June is up....
- Thread starter Fastfred92
- Start date
16" wheels on an ITA e36 318, Fred? Nice try. 
Interesting precedent of a sort set for grandfathering in sub-2200#-spec cages in cars that have been hit with a weight increase (newer Honda Si and del Sol).
There are three requests to which the response is that the cars are too fast for S - Supra, 300zx, and 328i - and mention that the CRB is looking into ITR.
K
Interesting precedent of a sort set for grandfathering in sub-2200#-spec cages in cars that have been hit with a weight increase (newer Honda Si and del Sol).
There are three requests to which the response is that the cars are too fast for S - Supra, 300zx, and 328i - and mention that the CRB is looking into ITR.
K
planet6racing
New member
Wow! Somebody doesn't like the ITAC...
Fastfred92
New member
16" wheels on an ITA e36 318, Fred? Nice try.
[/b]
Well, as a habitual requester, I am not afraid ! This one is legit Kirk, or as legit as the 16"'s on the 318ti or 325 for that matter... Most 94 and 95's with sport pkg had 16"s.... And needing a VTS for 95 is crazy as there is no difference in 94 - 95...
lateapex911
Super Moderator
LOL, AND I had to waste 15 minutes of my life reading about what a jerk I am!!! The summation you read was very condensed!
(What's interesting about some of the letters we get is how they are SO opposed and act surprised by the path of things. Like it all happened suddenly, or something. On top of that, sometimes they are from people who never responded to the issue that they are so upset about previously.)
lateapex911
Super Moderator
And, I have to give Cefalo the award for appearing in more categories with more complaints than anyone else! That guy gets around!
I must have been sleeping during the part where the notes on the ITS cars regarding the roll cages.....not sure what that is all about......
I must have been sleeping during the part where the notes on the ITS cars regarding the roll cages.....not sure what that is all about......
Bill Miller
New member
"The CRB is developing a proposal for new classes"
Stan, can you comment?
Interesting that the Bimmer and the ZX are 'under consideration' but the Supra is not. If you read between the lines, sounds like an upper bound on ITR has been set.
Can you say "sold out"?
Stan, can you comment?
Interesting that the Bimmer and the ZX are 'under consideration' but the Supra is not. If you read between the lines, sounds like an upper bound on ITR has been set.
Can you say "sold out"?
Bill Miller
New member
I don't know Jeff. That made specific reference on the Bimmer and the ZX that they're under consideration, but said nothing else about the Supra other than it exceeded the parameters of ITS. My read may not be the right one, but it does make you wonder.
Nope, no black helicopters. All the cars on the published ITR list are still on the list. Several deadlines conspired to prevent any formula or sports racer inputs from making Fastrack, plus some typos not being detected, but if the ITR class is approved the Supra will be there.
It's just that none of those cars are being considered for ITS.
It's just that none of those cars are being considered for ITS.
Jake, for someone that may not frequent this board, the activities and changes within IT of the last two years HAVE been very sudden. If you had relied solely on the monthly SportsCar and Fastrack for your news and updates, I'm sure it's all "Whoa! WTF???" - GA
It's interesting how the rules makers determine that at a specific weight, a car needs to have a roll cage of greater/stronger dimensions in the interest of safety. Yet, when they realize that they stepped in crap when they slapped weight on a car that made it too heavy for its current roll cage, they feel that the lighter cage is okay. Is it fair to say that they will forego safety in the interest of covering their backsides, or is it more accurate to say that what's safe for some isn't required for others? <_<
Bill Miller
New member
What's even more interesting, is that it's only ok for cars registered prior to 5/1/06. If you're building a new instance of one of these cars, you need a heavier cage, due to the weight/tubing size requirements, under the auspices (sp?) of safety, but if the car was registered prior to 5/1/06, it's going to be just as safe w/ the under-sized cage?
This smacks of the Prod 'Gold Seal' cages of several years ago. For those of you that don't know, in a nut shell, older cage designs were grandfathered in. Look at what's going on now w/ Prod cages, and you'll see a whole bunch of people up in arms about it.
I find it somewhat amazing that we have to dump belts after two years, and can't use non-SFI certified H&N devices, but it's ok to let cars run w/ under-sized cages. I just don't get that one. I sure hope no one ever gets hurt in one of these cars w/ an under-sized cage. IMHO, the Club has opened themselves up to a huge liability w/ this one.
Actually, this is not a precedent, since "grandfathering" has happened numerous times before.
FWIW, because racing is inherently dangerous, SCCA makes no claim that any particular design or specification is "safe" or "safer". We set standards and require cars coming into the Club to meet them. Where cars teeter on the edge of a standard and then a spec-line change tips them to the other side, the Club sometimes gives the competitors the option to stay with the prior standard in leiu of rendering their cars noncompliant and hence parked until meeting the new standard. That said, nothing prevents owners upgrading to the new standard, and in fact they are encouraged to do so. With that said, new cars coming in are required to meet the new standard...not because it is "safer", but because it is the current standard.
Building on that thought, let me pose a rhetorical question. For those who feel the Club sacrifices safety in the name of expediency, do you only comply with safety equipment requirements because you are forced to? In a perfect world everyone would optimise the safety of their car and equipment on their own initiative, but the reality is that everyone does not. Hence we have standards. The SFI standard may not be optimal -- I make no presentation that it is, but it is the standard we use for some equipment.
Regards,
When i said "interesting," I meant it in academic terms, rather than with any kind of "stepped in crap" connotation attached.
Frankly, the cage standards are pretty arbitrary and aren't based on any clinical engineering data, and - "big tubing" or "little tubing" - the structures that get built are probably well beyond any reasonable margin of safety for anticipated problems. Heck - fabrication issues should probably be a bigger concern in the real world.
I'm interested in this issue because it's been suggested that the Golf III should in fact be heavier than it's currently spec'd, based on The Process, and that the only thing that keeps its minimum weight from being increased is the cage tubing rule. Please don't let that be the case, given this precedent (reminder?), if it's truly s'posed to be heavier.
I can argue this without losing any sleep because there are other moves that would arguably be good for the category but are theoretically "impossible" because of the cage issue (e.g., RX7 and 1.6 16v Toyotas to ITB?). Now, it needs to be done in a thoughtful manner, as opposed to "Ooops - screwed up so we'd better start grandfathering..." but let's think about what's good for the whole deal.
K
Frankly, the cage standards are pretty arbitrary and aren't based on any clinical engineering data, and - "big tubing" or "little tubing" - the structures that get built are probably well beyond any reasonable margin of safety for anticipated problems. Heck - fabrication issues should probably be a bigger concern in the real world.
I'm interested in this issue because it's been suggested that the Golf III should in fact be heavier than it's currently spec'd, based on The Process, and that the only thing that keeps its minimum weight from being increased is the cage tubing rule. Please don't let that be the case, given this precedent (reminder?), if it's truly s'posed to be heavier.
I can argue this without losing any sleep because there are other moves that would arguably be good for the category but are theoretically "impossible" because of the cage issue (e.g., RX7 and 1.6 16v Toyotas to ITB?). Now, it needs to be done in a thoughtful manner, as opposed to "Ooops - screwed up so we'd better start grandfathering..." but let's think about what's good for the whole deal.
K
Bill Miller
New member
What Kirk has brought up, was pretty much where I was comming from. Discussions about moving a few cars down, and adding weight to them, especially if they were already 'on the bubble'. always had the issue about tubing size for the cage come up. Based on the recent FasTrack, sounds like it's a non-issue, and should not hinder having any of those cars moved down w/ some weight added.
Stan,
With all due respect, you sound like a veteran politician w/ that line.
Interesting word, "probably"...particularly when it comes to safety. "The cars will 'probably' slow down when they see the accident, so we 'probably' don't need a waving yellow".
It just seems that no one thought about the weight/roll cage structure thing, until someone brought it up on a thread concerning the additional weight of the Del Sol.
Sorry if the "stepped in crap" offends, it comes from my "raised in the country" roots. I cleaned it up substantially, but it sometimes fits the situation.
orlando_wrx
New member
Sounds like MR2 to ITB re-cage arguements are no longer valid and 1.8 ITA miatas could get weight without having to recage now? Wow, what a heap they've "stepped in"
note: my cage is built with the thicker walls...just in case...