March 2012 Fastrack

[JS154]

Also, re STL, did the CRB jump the shark here??
They say they added weight to everybody, essentially, so that some Mazda 2 or Honda Fit will make weight down the road. While thats fine for forward thinking, and I appreciate that aspect, really? A Honda Fit? Who's going to race a Honda Fit in STL against , well, ANYthing!?
But, more to the point, this seems like a major change...why not poll the members?
It's been what, 2 years since people have been spending big money making their cars make weight?....now, POOF, your money is wasted. Classic SCCA. (See also: No RR shocks in IT after they've been run for a couple years)

Me thinks this should have gone out for member input, and strikes me as pretty cavalier of the CRB.
(I say this because the notes clearly state "The CRB thinks", not the STAC. I take that to infer the STAC didn't either generate or approve of the concept.)

Given the brand-newness of the national status of the class, and the increasing trend of newer cars from manufacturers getting heavier and heavier, it makes sense to set/modify the entire class weights at the very start so that future adjustments - class or individual -can be avoided. For example, a 1991 BMW 318is weighed what, about 2600#? The smallest BMW available now weighs well over 3000#.

It's a fact of life - cars are getting bigger and heavier. Chassis rollover anti-crush standards are going to add more weight to the bare chassis from all manufacturers, and with many cars already having a difficult time getting down to weight, this looks like a valid attempt to solve that *now* so it doesn't have to be done again in a few or a number of years.

For those who have already built a to-the-limit STL car and have worked hard to get down to class weight, they still have the advantage of being able to place ballast anywhere they like. (Ballast rules IIRC are different in ST vs IT).