Cal Club Autocross Forums

Marshall and Gio are slackers: http://scca.com/documents/Fastrack/08/0 ... y-solo.pdf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Regions are reminded that the passenger rule (1.3.2.C) is not to be abused, and is intended to be used for instructional purposes.

daaaaamn, know a region in California this might be aimed at... haha.

Additional Impound inspection item proposals, possibly including displacement checks in Prepared, compression checks in
SP, and valve cover removal and differential inspections in ST, were reviewed by the SEB.

Sounds like a messy trip to impound this year.

The SAC is going to propose changes for 2010 in an upcoming Fastrack. The final proposal is not completed but most classes
will be affected by a designation change (class letters). A few classes will have significant proposals for the membership
to consider.
STAC and SMAC – Class renaming for better consistency

Looks like our vinyl cutting folks will have soem business in the future.

Replace the content of 15.2.F with the following:
“The driver and front passenger seats may be replaced, with the following restrictions: Seats must be securely mounted
per 3.3.3.B.2. The seating surface must be fully upholstered.
Any replacement seat must be a full back, bucket type automobile seat incorporating a functional headrest. Kart seats &
low back dune buggy seats and other similar types of seat are expressly prohibited. Cars may have no fewer than the standard
number of seats. The seat tracks are considered part of the seat and may be substituted. Alternate seat tracks may
serve no other purpose. The standard seat belts may be removed to facilitate the installation of alternate restraints complying
with safety requirements.

Problem solved.

Jason Isley BS RX8 wrote:Marshall and Gio are slackers: http://scca.com/documents/Fastrack/08/0 ... y-solo.pdf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

hey that's not fair, you're cheating.

Marshall Grice wrote:

Jason Isley BS RX8 wrote:Marshall and Gio are slackers: http://scca.com/documents/Fastrack/08/0 ... y-solo.pdf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

hey that's not fair, you're cheating.

No... If you look at the top you will see I was missing from the meeting, had to work, so this is the first "official" draft I have seen. Clearly if I had been there the proposed seat revision would exclude anyone in CSP, but I can fix that next month.

Additional Impound inspection item proposals, possibly including... valve cover removal and differential inspections in ST, were reviewed by the SEB.

This is not reasonable, at least for Subarus. I've had my valve cover off four times trying to fix an oil leak. Each time, it took me 3-4 hours working carefully and taking my time. The only way I got the valve cover gasket to seal decently was to use Hondabond HT (instead of some other Permatex stuff I tried), which I let sit for 24 hours to cure. There is still a tiny bit of oil leaking from somewhere on the gasket, but not enough for me to worry about and spend another few hours trying to fix.

To expect everyone to sit in impound for a few hours to remove and replace their valve covers, assuming everyone knows how to do this, and possibly end up with leaks is stupid.

Really shaking things up in stock.

Type-R to BS...It's old and rare, bury it alive.
MSP to GS....Hey Jeff and Nicole: Better late than never eh? Ready to go back to stock?

It seems like a lot of this reorg could have been avoided if the CooperS were classed in DS in the first place. ;)

Greg Peng wrote:

Additional Impound inspection item proposals, possibly including... valve cover removal and differential inspections in ST, were reviewed by the SEB.

This is not reasonable, at least for Subarus. I've had my valve cover off four times trying to fix an oil leak. Each time, it took me 3-4 hours working carefully and taking my time. The only way I got the valve cover gasket to seal decently was to use Hondabond HT (instead of some other Permatex stuff I tried), which I let sit for 24 hours to cure. There is still a tiny bit of oil leaking from somewhere on the gasket, but not enough for me to worry about and spend another few hours trying to fix.

To expect everyone to sit in impound for a few hours to remove and replace their valve covers, assuming everyone knows how to do this, and possibly end up with leaks is stupid.

I agree that's too much.
Also how do they expect to inspect diffs? on anything but RWD cars? Even then it is too much to ask. That's what the protest shed is for.

Sebastian Rios wrote:Really shaking things up in stock.

Type-R to GS...It's old and rare, bury it alive.
MSP to GS....Hey Jeff and Nicole: Better late than never eh? Ready to go back to stock?

It seems like a lot of this reorg could have been avoided if the CooperS were classed in DS in the first place. ;)

Uh, dude...it says Type-R to BS (B-Stock), not GS.

So when all of the "other" non-MINI GS cars get moved to HS, do all of the "other slow cars" get moved into the new IS, or are we all stuck with new car payments now?

Greg Peng wrote:
This is not reasonable, at least for Subarus. I've had my valve cover off four times trying to fix an oil leak. Each time, it took me 3-4 hours working carefully and taking my time. The only way I got the valve cover gasket to seal decently was to use Hondabond HT (instead of some other Permatex stuff I tried), which I let sit for 24 hours to cure. There is still a tiny bit of oil leaking from somewhere on the gasket, but not enough for me to worry about and spend another few hours trying to fix.

To expect everyone to sit in impound for a few hours to remove and replace their valve covers, assuming everyone knows how to do this, and possibly end up with leaks is stupid.

There has not been an intrusive inspection in any classes for a number of years. I remember years ago when I first went to natls they seriously got into some cars. One year they checked diffs on the F stock cars, ECUs in SS. I always thought it was cool that they took these steps to try and ensure that people at the biggest event of the year were playing nice. I was very disappointed as the years went by that the invasive inspections went away, instead replaced with horsestuff like weighing stock cars and checking camber.

I have been asking for more serious checks since I got on the SEB, nothing where you have to take your car home in a box, but come on we can do more than take a wheel off or weigh a car. I think this is great.

Keep in mind IF your class is selected to have a body cavity search, which Dr. Ekstrand has volunteered to do, it will not been done to everyone in the class. Typically only the leaders get this special treatment.

Greg I suggest you never take a car to the Runoffs... If you win it does go home in a box.

Sebastian Rios wrote: I agree that's too much.
Also how do they expect to inspect diffs? on anything but RWD cars? Even then it is too much to ask. That's what the protest shed is for.

So if you are sitting in the #1 spot after two days, hypothetically of course , you would not pull a front axle from your Honda?

Jason Isley BS RX8 wrote:Keep in mind IF your class is selected to have a body cavity search, which Dr. Ekstrand has volunteered to do, it will not been done to everyone in the class. Typically only the leaders get this special treatment.

Then obviously I have nothing to worry about.

Greg I suggest you never take a car to the Runoffs... If you win it does go home in a box.

I don't make enough money to be able to consider road racing.

Greg Peng wrote: Then obviously I have nothing to worry about.

Something else I learned over the years, because every year it says something like this is the Natls Sup Regs, the inspections sometimes never happen. ;) I wish there were enough people, and time, at natls to check the top cars in every class like they do at the Runoffs. That, and a reliable way to test boost on all those damn cheaters in ST, two trans in one year Seb. }:)

Jason Isley BS RX8 wrote:

Sebastian Rios wrote: I agree that's too much.
Also how do they expect to inspect diffs? on anything but RWD cars? Even then it is too much to ask. That's what the protest shed is for.

So if you are sitting in the #1 spot after two days, hypothetically of course , you would not pull a front axle from your Honda?

Of course I would if I'm sitting #1 but not when I'm in 20th

I like the history lesson, good to know there is precedent.
Doesn't an inspection of that magnitude make impound waaaaaay too long?

Sebastian Rios wrote:
Of course I would if I'm sitting #1 but not when I'm in 20th

I like the history lesson, good to know there is precedent.
Doesn't an inspection of that magnitude make impound waaaaaay too long?

I cant say for sure, because I have not seen it done in a long time, but I think for something big they would take your car to the tech shed like they do a protested car. Then you are not blocking grid for the next class, can take it apart out of the elements and snooping eyes can't see what you got.

I was thinking how great of a deal that was last year.... Pay $100 a day to rent a garage, or have someone protest me and get to keep my car in the tech shed for free.

You are already screwed no matter where you finish... All the rest of STS has to do is change the name on the papers now that you have the Luther Civic.

Jason Isley BS RX8 wrote: You are already screwed no matter where you finish... All the rest of STS has to do is change the name on the papers now that you have the Luther Civic.

I'm going to paint it, then they'll never know...

Man, you guys are lucky not to be old enough to remember when they did make the top cars do something. I remember going to the Chevy dealer in Salina to get rear and valve cover gaskets. Still have them as they didn't tear anything down that year.

Sebastian Rios wrote:

Jason Isley BS RX8 wrote: You are already screwed no matter where you finish... All the rest of STS has to do is change the name on the papers now that you have the Luther Civic.

I'm going to paint it, then they'll never know...

Paint? It won't be white anymore? Deal's off...


Alright, paint it any color you want. I'll always know it was the first of my racing white chicks that I did.

Aaron Goldsmith wrote:Regions are reminded that the passenger rule (1.3.2.C) is not to be abused, and is intended to be used for instructional purposes.

daaaaamn, know a region in California this might be aimed at... haha.

Additional Impound inspection item proposals, possibly including displacement checks in Prepared, compression checks in
SP, and valve cover removal and differential inspections in ST, were reviewed by the SEB.

Sounds like a messy trip to impound this year.

The SAC is going to propose changes for 2010 in an upcoming Fastrack. The final proposal is not completed but most classes
will be affected by a designation change (class letters). A few classes will have significant proposals for the membership
to consider.
STAC and SMAC – Class renaming for better consistency

Looks like our vinyl cutting folks will have soem business in the future.

Replace the content of 15.2.F with the following:
“The driver and front passenger seats may be replaced, with the following restrictions: Seats must be securely mounted
per 3.3.3.B.2. The seating surface must be fully upholstered.
Any replacement seat must be a full back, bucket type automobile seat incorporating a functional headrest. Kart seats &
low back dune buggy seats and other similar types of seat are expressly prohibited. Cars may have no fewer than the standard
number of seats. The seat tracks are considered part of the seat and may be substituted. Alternate seat tracks may
serve no other purpose. The standard seat belts may be removed to facilitate the installation of alternate restraints complying
with safety requirements.

Problem solved.

SP seat rule: No, it's not. The current rule doesn't require seat tracks and that requirement is BS with the likely source a certain STS Honda driver from the Lone Star state. Screw him. I want to mount my seats in a fixed manner and I don't want to deal with some section of the rule that leaves the interpretation of "seat rails" open to certain in-duh-viduals.

SAC, STAC, SMAC: don't care.

Compression checks in SP? And this will show what? Who's supplying the measurement gauge? How accurate will it be?

As for the other impound changes, both sound very difficult to achieve with either accuracy or within a reasonable time.

And finally, what other than our instructor runs is outside of the rule?

Greg Peng wrote:

Additional Impound inspection item proposals, possibly including... valve cover removal and differential inspections in ST, were reviewed by the SEB.

This is not reasonable, at least for Subarus. I've had my valve cover off four times trying to fix an oil leak. Each time, it took me 3-4 hours working carefully and taking my time. The only way I got the valve cover gasket to seal decently was to use Hondabond HT (instead of some other Permatex stuff I tried), which I let sit for 24 hours to cure. There is still a tiny bit of oil leaking from somewhere on the gasket, but not enough for me to worry about and spend another few hours trying to fix.

To expect everyone to sit in impound for a few hours to remove and replace their valve covers, assuming everyone knows how to do this, and possibly end up with leaks is stupid.

I agree. Having changed the plugs in my wife's Outback, I can tell you that accessing the valve covers is not easy. In most Subies, the battery and windshield washer reservoir have to be removed just to get to the plugs. Removing valve covers will be a HUGE PITA.

In drag racing, we had to tear down so often we'd replace engine bolts twice a year. Typical teardown was to present the inspectors table with one cylinder head (they'd tell you which one) and one piston rod assembly (they'd tell you which one). They also do things like cam checks, compression checks, displacement checks, etc. It was harsh.

Bob Beamesderfer wrote: SP seat rule: No, it's not. The current rule doesn't require seat tracks and that requirement is BS with the likely source a certain STS Honda driver from the Lone Star state. Screw him. I want to mount my seats in a fixed manner and I don't want to deal with some section of the rule that leaves the interpretation of "seat rails" open to certain in-duh-viduals.

SAC, STAC, SMAC: don't care.

Compression checks in SP? And this will show what? Who's supplying the measurement gauge? How accurate will it be?

As for the other impound changes, both sound very difficult to achieve with either accuracy or within a reasonable time.

I thought it said "may" be replaced, not must. And it does not say they must be adjustable. Most aftermarket seat rails sold by race seat manufacturers are fixed. Not sure I see your point or issue.

Who would be doing checks, I would guess Doug Gill or the car owner under his supervision. They would be using equipment supplied by SCCA Pro Racing, good enough for World Challenge, should be good enough for us. The pro guys have lots of cool tools.

Reasonable time... How fast can you work? I saw teams in impound at the Runoffs pull a motor in less than an hour. Since most of the work on a car is up to the owner, or crew, it is all about how fast you can get it done.

I think it was a football player that said "if you cant handle the congratulations don't score a point," this was right after being pummeled by his own teammates. If you cant handle impound, don't win.

Bob Beamesderfer wrote: SP seat rule: No, it's not. The current rule doesn't require seat tracks and that requirement is BS with the likely source a certain STS Honda driver from the Lone Star state. Screw him. I want to mount my seats in a fixed manner and I don't want to deal with some section of the rule that leaves the interpretation of "seat rails" open to certain in-duh-viduals.

SAC, STAC, SMAC: don't care.

Compression checks in SP? And this will show what? Who's supplying the measurement gauge? How accurate will it be?

As for the other impound changes, both sound very difficult to achieve with either accuracy or within a reasonable time.

And finally, what other than our instructor runs is outside of the rule?

with all the free time you have you should have the time to fully read the rule....

seat tracks can be anything you want with the proposed rule, including fixed.

*edit*Jason beat me to it. although I might still win on smartass-ed-ness.

Marshall Grice wrote: *edit*Jason beat me to it. although I might still win on smartass-ed-ness.

I don't think so. Don't you need to get off the forum and go tease your hair?

Bob Beamesderfer wrote:
SP seat rule: No, it's not. The current rule doesn't require seat tracks and that requirement is BS with the likely source a certain STS Honda driver from the Lone Star state. Screw him. I want to mount my seats in a fixed manner and I don't want to deal with some section of the rule that leaves the interpretation of "seat rails" open to certain in-duh-viduals.

SAC, STAC, SMAC: don't care.

Compression checks in SP? And this will show what? Who's supplying the measurement gauge? How accurate will it be?

As for the other impound changes, both sound very difficult to achieve with either accuracy or within a reasonable time.

And finally, what other than our instructor runs is outside of the rule?

To the first part all i gotta say is.. huh?

To the other part, I'll say, "huh?" again, why would it be talking about Cal Club? We don't allow passenger ride alongs at Championships... :ibrightdea:

Aaron Goldsmith wrote:

Bob Beamesderfer wrote:


And finally, what other than our instructor runs is outside of the rule?

To the first part all i gotta say is.. huh?

To the other part, I'll say, "huh?" again, why would it be talking about Cal Club? We don't allow passenger ride alongs at Championships... :ibrightdea:

Well, actually, we do. It's called X-Runs and fun runs. But I'd still argue that in both cases it can be considered instructional.