IT should really think about welcoming Older SM's....... Without a new class..

[seckerich]

The depowered racks should have been done in IT a long time ago. For the ITAC to even think they consider that in classing is a joke. Nowhere in the process is parasitic drag of accessories considered. And this is from someone with a lifetime stash of non powered racks.

People with this hatred of Miata and the classes they can run need to get a little perspective. As a race chairman the numbers do matter. True what Kirk says, most of these drivers would just be back in the IT car they left if SM never happened. It is also very true that Mazda has pushed many other manufacturers to step up and offer contingency because of their support program. Those double dipping entries you make fun of help keep the numbers up and your entry fee down. I love it when OPM, etc rent the SM to another driver for ITA/ITS, it pays the bills. Now if you really believe that the 1.8 diff beat you you have some soul searching to do.

All past discussion aside, it sets a precedent to allow it and the ITAC has resisted that for good reason. That said never seen a driver protested because of it.

[Andy Bettencourt]

All past discussion aside, it sets a precedent to allow it and the ITAC has resisted that for good reason. That said never seen a driver protested because of it.

Agree. This can be dealt with on a Regional level. Specifically allow them in your regs and it's done. The issue is that there is no guarantee that he SMAC won't continue to tweak the rules to make those cars 'faster' to keep up with the 99's. Basing a rule on a spec level of another class that you can't control is not smart from the 10,000 ft level. Deal with it locally until it doesn't work, then fix.

[gran racing]

Many regions now also have SM2 to deal with exactly what you're talking about. It's quite popular in the N.E. The solution is already there.

I actually agree with Dan. Don't change IT rules to accommodate the car. Change the car to be legal with the class YOU CHOOSE to race with. When it becomes time that the car you're running isn't where you'd like to be at, sell it and buy something else. Yes, maybe hard to do emotionally and potentially financially. I just went through that recently after selling my ITB car and bought a guess what... LOL

[Chip42]

what Andy said - the allowances in SM which are beyond IT are offset by the allowances in IT that are not in SM. a fully complaint SM car is not compliant with IT but it's also not better than a fully built IT car, even one without more than slight intorturation of the roffe corollary. to include that in IT certainly wouldn't upset the balance of the class - but you never know what allowances might be made in the future that COULD. so it's a no go. as has been pointed out, there's plenty of other options with and without changes to the cars.

re depowered racks - SAE net HP includes accessories, SAE certified HP does likewise. so everything from the early 70's on that ONLY came with PS, yes, it is included in the process.
does that mean we should or shouldn't allow them? you've all seen the votes out of the committee and CRB in the past. it hasn't been allowed, we dont' see a NEED to allow it, and it COULD have some effect on parity. easy to do, convenient, etc.. are good arguments. they are not the only arguemnts considered. FWIW, I'm in the camp to allow depowering racks on cars whos specline included both PS and manual steering - but it's confusing and I understand why this position was not adopted.

[seckerich]

re depowered racks - SAE net HP includes accessories, SAE certified HP does likewise. so everything from the early 70's on that ONLY came with PS, yes, it is included in the process.
does that mean we should or shouldn't allow them? you've all seen the votes out of the committee and CRB in the past. it hasn't been allowed, we dont' see a NEED to allow it, and it COULD have some effect on parity. easy to do, convenient, etc.. are good arguments. they are not the only arguemnts considered. FWIW, I'm in the camp to allow depowering racks on cars whos specline included both PS and manual steering - but it's confusing and I understand why this position was not adopted.

If this is true then you have already given the power steering equiped cars an advantage. The tricks that can be used to negate the PS drag free up this lost HP and are not factored in the process. See how this is all just noise in the overall picture. So who do we need to pressure on the CRB to get this done??

[Chip42]

...and there are cases of cars with and without PSon different speclines due to trim or body type (think civic) with the same publsihed hp ratings, the ability to underdrive a parasitic system that is an effective gain over the cars without it, etc... no argument, and it's not the CRB. 'nuff said. you know where the letter form is.

FWIW NOTHING matches the process anyhow. E.G. all the popular ITS stuff is 5% or more above expected power, big motor cars like Jeff's TR8 and the mustangs are well above process weight and power (by how much I do not know, but they do allow that they are well over both). we're just lucky everythign has found a good relative balance due to all the hard work by the competitors, and a fair bit of luck on the classing of cars that "go well together". it's not because of the process. I like the concept, but in execution it's not getting the job done. in the end, we could have just clumped the cars togetehr, pooma'ed some weights, made a few adjustments in time and arrived at the same place. I'm not advocating change, at least SOEMTHIGN objective and repeatable is at play, but it's not the roseta stone to car classing magic as has been touted in the past. it's just a symple math formula that puts out a number that is just one of many variables at play.