March 2014 Fastrack

[Greg Amy]

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.

[jimbbski]

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?

[jimbbski]

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?

Ya know I've been thinking about this change and I see one major problem, Wheels! You go from 15 X 7 to 15 X 6 and 100-150 lbs heavier then what I was running at. I see the car being no more competitive in B then in A with these changes. Well if I wanted to win a race I'd get something else.

[Andy Bettencourt]

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.

[Greg Amy]

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

[Andy Bettencourt]

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.

[Greg Amy]

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...

[Dano77]

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...........

[Andy Bettencourt]

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]

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.