Page 1 of 9 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 165

Thread: March 2014 Fastrack

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Mar 2001
    Location
    Connecticut
    Posts
    7,381

    Default March 2014 Fastrack

    Posted...did we miss the pre-Fastrack somehow...?

    http://www.scca.com/assets/14-fastrack-march.pdf

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Jul 2002
    Location
    Arlington, VA USA
    Posts
    515

    Default

    Yes you did...

    BTW--Luv it when there's (alleged) steward-on-steward violence.
    Gregg Ginsberg
    '96 Civic EX -- MARRS ITA #72
    WDCR-SCCA Rookie of the Year 2003
    MARRS ITA/T3 Drivers rep

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Mar 2001
    Location
    Connecticut
    Posts
    7,381

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Gregg View Post
    Yes you did...

    BTW--Luv it when there's (alleged) steward-on-steward violence.
    What the hell...?

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    Margaritaville
    Posts
    641

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Greg Amy View Post
    What the hell...?
    Ha! Bet they don't work anymore races together.
    Steve Linn | Fins Up Racing | #6 ITA Sentra SE-R | www.indyscca.org

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    Northeast
    Posts
    7,031

    Default

    What are the HP levels on the 16V VW's that got moved to ITB?

    What was the feedback/request that got the RSX-S moved to ITS - weight not attainable? Who supplied the data? 2790lb curb weight with 200/210hp? Interesting.

    I hate summaries that don't summarize anything:

    STL
    1. #13375 (Robert Schader) Specification Line Car
    Thank you for your letter.
    The CRB will continue to monitor the performance of the class and make adjustments as needed
    Last edited by Andy Bettencourt; 02-21-2014 at 02:27 PM.
    Andy Bettencourt
    New England Region 188967

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Mar 2001
    Location
    Connecticut
    Posts
    7,381

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Andy Bettencourt View Post
    What are the HP levels on the 16V VW's that got moved to ITB?
    127 IIRC.

    What was the feedback/request that got the RSX-S moved to ITS - weight not attainable?
    Remember the whole WDYT discussion on this? Looks like they chose ITS for both.

    I hate summaries that don't summarize anything:
    No point in airing details of member dissatisfaction with our FWD/RWD weight process.

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    South of Chicago, near Indiana.
    Posts
    248

    Default

    I see they moved all of the 16V VW's to ITB. Of course they added weight, I went from 2320 to 2560 with the Scriocco. Seeing that I couldn't get the car below 2400 lbs as it sits I know that I can make that weight by putting the accusump back in, the spare tire, and perhaps the stock pass. seat. With a full load of fuel I won't be that far off.

    Maybe SCCA will drop that weight a bit after a couple of years just as then did to the MR2 when it moved from ITA to ITB. Or I can at least hope?
    1988 ITA Scriocco 16V #80
    MCSCC member since 1988

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Location
    Wheaton, IL
    Posts
    1,893

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Andy Bettencourt View Post
    What are the HP levels on the 16V VW's that got moved to ITB?
    123hp. Not your typical flowing 16v head. A LOT of exhaust port restriction that could be addressed with porting and bigger exhaust cams, if it were not for IT rules...

    That is a lot of weight for the GTI's small brakes (same as the A1 and A2 8v cars), and these cars carry more front end weight. I don't recall if any were available with manual steering, and obviously the head and intake is a bit heavier. Not sure that I see them keeping up with A3 VWs (maybe....), let alone Hondas in ITB.
    Chris Schaafsma
    Golf 2 HProd

    AMT Racing Engines - DIYAutoTune.com

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    Northeast
    Posts
    7,031

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Greg Amy View Post
    127 IIRC.

    Remember the whole WDYT discussion on this? Looks like they chose ITS for both.

    No point in airing details of member dissatisfaction with our FWD/RWD weight process.
    1. Ya, I think 123hp sounds about right for the 1.8's. 2.0 that still remains in ITA were 134hp?

    2. I guess I'd like to hear from the people who own/built them on what weight is attainable. It doesn't seem like the curb weights mesh. ITR weight was 2665lbs. Seems very attainable.

    3. Maybe not the 'details' but at least the 'subject'. Seems very selective.
    Andy Bettencourt
    New England Region 188967

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Mar 2001
    Location
    Connecticut
    Posts
    7,381

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Andy Bettencourt View Post
    3. Maybe not the 'details' but at least the 'subject'. Seems very selective.
    Not necessarily "selective", it's that any details are just not useful information. You know that, you've been there. Nothing was changed, nothing new was decided, its publication in Fastrack was just a courtesy, confirming considering and printing the results. If it had a title of "I don't like how you're setting RWD weights" you'd probably want more info anyway...

    We can't publish everything in Fastrack - it would take too much time and space - so the CRB focuses on the details of those letters that result in changes to the regs. Everything else is, well, pretty much "thanks for your input."

    If you really want the details, I'm sure the author of the letter would be glad to send them to you....but we won't publish that as a courtesy to the submitter. - GA

  11. #11
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    Northeast
    Posts
    7,031

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Greg Amy View Post
    Not necessarily "selective", it's that any details are just not useful information. You know that, you've been there. Nothing was changed, nothing new was decided, its publication in Fastrack was just a courtesy, confirming considering and printing the results. If it had a title of "I don't like how you're setting RWD weights" you'd probably want more info anyway...

    We can't publish everything in Fastrack - it would take too much time and space - so the CRB focuses on the details of those letters that result in changes to the regs. Everything else is, well, pretty much "thanks for your input."

    If you really want the details, I'm sure the author of the letter would be glad to send them to you....but we won't publish that as a courtesy to the submitter. - GA
    We will agree to disagree. I see nothing wrong with "Please reduce RWD penalty" or "Please increase % for RWD in STL" with the resultant "The STAC has made a recent change and will continue to monitor the class competitiveness." As it was published, it serves zero purpose other than to the author. Hardly a productive use of space. If the SCCA wants to communicate with just one person, do it in email.

    Each letter can, and should, be summed up in one sentence, with the appropriate answer. I have seen a lot of improvement in this area lately and this one seems in-congruent with that progress.
    Andy Bettencourt
    New England Region 188967

  12. #12
    Join Date
    Mar 2001
    Location
    Connecticut
    Posts
    7,381

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Andy Bettencourt View Post
    I see nothing wrong with "Please reduce RWD penalty" or "Please increase % for RWD in STL" with the resultant "The STAC has made a recent change and will continue to monitor the class competitiveness."
    If all request letters were as pleasant, well-written, and straightforward as you describe ("please sir, may I have another?") then that would be fine. They rarely are. And I think you know that.

    GA, suddenly wondering if Andy is new to this "Internet thing"...or to article comments sections, or to the kinds - and format - of letters that the CRB gets...

  13. #13
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    raymond NH
    Posts
    623

    Default

    AHHHHHH Yet another car with more factory HP than the first gen RX7 gets moved from A to B. So happy all the cars I used to be racing with are now moved to a class that will enable them to remain viable race cars....

    Kinda half joking here...........
    All posts are made by a fat old guy with a crappy old car that isnt supported by a factory anymore and therefore should not be taken seriously, EVER

    We buy our tires at WalMart 205/50-15 NT-01 $148.00 last all season and go faster as they wear out........

    Driver Skills Development, 7's Racing Skunk Works
    it7racing.com

  14. #14
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    Northeast
    Posts
    7,031

    Default

    Like I said, there has been a lot of improvement in this area in recent history. I know that it's something the ITAC has focused on improving with nice results.

    It really isn't that hard to summarize a letter in a concise and polite manner, it just takes some effort. The entry we are talking about was a total waste of space.
    Last edited by Andy Bettencourt; 02-21-2014 at 09:01 PM.
    Andy Bettencourt
    New England Region 188967

  15. #15
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    Northeast
    Posts
    7,031

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Dano77 View Post
    AHHHHHH Yet another car with more factory HP than the first gen RX7 gets moved from A to B. So happy all the cars I used to be racing with are now moved to a class that will enable them to remain viable race cars....

    Kinda half joking here...........
    While I agree that the 12A RX-7 would be a solid candidate for ITB, lets remember that the factory HP rating is just the first step in the calculation. What REALLY matters is what it makes (or is estimated to make) in IT trim. That is the number that creates your multiplier for your class factor.
    Andy Bettencourt
    New England Region 188967

  16. #16
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Sunnyside, NY
    Posts
    1,197

    Default

    Looks like Brian Blizzard is going to ITB... confirm? If so, great for ITB, bad for ITA. That boy can move at LRP.
    Demetrius Mossaidis aka 'Mickey' #12 ITA NESCCA
    '92 Honda Civic Si
    STFU and "Then write a letter. www.crbscca.com"
    2013 ITA NARRC Champion and I have not raced since.

  17. #17
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    Northeast
    Posts
    7,031

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by mossaidis View Post
    Looks like Brian Blizzard is going to ITB... confirm? If so, great for ITB, bad for ITA. That boy can move at LRP.
    You'd be surprised to know the price of tea in ITB at LRP is a mid-low 1:03...

    And let's also remember that these 'recommended' changes are for 2015.
    Andy Bettencourt
    New England Region 188967

  18. #18
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    Northeast
    Posts
    7,031

    Default

    OK, so back onto the RSX-S. In looking really hard at the FT, it looks like the ITAC-sponsored letter might have been a proactive move triggered by the request from letter #11955 to have the ITS Civic with a similar motor moved to ITR (not recommended).

    I am sure I am wrong but I like the logic!

    These cars have a real life weight difference of about 250-300lbs so the separation seems to make sense. I know a team who is building an RSX-S for ITR and they claim they have data showing the car should end up about 2400-2450 without driver.

    Any ITAC member care to shed some light on this? Thanks!
    Andy Bettencourt
    New England Region 188967

  19. #19
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    1,499

    Default

    I am being selfish for a second...
    I put in a request on the rx8 that I thought the itac sent a recommendation to the crb on already. Can anyone verify that? I was hoping it would make the March publication.

    Thanks, Stephen

  20. #20
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    Northeast
    Posts
    7,031

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by StephenB View Post
    I am being selfish for a second...
    I put in a request on the rx8 that I thought the itac sent a recommendation to the crb on already. Can anyone verify that? I was hoping it would make the March publication.

    Thanks, Stephen
    The addition of the 2009 or something different?
    Andy Bettencourt
    New England Region 188967

Bookmarks

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •