando, FL
    Posts
    1,391

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by lateapex911 View Post
    You mean if I remove my washer bottle, and I now have a hole in my header (radiator) support, I'm free to use it for a nice big whopping cold air inlet?
    Rule as proposed - yes. all allowances benefit each car or engine differently, this is no exception.

    this is SO much more likely to have an irregular benefit than, say, the charcoal canister. in a way it's a bit of a correction, most FWD IT cars' air boxes pass into the fender ahead of the wheel, and do the same on the other side with the washer bottle (by most I mean everything I can remember looking at except a few VWs). so they already have a nice big port for colder air. this gives the other cars another shot at it - some will still have no benefit, some will have greater benefit than others. que sera

    does nothing for my MR2, and doesn't help any of the hondas, so I've no dog in the hunt. I think the rule's time has come, but I don't care one way or the other to send a letter in on it.

  8. #8
    Join Date
    May 2001
    Location
    IT.com "First Loser" Greensboro, NC USA
    Posts
    8,607

    Default

    Unintended consequences...?





    K

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Location
    Brookfield, CT. USA
    Posts
    342

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by lateapex911 View Post

    You mean if I remove my washer bottle, and I now have a hole in my header (radiator) support, I'm free to use it for a nice big whopping cold air inlet?

    Ummm, I hope that's not the case.....
    Does this mean I can reroute my washer nozzles to spray onto my air intake and fill my washer reservoir with methanol?
    Rob Driscoll
    ITS 25
    NER

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Posts
    1,106

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by robits325is View Post
    Does this mean I can reroute my washer nozzles to spray onto my air intake and fill my washer reservoir with methanol?
    its simpler if you just plug the lines to the nozzles and add a "tee" in the line and route the new line to a port on the throttle body in front of the thottle plate.

    don't ask me how i know.....
    1985 CRX Si competed in Solo II: AS, CS, DS, GS
    1986 CRX Si competed in: SCCA Solo II CSP, SCCA ITA, SCCA ITB, NASA H5
    1988 CRX Si competed in ITA & STL

  11. #11
    Join Date
    Jan 2001
    Location
    Tijeras, NM
    Posts
    579

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by tom91ita View Post
    its simpler if you just plug the lines to the nozzles and add a "tee" in the line and route the new line to a port on the throttle body in front of the thottle plate.

    don't ask me how i know.....
    I think Mark Donohue mentioned using the same concept to put diesel into the exhaust system for a smoke screen...

  12. #12
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Posts
    1,106

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by GKR_17 View Post
    I think Mark Donohue mentioned using the same concept to put diesel into the exhaust system for a smoke screen...
    now i know what to do with the rear wiper controls!
    1985 CRX Si competed in Solo II: AS, CS, DS, GS
    1986 CRX Si competed in: SCCA Solo II CSP, SCCA ITA, SCCA ITB, NASA H5
    1988 CRX Si competed in ITA & STL

  13. #13
    Join Date
    Oct 2002
    Location
    Wandering the USA
    Posts
    1,341

    Default

    So is that the "please black flag me" switch?
    Marty Doane
    ITS RX-7 #13 (sold)
    2016 Winnebago Journey (home)

  14. #14
    Join Date
    Mar 2001
    Location
    Connecticut
    Posts
    7,381

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Chip42 View Post
    good to see the STU brake propsal in there. the other STU and L proposals are also good additions. the oil drain plug thing was always the catch for a "run it in STU" car.
    I assume you guys mean STL on the brakes? Submit quick letters of support for both, it could make a difference in their approval with the CRB/BoD.

    GA

  15. #15
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    CT/NY/NJ
    Posts
    1,157

    Default

    Looks who is BACK!

    I'll try and write in, I think you are really on the right track there!
    Chris Rallo "the kid"
    -- "wrenching and racing" -- "will race for food!" -- "Onward and Upward"

Bookmarks

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •