April Fastrack

[CRallo]

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!

[Chip42]

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).

[JoshS]

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.

[dj10]

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

[Chip42]

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.

[lateapex911]

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.....

[Greg Amy]

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

[CRallo]

Looks who is BACK!

I'll try and write in, I think you are really on the right track there!