When you click on links to various merchants on this site and make a purchase, this can result in this site earning a commission. Affiliate programs and affiliations include, but are not limited to, the eBay Partner Network.
I raced in a few events on the east coast, and loved it. I am now living in British Columbia. I'm sad to see that there is zero Clubracing in BC, Washington or Oregon. There are great tracks all around. What happened out here?
To the best of my knowledge none of the changes (some for the better of the class, some not) were not approved by PCA.
I don't fully understand how the process works apparently....I send a letter in requesting changes and sent another one in for feedback on the proposed changes. Nothing was done.
Perhaps we need another SPBDA meeting at Sebring to discuss the status of the class, the changes we would like to see, and get some dialogue going again.
We will host a gathering at our trailer - stay tuned for details.
__________________ Todd Lamb
Atlanta Speedwerks www.ATLspeedwerks.com
Porsche repairs, servicing, and upgrades / Certified IMS installer / PDK repair experts
Over 150 PDK's repaired and counting: https://youtu.be/m54P_zisEcI
I guess they were less than welcoming of proposed changes. Wonder if it was related to some of the concerns about costs? Did they offer any response/reasons as to why not?
Anyway, if I'm at 48 Hrs, count me in for the meeting. I'll bring the G & Ts.
Originally Posted by toddlamb
To the best of my knowledge none of the changes (some for the better of the class, some not) were not approved by PCA.
.......
Perhaps we need another SPBDA meeting at Sebring to discuss the status of the class, the changes we would like to see, and get some dialogue going again.
We will host a gathering at our trailer - stay tuned for details.
BTW...Since I'm personally a repeat offender of the Ol' Dub Neg, couldn't resist sharing the Jury of English Majors comic.
To the best of my knowledge none of the changes (some for the better of the class, some not) were not approved by PCA.
I don't fully understand how the process works apparently....I send a letter in requesting changes and sent another one in for feedback on the proposed changes. Nothing was done.
Perhaps we need another SPBDA meeting at Sebring to discuss the status of the class, the changes we would like to see, and get some dialogue going again.
We will host a gathering at our trailer - stay tuned for details.
The process is actually pretty simple. There is a period where they ask for proposed changes. This is where they collect all proposed changes for all class. Then they produce a list of these proposed changes (after some sanity checking by PCA to ensure they are reasonable changes) for review and feedback from all drivers. Once that closes, they then look at what support each change got or didn't get and decide from there.
Proposed changes die for two reasons. Either no support, meaning no feedback was received on the proposal, or there was opposition to the proposed change that was greater than the support it received. For this reason, it's always good to build support for a change before submitting it otherwise it can be a lucky dip.
I know this year's proposed changes for SPB had a healthy amount of opposition to them, which is probably what stopped them this year.
I understand how the process is supposed to work. However, that's significantly different than what I am told actually happened for many of the proposed changes. PCA seems to be making a lot of internal decisions based on what they think is best for the class, but with no real understanding of the class and where it is headed.
As well, I have received a lot of pushback from PCA on many of the things I have recommended or suggested, before any formal PCA review and/or anything was proposed to the racers for comment. They seem very resistant to change.
It seems to me we need a unified voice. As of right now there's not a formal group that is recommending changes based on what's best for the class and what the racers want. That's what I had intended the SPBDA to be.
We have a rule change system that works very well in SCCA. I'm the chairman of the Spec Miata Advisory Committee which is a team that is officially part of the SCCA rules process. We are a group of 5 racers representing a wide range of experience in different areas of the country. We receive and review all the letters requesting rules changes, and then recommend the rule changes we believe are best for the class to SCCA for approval. Since the rule changes have been vetted prior to getting to the SCCA, they generally approve what the committee recommends. Sometimes they don't understand or agree to the rule changes that are recommended, and either ask for further info or send out the rule change proposal for feedback from the entire racing community.
If Chris gets his dry sump kit working and it doesn't improve performance I'd like to see it discussed as another legal oiling option:
https://rennlist.com/forums/racing-and-drivers-education-forum/757807-dry-sump-kit-for-m96-and-m97-engines.html
Same with genuinely longevity-only transmission rebuild options (with specified part numbers). Everyone could run the stock box 'til it breaks, then either swap in a cheap one from a junkyard or rebuild with the approved parts hoping for a longer service life. There'd be no need to carry around spare transmissions if we could find a way to greatly improve the service life without creating a performance advantage.
The early adopters would figure out what works versus what sounds like it might work. Maybe offering one year waivers that come with some public test data requirements and/or a weight penalty would be a good way to test the waters and prove things out. If they change performance it's a can of worms and we'd probably want to close the door. If not though I don't see a downside. The minimum cost to build a competitive car would be unchanged, but long term reliability and running costs could improve.
Same with genuinely longevity-only transmission rebuild options (with specified part numbers). Everyone could run the stock box 'til it breaks, then either swap in a cheap one from a junkyard or rebuild with the approved parts hoping for a longer service life. There'd be no need to carry around spare transmissions if we could find a way to greatly improve the service life without creating a performance advantage.
The early adopters would figure out what works versus what sounds like it might work. Maybe offering one year waivers that come with some public test data requirements and/or a weight penalty would be a good way to test the waters and prove things out. If they change performance it's a can of worms and we'd probably want to close the door. If not though I don't see a downside. The minimum cost to build a competitive car would be unchanged, but long term reliability and running costs could improve.
Mark Foley and Brad Roberts were working on something that they thought was the problem with the transmission. A hollow drive shaft or something like that that was flexing and overstressing the gears. They were wanting to beef it up but keep the hole down the middle for fluid transfer. I'm probably not saying it correctly but would love to hear from them on their prognosis and what it would take to invest to test the theory. I carry 4 spare transmissions in my trailer and I'd like to save the weight in my trailer and my pocketbook.
It's going to be a problem long-term that will hurt the class because of the costs (replacement and labor).
08-16-2016, 08:57 PM
Haha! Ask me how I know....It's worse if your partner is a teacher.... Oh, wait....isn't that true for you too? ROFLMAO....
