June 2011 Fastrack

[jjjanos]

Josh,

very interesting comment!

so one could take the modification section and basically argue that the wheel section is the maximum modification allowed....

One could argue that. One would most likely amuse the SOMs reading that justification. I think the problem is the failure to recognize that the rules are of two types -
A. Those establishing the maximum legal modification to a component
-and-
B. Those listing the mandatory modifications to a component.

Requirement to run a maximum wheel size is a commandment. You can run any wheel/tire you want as long as it meets the limits 7.a

Note the difference:

Any wheel/tire combination may be used within the following limitations: <size limits based on class>

versus

Stock wheel/tire or an alternate may be used subject to the following limitations: <size limits based on class>

[Knestis]

What JJJ said. It *should* be the case that a stock wheel is allowed, but the way the rules have been to this point, that's not the case if the stock wheel is wider than the mandated maximum.

K

[Bill Miller]

Ditto. I clearly remember at least one of those conversations. We should never PROHIBIT someone from using a stock part. All rules *must* be in terms of "allowances" - what folks can do - consistent with IIDSYCYC.

K

I brought this issue up when the NB was initially classed in IT, that it was not allowed to run stock parts. IIRC, the general response was "yeah, so what?".

lighter&smaller wheels = larger&heavier tires

LOL! The gospel according to Travis.

From TireRack

Hoosier R6

225/45/13 16# 20.9" diameter
225/45/15 19# 22.9" diameter

I hate it when facts get in the way!

[rsportvolvo]

So SCCA sends me emails confirming the Volvo 240 letters 3282 & 3623 will be answered in the June Fastrack, but no dice. Any insight on this?

[Greg Amy]

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

[JeffYoung]

I am pretty sure we did vote and made our recommendation on the 240, but not the 142.

I'll have to check.

So SCCA sends me emails confirming the Volvo 240 letters 3282 & 3623 will be answered in the June Fastrack, but no dice. Any insight on this?

[JoshS]

Yes, the ITAC made a recommendation to the CRB at the last meeting, but things got a little hung up at the next point. Weird that you got a notification that would be published though. I'm sure this will get straightened out at the May meeting.

[dickita15]

The CRB voted to follow the ITAC’s recommendation but after the meeting found a conflict in the technical specs that needed to be rectified before the spec line could be written. The notice was auto generated when the CRB moved the item forward as approved. Once it was pulled back to fix it the notice was already generated.

[Knestis]

It's reassuring that technical inconsistencies will get caught by the current system.

K