October 2012 Prelim Minutes and TB

[pfrichardson]

...are posted:

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

[Bill Miller]

Looks like they fleshed out the justification of the 30% multi-valve factor for B/C, and talked about using non-standard factors. Still doesn't mean much if the CRB can just chuck it aside.

[Chip42]

the idea was to change the language that had been understood to mean that some cars just got stuck at a certain value, while remaining sensitive to the potential of newer tech cars (unfortunately identified as "multivalve") in ITB and C.

The end result frees the ITAC/CRB relationship from any predetermined multipliers. yes, the CRB can still change recomendations as they see fit. the ops manual is NOT a set of rules everyone has to follow, but it is generally suported by the CRB and that's a huge plus.

[Kai Noeske]

What's the "U" in "ITU" for that Travis suggested? Under 2000 cc ? IT Unlimited (any power/weight naturally aspirated car w/ IT mods) ? IT Unsightly for people who hate fixing bodywork? IT Unobtanium for very rare cars with IT mods?

[JeffYoung]

A faster class above R. With R car counts where they are (low but increasing) I don't think we are in the position to do that yet.

[Chip42]

What's the "U" in "ITU" for that Travis suggested? Under 2000 cc ? IT Unlimited (any power/weight naturally aspirated car w/ IT mods) ? IT Unsightly for people who hate fixing bodywork? IT Unobtanium for very rare cars with IT mods?

Like Jeff said. Travis actually put a lot of work into the proposal. in order to keep modern "sports" cars in IT, we'll eventually need a faster class. if we're happy with rios and civics, and the miata/MX5, then the current format works quite well. it's not getting done right now, though. last thing anyone wants is another class right now.

[Kai Noeske]

Like Jeff said. Travis actually put a lot of work into the proposal. in order to keep modern "sports" cars in IT, we'll eventually need a faster class. if we're happy with rios and civics, and the miata/MX5, then the current format works quite well. it's not getting done right now, though. last thing anyone wants is another class right now.

Ah, thanks guys! Seems to make a lot of sense to have IT move along with the performance evolution of cars.

[Prof. Chaos]

SCCA posted the prelim minutes for the October Fastrack.

In those minutes under suggested rule changes for 2013, it says:

“3. #9046 (SCCA Staff) Require Minimum Windshield Thickness in GCR Section 9
Change GCR section 9.3.55 as follows: 9.3.55 WINDSHIELDS/WINDSHIELD CLIPS/REAR WINDOW
STRAPS
Add a new first sentence as follows: Polycarbonate windshields such as Lexan are allowed except in Improved Touring, Super Touring, American Sedan, Showroom Stock, B-Spec, Spec Miata, and Touring. Alternate windshields must be of 6mm minimum thickness.”

But currently in the GCR under 9.1.4.F.8 Super Touring, it reads:

“All vehicles must use a stock, OEM equivalent, safety glass windshield, or 0.25 inch minimum thickness Lexan replacement, mounted in the stock location, at the stock angle and maintaining the stock profile.”

So starting in 2013 are polycarbonate/Lexan windshields no longer allowed in Super Touring, or is this just an error?

[Greg Amy]

Error, already submitted request for correction. Super Touring can continue with poly windshields; expect updated verbiage in the Sept 20 Fastrack. - GA