May fastrack is up

Allow me to start with my discontent...

untitled.jpg
​


ARE YOU JOKING?! :rolleyes:

Quick! Run for your carburated Datsun! There's all sorts of scary newfangled technology out there these days!

images.jpg




Allow me to reiterate this new nonsensical ruling for you all.

If you intend to race a car that came from the factory with any sort of advanced technology in Improved Touring, please be ready get screwed over because the consensus of the ITAC and CRB is to run and hide from all that is new and/or different.

I am now left with two options for my ITR Honda S2000.

1) run stock remote reservoir rear dampers that are utilized from the factory due to space constraints

or

2) run aftermarket non-remote reservoir dampers that are complete junk, as they can not be of the remote reservoir design that is clearly required due to space constraints

great logic there, guys. This really makes it fun and easy to be involved in the SCCA. :)
 
Last edited:
Damn, that's awkward. That's like packin' on 40 pounds of words into a 2-pound problem...

How about we just put in an exception on the Honda S2000 spec line, stating "OEM remote reservoir rear shocks are allowed"...?
 
I guess I don't read it that way. To me it says RR's are bueno if the car came with them from the manufacturer (stock). If, however, you want to change them from the stock units to something else, then RR's no bueno, and normal IT rules apply. How else could it be implemented?

Si??

R
 
The ITAc decided that it didn't want to open the door to RRs at this time. But, it also knows that cars that come with RRs might not be limited to one car. It decided to make a categorical ruling, rather than a line item exception that would need repeating. One thing you can say, is that the ITAc is trying it's best to keep line items exceptions to a minimum.

I am sure some will like the ruling, some won't care, and some will hate it.

And if the ruling were different, we'd have the same acceptance/hate, except the roles would be reversed, LOL>
 
lateapex911 said:
It decided to make a categorical ruling, rather than a line item exception that would need repeating.
Click to expand...
Repeated for...what other car? So you're planning on re-wording the rules for Miata hard tops, BMW fuel cells, and the Petty bar rules for small coupes with only two seats (a la Honda del Sol)? After all, those have more than one instance.

It's awkward. It's hard to read. It's wordy. And you know what happens with hard-to-read wordy rules...but, hey, it's your bed...
 
Doc Bro said:
I guess I don't read it that way. To me it says RR's are bueno if the car came with them from the manufacturer (stock). If, however, you want to change them from the stock units to something else, then RR's no bueno, and normal IT rules apply. How else could it be implemented?

Si??

R
Click to expand...
This sounds like exactly what I suggested!:D I like it.
 
I agree with Greg, it does seem better to put information on the spec line for each car that can use RR's. As an inspector how am I to know which car can use them and which can't? If the Honda is the exception, put it on the spec line.
 
w0w ... I have been trying to drink the S.Club Koolaid and not rant about the dumb rules, but you guys just keep churning them out!!

Has the dumb threaded body shock and ECU rules of the past not been enough? Why do we need to paint people into these corners that only cubic dollars will get them out of. Just write the rule as "of non-remote reservoir type (unless fitted as stock)" and be done with it!!!

We already limit adjustment to 2, so you ware not going to sneak in Formula1 dampers.

Maybe someone will list all the remote reservoir type dampers that are on the market which would meet the 2 adjustability max rule of IT. I am sure there is nothing in there that will cause the sky to fall.
 
Have to agree with Zsolt. If fitted as stock, then the S2000 guys should be able to use any two adjustment damper, RR or otherwise. THis sheet be crazee man.
 
JeffYoung said:
Have to agree with Zsolt. If fitted as stock, then the S2000 guys should be able to use any two adjustment damper, RR or otherwise. THis sheet be crazee man.
Click to expand...

Some things to think about - not choosing sides:

The S2000 used RR in the rear only. Is your intention to allow only the rear aftermarket RR's or is it to allow the whole car RR's?

If you only allow the rear, people will write in for an allowable 'matched set'. If you allow the whole car, you have created an exception to the rule. Do you line item this car only?

Why not try and create a rule now (however seemingly cumbersome) that reflects current thinking but also covers any future models classed instead of making exceptions for each as they pop up?
 
There are some big guiding principles that the ITAC seems to try to fall back on, particularly when the doo-doo is looking like it might get deep and sticky.

One is that we're trying like hell to avoid make/model specific exceptions to the general rules. The current philosophy is that the good of the entire category benefits from bigger thinking, more so than it would from a patchwork of little decisions - even if each might seem "right" to particular people who own a particular car. The point at which something is good for one car, it should be good for the entire category, seems like. And if a line-item allowance for RR shocks were made for one model, there'd be a hew and cry about "competitive advantage" and it'd be Katie bar the door. Right?

Setting aside the issue of whether there IS an advantage for the moment (an open question, about which reasonable people seem to differ), how do we equitably tell the Integra guys they don't get the cool toys when the S2000 guys do? Perceptions matter, and an allowance for one car would, in the real world, translate quickly into a de facto rule change across the board.

The wording is a little funky because we tried to put it in terms of what the rule would ALLOW, rather than what it might PROHIBIT. That's another big-picture principle, as part of an effort to head off wacky interpretations and loopholes, and anticipate new technology coming along. It might be a new emphasis so we've got some things to learn but I hope the concept is at least appreciated.

It was also our understanding that there are perfectly reasonable non-RR aftermarket parts for the car in question. While Jeff's interpretation (ITA77, not Young) is spot on - keep the stock bits or replace them with non-RR units - he's only limited to the same "junk" that everyone else has to run.

I will tell you that, while the change to the shock rule passed on to the board was something approaching a consensus decision, there was nothing like 100% agreement about any aspect of it. Your ITAC represents the same broad range of perspectives as does any handful of IT drivers. I don't believe we've heard the last of this issue but be sure that the ITAC thought this was the best answer at this time.

If you are pro or con RR shocks for the entire category, hone your case presentations. I gotta feeling we'll be hearing them in the coming months. :)

K
 
Understand the ITACs thinking on this, but I am (hopefully politely suggesting) that "it" (as in the collective it, not any specific one of you) is missing something that is fundamental to IT racing:

If it is stock on the car, you can run it even if otherwise prohibited. Adjustable timing gears. Rear spoiler. Ram air. Etc.

For me, the S2000 came with stock RR rear shocks. So, S2000 guys should be able to replace the rears only with any RR shock.

Requests for "matched sets" should be denied like any other "special request."
 
JeffYoung said:
Understand the ITACs thinking on this, but I am (hopefully politely suggesting) that "it" (as in the collective it, not any specific one of you) is missing something that is fundamental to IT racing:

If it is stock on the car, you can run it even if otherwise prohibited. Adjustable timing gears. Rear spoiler. Ram air. Etc.
Click to expand...

We disagreed. We felt that if it was stock on the car, you can absolutely run THE STOCK PART. No argument there, and that's what the clarification says.

But that doesn't necessarily mean that you can replace the stock part with a similar, but higher-performing part, if the rules don't generally allow that sort of higher-performing part. You are suggesting such an allowance would be "fundamental to IT racing" but ... where does that thought come from?

To use one of your examples: Are you suggesting that a car that comes with a stock rear wing can use any rear wing? Surely not.
 
No, I'm not, because the difference is that dampers are free otherwise. Wings are not.

If the car comes with stock RR dampers, and dampers are free, very logical to me to allow any RR damper.
 
Bad example on my part, I was trying to force one of your examples.

This is what happens when we write rules that say what you cannot do. So let me use another example ...

The rules say that a front spoiler may not attach aft of the front of the wheel well. But, you can add a front spoiler. Let's suppose a car comes with a front spoiler that attaches one inch rearward of that point. Can that car use a front splitter that extends all the way under the car, creating a flat (or even sculpted) bottom?

BTW, I recognize that this is still a forced example. The point is, Jeff, that what you are saying is "fundamental" is a pretty unique situation.
 
Last edited:
To clarify, my personal issue with the rule as proposed above is NOT whether to allow RR shocks in the class. At all. My issue is that you're using a broad-brush 40 pounds of words to address an allowance on one specific issue.

With one specific car.

Which is what spec line exceptions are for.

It's that simple. Or, well, it can be...
 
Just ineligiblize that Honda--case closed.

There are not that many S2000(s) around and if you like Hondas, there are a lot of other IT classes to pick a Honda to dominate with.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top