August 2012 Fastrack

[pfrichardson]

...are posted:

http://www.scca.com/clubracing/content.cfm?cid=44472

[Greg Amy]

Thanks Pam!

(Not unexpected...)

Improved Touring
ITA
1. #8502 (Raymond Yergler) Explanation of Weight Increase for ITA 1.8 Miata The ITAC and CRB are aware of the numerous discussions related to the recent change in weight for the ITA 1.8 Miata. Both bodies wish to make it clear this was not "reward" weight. Rather, a majority of both bodies felt that the incorrect stock horsepower number was used when using the IT process for setting the weight on the car. This has been corrected, and the resulting weight is within a small margin of that produced by using actual horsepower figures from dyno testing of IT builds.

Hmmmm....what's this boy up to...?

ITR
1. #4181 (Demetrius Mossaidis) Classify the 2004‐06 Acura TSX in IT
Classify the Acura TSX in ITR as follows:

[StephenB]

I hate to say this but I think we need to have some type of communication to know if a letter is still being looked at or not. To be honest if a letter is over a year old the person that put in the request may no longer care and it may be waisting valuable time that the ITAC and CRB probably doesn't have.


Also who should I contact on the ITAC if they messed up giving an explanation on a letter that was submitted. I assume the ITAC makes up the verbage that goes into the fasttrack.

Thanks,
Stephen Blethen

[JeffYoung]

Danny Doern is the ITAC chair. His e-mail is on the SCCA website I think.

If not, post here and Chip or I will pick it up. What did we get wrong on the Audi?

[StephenB]

Jeff,

Thanks for the reply.
1.) The 2.3 ITA car has 10.0 compression.
2.) They didn't change the weight on the lower HP rated engine in ITB they left both engines on the same spec line rather than splitting them and put a random response to refer to another letter which had nothing to do with the request.

I am honestly focused on the RX8 nowadays so I don't want to waist to much of your time on it. a year ago I probably would have been more concerned. Either way we should fix it, I know a few people still racing coupes and the 2.2 listed is significantly a better engine but very difficult to come bye. It would be nice to have the option to use the other engine and still be able to keep up.

[Chip42]

There are a few different audi coupe motors in the coupe / coupe GT ITB classifications. Steven was looking at the 2.114L, not the 2.226L GT, and I swept that letter up with the rest of the Audi stuff by accident. I've already started internal dialogue on the ITAC forum to readress the smaller engine. I'll take the heat for that one, and I appologize to Steven or anyone else with an interest in the earlier Audi Coupe in ITB.

[tom91ita]

Chip,

fyi. i have no interest in the audi but certainly DO appreciate you being prompt and explaining what happened.

everyone can make a mistake but the folks that will admit it are few and far between.



thanks,

tom

[mossaidis]

Thanks Pam!

(Not unexpected...)

Hmmmm....what's this boy up to...?

Quote:
ITR
1. #4181 (Demetrius Mossaidis) Classify the 2004‐06 Acura TSX in IT
Classify the Acura TSX in ITR as follows:

Actually, it's the 04-08 TSX now! I also requested the 03-05 Accord as well. I think both are good candiates for IT, though the TSX over the Accord considering their IT classifications. There are GOBS of these cars out there and LOTS of aftermarket support - why not?!?!

[StephenB]

Actually, it's the 04-08 TSX now! I also requested the 03-05 Accord as well. I think both are good candiates for IT, though the TSX over the Accord considering their IT classifications. There are GOBS of these cars out there and LOTS of aftermarket support - why not?!?!

I am not a Honda guy but I think this is an awesome addition!
What about the new civics?

Stephen

[mossaidis]

I am not a Honda guy but I think this is an awesome addition!
What about the new civics?

Stephen

Thanks Stephen - The 06 civic Si is listed in GCR under ITS at 3000 lbs, albeit a little heavy IMO. Where you suggesting non-Si civic as well?

[StephenB]

Thanks Stephen - The 06 civic Si is listed in GCR under ITS at 3000 lbs, albeit a little heavy IMO. Where you suggesting non-Si civic as well?

I guess I don't know my Hondas well at all. I think/thought I was racing against the SI in Pirelli World Challenge a few weeks back. certainly a lot more HP than the other ITR cars but I am guessing it could be classed correctly with weight in ITR. I know they are running in the Castrol Canadian Touring Car Series as well

Stephen

Some other cars I was wondering about
Solstice and the Scion Tc?

[preparedcivic]

I am not a Honda guy but I think this is an awesome addition!
What about the new civics?

Stephen

The only issue I see with the classification is I don't think a TSX is going to get anywhere near weight (2760 IIRC). Stock curb weight is 3150. Loosing the sunroof and interior will bring it down to 2650 at the least, then adding a cage and even an average weight driver puts it back to around 3000.

I think it makes way more sense as a heavy ITS car at that weight, which is what E46 323's are.

For full disclosure, I've owned one as a street car for 7 years and 120k miles.

[mossaidis]

The only issue I see with the classification is I don't think a TSX is going to get anywhere near weight (2760 IIRC). Stock curb weight is 3150. Loosing the sunroof and interior will bring it down to 2650 at the least, then adding a cage and even an average weight driver puts it back to around 3000.

I think it makes way more sense as a heavy ITS car at that weight, which is what E46 323's are.

For full disclosure, I've owned one as a street car for 7 years and 120k miles.

I tend to agree as well. I initially placed my request for this car in ITR, yet changed my mind to ITS after evaulating the weights here. My only hestitiation on my opinion is that, I don't have the experience SCCA has with TSX as it relates to WC config and setup, etc. I figure the ITAC and CRB would have a LOT more information than I as far as ultimate weight after sunroof, interior, stereo, seats (lbs...), etc are riped out once they talked to the SCCA Pro racing.

I owned an 04 for 3 years and put on 50K miles. I loved it.

Any insight from the ITAC that could be spelled out here?

On edit: SCCA Pro racing has the 04-08 TSX classified at 2850 and 2725 lbs (limited prep), min weight with driver, in GTS and 2800 lbs with driver in TC. Interesting.

http://www.world-challenge.com/files...x_A_Ver_50.pdf

[Greg Amy]

http://www.scca.com/assets/12-fastrack-aug.pdf

[mossaidis]

Talk about technicalities...

Cooper MacNeil vs. SOM COA Ref. No. 12-07-GL

[John Nesbitt]

Talk about technicalities...

Cooper MacNeil vs. SOM COA Ref. No. 12-07-GL

I read that a little differently.

As clunky as the system sometimes appears to be, it is strongly committed to providing due process and fairness in rules enforcement.

I was not in any way a party to this case, but, from the outside, it appears that the Court of Appeals decided that the original process was so flawed that Mr. Cooper did not get a complete/fair hearing. Hence their decision to overturn the original judgment.

Nobody wants to go through the stress and bother of filing an appeal. And I write as one who has been party to a fair number. However, I read this judgment as the system's working, correcting an error, and actually delivering justice. A Good Thing.

[Rabbit05]

" IT
1. #4315 (Raymond Blethen) Where to get stock HP numbers?
Thank you for your letter. The committees consider all credible data collected when reviewing a request.
2. #4317 (Stephen Blethen) Reprocess the weight of the 1981-1984 Coupe with the WE engine.
Thank you for your letter. Please see letter #4315.
3. #4360 (John VanDenburgh) Please re-run 84-87 Audi Coupe GT
Thank you for your letter. Please see letter #4315.
4. #4361 (John VanDenburgh) Please classify/rerun 80-83 Audi Coupe GT
Thank you for your letter. Please see letter #4315."



A waste of time I guess....

Can I request a copy of whatever HP is being used to class the Audi's please ? If I show up to tech with my factory manual and, I guess, has the wrong info ..I don't want to be DQ'ed.

Thanks,

[JeffYoung]

" IT
1. #4315 (Raymond Blethen) Where to get stock HP numbers?
Thank you for your letter. The committees consider all credible data collected when reviewing a request.
2. #4317 (Stephen Blethen) Reprocess the weight of the 1981-1984 Coupe with the WE engine.
Thank you for your letter. Please see letter #4315.
3. #4360 (John VanDenburgh) Please re-run 84-87 Audi Coupe GT
Thank you for your letter. Please see letter #4315.
4. #4361 (John VanDenburgh) Please classify/rerun 80-83 Audi Coupe GT
Thank you for your letter. Please see letter #4315."



A waste of time I guess....

Can I request a copy of whatever HP is being used to class the Audi's please ? If I show up to tech with my factory manual and, I guess, has the wrong info ..I don't want to be DQ'ed.

Thanks,

No, it's not a waste of time. We have explained in long detail here what happened with the Audi, why and where the information used came from.

You won't be DQ'ed for having a factory manual. The question is the accuracy of the listing in it. I/we've explained before that there is an internal Audi document that shows 120 for that motor. Is that enough to bump the number used in the process up? For some it was.

[jumbojimbo]

I read that a little differently.

As clunky as the system sometimes appears to be, it is strongly committed to providing due process and fairness in rules enforcement.

I was not in any way a party to this case, but, from the outside, it appears that the Court of Appeals decided that the original process was so flawed that Mr. Cooper did not get a complete/fair hearing. Hence their decision to overturn the original judgment.

Nobody wants to go through the stress and bother of filing an appeal. And I write as one who has been party to a fair number. However, I read this judgment as the system's working, correcting an error, and actually delivering justice. A Good Thing.

I didn't get that at all. As I was reading I was seeing "ok, so the paperwork wasn't perfect..." and I never really saw "your right to a fair judgement was compromised". So I was a little surprised everything was dropped in the end. At the very least I expected a strong waggy finger and a word of warning about the driving.

Now we need the video so the court of public opinion can weigh in.