A few thoughts from the last page or so...
A "second level of preparation" isn't an entirely accurate description of what we're talking about. It's actually an entirely different set of rules being wedged into an existing category. It's not just about the Miata, or even ITA since an allowance like this is the camel's nose under the tent flap of the entire IT rule set. Before you know it, you've got the hairy beast in your bedroll.
If Dickita's hypothesis (cha cha cha) proves out and this change is the result of someone wanting to make SMs legal in IT simply to eliminate a bunch of cheating ex post facto, then it REALLY does stink. However, I disagree with Joe that the stewards should be the genesis of all actions against illegal cars. Under the CURRENT system and culture, it's up to us as the entrants but we COUNT ON the stewards to uphold the rules as written - not interpretations that make their lives simpler. We've had conversations about this issue manifesting itself in other ways in the past, and THAT should be a point of criticism for those in charge.
The flip side is that I also don't buy the suggestion (Jake?) that a lack of protests is evidence that we "seem to be OK with [noncompliance]." Who could have read the Protest Story and not been discouraged from participating in that process? It IS supposed to be fun and being the rules cop isn't. But it should NOT be about enforcement: The point has been well made here that if we really wanted to change the rules, we could try. And I dare say that if the weight of category entrants was behind it, pretty much any change could make it through the process.
MOREOVER, Dick's further suggestion that puts washer bottle protests on the same level with codifying the inclusion of non-IT cars in IT classes falls way short in my book.
There's a lot to disagree with here tonight.
Another opportunity for reflection: Would you prefer a system that classes cars based on their on-track performance, considering all factors including driver skill? It would be like run-what-you-brung bracket drags, where you could race your mid-pack ITA car against the most poorly piloted Formula Ford and the best ITC package in the country. Or do you want the classes defined by the mechanical aspects of the car, as has been the case for so long?
Please, ITAC'ers - just help make this issue go away.
K
[/b]
Ok this has gotten off point and I apologize for my part in that. Let put the points I have been trying for more simply. These are the truths I believe in.
The latest fastrack declaration is unacceptable.
IT cars have to run IT rules.
I have no problem with SM cars running in IT if they are IT legal.
You can build an SM that is IT legal.
Now is there any spec line addition that the ITAC can make on ITCS Miata spec line that could make crossover easier without compromising the integrity of the IT rules. My suggestion was that we could add that 1.8 cars can run with or without a SM restrictor in order to be more user friendly to these guys and save them the hassle of pulling the restrictor between sessions.
This would be part of OUR rules which are the only rules that we should have to use.
[/b]
Point well taken Bill. You have pointed out a better choice of words. I too have learned much from the professor.While it may seem like semantics, I think it is important. "You can build an SM that is IT legal" would be better stated by saying "You can build a car that is legal for both SM and IT". One of the things I've gotten a greater appreciation for, after reading several years of Kirk's posts, is just how important language is. It may not seem like much, but think about the position that it comes from.
[/b]
okay that is one for no.As far as your question goes, the short answer is no, you can't allow cars from a different category to run in IT w/o compromising the integrity of the IT rules.
[/b]
that is true though what I am suggesting is not a performance enhancement where the Olds was. Why however do I not hear complaints about the Golf Cup cars in ITB. that is really a closer analogy.Look how often the ITS GM Quad 4 rear brake issue is brought up. Nobody seems to know how or when that got slid in, but I have yet to see someone that doesn't think that it's a significant departure from the intent of IT.
[/b]
that is true though what I am suggesting is not a performance enhancement where the Olds was. Why however do I not hear complaints about the Golf Cup cars in ITB. that is really a closer analogy.
[/b]
You and jake both don't read, I said if the Stewart KNOWINGLY lets a car run that is illegal for the class then they shouldn't be stewarts....If a competitor knowingly lets a car run illegal then they are almost as guilty as the party running the car.....Sorry boys but if your gonna kiss the tip you may as well take the whole thing you still smoked it....Cheating is cheating period.
Oh and BTW Jake as I stated in most regions there are plenty of opportunities for a SM car to double dip legally with no issues and in the regions that don't have that then if the numbers are there I am sure it could be done....It again bothers me to think that you are pushing an agenda that will alter IT from what has and continues to be the best multi-marque set of racing classes in SCCA. [/b]
bla bla bla...(repeated major points made by othersthink that those "for" the concept think that:[/b]
I think that those 'against" feel that:
........ then they should loose their license for not stopping it until there is a rule change. If you allow a non-compliant car to run knowing full well its not compliant then you shouldn't be an official...Its BS!
[/b]
However, if it's going to go through, it should go both ways. All IT-legal Miatas should be able to run in SM, as is, w/ only the addition of a determined amount of lead added. Oh yeah, and that goes for Nationals as well. Float that on the SM board and see how far it goes!
[/b]
I know you're just making a point, but there's a huge difference between allowing an under-prepared car that may not meet all IT rules vs. allowing an over-prepared car that who knows what kind of performance it may have.
I can sympathize with you guys that are in divisions/regions where SM has more than one group. I can also see the point of having to deal with multiple prep level cars in case you want to protest (IMHO it's a minor issue since I can only think of a couple of things the SM has better in prep than IT: depowered rack, and rear subframe brace). What can happen though is that all this reaction may affect the guys crossing over in areas (like SOWDIV) where IT is VERY weak. And realize it's not just a crossing over issue, sometimes guys on a budget share a car. One will race in SM one will race in IT. We can generalize this discussion (forgive me if you have, I skipped several pages since some of the stuff was nasty and repetitive) to just any multiple prep-level type of crossover. Let's say Spec Neon in their own spec group + some IT group.
Some of you don't like say an IT7 in G-production (or any IT in production) since you see it as a way to strengthen a weak class, and diminish a strong class (in some regions). Well, the same is true here in this division except in this division, IT is the weak category. And this is not just a problem of not having enough cars to race against, it's also a problem of not having enough guys turn out to a double regional, such that you can have an affordable fee with enough cars, or enough cars to turn a profit (or break even).
I've raced an SM in ITA and it was fun. I was signed up to race ITA in my SM locally (weather prevented me from making it out), and you guys saw me post about my concern with having a de-powered rack. I was told not to worry and they were happy to have another ITA car. It seems things have changed?
I'll probably be changing to a manual rack mostly because my shoulders can handle it better, but I doubt I'm going to be changing exhausts between sessions. So this means I probably won't get to race ITA at all in my division without a threat of protests. That means one less entry for the region, and one less car to race against.
As far as an ITA CRX protesting an SM with a junkyard motor, I'll put that in terms you guys understand, it's like protesting an IT car for a missing washer bottle.
Anyway, I hope some compromise can be reached ...hell I'd be happy with ITSM at a regional level if the ITA guys aren't mad if we want to race them.
[/b]
Now is there any spec line addition that the ITAC can make on ITCS Miata spec line that could make crossover easier without compromising the integrity of the IT rules.
[/b]
It is an underprepared car, so there is no advantage to the SM....I'm sorry but from a neutral observer it makes no sense not to allow SM's into ITA....I think some are so clouded by this that they cannot see the logic.[/b]
... I can only think of a couple of things the SM has better in prep than IT: depowered rack, and rear subframe brace). What can happen though is that all this reaction may affect the guys crossing over in areas (like SOWDIV) where IT is VERY weak. And realize it's not just a crossing over issue, sometimes guys on a budget share a car. One will race in SM one will race in IT. ...[/b]
So a regional problem requires a regional solution. Create ITSM, write your own rules, and put the SM crossover cars in the IT group. This is not about preventing anyone from making their local programs work: It's about poking holes in an entire national rule set to achieve the desires of a minority of people with specific wishlists. Your solution would take a weekend of talks and some action by your regional board. Done. Or if your local ITx guys are totally OK with you running an illegal car, just freakin' do it. But it's not reasonble to ask an entire nation of cars built to a specific rulebook to accommodate individual needs.Some of you don't like say an IT7 in G-production (or any IT in production) since you see it as a way to strengthen a weak class, and diminish a strong class (in some regions). Well, the same is true here in this division except in this division, IT is the weak category. ...[/b]
That's not what's being proposed. An underprepared ITA car is totally legal as long as any of the things that HAVE been done to it are not ILLEGAL. This proposal suggests allowing illegal modifications but beyond that, it proposes simply taking cars of the "same or lesser performance" and plunking them in another category. With respect, you may not have the experience watching classes morph into things they were not supposed to be, to recognize the potential - yes, POTENTIAL - harm....Neither of us can see the rationale for not allowing SM into ITA. It is an underprepared car, so there is no advantage to the SM. ITA already has miata's in it, why not allow miata's that cannot be prepped to the full extent of the IT rules? ... I'm sorry but from a neutral observer it makes no sense not to allow SM's into ITA.[/b]
It's completely logical, when viewed from a perspective that only considers on-track performance in a micro sense. Again - do you want to go bracket racing or racing based on classes with specific rules for modification?I have seen a lot of emotion on here in reference to this subject. I think some are so clouded by this that they cannot see the logic.[/b]
Others have already pointed out some other ideas to consider but one other thing you are missing. Although the ITAC and "the process" have gone a long way to equalizing cars and competition in IT that doesn't mean everyone is equal. There exist tweener cars that are not competitive where they are classed but for various reasons can not be bumped down a class. Those who own those cars may have come to terms with that but now you are throwing in another group of cars that can potentially outperform even the fully prepped, well driven examples.Neither of us can see the rationale for not allowing SM into ITA. It is an underprepared car, so there is no advantage to the SM. ITA already has miata's in it, why not allow miata's that cannot be prepped to the full extent of the IT rules?[/b]
No jabs or barbs there Jake, As stated you didn't read. SO if that same steward see 25 spec miata's pass under yellow but it was no har no foul and no RFA or turn report. SHould He/She ignore it? As for the agenda you clearly have been part of this move if you were discuccing it at an SFR event what 1 month or 2 months ago? [/b]