So where's the March FasTrack?
- Thread starter Bill Miller
- Start date
Tristan Smith
New member
Needless to say I am thrilled the spherical bearing bushing issues was resolved, and in a favorable way as far as I am concerned. I was truly surprized that tack welding them in was approved. But at least the over four thousand bucks worth of suspension components I have (remember there are four links on each side in the back of 240sx, and the TC rods in the front, plus spares of everything) would have been rendered useless.
Kirk, even though I may have appeared to have opposed your VIN idea when you first proposed it, I think that it would have been a cost-saver for racers in the long run. Perhaps this rule can be revisisted down the road.
In regards to the passenger side driver restraint system recommendation, do we now need to request a change in the rules to allow us to cut holes in the dash to access the dash bar as a means of securing the front portion of the restraining net? Since many dash bars are now behind the dash I think we would need allowances to get to it.
Kirk, even though I may have appeared to have opposed your VIN idea when you first proposed it, I think that it would have been a cost-saver for racers in the long run. Perhaps this rule can be revisisted down the road.
In regards to the passenger side driver restraint system recommendation, do we now need to request a change in the rules to allow us to cut holes in the dash to access the dash bar as a means of securing the front portion of the restraining net? Since many dash bars are now behind the dash I think we would need allowances to get to it.
gran racing
Super Moderator
That was written from a ITB perspective. Sorry Kirk, but the weight the Golf has is a mistake and should have been corrected during this process. I also wrote a request for the Jetta (was in ITA) to be re-classed to ITB at 2,450.
You’re correct Bill.
It is interesting that the '89 Accord Lxi was classed at 2590 lbs (which I do agree with). I’m really not trying to pick on the ITAC (they’ve done a hell of a job) but it just doesn’t make sense to me. How does that happen yet the Golf can be justified at being 140 lbs less? I also do understand the Golf was classed by the old board.
Again, I’m talking from an ITB perspective but this is what I am most familiar with…the '87 Prelude si vs. the Golf (and now Jetta). The Golf has more HP, torque, larger brakes yet weighs 100 lbs less than the Prelude? And no, I do not think the Prelude’s weight should go down. From a Prelude owner’s perspective I would love it, but its not right for the class.
100 lbs is not a trivial weight difference, so it doesn’t fall into the “its close enough so lets leave it alone” envelope. From an impartial perspective (Kirk, put your general ITB hat on), how is it that the Golf and Jetta are at that weight?
<Golf cap off>
I confess that I don't know enough about all of the detail specs involved to really know how the various B weights should or shouldn't be at this point.
I do support - and have been vocal for years about - the idea of a gen-u-ine formula being used to set spec weights. I understand that the current ITAC process is about 80% there (my estimate), with subjective, microlevel "adders" being applied after the basic math gets done. I also firmly believe that the contribution of 100# of weight to the overall competitiveness of a model of car is pretty damned small, spread out over the entire nation and relative to ALL of the other contributing factors - even if, simply slapping 100# on any given car, on any given day, might in fact slow it down measurably.
I am ABSOLUTELY of the opinion that my lack of skill makes more difference between me and the front-running guys at the ARRC, for example, than would the weight in question. I say that not just out of self-loathing but as a reminder that we had better not go into these conversations with preconcieved notions about what is fast and what is not, based on who finished where.
Heck - a full tank of fuel in the Golf weighs about 85% of the amount being discussed here, and last year I was measurable FASTER with a full tank, on back-to-back laps during the VIR 3.5 hour enduro. Note here that we were damned near right at 2450 last year, with the light wheels. It's a huge challenge looming, to get anywhere near 2350 with the new build, and frankly is not at all likely to happen.
At the end of the day, I don't much care about where my particular weight gets set, as long as it's based on the physical attributes of the CAR and not on someone's success with it.
<Golf cap back on>
K
I confess that I don't know enough about all of the detail specs involved to really know how the various B weights should or shouldn't be at this point.
I do support - and have been vocal for years about - the idea of a gen-u-ine formula being used to set spec weights. I understand that the current ITAC process is about 80% there (my estimate), with subjective, microlevel "adders" being applied after the basic math gets done. I also firmly believe that the contribution of 100# of weight to the overall competitiveness of a model of car is pretty damned small, spread out over the entire nation and relative to ALL of the other contributing factors - even if, simply slapping 100# on any given car, on any given day, might in fact slow it down measurably.
I am ABSOLUTELY of the opinion that my lack of skill makes more difference between me and the front-running guys at the ARRC, for example, than would the weight in question. I say that not just out of self-loathing but as a reminder that we had better not go into these conversations with preconcieved notions about what is fast and what is not, based on who finished where.
Heck - a full tank of fuel in the Golf weighs about 85% of the amount being discussed here, and last year I was measurable FASTER with a full tank, on back-to-back laps during the VIR 3.5 hour enduro. Note here that we were damned near right at 2450 last year, with the light wheels. It's a huge challenge looming, to get anywhere near 2350 with the new build, and frankly is not at all likely to happen.
At the end of the day, I don't much care about where my particular weight gets set, as long as it's based on the physical attributes of the CAR and not on someone's success with it.
<Golf cap back on>
K
Racerboy03
New member
In regard to the new Roll-bar padding rule: I have a seat with head restraints (Sparco Circuit), where the head will hit the head restraints on the seat before coming near any bars. Does this mean I still have to use the SFI padding? I have regular padding on that part of the cage right now.
Racerlinn
New member
Hmmmmm...I think it's going to come down to your inspector. It says: "Forward braces and portions of the main hoop subject to contact by the driver's helmet (as seated normally and restrained by seatbelt/shoulder harness)".
Of course, then there is the scenario where someone at the track raises a stink about it. I'm going to be keeping this one handy as a reference since I have a LOT of "old style" padding on not only the other bars on the drivers side but on the passenger side as well. I still autocross the car with passengers in the stock passenger seat and I remove the passenger seat for racing, but I don't remove the extra padding.
As a 240sx owner with spherical bearings I have to say I'm happy with the clarification. Whether or not you agree with it, at least it's clarified. That seemed to be a lot of people's beef in the SB thread.
As far as H&N restraints. I will continue to wear my Issac no matter what the rules say. I evaluated the Hans, but it will not work for me because it requires a couple inches of space between the helmet and the seat, which I do not have in my seating position. I am 6'5" and there just ain't no space left. I will be adding my letter to everyone else's regarding this issue. If the rule does get passed and I am asked to remove my Issac on grid then I will politely leave grid and then politely file a class-action lawsuit against SCCA. This is one of those things that just leaves me speechless. SCCA would rather have you wear no H&N restraint than one that is proven to work, but doesn't meet some contrived "spec". Amazing.
David
As far as H&N restraints. I will continue to wear my Issac no matter what the rules say. I evaluated the Hans, but it will not work for me because it requires a couple inches of space between the helmet and the seat, which I do not have in my seating position. I am 6'5" and there just ain't no space left. I will be adding my letter to everyone else's regarding this issue. If the rule does get passed and I am asked to remove my Issac on grid then I will politely leave grid and then politely file a class-action lawsuit against SCCA. This is one of those things that just leaves me speechless. SCCA would rather have you wear no H&N restraint than one that is proven to work, but doesn't meet some contrived "spec". Amazing.
David
Bill Miller
New member
Dave,
The Golf III was classed by a prior ITAC, but I do believe that it was moved from ITA to ITB under the current ITAC's watch. Oddly enough, it was one of the few cars that I have ever seen put out for member input re: reclassification.
While I think optional equipment can optionally recommend the standard and cover SCCA just as well. They are in an unfortunate position with the standard's existence - albeit they passively let it develop as it did.
I think it would be more appropriate to persue SFI and get a restraining order on the standard until such time that they can show it was developed independently of product manufacturers.
I think it would be more appropriate to persue SFI and get a restraining order on the standard until such time that they can show it was developed independently of product manufacturers.
gran racing
Super Moderator
That is correct - that's why I sent a letter in during the current review process. I also included that it was completed under the old post to explain the possible difference in weight classifications, thus thinking it may be adjusted due to its inconsistency with other ITB cars and recent decisions.
So why is a change being made to the ITA Integra and many other cars? Hey, it’s just one car why not just let it slide.
Kirk, careful…sounds like you are talking about driver abilities and results in your comments. Wheither you can get your car down to min. weight is irrelivant. I know you agree that cars need to be reviewed as classed not by on-track performance.
<prelude cap on>
I’m coming from ITA land where I had absolutely not shot at being competitive regardless of how well I drove. Believe me, I’m still psyched that the Prelude is in a that gives me an opportunity to succeed. If I personally need to work that much harder to beat cars that may have an advantage, than so be it. It certainly beats my former world!!!
Gotta run - have a hot bumper fixin' date tonight.
***2. IT - Questioning why the side protection rules are different in GT and Production (Dewhurst). The IT roll cages are based on the rules of Showroom Stock and, to some extent, Touring. The door bars allowed in IT are compliant in both Production and GT.***
"The door bars allowed in IT are compliant in both Production and GT." This statement my friends is a bunch of crap.
The SS/IT & Touring roll cage side protection rule is: Two (2) side tubes connecting the front and rear hoops across both door openings are mandatory. An example for SS/IT & Touring side protection could be that the mandatory upper tube is at a diagonal & the lower mandatory tube is horizontal.
The Production & GT side protection rule is: The minimum side protection shall consist of a horizontal side tube connecting the front and rear hoops across both the door openings. Additionally there shall also be either a diagonal tube from the front hoop to the rear hoop bisecting the door opening BELOW the horizontal side tube, or not less than two (2) horizontal side tubes.
The bunch of crap forwarded in the Fastrack is that per the rules the side protection which is legal for SS/IT & Touring as I described is compliant for Production & or GT race cars is NOT A FACT. THE TWO RULES ARE ABSOLUTLY DIFFERENT AS THEY ARE WRITTEN.
Any ITAC folks care to set me straight with the above rules IF I am not correct ?
I would write a letter but what's the value when the rule making people can't read their own rules.
Just as another example crap response to a rule of the answers given in Fastrack & updated rules which are ongoing, the main hoop diagonal for Production is no longer required to be WITHIN the main hoop. This keep people happy crap versus safety needs to go.
While I'm on a roll (notice I didn't say rant) there is nothing new about the roll cage padding. In years past SIF 45.1 roll cage pad was/is required & it says nothing about a lable or marking required. I understand I would need to have proof that the pad is SFI 45.1 OR FIA 8857-2001.
With the response that bushing material is Spherical bearings the only thing I have to offer is that the ITAC/CRB/BoD has a short memory & has forgotten why Production cars cost is totally out of control & also why they the CRB/BoD initiated LP/Restricted Suspension Production cars.
Still rolling (NAW, THIS IS RANT), the CRB/BoD is going to play follow the other racing groups (note I didn't say follow the leader) with the helmet restraint system. They also came along following other racing groups with the recomended right side safety net. You ask why the right side safety net is recomended, the answer is simple, the HANS will not reduce laterial loads of the helmet. A secondary devise is required.
This rolling rant is provided by David who bought a new car to build/replace his totaled ITA/7 Rx-7 which is stuffed in one side of the garage while a Spec Miata is being built in the other side of the garage.
"The door bars allowed in IT are compliant in both Production and GT." This statement my friends is a bunch of crap.
The SS/IT & Touring roll cage side protection rule is: Two (2) side tubes connecting the front and rear hoops across both door openings are mandatory. An example for SS/IT & Touring side protection could be that the mandatory upper tube is at a diagonal & the lower mandatory tube is horizontal.
The Production & GT side protection rule is: The minimum side protection shall consist of a horizontal side tube connecting the front and rear hoops across both the door openings. Additionally there shall also be either a diagonal tube from the front hoop to the rear hoop bisecting the door opening BELOW the horizontal side tube, or not less than two (2) horizontal side tubes.
The bunch of crap forwarded in the Fastrack is that per the rules the side protection which is legal for SS/IT & Touring as I described is compliant for Production & or GT race cars is NOT A FACT. THE TWO RULES ARE ABSOLUTLY DIFFERENT AS THEY ARE WRITTEN.
Any ITAC folks care to set me straight with the above rules IF I am not correct ?
I would write a letter but what's the value when the rule making people can't read their own rules.
Just as another example crap response to a rule of the answers given in Fastrack & updated rules which are ongoing, the main hoop diagonal for Production is no longer required to be WITHIN the main hoop. This keep people happy crap versus safety needs to go.
While I'm on a roll (notice I didn't say rant) there is nothing new about the roll cage padding. In years past SIF 45.1 roll cage pad was/is required & it says nothing about a lable or marking required. I understand I would need to have proof that the pad is SFI 45.1 OR FIA 8857-2001.
With the response that bushing material is Spherical bearings the only thing I have to offer is that the ITAC/CRB/BoD has a short memory & has forgotten why Production cars cost is totally out of control & also why they the CRB/BoD initiated LP/Restricted Suspension Production cars.
Still rolling (NAW, THIS IS RANT), the CRB/BoD is going to play follow the other racing groups (note I didn't say follow the leader) with the helmet restraint system. They also came along following other racing groups with the recomended right side safety net. You ask why the right side safety net is recomended, the answer is simple, the HANS will not reduce laterial loads of the helmet. A secondary devise is required.
This rolling rant is provided by David who bought a new car to build/replace his totaled ITA/7 Rx-7 which is stuffed in one side of the garage while a Spec Miata is being built in the other side of the garage.
I've stayed out of this SFI H&N thing only because I don't want to influence the direction of the discussion. Besides, my personal--and the company's--position is well known here so let's not .
It is very rewarding to see the level of enthusiasm among the Isaac fans, and we thank you all for your
support. While we may be tempted to storm the castle with pitchforks, I would recommend against any rash action for two reasons. First, this request of the BoD by the CRB comes within days of the first meeting of a reconstituted Safety Committee at this years annual meeting--that's right, the first meeting. The BoD will rely on this committee's work, and 2007 strikes me as an aggressive schedule for a complete review of the entire safety subject.
Secondly, and more important long term, there has been a tremendous amount of activity/enlightenment within the amateur racing community in just the past four months, including recent lab testing as well as on-track injuries, and none of it is favorable to the SFI standard. While sanctioning bodies want to "do something" and point to SFI as the only visible option (headrestraint.org being an alternate), the attraction is in the standardized test, not the SFI sticker.
In other words, the sanctioning bodies aren't as foolish as they may appear, and a lot of chess is being played in the background.
In the meantime, we would suggest those writing the SCCA, and others, to request wording to the effect of "This Manufacturer Certifies That This Product Meets The Minimum Performance Requirements of SFI Specification 38.1" This gives the body cover by requesting a minimum performance, gets the egress issue out of the equation (where it belongs), and expands the product choice to the Isaac, the Isaac Link, and probably others.
.It is very rewarding to see the level of enthusiasm among the Isaac fans, and we thank you all for your
support. While we may be tempted to storm the castle with pitchforks, I would recommend against any rash action for two reasons. First, this request of the BoD by the CRB comes within days of the first meeting of a reconstituted Safety Committee at this years annual meeting--that's right, the first meeting. The BoD will rely on this committee's work, and 2007 strikes me as an aggressive schedule for a complete review of the entire safety subject.
Secondly, and more important long term, there has been a tremendous amount of activity/enlightenment within the amateur racing community in just the past four months, including recent lab testing as well as on-track injuries, and none of it is favorable to the SFI standard. While sanctioning bodies want to "do something" and point to SFI as the only visible option (headrestraint.org being an alternate), the attraction is in the standardized test, not the SFI sticker.
In other words, the sanctioning bodies aren't as foolish as they may appear, and a lot of chess is being played in the background.
In the meantime, we would suggest those writing the SCCA, and others, to request wording to the effect of "This Manufacturer Certifies That This Product Meets The Minimum Performance Requirements of SFI Specification 38.1" This gives the body cover by requesting a minimum performance, gets the egress issue out of the equation (where it belongs), and expands the product choice to the Isaac, the Isaac Link, and probably others.
shwah
New member
I can't bring to words how bummed I am about the HN restraint news.
As a new father I spent the last year improving every safety system on my car - custom welded cage, firebottle fire system, new belts, new helmet, balaklava, better seat mount, ISAAC restraint. Now the one item that I was most sure that I had researched and selected the best performing option, that has a high likelyhood of saving my life in a situation where no effort by anyone outside my car could do so ... has been outlawed.
It just makes me want to spew profanity.
Chris
As a new father I spent the last year improving every safety system on my car - custom welded cage, firebottle fire system, new belts, new helmet, balaklava, better seat mount, ISAAC restraint. Now the one item that I was most sure that I had researched and selected the best performing option, that has a high likelyhood of saving my life in a situation where no effort by anyone outside my car could do so ... has been outlawed.
It just makes me want to spew profanity.
Chris
erlrich
Super Moderator
Sure, now you pipe in
I won't print my entire letter (already sent) to the CRB, but I think this part pretty much follows your train of thought:
"I believe a much preferable, and equally protective, stance on the part of the SCCA would be to "highly recommend" the use of a head and neck restraint, as well as to "highly recommend" that the restraint conform to the performance requirements set forth by SFI Spec 38.1."
Gregg - please keep us up to date, and let us know if there are any other ears we should be bending.
Oh, and Chris - don't get too bummed out yet, I think this fight is a long way from over.
seckerich
New member
Not that we would run them anyway--but the 16" wheels were delivered on the cars to the dealership and in qty's greater than most items approved on other models. The GTU and GTUs both could come with a 16. 325is sure had no problem getting 15 or 16??? If it was an available dealer delivered option, and not installed by the dealer--it is legal.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]
Dave Zaslow
New member
Dave,
Will you replace my 1 1/2" cage tubes with 1 3/4"?
Will you take apart the car and put it back together again?
Dave Zaslow
Will you replace my 1 1/2" cage tubes with 1 3/4"?
Will you take apart the car and put it back together again?
Dave Zaslow