Yes you may!
First of all ... everyone who had a letter on the agenda last night except for a couple in which we're still working out some final follow-up, should have already received an automated notice from the letter-tracking system that their letter was either forwarded to the CRB, or tabled. By the end of the week I expect that the remaining couple will be handled too.
In a few cases where there are multiple letters asking for effectively the same thing, only the first one received will receive a notification when things are tabled.
That said, we had a late start last night due to issues with the SCCA voice conferencing system (3rd month in a row we've had something go wrong with it), and we didn't really get started with a full slate of voices until about an hour late. So we didn't get to nearly as much as we would have hoped.
We had spirited discussions on all of the rules-change letters, which included requests for:
- Alternate motor mounts
- C-clip eliminators for live axle cars
- Relocation of the engine reference sensor from the distributor to the crank (which turned into a discussion about ignition system allowances in general)
- Battery relocation
- Short shifters
- Relax the roll cage mounting points limits
- Forced induction cars in IT
A running theme during all of the discussions above was about the philosophy of IT and its place in the whole club racing program, with input from our CRB liaisons, of course. We discussed who our members are, who we want our members to be, etc.
All of these issues reached a conclusion in the ITAC last night and have been forwarded to the CRB for action. But understand that a couple of these are not slam dunks and if you haven't weighed in yet, your additional input could still be valuable as the CRB will have to weigh in on the ITAC recommendations at their next meeting.
I am going to avoid posting how things were concluded by the ITAC until the CRB acts on them, but I will present what I believe to be the strongest arguments on either side of a couple of these items. Note that this is the written policy that all committee members agree to when they join, and it's nothing new. Please understand that although these items have moved to the next step, these are still open items until they reach a final conclusion, which will be published in Fastrack. All rules changes ultimately need approval by the ITAC, the CRB, and the BOD.
On motor mounts, the strongest argument for the allowance says that alternate mounts, or just reinforced stock mounts, are a cheaper, easier way to relieve the pain of replacing fragile stock mounts on a regular basis. The strongest argument against the allowance is that this rule is unnecessary because there is already a very effective and inexpensive rule in place that will alleviate the same pain, and there is no need to advance our way down the slippery slope of rules creep. That's a gross summary of the discussion, there are a tremendous number of nuances and other arguments both pro & con. Most of them have been seen on various forums already.
The roll cage question was a fun one. On the negative side, there is a concern that allowing additions to the roll cage (tie to the pillars/roof, or extend to the front strut towers, etc) would change the game in IT builds quite a bit, and a lot of existing drivers might feel that we are just forcing them to spend money to be competitive. But on the pro side of the argument, there was a recent anecdote of a car that wanted to cross over from another club into IT, but its cage well exceeded IT rules, so the owner was told he'd have to remove all of that extra stuff. Had he done so, and had an injury-producing accident, could the club be held liable? And to what extent should the club be holding the line on safety mods? But, might a really extensive cage in a unibody car be LESS safe, due to the impact it would have on the original crush zones? Interesting discussion.
Due to the late start and the complex nature of some of the rules allowance questions, we were only able to close out a couple of the car classification letters before we quit at 11:30 eastern, and the rest were tabled for next month. I apologize to those of you waiting for action on those. We are doing our best and we will lead off our next meeting with those!
As always, please feel free to contact me privately to discuss any of these issues or anything else you've got on your mind. You can contact me through this forum and I will send you my phone number, or give me a number and a time to call you and I'll do my best to make it happen.
Josh Sirota
ITR '99 BMW Z3 Coupe
Thanks Josh - and yes, I did receive an update on my request. Thanks!
BenSpeed
#33 ITR Porsche 968
BigSpeed Racing
2013 ITR Pro IT Champion
2014 NE Division ITR Champion
Thanks Josh. The cage discussion is very very scary. The IT rules core brilliance is in the cage limitations. Once you tie the chassis together, you've opened the Pandoras box of huge spring rates and the attendant damper needs and costs. As it stands now, there's a strong diminishing returns effect in play on dampers. Spend all you want, but the benefits get mighty slim once you pass a certain pint. Tie the structure together, and that aspect goes out the window.
I'm still shocked the engine mount thing is in play. Tell Lee and Les to get in the current century, LOL.
Jake Gulick
CarriageHouse Motorsports
for sale: 2003 Audi A4 Quattro, clean, serviced, dark green, auto, sunroof, tan leather with 75K miles.
IT-7 #57 RX-7 race car
Porsche 1973 911E street/fun car
BMW 2003 M3 cab, sun car.
GMC Sierra Tow Vehicle
New England Region
lateapex911(at)gmail(dot)com
I totally agree on the cage issue. The person who brought it up makes valid points, but at the same time, allowing unlimited cages in IT makes a fundamental change to what has constitued an IT car for many, many years.
NC Region
1980 ITS Triumph TR8
I cannot fathom how you could even talk about relaxing the cage rules but not allow alternate engine mounts. I cannot even come close to understanding. How can that conversation even start?
"hey, I know we just had a conversation about rules creep being the con for a modification, lets talk about redoing the cage on all IT cars". WHAT? REALLY?
ITA Integra | 05 Mazda3 | 03 Mini
http://www.tomhoppe.com
Ditto on the thanks for taking the time to circulate this information, Josh!
Re: the above however, I would encourage the ITAC to answer questions in a public forum rather than through individual emails/calls. That approach just begs for misunderstandings, "don't tell anyone where you heard this" games, and at the very least the APPEARANCE of shenanigans. Anything that can be told to one member can be told to all members.
And feedback on proposals under consideration should go through channels - letters to the CRB - in order to be considered in any "official" capacity.
K
^^ CLARITY!!! we like.
Demetrius Mossaidis aka 'Mickey' #12 ITA NESCCA
'92 Honda Civic Si
STFU and "Then write a letter. www.crbscca.com"
2013 ITA NARRC Champion and I have not raced since.
Absolutely, anyone who calls me will get the same info and same opinions. Heck, I'll do a conference call if you want, town meeting style, it doesn't have to be 1-on-1. But we'll have to disagree about how misunderstandings start. The reason why I like to have these discussions in real-time instead of e-mail or worse, a forum, is that there's a tendency for people to read between the lines and find things that aren't there, or leap to conclusions that aren't correct. With real-time communication, there's an opportunity to correct those errors before they get out of control -- failure to correct those errors quickly is how bogus rumors start.
That doesn't mean I think the ITAC shouldn't engage in public discussions -- everyone learns from many of those discussions. I mean, look, here I am. But decisions that are still in process should be treated with due care, and I personally like the richness of live communication as a way to apply that care. Your mileage may vary but this is how I would prefer to do it.
Josh Sirota
ITR '99 BMW Z3 Coupe
Glad to hear that there is real discussion on the motor mount issue. Although I oppose the allowance, I have been looking at solutions to exploit the potential rule in the meantime.
too bad we can't modify one engine mount in lieu of a engine stay rod......
i think i'll look at how to tie my engine stay rod to my roll cage.
1985 CRX Si competed in Solo II: AS, CS, DS, GS
1986 CRX Si competed in: SCCA Solo II CSP, SCCA ITA, SCCA ITB, NASA H5
1988 CRX Si competed in ITA & STL
Last edited by Knestis; 04-28-2010 at 08:20 AM.
YOU GUYS are Amazing!
Josh is going out of his way to communicate.
He explains why anybody involved in their right mind should be able to see that INTERNET BOARDS ARE FOR BSing cause it promotes crazy perceptions. He wants to talk realtime so that if you hear something and take it the wrong way he can explain what the real meaning was, instead of having the ITKKK posting tirades that may not be whats what. No kidding, he is pretty damn brave to use this forum or the sandbox at all. If he posts a message that the popular guys disagree with he stands to get a keyboard lashing like nowhere else. Be happy he is communicating, there are plenty that have learned their lesson an avoid this place and others like it as if it were a leper colony.
Josh you are a pretty sharp guy or so it seems!
Mac Spikes
Cresson, TX (Home of "The Original" MotorSport Ranch)
"To hell with you Gen. Sheridan...I 'll take Texas!"
I'm quite happy he is communicating. He's doing a good job and his efforts are much more than what many thought we might see out of the new ITAC what initially (from various reports) wasn't going to communicate much at all.
But Kirk makes a point, anything can be told to one member can be told to all members, or written to all members.
The internet forums have a huge advantage - written record, that word of mouth does not have. Did you ever play that little kid's game where you tell the first kid something and it goes around the room through word of mouth to all the other kids? The input and output of this process never match.
Bookmarks