So where's the March FasTrack?
- Thread starter Bill Miller
- Start date
Thanks
Andy Bettencourt
Super Moderator
This has been coming for a while.
http://www.pegasusautoracing.com/productde...s.asp?RecId=636
This stuff will knock you on your butt, it ain't soft!
AB
The "snow tire option" was not available in the US.
AB
Bill Miller
New member
Fair enough Andy, but I would think that a more appropriate response would have been "15 inch wheels not offered on US models"
Banzai240
New member
Actually, these wheels are considered "Dealer Installed Options", which are not allowed in IT... I think you could buy them, but they were "optional accessories" that you purchase from the dealer, and were NOT offered on the basic US Models of the car...
The response could have been more accurate, but it's the same difference... They weren't offered as standard equipment... the car came with 16x7s and that's what it needs to run...
I think we need a "picking the flies out of the ... " smilie...
Banzai240
New member
I'll try to answer this here... It's been awhile since we talked about this, so the details are sketchy, but if I'm recalling correctly, the information seemed to show that the gear ratios were definately not offered for the 1.7L, and since it's now in ITC, those ratios were corrected... I'm not sure, but I think the response is misleading... The 1.7 and 1.8 are now in seperate classes, so the gear ratios for the 1.7 are all that should have been changed... I'll have to look when the correction comes out...
SIRs may be a way of initial classification for Production... this is not the case for IT...
Or... maybe it "bodes well" for giving the ITAC time to research the issue and maybe rewrite the rule's wording to get the intent across...
NOT everything that isn't answered right away is because of a NEGATIVE response on the way... Doing things right takes time... (Do you want it fast or do you want it right???
)OOOH! We have a choice? Let's see...... (Do you want it fast or do you want it right???
[/b]
Does the VIN/shell rule decision reflect the ITAC's collective thinking on the subject? Assuming the issue came to that body for review. If it does, then "Oh, well." If it doesn't, I'm going to continue to lobby.
K
Banzai240
New member
Kirk,
Again, the discussion happened awhile ago, so I'll leave myself open to correction should the other ITAC members disagree with what I'm about to say, but If I'm recalling correctly, the discussion could be summarized as there being a general feeling that the potential for opening up the class for issues outweighed the few real benefits that removing this requirement would have... With the Update/Backdate rules, etc., it was just felt that there wasn't a need to remove this requirement, and that it prevented more than it hindered...
I think that's right... Andy, George, Bob, Chris, Jake... Feel free to correct me if I got that wrong...
Bill Miller
New member
I'll try to answer this here... It's been awhile since we talked about this, so the details are sketchy, but if I'm recalling correctly, the information seemed to show that the gear ratios were definately not offered for the 1.7L, and since it's now in ITC, those ratios were corrected... I'm not sure, but I think the response is misleading... The 1.7 and 1.8 are now in seperate classes, so the gear ratios for the 1.7 are all that should have been changed... I'll have to look when the correction comes out...
SIRs may be a way of initial classification for Production... this is not the case for IT...
Or... maybe it "bodes well" for giving the ITAC time to research the issue and maybe rewrite the rule's wording to get the intent across...
NOT everything that isn't answered right away is because of a NEGATIVE response on the way... Doing things right takes time... (Do you want it fast or do you want it right???
[/b]
Darin,
Thanks for taking the time to respond. Part of my initial request was to have the 1984 model year removed from the Scirocco II w/ the 1.7. That's the correction I was referring to. I can forward you the information again, if you need it. Quick summary is, I have hard evidence that early production run (1st month of production) 1984 Scirocco IIs came w/ a 1.8.
And I certainly understand the wheel issue. Funny though, that car came w/ 16's, and has to run them, but some cars that came w/ 16's are not allowed to run them.
Banzai240
New member
I think we still have the info on the VW... The issue was discussed at length and I'm pretty sure we exhausted all the info, so the correct decision should be in the books... Here was the recommendation sent to the CRB from our Con-Call notes dated October, 2005:
16s... I think the cars you might be referring to are cars like the 2nd Gen RX-7... the 16" wheel options were only available on special models, and not as a standard production run, as far as I know (cars like the GTU, etc... )... I think that's why they can't be used... Not part of the baseline...
Unless my research is wrong, I think it's the same deal with the big brakes, but we've already been down that road, so I'm not going to go there again...
lateapex911
Super Moderator
Ed, this is your best post that has crossed my screen.
I added bold and italics, and the word "such" to your quote as it really hits the nail on the head.
I would go further even than that, and that is to say that the whole standard setting process smells like a racket to me. SFI goes to Hubbard /Downing for "advice", then writes what Hubbard/Downing tells them to, which, magically lines up perfectly with their own device! Puullleeeeze. Were we all born yesterday?
I too dug around a bit and was given conflicting information regarding the legality of the Isaac. Conflicting because I see that it is on the list of devices to be excluded from legal use.
I am so sick of lawyers and judges mucking things up..... Any week now and common freaking sense will be against the rules.....
Yup, the guys who wrote THIS bit of @#%$# really whipped it out and tripped all over it.
Expect the price of rollcage padding to go up noticably, once it becomes clear that it needs SFI stickers. You pay for every one that you buy.
DAVE? Geez, guy. Are we that much of a threat?
And no elimination of the stupid VIN rule, even after I sent such a nice note to the Bored, telling them how much faith i have in the ITAC. This is why I'm not a politician.
K
[/b]
LOL Kirk.
I will admit that I was really on the fence on this one.
But, as you will see down the road, you are batting .500 lately, so all isn't lost.
It took me literally months to find it.
http://www.hmsmotorsport.com/docs/SFI_38.1...ecification.pdf
Though supposedly if you write them that you are a racer interested in the standard they will email it to you...
So have I redeemed myself for my views on spherical bushings?
You might find these quoted references interesting - http://www.jayski.com/pages/restraint.htm
From those sources you can put together the following:
1 - NASCAR wants a standard because drivers are pushing back on the limited options NASCAR was offering.
2 - NASCAR goes to SFI (don't think NASCAR acknowledges FIA as at all valid)
3 - SFI doesn't know a thing about H&N restraints
4 - SFI punts back to NASCAR saying sure write and we will make it the standard
5 - NASCAR has already been in bed with HANS for years as their experts and consultants on the topic are tied to HANS.
I bought the SFI padding made by BSR two years ago and it doesn't have any type of SFI label on it. It will be interesting seeing how the annual will go next year.
It's rock hard but it won't feel that way when your helmet hits it...which is not the same thing you can say about the pipe insulation most people seem to use: you won't feel the padding, only the tubing.
I've sent my e-mail to the CRB regarding the H&N. I wear a HANS but I'd rather see guys wearing the Isaac or Wright than nothing (and I think either is a better option than the Hutchens).
It's rock hard but it won't feel that way when your helmet hits it...which is not the same thing you can say about the pipe insulation most people seem to use: you won't feel the padding, only the tubing.
I've sent my e-mail to the CRB regarding the H&N. I wear a HANS but I'd rather see guys wearing the Isaac or Wright than nothing (and I think either is a better option than the Hutchens).
I've been beating the anti-SFI drum for a long time, and publicly for a while now at http://www.headrestraint.org but frankly, we haven't gained any traction with that effort - simply because a majority of drivers just follow along with the sanctioning body requirements because the don't think they have a choice.
I'm going to work now so I'm not going to get on a long tirade but SFI is part of a liability shell game, where safety equipment manufacturers, SFI, and he sanctioning bodies all point at each other when asked who will take responsibility if the worst happens.
There are a dozen other issues but that's the one at work here.
K
EDIT - you'll notice that the SFI document posted above is an outlaw PDF, not on SFI's site. They don't have much incentive to make it very easy for folks to know how the system works.
I'm going to work now so I'm not going to get on a long tirade but SFI is part of a liability shell game, where safety equipment manufacturers, SFI, and he sanctioning bodies all point at each other when asked who will take responsibility if the worst happens.
There are a dozen other issues but that's the one at work here.
K
EDIT - you'll notice that the SFI document posted above is an outlaw PDF, not on SFI's site. They don't have much incentive to make it very easy for folks to know how the system works.
Bill Miller
New member
I think we still have the info on the VW... The issue was discussed at length and I'm pretty sure we exhausted all the info, so the correct decision should be in the books... Here was the recommendation sent to the CRB from our Con-Call notes dated October, 2005:
16s... I think the cars you might be referring to are cars like the 2nd Gen RX-7... the 16" wheel options were only available on special models, and not as a standard production run, as far as I know (cars like the GTU, etc... )... I think that's why they can't be used... Not part of the baseline...
Unless my research is wrong, I think it's the same deal with the big brakes, but we've already been down that road, so I'm not going to go there again...
[/b]
Darin,
Actually, I was thinking of the New Beetle in ITC. And, I should have been clearer. I should have said that some cars could not run the OEM 16" wheels that came w/ the car. The NB came w/ 16's, but they were 16x6.5, which exceeds the 6" limit for ITB and ITC cars. I remember doing some research back when the NB was classified, and was not able to come up w/ any off-the-shelf 16x6 wheels. I thought there was some discussion at the time about allowing them to run 15's. Did anything ever come of that?
RSTPerformance
New member
Didn't someone once say that the more "safety rules" we have actually sets SCCA and others up for more liability???
Sorta like a Ski lift...
1) How was I able to fall off the chair with the safety bar down? I thought the safety bar was thier to protect me, but obviosly it is flawed...
2) Ah but in fact you never had the safety bar down thus we can not cover you...
3) But the bar was down on every trip, didn't any of your employees correctly do their job and instruct me that it must be down?
I can see it now;
1) you (SCCA) made me use this safety device. I thought the safety device was a rule as it will protect me, but obviosly it is flawed... and better yet, this "safer" device that I am more comfortable with I am not allowed to use.
2) Yes but you were using this "safer" device, thierfor you are not covered.
3) I have been using this device all year and no-one ever stoped me. Isn't it part of our weekend check (tech sticker), the grid marshals job, and the post race tech inspectors to make sure that I am using the correct device?
Raymond "I am glad that I am not part of the "legal" department" Blethen
Sorta like a Ski lift...
1) How was I able to fall off the chair with the safety bar down? I thought the safety bar was thier to protect me, but obviosly it is flawed...
2) Ah but in fact you never had the safety bar down thus we can not cover you...
3) But the bar was down on every trip, didn't any of your employees correctly do their job and instruct me that it must be down?
I can see it now;
1) you (SCCA) made me use this safety device. I thought the safety device was a rule as it will protect me, but obviosly it is flawed... and better yet, this "safer" device that I am more comfortable with I am not allowed to use.
2) Yes but you were using this "safer" device, thierfor you are not covered.
3) I have been using this device all year and no-one ever stoped me. Isn't it part of our weekend check (tech sticker), the grid marshals job, and the post race tech inspectors to make sure that I am using the correct device?
Raymond "I am glad that I am not part of the "legal" department" Blethen
There is no question that H&N restraint is valuable, it is just a shame that sanctioning bodies are falling back on a manufacturer marketing organization for the setting of standards. As members the sanctioning bodies have played far to passive a role in the acceptance of this steamrolled "standard". If the SCCA really wanted to address safety, rather than protect against liability they would take a much more active role on behalf of the very membership they want to protect in the standard setting process and interject to standard failings appropriately.