August 2011 Fastrack

[StephenB]

If you've not seen it in Fastrack and you've not received an email telling you it's been considered, then it's still on their agenda. Committees don't always get to everything every month, but may table it to subsequent months (especially game-changing items that require significant discussion/thought).

When something leaves the committee and goes to the CRB you get one email, then when it's dispensed by the CRB you get another. Until then...patience.

GA

It was in the fast track meeting minutes thing you posted. Basically said no-go... I kinda figured as much. I get not allowing it as I do see it as a competitive advantage. I was just hoping with some type of penalty (weight) that it would be considered. I do get it, but I also think they will need to allow it at some point. I was hoping sooner rather than later so I didn't have to spend all the money re-plumbing in new lines and valves and such. I know we had another thread on the ABS thing a while back but I can't find it. Back then I even said it was an advantage but argued it was also safer.

I guess in the end I am not looking for an advantage, I just don't want to waist time and money on something that will be allowed within the next few years anyway. I beleive Its already allowed in every other class in SCCA where a car came stock with it, including SCCA PRO.

Stephen

From meeting minutes:

NOT APPROVED BY THE CRB

IMPROVED TOURING
1. #4329 (Charles O'Toole) change head gasket thickness rules
The rules are correct as written.
2. #4432 (David Russell) Allow alternate valve seat material
Not consistent with class philosophy.
ITR
1. #4635 (Stephen Blethen) Allowance of ABS in ITR
Not consistent with current class philosophy.
ITS
1. #4970 (Fred Brett) Reclassify to ITA 99-2000 Civic
This car is classified correctly.
ITA
1. #4226 (Chris Gentry) reclassify scirroco 16v
This car is classified correctly.
2. #5332 (Grant Boshoff) Increase weight

[lateapex911]

I know we had another thread on the ABS thing a while back but I can't find it. Back then I even said it was an advantage but argued it was also safer.

I guess in the end I am not looking for an advantage, I just don't want to waist time and money on something that will be allowed within the next few years anyway. I beleive Its already allowed in every other class in SCCA where a car came stock with it, including SCCA PRO.

Stephen

Don't play the safety card, you're smarter than that, Stephen...

Also, the other classes in SCCA, like Pro, that allow it, are MUCH more tightly managed classes with 5% of the total models listed. Apples to oysters, methinks.

[StephenB]

Don't play the safety card, you're smarter than that, Stephen...

Also, the other classes in SCCA, like Pro, that allow it, are MUCH more tightly managed classes with 5% of the total models listed. Apples to oysters, methinks.

Yup I am smarter than knowing that that it would persuade anyone into allowing it. However it is a fact that it is safer and I think it is a competitive advantage. I will never deny either of those statements.

I am playing the save time and money thing... If you notice they normally put "Not consistent with class philosophy." My notation says "Not consistent with current class philosophy." This says it all and it will change I guarentee it. Mark this day down and I promise that before I get rid of my current car it will be allowed (unless I ball the thing up... then the bet is off!)

Stephen

[Andy Bettencourt]

Can Jeff run us through the process on the lightened Hondas?

[JeffYoung]

Yes. Home eating dinner but I'll run through it when I get back to the office. This was based off of the various letters to Tom A. and Rob Foley sent (among others). If I recall correctly, the basic idea here was this car was tagged at like 50% or something, and with the dyno data we had we set it back at above default I think. But I will run the numbers and check.

[preparedcivic]

Yes. Home eating dinner but I'll run through it when I get back to the office. This was based off of the various letters to Tom A. and Rob Foley sent (among others). If I recall correctly, the basic idea here was this car was tagged at like 50% or something, and with the dyno data we had we set it back at above default I think. But I will run the numbers and check.

Here's what I believe is the math for how the 1G CRX Si/3G Civic Si's got adjusted to their current 1970lbs:

91hp * 1.30 * .98 * 17 = 1970.8

Tom Lamb's letter languished in the ITAC for years. I wrote mine over the winter in support of his and adding some new points of my own. It was well established the old weight was completely arbitrary when the car was moved down from A to B.

BTW, that previous weight of 2130lbs was a power multiplier of 40%+.

[Knestis]

Here's what I believe is the math for how the 1G CRX Si/3G Civic Si's got adjusted to their current 1970lbs:

91hp * 1.30 * .98 * 17 = 1970.8

Tom Lamb's letter languished in the ITAC for years. I wrote mine over the winter in support of his and adding some new points of my own. It was well established the old weight was completely arbitrary when the car was moved down from A to B.

BTW, that previous weight of 2130lbs was a power multiplier of 40%+.

Let's remind ourselves that during the Version 2 years - or at least, over my tenure on the committee - we did *not* have any formally authorized power to revisit and change existing IT car weight specs. What we DID do, was under the auspices of correcting "errors," because (again, undocumented deal) the Great Realignment got sold to the CRB with the understanding that there wouldn't be any more changes beyond those done under the GR.

Tom's request got hung because the CRB got a few recommendations (e.g., the Audi Coupe) that they didn't like. (Or to be more accurate, that a couple of key members who paid attention to IT didn't like.) They were FINE with us - nudge, nudge, wink, wink - "correcting errors" as long as they didn't perceive those changes as inconsistent with their anecdotal observations of on-track performance. When we pushed, they threw out the anchor, and simply stopped acting (yea or nay) to our recommendations for more than a few months.

Tom's request came ahead of the October 2009 edict that the CRB wasn't going to entertain any "corrections" that weren't in line with observed on-track performance. That was problematic because the entire point of the Process was to take flawed observations of limited cases of on-track performance OUT of consideration. I sent him an email explaining that we'd been shut down on that front.

K