CRB Request for Input

[Scott]

FASTRACK NEWS MAY 2020
CLUB RACING BOARD MINUTES | March 31, 2020

What Do You Think
F5
1. #28359 (Scott Thorp) Request for Cockpit Adjustment of External Jetting Devices
Should the rules allow cockpit adjustment of external jetting devices on two cycle cars?
Please reply via the letter log system.

Send all comments & input to the CRB Log System Website: https://www.crbscca.com/

[reddevilsix]

Hey Scott, welcome to the site.

I can try to go to the SCCA site, but as i an not an active member, I an not sure what will happen, but will give it a try.

Update: Submission Confirmation
Tracking Number: #28875
Thank you for submitting a request to the Club Racing Board!


Richard

[reddevilsix]

Well at least we know that the SCCA is still alive. Got this e-mail a few days ago.

One can only wounder how much more "research" is needed. The facts are staring us 2 cycle guys right in the face. The SCCA "elite" don't like 2 cycle engines and will do almost anything to hinder the advancement of the class. For God's sake, the means to implement this change is already approved thanks to Scott. Why don't they just get on with it.


From: SCCA No Reply <noreply@scca.com>
Sent: Monday, June 1, 2020 12:01 AM
To: Richard <reddevilsix@msn.com>
Subject: SCCA Tabled Letter Notification

Hi Richard,
Your letter has been reviewed by the Formula/Sports Racing committee, but remains on the agenda for additional research. See details below.
Letter #: 28875
Submitted: May 1st, 2020
Class: F5
Title: #28359 WDYT Request for Cockpit Adjustment

Request: This should be approved. The jetting is critical to the proper operating conditions and durability of the engine. The method of doing this has already been approved by the board. This feature just enhances the capability.

SCCA
SCCA Automated Email
Please do not reply. This email account is unmonitored.
www.scca.com
800-770-2055

[Jnovak]

I would love to separate the class into 2 classes.

[reddevilsix]

I think a lot of people would agree.

As I am not racing anymore, it does not directly affect me, but there are a lot of guys sitting on the fence waiting for the SCCA to make a decision on this issue.

And you are correct Jay, the motorcycle engine powered cars can never be made equal to the snowmobile power cars using the CVT system.

I also think that some of the "extravagant" and expensive bodys use by some racers is putting the F500 cars out of reach for the people who would like to race with some chance of leading. I don't think that carbon fiber bodys should be allowed in the class.

Richard

[Scott]

I would love to separate the class into 2 classes.

If the participation numbers don't improve you may get exactly this outcome with F500 no longer involved in SCCA Majors or Runoffs Competition!!!

IMO there is absolutely no chance the CRB would separate the class into 2 classes at the SCCA Majors Level!!! That proposal has been rejected by the CRB multiple times!!!

[Scott]

Current scheduled or completed SCCA Majors particapation to date for F500 Rotax 494 powered cars in 2020 is FOUR maybe FIVE cars!!!

Steve Jondal
Jay Beckly
Lance Spiering
Russel Strate (Q Rental)
Richard LoDucca (Engine Unknown)

Current Total scheduled or completed 2020 Majors Particapation for Rotax 494 powered cars = 5 or maybe 6

No F500 Rotax 493 cars are currently scheduled or have completed any SCCA Majors Races in 2020.

[reddevilsix]

Well it is not good news. The BOD doesn't want the 2 cycle cars to be equal with the MC power cars. As far as I know, no one is using the Thunder Jet on their cars.

SCCA Fastrack News July 2020
F5
1. #28817 (Scott Thorp) Request performance adjustments for Rotax 494/493 Powered Cars
Thank you for your letter. These changes are not recommended. The Club Racing Board has adjusted the minimum weight and inlet restrictor on 600cc motorcycle-engine cars and the Board of Directors has approved the use of external jetting devices on two-cycle cars. Time needs to be afforded these changes to evaluate their effectiveness in promoting competition between the two platforms.


Richard

[Scott]

Well it is not good news. The BOD doesn't want the 2 cycle cars to be equal with the MC power cars. As far as I know, no one is using the Thunder Jet on their cars.

SCCA Fastrack News July 2020
F5
1. #28817 (Scott Thorp) Request performance adjustments for Rotax 494/493 Powered Cars
Thank you for your letter. These changes are not recommended. The Club Racing Board has adjusted the minimum weight and inlet restrictor on 600cc motorcycle-engine cars and the Board of Directors has approved the use of external jetting devices on two-cycle cars. Time needs to be afforded these changes to evaluate their effectiveness in promoting competition between the two platforms.


Richard

The SCCA BoD and the CRB are not the problem and have never been the problem. I spent 8 months writing this 494/493 CRB Proposal. I started last August and the proposal went through 7 drafts. It’s a 5-page proposal with 4 pages of supporting documentation and information including Dynometer Data. The proposal was also reviewed and edited by one of my friends with over 30 years of vehicle system engineering experience. If you have read the proposal, then you’d know how much time, work, energy, and effort was spent writing the document. That’s how much work it takes to write a good, rigorous, well thought out, technical proposal. Writing a good technical proposal is a ton of hard mind-numbing work. I’ve written lots on them so I speak from some experience and I know!

So, if you want to spend that much time, work, energy, and effort then maybe that gives you the right to point fingers and blame the SCCA BoD. But, until you do all the work and spend the time, then I would appreciate it if you would stop blaming SCCA based on my proposal. Because it doesn’t help the situation, get this CRB proposal approved, or solve the problem. Maybe your focused on blame, I don’t know? I’m focused on finding a positive solution to the problem and getting this CRB proposal approved or I wouldn’t have spent this much time and effort to begin with.