This link CAR and Rules ( ) from the SCCA web site has links that explains the SCCA process. If on the off chance they have not followed the well-established process of submitting letters through and the letter can be located I'll help them properly submit their letter or they can submit through that link. As a member of the CRB it is extremely troubling to hear "I personally know many of these people that have tried to put forward there position with the new ruling by writing to SCCA but there has never been any response by phone or by email." and if you pm or email me their names and if possible their letter numbers that were not answered I will personally research each one find out why they have not received an answer and make sure they are answered and I will personally call everyone that has not been answered. Just be prepared to provide data to support your case, if you haven't already.Īll letters received through the SCCA letter log system ( ) are required by SCCA to receive in one way or another a published response with the letter number and submitter name in Fastrack. That said, I agree you make a good point about restrictors, as plenty of other cars are permitted them. Just a guess, though, and not an explanation or justification. Just guessing, though, as I have not served on the CRB or FSRAC since 2011.Īs to your question about SIR vs flat plate restrictor, again, I am no longer active in SCCA's rules management, but if I were to speculate wildly, I would guess that it has to do with standardization for newly/recently homologated combos. You can ask for it, but in today's climate of pursuing a Balance of Performance formula, I doubt the Club will go along with it. AFAIK, though, that provision has never been extended to non-US sanctioning bodies. The DP02 may be the latest example, but others abound. There is a decades-long history of SCCA creating a place for current pro cars to run in the Club's class structure in their pro spec. The point being no one else running a CN car should have to go through what I'm going through with the rules changing every year. Or once someone has modified their K20 engine outside that spec (like me), a 59 mm flat plate restrictor option. Another option would be to simply give them the homologated engine spec as I've spelled out above. Since they have that capability, why not allow a similar situation for CN cars running to say the French VdeV spec. This is so an IMSA car can run P1 if they so desire with no changes whatsoever. The DP02s also have a spec category defined explicitly at page 596 of the Jan 2018 GCR. The DP02s were designed from day one for a snorkel that lent itself more easily to installation of a SIR. The big problem is the requirement for a SIR for a car that was never designed for one. And I understand now FSRAC wants to make the rules uniform for all P1 cars and bring the CN weight up and that is what they did-I get that. Stan it was the P1 rule change in 2014 that redefined what you highlight above significantly, however, over time I submitted several changes that were incorporated in the exceptions for CN cars that brought everything back into alignment so I have no complaints in that regard.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
Details
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |