THSCC Forums

Damn you. I am pretty sure I know which front wheels you are using as I had seen them as well but I could never find a good rear wheel that was reasonable. I guess I never will now either.

_________________
2010 Honda Fit Sport
Couple of bicycles

Finally, someone else realizes this... That's all.

I thought I was the only one that noticed because those Mini's are getting too quick not the mention the GTS aforementioned.

Sounds like Danville should be fun.

Sorry, I've given up writing to the SEB. Since I no longer have a dog in the fight (except L1, and that's pretty moot until 2008 and the new pax comes out)) I really don't have the time or the inclination to do the research necessary to document my reasons for supporting the move. I think nationals (and GH) will provide all the documentation necessary providing it doesn't rain.
If anyone thinks the 07 MCS isn't the overdog, just look at GH's results so far and realize the ECU in the MCS seriously restricts the power for the first 5K miles! GH is just warming up and cruising until he get the car past the break in miles.
Courtney says he has driven a couple that have passed the 5K miles and the difference shocked even him, it is like kitten and a tiger it's a completely different animal.

_________________
SPIN or WIN!
there's no glory for going slow.

For reference, when you write a letter introducing a NEW topic to the SEB (like "I think car 'foo' should be reclassed to class 'bar'") you need to include concrete factual reasons supporting your request. However, when you write a letter responding to something put out for "member comment", you can feel free to just say "I'm member number blah and I support this proposal." Adding factual reasons as to why is a good thing if you can, but is in no way required or even expected. Think of responses to proposals out for member comment as more of a voting process. Anything put out for member comment has already been beaten up and considered from multiple sides. That doesn't mean it's decided, but we do have a pretty good idea of the major issues surrounding it. The Advisory Committees are pretty good about that.

Now, if you're strongly against something for a specific reason, you should definitely include that reason. Usually proposals put out for member comment are things that the SEB thinks they *probably* want to do and want to find out if there are any reasons we shouldn't that we haven't thought of yet. There are a few exceptions where things are thrown out to cover bases, but that's the exception rather than the rule.

But when something is put out for a class change, it is plenty acceptable to write in with something like "I don't support the move because the car in question will be a big overdog and upset the balance of the class that I think will hurt overall participation." If you have data as to why it'll be an overdog, fine, but if you don't, your letter will still have some weight. If you *do* support a move, just saying "I support this proposal" will be a useful response.


--Donnie

will my letter matter if i am not a scca member? I can offer to join if the scca makes intelligent decisions. I can write, "Yes I support the move of the MCS to DS, and I also support the notion that AX dollars get reinvested 100% into AX, not into Pro racing."

You know, non-controversial issues like that

Scott

In a word: No. I'm personally of the opinion that it shouldn't, either. I also think that if Tar Heel is going to gratuitously use the SCCA rulebook it should require everyone who participates above some relatively low minimum number of events to actually *be* an SCCA member for this very reason. I know that opinion is about as popular as a fart in church around here, but that's how I feel.

Or at the *very* least make everyone buy an SCCA rulebook.



You should write those things to the BoD member for this area, actually. It'll fall on deaf ears if you send it to the SEB, particularly since the SEB has no control over the Pro racing thing, anyway. But the BoD rep is the one who a) wants the SCCA to have more members and b) has a voice in that kind of decision. Her address is listed on scca.com.

Do you think SCCA Pro Racing is a long term money loser, or something that can actually become profitable? If the latter, where do you think that profit will go? Actually, don't answer that...if you're not a member you can't voice your opinion on where you think it should go. But if you are, you can.

People, I've said it before and I'll say it again: SCCA is a CLUB. It's run by the MEMBERS. If you don't like the way it's run you have the option to stay out -or- do what you can to make it what you want. Or you can just spend that effort making TH what you want, which is also fine. I just find it ironic that the people who choose to only play in TH also like to slap on the SCCA while at the same time sucking off it's proverbial tit.


--Donnie

Donnie-

I agree with what you write 100%. I was just poking fun (or pouring salt on wounds).

Scott

I make a motion for bannination.

I really hope this club never gets that anal. If it does, you know where I'll be.

On some other forum, complaining about this club?

_________________
Carl Fisher

Be Cool to the Pizza Dude:
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/stor ... Id=4651531

No - drifting the van, you idiot.

You do realize that the vast majority of the membership autocrosses their street car on street tires for fun and has zero aspirations to ever do anything beyond their 8 events per year, right?

This is Tarheel Sports Car Club. Most people are sports car entusiasts who like to drive the crap out of them legally once in a while. We use the SCCA rulebook because it's as good as anything out there and we're lazy.

Now if you agree with what I said, I can't possibly imagine what your arguments would be in favor of THSCC members sending SCCA money.

Repeat after me: Those of us who spend a significant amount of time and money on motrorsports are in the minority in the club.

_________________
Mike Whitney
whit32@gmail.com, 919-454-5445
V10, V8, V8t, I6, I6, V6, F4t, I4, I4, I4, I4, I2, 1, 1

You do realize that the vast majority of the membership autocrosses their street car on street tires for fun and has zero aspirations to ever do anything beyond their 8 events per year, right?[/quote]

I've been to events, so yes, I realize that.



I understand what you're saying, but I disagree with you. The key here is that everyone who autocrosses in this club *uses* the SCCA rulebook. A lot of work goes into that rulebook. People *need* to know the rules they race under. People come here and bitch about those rules and how they are created. Yet most people here have never spent a dime on the creation of the rulebook. Most people here have no voice in the creation of that rulebook, either. Yet they *use* it. It's a VERY small price to pay, and the money from buying it goes directly to its creation.

Look, it's not like we're talking about sending more money to some profit mongering corporation. It's a different club that does a lot of work that this club benefits directly from. I know the club isn't ever going to make this a requirement, and I'm not trying to make that happen. But people do need to know that this is how things work and hopefully at least a few will consider joining the SCCA, or at least buy the book. But the membership is a good deal, IMHO, and isn't likely to break anyone who is able to race already.


--Donnie

Mike makes some very good points. Maybe we as a club should look into adopting the NASA style classifications.

Each make/model is grouped together and any legal modification is assigned points. I think you get 36 points before you are moved up into the next class.

My Camaro starts out in TTE. It is automatically docked 15 points. So I only have 21 points to work with before it moves to TTF. Even with the car fully prepped for CMC, it still remains in TTE by a scant couple of points.

{don't quote me on the exact numbers...I have not reviewed since I decided to skip the NASA Time Trial program and move directly to wheel-to-wheel}

By the SCCA rules, the Camaro moves into CP and I don't even have headers!

A method like NASA's caters to the vast majority of people that want to tinker and then play.

_________________
Jim Pastorius
2008 Silverado VortecMax
1992 Camaro CMC#92
2002 BMW R1150R

2009 3rd Place CMC Mid-Atlantic Championship
2009 CMC Hyperfest Winner

Heh. Wonder which would lose the club more members...requiring the purchase of the SCCA rulebook or switching to NASA style classing.

Jim, it's quite a stretch to go from "my track car isn't classed well in SCCA" to the above about classes for people to tinker and play.


--Donnie

Hey, aren't you a founder of one of the most successful software companies to develop commercial products based on free software?

Does Red Hat require users to give a lot of money to the Linux community for all their hard work?

Just poking fun at ya man. Don't forget your roots Maybe SCCA should pulish their rulebooks under the GPL. Now an open source, community-supported and edited SCCA autocross rulebook, that would be fun. Let's put it on a Wiki and let everyone edit it.

Hahaha.

_________________
Mike Whitney
whit32@gmail.com, 919-454-5445
V10, V8, V8t, I6, I6, V6, F4t, I4, I4, I4, I4, I2, 1, 1