Page 1 of 2
Sept Fastrack posted
Posted: Wed Aug 20, 2008 1:38 pm
by Glenn Duensing
Re: Sept Fastrack posted
Posted: Wed Aug 20, 2008 2:07 pm
by Bob Beamesderfer
Interesting:
o The MAC has recommended adding a safety requirement for splitter edges. To that end, the following proposal is published for member review:
Add new 3.3.3.B.23: “Bodywork protrusions below the bumper level (e.g. splitters) which extend beyond the outline of the fenders or bumpers when viewed from above, may not have sharp edges; the edges must be rounded, blunted, or taped.”
Re: Sept Fastrack posted
Posted: Wed Aug 20, 2008 2:14 pm
by Max Hayter
And there we were thinking of getting a R package Miata for ES!!
Re: Sept Fastrack posted
Posted: Wed Aug 20, 2008 2:17 pm
by Aaron Goldsmith
Huh. ST and STS eh? Wonder why they didn't just go to the ABCD nomenclature of the rest of the classes.
Re: Sept Fastrack posted
Posted: Wed Aug 20, 2008 2:20 pm
by Glenn Duensing
“The committee is proposing a sunset rule for stock class cars. The rule book does not include a process where aging cars are retired. These cars usually have limited spare parts availability, spotty or non-existent documentation, and/or a general lack of availability. While they should remain eligible to compete, the SAC believes their eligibility for Divisionals, Tours, and the National Championships should be limited. The limitations would be as follows beginning 2010 and the cars will remain in Appendix A but will be notated as retired: 25 years from model year designation. (Example – a 1985 Corvette would be eligible to compete in contingency events through the 2010 season.)”
Newer cars hate being beat by dinosaurs
Re: Sept Fastrack posted
Posted: Wed Aug 20, 2008 2:24 pm
by Tom Denham
Interesting:
Stock: Add to 12.4 as a new second sentence: “Port-installed options provided by the factory are considered to be the same
as those installed on the factory production line.”
Comment: 12.4 allows configurations which could verifiably have been
ordered, whether they actually were or not, to be used in Stock classes. (ref. 08-239)
Re: Sept Fastrack posted
Posted: Wed Aug 20, 2008 2:30 pm
by Bob Beamesderfer
Tom Denham wrote:Interesting:
Stock: Add to 12.4 as a new second sentence: “Port-installed options provided by the factory are considered to be the same
as those installed on the factory production line.”
Comment: 12.4 allows configurations which could verifiably have been
ordered, whether they actually were or not, to be used in Stock classes. (ref. 08-239)
Hasn't it been that way for a while?
Re: Sept Fastrack posted
Posted: Wed Aug 20, 2008 2:37 pm
by Jason Isley BS RX8
Bob Beamesderfer wrote:Tom Denham wrote:Interesting:
Stock: Add to 12.4 as a new second sentence: “Port-installed options provided by the factory are considered to be the same
as those installed on the factory production line.”
Comment: 12.4 allows configurations which could verifiably have been
ordered, whether they actually were or not, to be used in Stock classes. (ref. 08-239)
Hasn't it been that way for a while?
Has been, for I think as long as I have been autocrossing. This is clarification of the clarification so we will stop getting letters about cars like the MS-R and MR2 wABS/hardtop/no PS/no AC.
The car never had to be built, it only had to be order-able.
Re: Sept Fastrack posted
Posted: Wed Aug 20, 2008 2:53 pm
by Sebastian Rios
Aaron Goldsmith wrote:Huh. ST and STS eh? Wonder why they didn't just go to the ABCD nomenclature of the rest of the classes.
Yeah, lame it should be:
STS=SS=STS
STX=AS=STA
STS2=BS=STB
STU=HS=STH
Re: Sept Fastrack posted
Posted: Wed Aug 20, 2008 2:54 pm
by Steve Coe
Aaron Goldsmith wrote:Huh. ST and STS eh? Wonder why they didn't just go to the ABCD nomenclature of the rest of the classes.
That's great, until you have to put ST-D on your car. I don't want std's!
Re: Sept Fastrack posted
Posted: Wed Aug 20, 2008 3:02 pm
by Rick Brown
Bob Beamesderfer wrote:Interesting:
o The MAC has recommended adding a safety requirement for splitter edges. To that end, the following proposal is published for member review:
Add new 3.3.3.B.23: “Bodywork protrusions below the bumper level (e.g. splitters) which extend beyond the outline of the fenders or bumpers when viewed from above, may not have sharp edges; the edges must be rounded, blunted, or taped.”
Always wondered if you slice the top of a cone off but the base stays in the box.......
...... 1 sec penalty?
Re: Sept Fastrack posted
Posted: Wed Aug 20, 2008 3:10 pm
by Jason Isley BS RX8
Steve Coe wrote:
That's great, until you have to put ST-D on your car. I don't want std's!
Those come from contact with STUL.
Re: Sept Fastrack posted
Posted: Wed Aug 20, 2008 4:40 pm
by Bob Pl
Jason Isley BS RX8 wrote:Steve Coe wrote:
That's great, until you have to put ST-D on your car. I don't want std's!
Those come from contact with STUL.
lmao
Re: Sept Fastrack posted
Posted: Wed Aug 20, 2008 8:35 pm
by Steve Ekstrand
Aaron Goldsmith wrote:Huh. ST and STS eh? Wonder why they didn't just go to the ABCD nomenclature of the rest of the classes.
I agree its stupid naming... But I'm not sure I want to drive an STD.
Re: Sept Fastrack posted
Posted: Thu Aug 21, 2008 8:45 am
by Renee Angel
Steve Coe:
You could always add a "u" to your std and it would fit you perfectly.
Re: Sept Fastrack posted
Posted: Thu Aug 21, 2008 11:14 am
by Steve Coe
Renee Angel wrote:Steve Coe:
You could always add a "u" to your std and it would fit you perfectly.
Rene thanks, but get some glasses!
Re: Sept Fastrack posted
Posted: Thu Aug 21, 2008 12:13 pm
by Steve Ekstrand
You should see Coe in a short skirt.
}:)
The rest of us should see Katy in a short skirt.
:heyes:
Re: Sept Fastrack posted
Posted: Thu Aug 21, 2008 12:31 pm
by Steve Coe
Steve Ekstrand wrote:You should see Coe in a short skirt.
}:)
The rest of us should see Katy in a short skirt.
:heyes:
LMAO
Re: Sept Fastrack posted
Posted: Thu Aug 21, 2008 12:37 pm
by Jason Isley BS RX8
Steve Ekstrand wrote:You should see Coe in a short skirt.
}:)
The rest of us should see Katy in a short skirt.
:heyes:
Amateur night at Baby Dolls? Just be careful, the ugly chicks that work there could get jealous and have you removed. I know a couple of girls that were told to sit down or they would have to leave.
Re: Sept Fastrack posted
Posted: Thu Aug 21, 2008 12:42 pm
by Jayson Woodruff
I might write the SAC on this one despite usually not careing for Stock classes.
Solution to a problem that doesn't exist. The rules they're concerned about will often carry over into other classes, yet I doubt there will be any similar proposals there. Like availiblty numbers is a solo wide concern, not stock. FSBs will usually carry through ST and SP classes. This is already being quasi-enforced by the continual quickening of classes without dropping the older cars. If an older car did suddely find itself competitive, it would be scrutinized by the community and self policed, see Gen II MR2s and C4 vettes.
Jay W
Glenn Duensing wrote:“The committee is proposing a sunset rule for stock class cars. The rule book does not include a process where aging cars are retired. These cars usually have limited spare parts availability, spotty or non-existent documentation, and/or a general lack of availability. While they should remain eligible to compete, the SAC believes their eligibility for Divisionals, Tours, and the National Championships should be limited. The limitations would be as follows beginning 2010 and the cars will remain in Appendix A but will be notated as retired: 25 years from model year designation. (Example – a 1985 Corvette would be eligible to compete in contingency events through the 2010 season.)”
Newer cars hate being beat by dinosaurs
Re: Sept Fastrack posted
Posted: Thu Aug 21, 2008 12:43 pm
by Christine Grice
I can see how the STD argument was relevant to the thread, but these last couple of posts I don't know :barf: (except for Jayson who posted while I was writing)
Where were we, what about the Stock class changes. Any opinions on those?
Re: Sept Fastrack posted
Posted: Thu Aug 21, 2008 1:30 pm
by Bob Beamesderfer
Christine Berry wrote:
Where were we, what about the Stock class changes. Any opinions on those?
I'd like to know the reasoning behind it, although I don't usually care about Stock classes.
Re: Sept Fastrack posted
Posted: Thu Aug 21, 2008 1:54 pm
by Michael Heinitz
Well, seeing how the raw times are so similar, why not combine CS and BS.
And while we're at it, combine STS & STS2.
:ibrightdea:
Re: Sept Fastrack posted
Posted: Thu Aug 21, 2008 2:36 pm
by Steve Coe
Jason,
What was "broken" in the stock classes? I don't see or know of a problem.
Steve
Re: Sept Fastrack posted
Posted: Thu Aug 21, 2008 3:12 pm
by Jason Isley BS RX8
Steve Coe wrote:Jason,
What was "broken" in the stock classes? I don't see or know of a problem.
Steve
Which item are you referring to?
If you are asking about the "sunset rule", I would ask if you have ever seen the factory documentation from a stock legal TVR.
If you are asking about what I like to call SuperDuperStock, you got me, I guess some people think we need a place for a couple of guys with a lot of money to play.
In know way should you take my tone here as any sign of how I feel about these two items. ;)