August 2011 Fastrack

[JeffYoung]

No, (I think) we aren't going to reprocess all cars. It's too much work. You have to have spent time on the committee to understand. It involves too much time out of committee doing research etc. and chews up a lot of time in committee on sharing the results and debating. I honestly doubt we could get through ITB in a year given everything else we are having to do at the same time.

Josh's solution on this is the best one. Delist the cars that we know aren't running (meaning remove their weights). Put a note in the ITCS saying if you want to run this car, you have to request that the ITCS determine PRocess weight and provide info on stock hp, etc.

If someone shows up with one of these cars, they get directed to the GCR, need to write the letter, and can run ITE until they do.

[ITEGT]

If someone shows up with one of these cars, they get directed to the GCR, need to write the letter, and can run ITE until they do.

:026: Woohoo more cars in ITE. Yeah like thats gonna ever happen!

[lateapex911]

Jeff, I can understand and appreciate the resource issue. Valid point. However, doing one class a year shouldn't be that bad. Announce in the January FasTrack that ITx is going to be re-processed throughout the course of the year, and at the end of the year, the weights for all the cars in ITx will be established.

As far as de-listing weights for cars in the ITCS, I think that's a tricky situation. What happens if someone shows up at race w/ one of those cars and there's no weight spec?

Jake,

I'm not sure what you're trying to say. Is it that there's no documentation / data that supports the ITA version of the Civic / CRX Si to have a multiplier other than 1.25?

Delisting: Print the warning in Fastrack over a long period. Delist. IF a car shows up, it goes to ITx or ITE or whatever catchall the region has. (I tend to doubt somebody that out of touch is going to be loaded for bear with sets of Hoosiers and visions of winning ITB when they show up with their barn find Simca). They get to run/shake down car, etc, then they request a classification.
There are SO many obscure listings that nobody has seen run in decades, that I really doubt that the situation will arise often, if at all.
On edit: Looks like I was typing at the same time Jeff was. (I got interrupted). Sounds like a good solution, Jeff.

Bill, yea, the discussion seemed to have a component of "If no documentation exists, then reprocess", when in many cases there is documentation, (somewhere) and even lacking that, the classifications are legit. Some are Poomas (the VW thing, clearly, that disparity for body shape, (presumably) has been on the books since before our time!), but others, while they lack obvious or recent documentation are good legit listings.

Jeff earlier in the thread said the old (last generation) board was 'unavailable". That switch over was about a year ago. And Jeff, it seemed like you were operating as though it was the way it was, until Josh came on and said, "It's there, you need to get your sign on/whatever working". Regardless, it was alarming to think that that much institutional memory was gone. I'm not on the ITAC anymore, so I don't know how it operates, but I HOPE that the documentation...and the research and ability to look back through history via the board...are better than when I first joined.

[Bill Miller]

No, (I think) we aren't going to reprocess all cars. It's too much work. You have to have spent time on the committee to understand. It involves too much time out of committee doing research etc. and chews up a lot of time in committee on sharing the results and debating. I honestly doubt we could get through ITB in a year given everything else we are having to do at the same time.

Josh's solution on this is the best one. Delist the cars that we know aren't running (meaning remove their weights). Put a note in the ITCS saying if you want to run this car, you have to request that the ITCS determine PRocess weight and provide info on stock hp, etc.

If someone shows up with one of these cars, they get directed to the GCR, need to write the letter, and can run ITE until they do.

Sounds like a good approach Jeff, as long as you give people a decent lead time to let them know which cars are up for de-listing so that they can respond. I think you need to also put in some kind of minimum turn-around time when someone requests that a de-listed car gets re-processed (I think 1-2 months is reasonable).

[JeffYoung]

Sorry if I was not clear. No intent to delist cars that are actively being run (even one).

Sounds like a good approach Jeff, as long as you give people a decent lead time to let them know which cars are up for de-listing so that they can respond. I think you need to also put in some kind of minimum turn-around time when someone requests that a de-listed car gets re-processed (I think 1-2 months is reasonable).

[dickita15]

Dick,


Is the Defnder still SFI 38.1?

DZ

Dave as part of my due diligence on this issue I called Defender and asked to talk to the owner. A gentleman name Kevin called me back. I was told that the defender was certified in 2009-10 and that those certifications were still valid. He said that he chose not to recertify for 2011 because it was expensive and they are developing a new product for 2012. He told me he believed they would be certified and available in time for this Christmas.

[tom91ita]

Dave as part of my due diligence on this issue I called Defender and asked to talk to the owner. A gentleman name Kevin called me back. I was told that the defender was certified in 2009-10 and that those certifications were still valid. He said that he chose not to recertify for 2011 because it was expensive and they are developing a new product for 2012. He told me he believed they would be certified and available in time for this Christmas.

Dick,

i recently sent a note to DJSafety's website and received a response that they hope to have the unit tested within 6 weeks. i assume that after that, there is still some SFI review/approval process so your Christmas time frame seems consistent with what the info i received.

this is an interesting price-point compared to the typical HANs H&NR:

http://www.djsafety.com/

[Greg Amy]

I heard rumors of a new SFI-approved suit (spec # TBD) that incorporates firesuit, helmet, gloves, and H&NR, easy one-piece on/off, and may even include air cooling. To be announced at SEMA this year, but I found a spy photo (from testing at the Nordschliefe...)


.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

[tom91ita]

looks like it will fit right in with the Captain Grannypants theme.....

[Dave Zaslow]

So was the Hans vs. Defnder patent lawsuit resolved?

http://lokikart.com/purplein1/wp-con...-complaint.pdf

[Matt93SE]

Considering that was filed Dec 2010, I have a feeling that won't be resolved for another 2-3 years.

[Greg Amy]

So was the Hans vs. Defnder patent lawsuit resolved?

Rumor has it Defnder's new design is to get around that issue...

[gsbaker]

IIRC, the case was moved to Georgia and set for trial in ~ four years.