IT should really think about welcoming Older SM's....... Without a new class..

[Ron Earp]

I'm not overly concerned one way or the other. I do feel like more classes in the SCCA is not an improvement, but you guys see it differently and that's fine by me.

[gran racing]

Ron, I truly do agree with you that just creating new classes is typically not the answer. I mocked SM2 here a while back when I first heard about it and how of course we needed yet another Miata class. Yet at the same time seeing it's popularity, how people in that group approach it, and then racing in the class a couple of times changed my mind. Keep in mind that many of these drivers gravitate towards the "Spec" nature of racing. Don't think we can ignore that as spec classes are the most popular within SCCA (believe outside of SCCA too).

In the end it's really a balance. More classes isn't always the answer but neither is opening the rules up within an existing category.

Even though I now race a Miata in IT, I'd love to see ways to encourage other makes within the category. I know, nothing can beat a Miata. (One of the biggest reasons for my move is a shop owned by a friend was tired of one-off cars and is arguably one of the several top Miata shops in the country.)

[JeffYoung]

Just me speaking, not the entire ITAC obviously:

1. I would be fine with allowing depowered racks. It always seemed to me to be more of a driver comfort issue, the existing ways to depower a rack (other than a loop) are not illegal but hard if not impossible to detect, and the power gain/loss just isn't that much in my view. Yeah, it may be 2-3 or even 7-8 hp, which matters, but it's not going to create a class killer.

2. I would not be fine allowing the 99 Torsen rear end in any SM.

3. Most of the other allowed stuff (floor modifications to allow seat installation) are either allowed, arguably allowed, or aren't really performance mods.

So, to me, if we allowed the racks, all we are really looking at is the rear end stuff right?

[Greg Amy]

So, to me, if we allowed the racks, all we are really looking at is the rear end stuff right?

...which could be done via a line-item allowance.

But...allow me Devil's Advocate.

The reason SM allows it is because the OE rear end is fragile, not as competitive, and because they're hard to get. In other words, it's a wart that the 1.6L Miata must bear. If we allow it for the gander, then we must consider warts allowances for the goose.

I support it (and other reasonable warts allowances). But, to mix metaphors, just pointing out that potential Pandora's Box.

GA

[JeffYoung]

...which could be done via a line-item allowance.

But...allow me Devil's Advocate.

The reason SM allows it is because the OE rear end is fragile, not as competitive, and because they're hard to get. In other words, it's a wart that the 1.6L Miata must bear. If we allow it for the gander, then we must consider warts allowances for the goose.

I support it (and other reasonable warts allowances). But, to mix metaphors, just pointing out that potential Pandora's Box.

GA

Sorry if I wasn't clear but I would not support the rear end allowance for the 1.6. Plenty of competitive 1.6 ITA Miatas out there that aren't burning up diffs every weekend and more importantly, as you suggest, any line item allowance is problematic from a class philosophy standpoint.

I'd be in favor of allowing depowered racks and taking a look at some of the other SM rules on seat mounts, etc. for incorporation into IT, but not the rear end allowance. That goes too far in my personal opinion.

[Ed Funk]

Pandora's Box has warts?!!

[Chip42]

no, but I think wart remedies come in pandoras boxes.

or is this a case where "there can be only one?"