prodracing.com

You wont cover the weight .

_________________
Mike Ogren/Protech Racing, http://www.FWDracingguide.com http://www.ogren-engineering.com/ 352.428-8983 mogren@tampabay.rr.com

Regardless of any weight penalty, let's don't go there.

1. Sequential transmissions were very briefly approved roughly in Prod ~20 years ago. There was a letter writing campaign organized on the old Prod website to reverse this - and it was quickly reversed. It is simply an unnecessary jump in expense / sophistication.

2. Even if allowed at a punitive weight, eventually someone would successfully petition to have the weight penalty made reasonable.

3. Similarly, no matter what the current understanding, someone will likely eventually successfully use the "Global Cup Car" precedent to get a sequential box approved, perhaps at a punitive weight. See #2.

If you don't want a camel in your tent, don't let the camel's nose in the tent.

I was personally involved with the only EP car equipped with a sequential box (that I know of). Pratt Cole installed it in his EP 1600 Miata back in approx 1996 or 1997. It was an interesting piece that was fun to drive (I drove it in a Pacific Raceways national in 98). It was not a magic bullet and in fact Pratt went faster with the PBS gear box he installed after the sequential was outlawed. 2 out of 3 of his Nat Championships came with the PBS.
Geartronics makes paddle shifters and other electronics for the Quaife gearboxes and has an interesting tech article dispelling the myth that a sequential is a huge time saver.
http://www.geartronics.co.uk/shift_times.htm

Mazda went with the sequential for reliability. The OEM trans is inadequate for racing.

As far as the "class philosophy" argument goes, that has gone the way of the Dodo. Various classes have been afflicted with alternate sanctioning bodies rulesets. GCR requires the entrant have a complete set of those rules to go along with the GCR and chassis/engine workshop manual required of every SCCA racer. Tech should have all the specs needed to adjudicate a dispute with those publications.

You will likely gain 0 traction with the CRB or BOD with a protest or letter writing campaign...

From personal experience (I'm driving a sequential-equipped Civic in STU the beginning of this year) I don't find the Quaife as a time saver at all. For me, it's biggest advantage is being able to upshift the car right after coming out of the apex without disturbing the chassis. Allows me to be in the next lower gear for better acceleration and not worry about having to upshift (which, I suppose, one can argue is a time saver...)

That may change as I become more accustomed to it.


A big "amen" to that. We are making our categories so diluted and "diverse" that we are removing their key differentiations (and purposes). We are at the point where, effectively, there's not a lot of difference between Touring 2, E Production, Super Touring U, and GT3.

Hell, might as well just combine them all together with adders/subtractors for minor differences like wings, splitters, DOTs, and gearboxe, and "limited prep".

You think your class is not being "afflicted" by this? Revelation: you are.

"In our constant club-racer quest to make our cars faster, safer and "more reliable" we have pushed for rule changes that simply accelerated the rate of entropy. Every class of production racing does this, of course, until it finally brings on its own demise." - Peter Egan

We did in fact get 100lbs added to the car.

By the way, yes, many categories have cars that don't fit the (original) class philosophy.

The problem is then, why would SCCA ever use this as an excuse to deny a member request.

If the ship has sailed, it's sailed for both members and the club... I just really hate the hypocrisy.

I don’t know who dhrmx5 is but I couldn’t disagree more.

As I was voted in as a Director 18 months ago, I have avoided public statements on forums like this because someone would inevitably say “Dayle said X and its coming from a Director” when it may be Dayle the ex-racer injecting a comment about the topic.

But I will jump ion on this…..the BoD and CRB both receive many letters that are for and against rules (both proposed or enacted) and we listen. The squeaky wheel does get the grease. And, yes…..this is coming from a Director……not Dayle the Race Chair, not Dayle the ex-racer.

I am a BoD liaison to the CRB so I have seen plenty of letters over the past 15 months. Lots of them about BSpec…who woulda thunk, right?

So please feel free to write the letters….we really do read all the letters sent to the BoD.

Dayle

_________________
Dayle Frame (259138)
-----------
Ex HP pilot, Area 4 Director, EVAC Chair
(please do NOT PM me through this site)

Greg Amy, couldn't agree more.

Dayle Frame, Yes, I should have limited my statement to cars that were placed on purpose by the CRB or BOD. Letters are obviously the most effective way to let the CRB/Ad Hoc know what the members are thinking.

One of these with an excellent driver (Selin Rollian) is signed up for Roebling.

Still working out kinks in the EP TR8 but had a good outing at CMP. I know Roebling well, and have run 1:20 there in the ITS car, so hoping to get down at least into the 19s, hopefully less in EP althoug it will be hot.

We will see how the MX5 Cup car does. Roebling is 80% Miata track with one very long straightway that is very much TR8 track..lol...