Bill L Seifert

Hey Geo, remind me again how great the SCCA is, I keep forgetting. I just got Sports Car, and my request for alternate A arms for the 944 was turned down. They said "This allowance would constitute a rules change that could cause increased costs in the preparation of IT cars." By that logic, then fuel cells should not be allowed in IT because it could increase the costs of preparation. I DID NOT ASK THAT IT BE MANDITORY, JUST OPTIONAL. For those of you who have not been in this discussion, I asked that Charlie Arms, FabCar arms, or Marcus arms be ok'd for use in 944's. Every other sanctioning body lets us use them, NASA, IMSA, or whatever they are called now. PCA, etc. They are a safety item. Everyone knows someone that has had the stock Alum or steel arms break, causing an off road experience. Porsche says they are dangerous. These aftermarket arms weigh more, and are NOT a PERFORMANCE ENHANCER. But it was turned down. I know they turned it down, because they never heard of me, and I could not find the Porsche articles that said the stock arms were dangerous, even though I quoted Bruce Anderson, Jim Pasha, and that Marcus guy, with all of their experience. Anyway, I give up, I will run the stock ones, and hope I don't crash.

Next item, a year or so ago, several of us asked that the 8v944 be put in ITA, because of the 944S being approved for ITS, and the 8v has never had a chance in ITS. Yes, Chris Camadella wins in the North East, but when he came to the ARRC, he was way back, and would have only qualified third or fourth in ITA. Remember when the 13B Mazda was approved, the 12A engined cars were moved to A. But that's Mazda, not Porsche. During that same time period, the up to 99 Neons wanted to move to ITA also, and we were all turned down. NOW in this issue the Neons were moved to ITA, even the twin cam Neons.

Anyway, Geo, comments?

Bill Seifert

1983 944 Race Car
1987 944S Race Car under const.

Steve in FL

Bill: Didn't you know that SCCA really stands for "Sports Car Communist A**holes"?

Geo

I told you straight up that they wouldn't be approved. I'll go one further and tell you that I voted against them as did the other 944 owner on the Improved Touring Advisory Committee. In fact, the vote was unanamous. You had zero chance of getting them approved for IT. Such custom fabricated parts are not within the class philosophy.

NOT so. You can say anything you like, but it doesn't make it so.

Hmmm.....

Never had a chance in ITS? Yet you say Chris wins? I know I've seen other 944s listed as ITS winners in Sports Car as well. That's a pretty difficult argument to make.

Futhermore, if we honored every request for reclassification, most cars would be moved down a class and we'd be in the same boat. Some cars would move down 2 classes!

I think the current ITAC is doing a damned fine job. OK, I'm on the ITAC, but I'm only one voice. I think IT is headed in the right direction and I think some much needed changes are likely to be approved in the coming months. And for those who think the SCCA hates Porsches, look for a couple of favorable decisions regarding P-cars in the next couple of months (the club racing board and BoD have to approve them first).

Perhaps now might be a good time to write another reclassification letter.

924RACR

Back to the old "you can please some of the people all the time, and all of the people some of the time, but not all of the people all of the time!"

I hate to admit it, but I have to agree with Geo on this one - it's kinda not the point of the class. That's really more of a Prod thing, and I don't know that I'd like to see that can of worms opened up for IT. Rules creep!

There are places you can run those arms; SCCA is not one of them. Theres also maintenance procedures you can use to minimize the risk of failure.

Be glad you're driving a car that's designed to be beaten around track all day! How much fun to do you think it is to race one of those FWD cars? They have to change their front wheel bearings, on average, every 3 weekends! And in doing that, they must remove the upright, press out the new bearings, press in the new bearings, reinstall, realign, and wait another 3 weekends to do it all over again. Yet they're not allowed to upgrade to better bearings or designs, even though it's a safety item, not a performance item. Be glad you don't have a twist beam rear axle and rear struts to try to get to handle. Etc. etc.

Adam Richman

Not being a materials expert (or even novice), can these (stock A arms) be shotpeened or hardened in any way or is that an impossibility? If not, it might just be one of those things that one must expect w/ the limitations in IT rules. On my Honda for instance, due to front brake heat (due to crap brakes that I would love if we could substitute with anything more competent), we go through front bearings very quickly (on the order of every 6 25-30 min. races). If you don't catch it in time (before they go), you have a damned good chance of buying a new set of hubs too (and one race too long and you can very well be doing cartwheels through an infield somewhere). Not cheap. The E36 motors apparently are very easy to damage by a misshift - I have heard at least two guys saying they'd love to have short shifters made legal (they feel it would help, I cannot argue as I do not know). The 944s have their A-arms, the Miatas have their plug wires, Citations have their spindles, there is probably something that wears/fails/prone to failure on any car classed in IT that we wish would not (and could be corrected by some relatively inexpensive measure) and has safety ramifications but these cars were designed as street cars and in IT, they pretty much are raced as street cars. Be it a bearing/hub, an A-arm, a front spindle, all these things can have very very bad consequences - for that, we need to be very diligent and treat them as such. If we got to petition the IT board for changes based on possible concerns, I really think we'd be in Production when it all shook out.

Edit: hahaha, or what Vaughan said

James Achard

I just don't get the mentality of the SCCA. Why would you disallow an item if the factory one is known to fail( I have witnessed one break at LRP and it wasn't pretty). We're not talking about a return spring here but a major suspension component that could cause a bad accident. The same goes for hydraulic tensioners on 911's. It's a factory recommended upgrade yet if you put them on a car you are not allowed to race it( what I was told by a local SCCA official when I was deciding what series to race in).

Cheers, James

Bill L Seifert

Geo,

Yeah, you told me, and to be real honest I knew it was going to happen too. But if you say it is good logic, I disagree. We have, on one hand, the overreaction over Dale's death, and make us change belts every two years. Yet, when the Porsche factory says the stock a arms break, we can't change them by SCCA rules. If you think that makes sense, I sure can't follow your logic. Speaking of the belt two year change rule. I spent over 30 years in Army Aviation, and when I first went in our seat belts in Helicopters had to be changed every 5 years. But after years of testing, they found that to be too often, and in the 80's changed harnesses to a condition change item. They still do as far as I know. Most military helicopters are kept outside, in the sun. and I promise you the military cares as much about safety as the SCCA does. I think the SCCA only really cares about safety when it suits them.

Then on something like the a arms, where everyone that knows anything about 944's know those a arms are dangerous. But, I'll just race, and bitch when I feel the urge, and tell you again and again, that I don't think you all do a good job. (Just an opinion)

About 944's doing well, I win occasionally, and usually podium in my area, but if I go where real fast ITS cars, I get blown away. The people that are "in" people get things changed, the rest of us have to try and swallow the SCCA's horse puckey. The SCCA is super at rationalizing their decisions, and even believe their public relations rantings.



Bill Seifert

Bill L Seifert

I'll stop aiming this thread at Geo, cause I'm sure he will ignore me now. But I would like comments from others on whether you think I am full of it or not. To recap, I asked the SCCA to allow FabCar, Charlie, or Marcus A arms to be allowed to be used, because everyone that knows anything about 944 A arms, from Bruce Anderson to the Factory itself says the stock A arm when raced will break. I have personally seen 3 break, and at least one of those cars wrecked pretty badly. I was turned down. Read my first comment, above. Now read Geo's answer, also above. Then Geo answered. I quote him---"I told you straight up that they wouldn't be approved. I'll go one further and tell you that I voted against them as did the other 944 owner on the Improved Touring Advisory Committee. In fact, the voe was unanamous. You had zero chance of getting them approved for IT." Yes, he told me that before I ever sent in the request. Then he sat on the board, and they vote against it. But now he wants me to believe that my request got a fair shake.

Yea, right. Picture this, my request comes before the board, and one of the members told me before I sent it in that it was going to be turned down. Was he neutral, to see what others would say? Did, he start his comments before they got through reading my request? Did the request get a fair hearing? I would like to know what everyone else thinks. You won't hurt my feelings, give it to me straight. You can even call me at 615-746-3709

Here's a cute aside. Look at how Geo signs off. 1984 944 ITS Race Car under const., 1991 Sentra SER, borrowed race car. By the way, that car has been under const for over a year, so I assume he races the Sentra.

Look at Sports Car Magazine, the mag of the SCCA, this month, on page F74 (Thats Fast Track) Item 2 "ITS 1991 Nissan Sentra SER to ITA Boy aint that a coincidence? A board member, and his car gets moved from ITS to ITA. Just reeks of fairness, doesn't it. Maybe it just reeks.

Bill

PedalFaster

No offense, but if you're convinced that the SCCA is an evil, biased old boy's club that delights in conspiring against you, why don't you pack up your toys and go play elsewhere? Complaining on a forum completely unaffiliated with the SCCA isn't going to get you anything but red in the face.

Steve
- happy SCCA member for four years

Bill L Seifert

Steve,

I'm not red in the face, I just think that unfair things need to be pointed out, maybe some other people will get involved with me, or like you maybe not, thats ok, I want to know how people feel. I race SCCA, because I like racing, and the SCCA has races fairly close by. Most SCCA officials are great, but when someone tells you you are going to be turned down, and he is on the board, and then you get turned down, it looks funny. I am a 20 year member, and plan to be a member for lots longer, but I will still point out problems. That's how things are changed. This column is for racing, not just PCA racing. I race a Porsche, so I write here.

Bill

Adam Richman

Bill, I don't think you are full of it and I do understand the root of your request and I can see how you could perceive George to have alterior motives (or at a minimum could be perceived as detriment to your cause).

I'd hope that the reality of it is based on entirely different reasons. Provided I have the borrowed SE-R guys right, George has run a Nissan SE-R in ITS (believe this is Pat's car ??). I think this was a while back, not currently and I don't even know if that owner still has the car (again, might have my borrowed SE-R guys wrong). I'd be interested in seeing who made the original request for the move. I know that Greg Amy has campaigned a rather extensively preparred NX2000, he brought it to the ARRC and ran well, very well, but nowhere close to the front of the pack (4+ seconds off IIRC). The NX2000 and SE-R are essentially the same car (the NX has better aero I believe and according to the GCR a larger front rotor) - if the move was made to move the NX2000, then I think it would follow suit to relcass the SE-R with it. Actually, if you look at the change, it was more beneficial (by 10lbs.) to the NX than the SER. Probably not too much based on any of George's motives, even if so, its one vote. Of-course I don't know the history but this was the first thing I thought of (the NX2000) when I heard of the change - I am not naiive enough to think that's all it took but that's where my mind went.

The way I see it, the 944 A-arms are a wear item and the rules pertaining to their remaining are very much in line with the rules of IT. If they are not, I think the 944 would take its spot in line behind a number of other cars w/ similar concerns. IT cars were not built from the factory as race cars, they have flaws, faults, concerns. This in my eyes falls under maintenance. I know the bearing issues to Hondacura better and believe me, I freaking hate that we have to do this so much but that's something I got into with my car of choice (and this is not cheap by any means). There are those that change them religiously as I and others do, and those that haven't watched cars leave the track w/ three wheels yet. I am not going to drag up the familiar no guarantee line but we do have choices in what cars we choose. Those we do choose come with the flaws, faults, concerns they were produced with. Whether its the A-arms on a 944 or the spindles on a Citation or the wheel bearings/hubs on a Honda, these are items that we take with the car we chose.

In other words, I see it as a bigger can-o-worms perhaps than you do. I realize you see it as a safety concern, I agree, its a safety concern that those who want to race these cars must take into consideration. Perhaps a viable consideration is to see if the IT board would allow you to run the stamped steel arms on a 944S. If the issue is the aluminum arms breaking w/out warning, that would seem to be a fair request that wouldn't change the spirit of the rules (from my vantage point). I am not trying to diminish your safety concerns, I am however pointing out that its something that other cars have as well (probably a lot of cars that I don't know of - wasn't this - tie-rod ends ?? - the source of an EProd DSQ at the runoffs this year??).

Now I do wish Geo would spell Honda correctly - but otherwise, I didn't read this as him pulling wires behind the scenes. I am just one opinion however.

Steve in FL - its Sports Car Club of America, I got the decals and patches that say so.

Steve in FL

Adam: When they re-class the GT3 to Super Stock rather than putting it in ASP so as to not upset the Z06 contingent I may re-consider my interpretation.

Bill L Seifert

Adam,

I really have no problem putting the SER in ITA. To be real honest, I don't know much about the car. One I do have a problem with is the Neon twin cam that was also move this month, see it on the same page. The only thing I thought was wierd, was that in his answer, he said if they honored all requests, then all cars would be moved down a class some 2. Then in this issue of Sports Car his car is moved from ITS to ITA. When we asked that the 8v944 be moved we talked of the move of the 12a RX7 to A when the 13b was put in ITS. Also the BMW 325is with a twin cam engine is put in ITS, the BMW 325 es with a single overhead cam is in ITA. We requested it because they had just put the 944S into ITS, so it seemed logical that the 8v should move to A. The 944S has 188 hp versus my 83 8v944 rated at 143 hp. I say this half kidding, but do you suppose that the 8v944 will go to A when Geo finishes his 84 944.

About the A arms, they are, I guess, a wear item, but I remember Bruce Anderson saying he knew of one new one that broke, personally I have no problem now because I am still running my 8v 944 til my 87 944S is completed. With the 83 944 I use the steel stamped A arms, and have welded a bead around the edges, and I change ball joints every year, so I am not too afraid of it. But when the 944S is finished, I would like to not have to run the Alum arms. It is a real safety issue, but I have beat a dead horse enough, so we will have to wait til someone is hurt, before anything is done. Marcus does make a tougher alum arm, But you have to sign a form stating you know they should not be used for racing.so I guess I could chance using them , and change them yearly or so. Or, what the heck, I am old and am not going to live all that much longer anyway, so no big deal.

The responses have been good so far. I have not heard from many 944 ITS runners, but so many have moved to NASA. But, I am not going anywere, I am just going to stick around the SCCA and continue being a contrarian.

Bill

Geo

First of all, no one is making us race a 944 in IT. There are over 300 classifications in IT. Pick one. Second, given those over 300 classifications, if custom-made replacements are allowed for each of them the cateogry would be a mess. As Vaughn wrote, the category is designed around lightly modified cars. Custom control arms are not part of the program.

That's why it's a good idea to check them very regularly and to have spares on-hand.

If the upgrade is a superceded or replacement part number, it would be 100% legal in IT. However, if it's not the above, it would not be allowed.

Lots of PCA folks don't understand the SCCA. That's nice, but PCA only has one marque to worry about. IT alone has over 300 classifications. Now add in all the other classes and you see the scope of the SCCA is much broader than PCA.

PedalFaster

Although that comment was meant in jest, it's actually another good example of people missing the forest for the trees when criticizing SCCA rules decisions.

Tree: "Why can't I play in Super Stock with my GT3? The Z06 has bigger tires and more power." [pout]

Forest: Super Stock is already the most expensive Stock class by a fairly wide margin. The GT3 may appear marginally inferior to the Z06 on paper, but Porsches have a demonstrated ability to go faster than their stats might indicate (witness the Boxster S versus the C4 Corvette in AS, or the base Boxster versus the S2000 and 350Z in BS). To put the GT3 into SS would be to risk it becoming the overdog there, thus doubling the class' cost of entry. And to what end? Realistically, how many people are there nationwide who would autocross their GT3s seriously if such a change was made? A dozen? Is that worth risking a hugely popular class for? Consider further that the GT3 comes from the factory complete with a level of suspension prep not that far off what ASP cars run anyway, and its placement in ASP seems very rational indeed.

I'm not familiar with the 944 A-arm debate, but it sounds like a similar situation: a request which would benefit a small minority, but which would risk hurting the majority. Bill, you assume that because Geo told you beforehand that your proposal would not pass, that it's a sign of a conspiracy against you. Occam's Razor would suggest instead that it's a sign that your proposal was so far beyond what the ITAC is empowered to do that he was giving you a friendly reality check, which you apparently ignored.

Steve