March FasTrack is up

[Matt Rowe]

Forgive me if this comes across wrong but . . .

Enough already! This miata cage issue has nothing to do with the March FasTrack but it has been brought up repeatedly and seemingly at least half of Dave's responses over the past 6 months seem to make some reference to it. We get it you're not happy either with the "illegal" cages or the way in which your letter has been handled.

But enough is enough. You signature lists a Spec Miata and obviously you feel that the illegal cage issue offers some kind of advantage. Next race you enter protest a car. With essentially no bond to post the protest fee will cost you less than the time you have already spent discussing this at length. Then you have a ruling. If you don't like it, appeal. That will tell you if national feels the modification is really legal. And if at the end of all that it turns out to be then you can either change your car to take advantage of it or lobby to have the rule change.

Notice that none of the above requires you to bring this up here, over and over. As I said we all get it. You think people are building illegal cars. But there is a process to determine that and it doesn't appear that you have been following it.

Arguing about the process by which your letter has been handled makes little sense when there is already a process in place to determine compliance. A process which I don't believe you have followed. Use the system in place and see what the outcome is.

[JeffYoung]

Plus.....THIS ISN'T THE SPEC MIATA FORUM.

[ddewhurst]

****Plus.....THIS ISN'T THE SPEC MIATA FORUM.****

Mr. Young, please using the 2008 GCR written rules explain the difference between Improved Topuring, Showroom Stock & Spec Miata roll cage rules. The rules were one in the same before 2008 & they are one in the same today. There are also Miata ITA cars fabricated with roll cages that do not meet the intent of the rules. Same issue different class car.

****Forgive me if this comes across wrong but . . .****

Mr. Rowe, not an issue.

To anyone who has read my ramblings about these questionable roll cages. There are loop holes within the GCR that allow these roll cages that do not meet the intent of the rules. Any of you with an understanding of the rules know exactly which loop hole sentences I'm talking about. Closing the loop hole sentences was the reason I sent the letter to the CRB. Several times a year posts on this site show the need for closing these rule loop hole sentences.

[lateapex911]

David, to answer your question regarding private communication, it's as easy as reading my sig, where my email is listed, or clicking on my "handle" which will open a dialog box listing several options, one of which is the PM option.

That said, I prefer any communication that involves SCCA or ITAC stuff to be handled either here in this forum, or via mail sent to the ITAC for inclusion in our ITAC forum, and discussion on our con call. if you want to tell me that I'm a jerk, or that I'm a cool guy, do that here as well. I can take a little public humiliation or praise.

Further, your letter was less than clear, and upon rereading it, it requests:
"......Please confirm or deny that the roll cage for a Spec Miata described within this letter is illegal. "
That's clear request for a ruling, and not the CRB's job.
It goes on to say,
"Out of my request for a determination of these type modifications being legal or illegal my solution to eliminating these illegal roll cages is to close the loop holes within the existing written rules."

While your writing is, to me at least, sometimes hard to follow, I think I have distilled the purpose of your letter in the boldened area. (That's not intended as an insult, but more as a signal as to why perhaps, the outcome you desire wasn't achieved)

Your second sentence is the crux of your desire, but honestly, it doesn't give the CRB much to work with.

If you had said, "Here is an example of what I feel is someone taking advantage of an allowance in the cage rules, and it is being commonly done. I feel the rule, currently written as "KJGFLSHFIERUCLHSLHFLSHF", needs to be modified or tightened up by adding the term 'limited' to preclude such liberal interpretations." then maybe the CRB would have had something more substantial to go on.

Or maybe not, because, there needs to be flexibility for situations that can't be addressed by rules that are too confining. And maybe the CRB is counting on the racers and the tech people to do their jobs, protest the questionable cars, and make judgments that can go through the appeals process, becoming case history, at least for that year, but also becoming part of the collective wisdom.

But to come on here, and spew hate at the ITAC (and SMAC and CR because they had an item (improper phrasing regarding insulation) brought to their attention, which was rather specific and easy to remedy, and the simple rewording made the job of the competitors and techs easier, while having zero downside, is, in my opinion, rather childish on your part.

[Ron Earp]

To anyone who has read my ramblings about these questionable roll cages. There are loop holes within the GCR that allow these roll cages that do not meet the intent of the rules. Any of you with an understanding of the rules know exactly which loop hole sentences I'm talking about. Closing the loop hole sentences was the reason I sent the letter to the CRB. Several times a year posts on this site show the need for closing these rule loop hole sentences.

I'll bite and I'm ignorant. Please help me to understand the "loop hole sentences" that you are referring to by specifically listing the phrases in the GCR along with an example of an illegal cage that breaks the rule. As a builder and driver of more than a few SMs I do have a genuine interest. Maybe a new thread entitled "Closing the Roll Cage Loop Holes" would be appropriate.

[Butch Kummer]

Writting this post is about as funny as the sentence I just sent to JAWS (DW) through Fox Sports who stated on the NASCAR race today that his crew change a motor in his NASCAR car in 11 minutes. Easy to figure how he got the name JAWS.

Mr. Dewhurst,

Totally off topic and I didn't see the broadcast, but what exactly is your objection to DW's statement? Back in the late 70's or early 80's when DW was driving (and winning) for Budweiser, Junior Johnson's crew in fact changed an engine during a Cup race at North Wilkesoboro in less than 11 minutes. Car and Driver had them re-do the feat (with a cold engine to keep from scalding someone) for an article and they completed the task in just over seven minutes. Shortly after that NASCAR outlawed changing engines during a race because of safety concerns.

You may indeed have valid arguments at times, but your lack of historical accuracy and grammatical errors ("writting"?) often tend to cast you in a Berg-ish light.

[DavidM]

David, as Andy pointed out, there are mechanisms in place to fix grievous errors. For the record, most cars are classed based on certain assumptions that relate to the "genre" of engines. Old crappy POS American OHV motors, rotaries, inline 4s with DOHC, etc.

In certain cases real world info is used, but it is used very infrequently, and only when the numbers have high confidence. (As in multiple independent sources, and those sources are beyond reproach, AND they match up)

There were at least 3 cars, the CRX, Integra, and 240SX, that were weighted using numbers higher than 25% during the grand re-weighting. These numbers were based off of what top build cars of those makes were making.

Let's play a game and pretend there weren't any top prep cars of these makes. Only some average builds that people were still tinkering with and none making nearly as much power as a top build. These cars would have been weighted using the normal 25% improvement over stock. So 3-4 years down the road when people have really worked on these cars and they start making the power we now know they can make what happens? Do the cars get re-weighted?

What happens if people find a way to get an extra 10hp out of a Miata? Did the "formula" take into account standalone ECUs?

The ITAC is on a slippery slope by using real-world numbers for some cars, but not for others IMO. You either use the estimated numbers for all cars or you put in place some process to periodically re-evaluate the real-world numbers.

David

[Andy Bettencourt]

There were at least 3 cars, the CRX, Integra, and 240SX, that were weighted using numbers higher than 25% during the grand re-weighting. These numbers were based off of what top build cars of those makes were making.

Let's play a game and pretend there weren't any top prep cars of these makes. Only some average builds that people were still tinkering with and none making nearly as much power as a top build. These cars would have been weighted using the normal 25% improvement over stock. So 3-4 years down the road when people have really worked on these cars and they start making the power we now know they can make what happens? Do the cars get re-weighted?

What happens if people find a way to get an extra 10hp out of a Miata? Did the "formula" take into account standalone ECUs?

The ITAC is on a slippery slope by using real-world numbers for some cars, but not for others IMO. You either use the estimated numbers for all cars or you put in place some process to periodically re-evaluate the real-world numbers.

David

David,

Your comments make sense to me and in a perfect world, I would want that. Let's discuss it further...

I am a firm believer that we need to use what we know. Otherwise, certain cars that can make tremendous gains in IT trim will run amuck as overdogs. Cars with no prior knowledge receive the 25%. Some will make more, some will make 25% and some will make less. I think in a system as granular as this one (to say, not that granular) we get dang close to most every car hitting the 'target'. Not the bulls-eye mind you, but certainly the target. Not so long ago, there were cars in the same class that weren't even in the same stratosphere.

Right now, the PCA system is set up to be mostly 'reactive'. It is the mechanism in place to correct classifications that ruin class parity. I think what you are asking for is a proactive approach to the evaluations. Help design it by sending a letter to the CRB. Here are some questions that would be helpful to know your position on:

1. What cars get re-evaluated and when?
2. What sources do you look to for 'evidence'?
3. How much evidence do you need in order to make a change?
4. How small of a change qualifies for an adjustment?
5. If only select cars get re-evaluated, what triggers that evaluation?
6. How do you prove/validate a negative when guys write in and ask for reductions based on their output?

I wonder if what you are asking for is doable within the framework and philosophy of IT.

The way it is now cuts off the highs and the lows but leaves a decent amount of area under the curve. The question is how far down the road toward real competition adjustments do you want to travel in the name of parity?

(On edit: The process does take into account open ECU's as it is actually newer than the 'anything in the stock box' rule)

[ddewhurst]

Folks, not all of us have equal presentation skills. Hurrah for you perfect people.

***often tend to cast you in a Berg-ish light./10 minute engine change***

Butch, ^ not called for. I'll attempt to find facts on the Junior/DW 10 minute engine change.

Ron, following would be the sentences that I refer to as the loop hole sentences.

Also people in the Improved Touring world use two similar ITCS rules (9.1.3.D.9.c. the second sentence & 9.1.3.D.9.f. the third sentemce) to declare open season on whatever gets in their way while implementing a roll cage.

Jake, I spew no hate as you stated. I do in fact understand the rule change request process except I didn't do a good job writting my letter. BUT the fact that several people have viewed my letter tells me that the letter was circulated beyond the CRB member I sent the letter to. The CRB member didn't request further information. You & others know as well as I do that there are loop hole sentences within the GCR. Please see the sentences I mentioned for Ron to review. Had I written a perfect letter with the perfect requests would the roll cage loop hole sentences have been closed.

[planet6racing]

Folks, not all of us have equal presentation skills. Hurrah for you perfect people.
Ron, following would be the sentences that I refer to as the loop hole sentences.

Also people in the Improved Touring world use two similar ITCS rules (9.1.3.D.9.c. the second sentence & 9.1.3.D.9.f. the third sentemce) to declare open season on whatever gets in their way while implementing a roll cage.

Ah well, it's almost 4:15 pm and I have a sharp stick, so I'll poke at this.

Here are the sections I believe Mr. Dewhurst is referring to:

f. Carpets, center consoles, floor mats, headliners, sun roof liner
and frame, dome lights, grab handles, and their insulating,
attaching or operating mechanisms may be removed. Door
interior trim panels may be replaced with 0.060” aluminum
securely attached to the door. All other interior trim panels,
except the dashboard, may be removed. Other than to provide
for the installation of required safety equipment or other authorized
modifications, no other driver/passenger compartment
alterations or gutting are permitted.

g. Any removable covers used to cover spare tires, tools, bins,
etc., may be removed along with attaching hardware and
bracketry. Carpets, mats, and their insulating or attaching
materials may be removed from the floor and recesses of the

cargo/ trunk/spare tire area.

Seems pretty simple to me. If you think someone hacked away more than necessary, protest.

on edit - 10 minutes to change an engine? What's taking them so long? I've seen a complete rear half of a car changed in less than 4...

[erlrich]

You & others know as well as I do that there are loop hole sentences within the GCR. Please see the sentences I mentioned for Ron to review. Had I written a perfect letter with the perfect requests would the roll cage loop hole sentences have been closed.

I'm guessing that they wouldn't have been changed - what you call a loophole someone else might refer to as an allowance (in fact, I believe Jake did just that earlier). Are you saying that there should be no allowances for any modifications, other than those specifically spelled out in the rules, to provide for installation of the roll cage?

[ddewhurst]

Bill, you are 50% correct for item 9.1.3.D.9.c.

Other than to provide
for the installation of required safety equipment or other authorized
modifications, no other driver/passenger compartment
alterations or gutting are permitted.

The other sentence is the fourth sentence of 9.1.3.D.9.c.

The response I have received from the SCCA is that the items I mentioned in my letter are not within the intent of the GCR writen rules meaning they agree the items mentioned are not within the intent of the rules & should not be implemented. The SCA has made no comment if they believe these sentences are the rule loop holes as I suggested. My goal WAS to change the rule to eliminate the existing written loop holes.

Ron, I failed in my previous post. There are metal chassis box members between the cowl & the A pillar that are being tourched out when implementing the down tubes in a ITA & SM Miata cars. One needs to have the dash off to see these box members.

***Are you saying that there should be no allowances for any modifications, other than those specifically spelled out in the rules, to provide for installation of the roll cage?***

Earl, we all who follow this site including you have viewed over the years that there are those who post asking questions with respect to implementing roll cages & many time these people are told that their thoughts are not within the roll cage rule requirements. With the specific item of tourching out the Miata chassis box member between the cowl & the A pillar, no IMHU of the rules one is not allowed to tourch out those box members. There is a rule that says one may butcher the dash/instrument panel for roll cage implementation. Where in the rules do words say that these box members may be removed? I'm sure I could list many items that could be a gain when implementing a roll cage & I'm am also positive these items would not be consistant with the rules.

[spnkzss]

First question, has there been a protest filed if you believe it is wrong?

Second question, is it worth time on the track to do this "illega"l mod?

Third for Andy:
You guys recently revamped the way you set weights and class (which btw seems to be an awesome starting point). My question is when you revamped you "knew" the Honda's/whatevers made more than 25% so you planned accordingly with an "adder", which makes sense, but what happens when the next Daewoo come in, you class it with 25%, it takes 3 years for someone to build, you find it makes 45% more power in IT Trim. What initiates the "reclassing"? How does someone go about asking without basically saying "slow down the Daewoo". How can you do that and still stay in the IT Philosophy that we don't performance adjustments?

Rob - Just likes to know how things work.

[jjjanos]

Third for Andy:
You guys recently revamped the way you set weights and class (which btw seems to be an awesome starting point). My question is when you revamped you "knew" the Honda's/whatevers made more than 25% so you planned accordingly with an "adder", which makes sense, but what happens when the next Daewoo come in, you class it with 25%, it takes 3 years for someone to build, you find it makes 45% more power in IT Trim. What initiates the "reclassing"? How does someone go about asking without basically saying "slow down the Daewoo". How can you do that and still stay in the IT Philosophy that we don't performance adjustments?

Rob - Just likes to know how things work.

You cannot. It's a performance adjustment, period. Just to be clear on that, it's a performance adjustment. I'll say it another way, it adjusts the performance. Same goes for moving a car from ITA to ITB. Performance adjustment.

Performance adjustment. Performance adjustment. Performance adjustment. Number nine, number nine, number nine.

[lateapex911]

Of course, if we didn't "performance adjust" there would be no point in racing. A guy in an F1 car shows up, and we all lose. Just the creation of classes is performance adjusting, and assigning weight is as well. Then there's an adjustment post classification based on a mistake during classification. Obviously, one is done pre classification, but the other is done after....and the after is the troublesome one.

The difference between IT and say, Prod, is that IT sets them according to assumed percentage gains for over 95% of the cases, then leaves them alone. Prod has been more of a moving target, based on on track performance.

. I can tell you that there ARE cars like the Daewoo already out there, they've had their weight set and they are exceeding the performance estimate for them.

And they will remain as is.

And then there's the flipside, the "underperformer". We get letters on those as well.

A recent case was a request for a weight break and I honestly thought it had merit, as I knew that car. However, such a change wasn't accounted for in the process (The cars unique engine characteristic doesn't have it's own process breakout) so any change was not going to happen within the guidelines of the process. But we discussed it, and a CRB guy asked a question: "Did he do XX?? " I thought, "That's not legal", and he then went on to shine a light I'd never thought of.

Learning that, it became obvious that the process was better than I had thought, and I'm a big fan of it. No change needed, or granted.

Moral of the story is that the process isn't perfect, but it's pretty darn good, yet there will be winners and losers, as it can't account for everything, but stability is important and exceptions are very rare.

Prod, on the other hand, has historically been a moving target, with adjustments based heavily on on track performance, with one track (the Runoffs track) weighing most heavily.

In answer to your question, that Daewoo would have to be exceptionally out of line for it to garner attention, and then any adjustment gets done by the book.

(I think we all realize that no system is lily white perfect, and that we need to decide where on the gray scale we land, and then be consistent about holding that line. We have selected a light gray, let's say, where Prod's choice is much darker.)

[raffaelli]

Thank you members of the ITAC for standing up, donating your time and stress in participating in both the logical discussions and the non-logical banter. Kudos.

[JoshS]

Thank you members of the ITAC for standing up, donating your time and stress in participating in both the logical discussions and the non-logical banter. Kudos.

BTW, the rules DO provide for a mechanism to adjust cars. We try very hard not to use it. But Quoting 9.1.3.C from the ITCS:

"At the end of the second, third, and fourth years of classification, the vehicle’s racing performance relative to other vehicles in its class shall be evaluated. If the Club deems that, in the interest of fostering greater equity within a class, a vehicle should be reclassified to another Improved Touring class, such a reclassification shall be made. Alternatively or additionally, if the Club deems that an upward or downward revision in the minimum allowable weight is warranted, such a “performance compensation adjustment” shall be made. Any performance compensation adjustments made after the second and third years of classification shall be provisional. At the end of a vehicle’s fourth year of Improved Touring classification, an assessment of class equity shall be made and the vehicle’s minimum weight shall be established.

On rare occasion—and only after careful review of the actual racing performance of a particular make/model/year of vehicle—the Club may reclassify a vehicle, revise a vehicle’s minimum allowable weight, and/or in the most extreme situation an intake restrictor may be required. Such an action shall be taken solely for the purpose of restoring equity within the vehicle’s class."

[Bill Miller]

Bill M.,

You and I have become unproductive in debate so I have decided to not answer your questions/provocations at least for the forseable future for the benfit of both of our sanity and IT.com's benefit.

Andy,

I guess that's a little better than being put on 'ignore'. And the other ITAC members don't post here because of me? I had no idea I had such power.

BTW, I'm not sure why you edited it out???

[Greg Amy]

At the end of a vehicle’s fourth year of Improved Touring classification, an assessment of class equity shall be made and the vehicle’s minimum weight shall be established.

Which, of course, has always made me wonder what would happen if someone was patient/smart enough/sand-bagged enough to wait four years to develop a potential class-killer...

But, hey, that's just me...

[spnkzss]

Which, of course, has always made me wonder what would happen if someone was patient/smart enough/sand-bagged enough to wait four years to develop a potential class-killer...

But, hey, that's just me...

That's funny. That was my first thought.