PDA

View Full Version : electrical wires



cherokee
09-29-2003, 03:20 PM
I am afraid that I already know the answer to this but: What chassis electrical wires do I have to keep...The wireing in my 30yr old car is basically useless (unless starting fires counts) Can I go with a aftermarket generic wire kit ie: Painless or am looking at re-wireing the whole car. Mfg replacements are not available. Do I have to keep headlights,parking lights,horn,turn signals? In the book all I have found is "All chassis/structural/electrical repair if performed shall be in concurrence with factory procedures." By that my thinking is I have to manually re-run each wire.

thanks

joeg
09-29-2003, 03:51 PM
The harness is supposed to be in there. Of course, you can rewire your essentials independent of the OEM harness and then just keep it for show.

Speed Raycer
09-29-2003, 05:30 PM
I'm in the same boat Cherokee. The RX7 I just picked up doesn't have one single factory wire in it and now I have to add the harness' back in. Was looking through the GCR this morning for a clarification and couldn't find anything more than you.

Running new wiring will save you gobs of frustration and time. Plus you'll know what wires are what and where they all go.

Nowhere that I've found says that any factory electrical equipment (other than brake lights) have to function. On the other hand, it doesn't say they can be disabled either.


I assume by "Do I have to keep headlights,parking lights,horn,turn signals?" you mean the wiring, as all of the lights mentioned have to stay unless the GCR says you can remove them (on or below the bumper {but not in the bumper}, interior/map lights etc.)


To glom onto your topic, if a component (stereos and other accessories) is able to be removed, can the wiring for it be removed as well?

------------------
Scott
It's not what you build...
it's how you build it

<A HREF="http://www.pfmracing.com" TARGET=_blank> http://home.swbell.net/srhea66/PFMSigPic.jpg
www.pfmracing.com (http://www.pfmracing.com) </A>

[This message has been edited by Speed Raycer (edited September 29, 2003).]

cherokee
09-29-2003, 05:51 PM
The wiring harness forward of the firewall is gone...all of the insulation <sp> has cracked away (30yr old german wires) who would I write to inorder to get the final answer...if the original harness has to be there I will have to go FP or something with this car...no way am I leaving what is left of the harness in there...just too nasty...let alone it looks like crap.

dickita15
09-29-2003, 06:12 PM
I belive you need to keep it under current rules but it does not need to work. I noticed some thing in fastrack this year about allowing A Sedan cars to take them out as many of the cars were recovered theft or fire cars. would anyone object to allowing this change in IT. It would not be much of a performance change in my old rx7 but is there any performance implication in FI cars.
dick

Geo
09-29-2003, 08:01 PM
Originally posted by dickita15:
I belive you need to keep it under current rules but it does not need to work. I noticed some thing in fastrack this year about allowing A Sedan cars to take them out as many of the cars were recovered theft or fire cars. would anyone object to allowing this change in IT. It would not be much of a performance change in my old rx7 but is there any performance implication in FI cars.
dick

I'm thinking slippery slope. I have friends running the the SE-R Cup who have removed every unnecessary wire from their wiring harnesses. That entailed hours of figuring it all out and more hours of de-pinning each connector. They save a bunch of weight.

I'd to see this become the standard in IT, and if we allow it, you can bet it will become the standard.

Speed Raycer
09-29-2003, 09:49 PM
I'd just cover the factory harness with that plastic loom and run yourself new wires.

What kind of car is it?

Knestis
09-29-2003, 09:55 PM
When we built the Gr2 Golf rally car, we spread an entire wiring harness out on the floor of the shop, unwound the OEM tape and did exactly what was described - took out all of the wires we didn't need and added extras to the bundle where necessary.

The result was GREAT, in terms of reliability and serviceability but I doubt that we saved all that much weight, particularly on a car that regularly picks up 50# of filth over the course of a day.

You aren't going to like it but writing someone isn't going to change the final answer - it's right there in the GCR. There is no provision to remove stock wiring including - unless someone can point out a clause that I've missed - the wiring to parts that may be removed (e.g., electric sunroof or radio).

Kirk

lateapex911
09-29-2003, 10:30 PM
Originally posted by Geo:

I'd to see this become the standard in IT, and if we allow it, you can bet it will become the standard.

OK, Geo.....methinks you forgot a word there! I italicized (sp?) "I'd to", and I think you meant to say: "I'd hate to....", or did you mean "I'd like to...."??

I bet #1, and I agree with the ends that folks will go to, but I do think that allowing folks to go after theft recovery cars, etc., is an important angle.

In the end, I have a hard time imagining that you can pull out more than 20 lbs of wire, and most of it is low to start with, so for the guys who aren't at the sharp end of the grid, it's not a huge disadvantage to have it remain.

If asked I would go for it, but I am barely on that side of the fence....



------------------
Jake Gulick
CarriageHouse Motorsports
ITA 57 RX-7
New England Region
[email protected]

Geo
09-29-2003, 10:44 PM
Originally posted by lateapex911:
OK, Geo.....methinks you forgot a word there! I italicized (sp?) "I'd to", and I think you meant to say: "I'd hate to....", or did you mean "I'd like to...."??


Hate to. Hate to for sure.


Originally posted by lateapex911:
I bet #1, and I agree with the ends that folks will go to, but I do think that allowing folks to go after theft recovery cars, etc., is an important angle.

In the end, I have a hard time imagining that you can pull out more than 20 lbs of wire, and most of it is low to start with, so for the guys who aren't at the sharp end of the grid, it's not a huge disadvantage to have it remain.

If asked I would go for it, but I am barely on that side of the fence....


Nothing says folks can't go after theft recovery cars. Just have all the wires there. Certainly within reason, i.e. if the ends are cut off the stereo wires and someone protested, I'd be first in line to volunteer to take them out back behind the woodshed.

If you want that theft recovery car and the harness is cut to pieces, well, go source one out of a junkyard, or make a new one (complete).

Life is full of choices. Choose wisely.


------------------
George Roffe
Houston, TX
84 944 ITS car under construction
92 ITS Sentra SE-R occasionally borrowed
http://www.nissport.com

SilverHorseRacing
09-29-2003, 11:06 PM
Originally posted by Knestis:

The result was GREAT, in terms of reliability and serviceability but I doubt that we saved all that much weight, particularly on a car that regularly picks up 50# of filth over the course of a day.

You aren't going to like it but writing someone isn't going to change the final answer - it's right there in the GCR. There is no provision to remove stock wiring including - unless someone can point out a clause that I've missed - the wiring to parts that may be removed (e.g., electric sunroof or radio).

Kirk

I think you're spot on that the only real advantage is reliability, but.... the wiring issue has been hashed out, and it IS legal to remove the wiring to components that are allowed to be removed. I forget when it was protested, but the end result was the part in the rule going back to gauges, where you can remove / replace, and the question of where does the gauge end came into question. This is also part of the same idea that allows data ACQ systems, and the like to be put in. Just scanned the 03 book, and although it isn't spelled out, it allows complete removal of the stero and of the antenna. I doubt that their intent was to keep the antenna wire between the antenna and the stereo....Also, you have to look at the base models, which then allow removal of things like the power options, and their wiring, totally legal.

To answer the original question, you can re-wire, but are supposed to do it using the same layout, gauge, etc. as original. I've seen a ton of cars where they stuff stock wiring in the glove box / footwell, and run switch boxes and stuff as replacements under the guise of gauges and stuff. Fits the letter of the rule (stock wiring is there, and hasn't been repaired) and (gauges can be added). http://Forums.ImprovedTouring.com/it/smile.gif Enjoy

Of course, what do I know...left to some, the rulebook would be 750 pages thick, for every car on the spec pages...

------------------
-Marcello Canitano
www.SilverHorseRacing.com (http://www.SilverHorseRacing.com)

Harry
09-30-2003, 03:58 AM
My car is over 30 years old as well but I still must use the existing harness because it doesn't say I can remove it. It's back to the 1st rule "If doesn't say you can you can't. I'll add some details that will P off everyone. It's my nature to always be safe rather than sorry and because I play by the rules I don't do anything that's even questionable without checking with Jeremy in Club Racing and get a confirming email in writing to support any issue when ever possible.
On my car everything operates because it does not say anywhere it can be made not to operate. My cigerette lighter is still in the car and works. My ignition switch is located on the steering column not the dash so I must use it and just modify so the locking device doesn't work. The radio can be removed but nothing allows you to remove it's wiring. The ash tray must stay on my car and since it's located on thr dash panel. No where does it allow me to remove the heater dash controls & it's hoses and and balance of the heater system (my car never had factory air conditioning). The emissions allows me to remove everthing or have it all operational. So I removed the smog pumps & several switches under the hood alter the wiring including remove emission switches from the transmission and all the emission wiring. The headlights, park lights, turn signals all working, brake lights working, sidemarkers lights working, even the backup lights are working (in my case I must keep the wiring that activates the backup lights connected to the transmission. We can remove the dome light, it's wiring & door switches. No where does it say the horn or horns operation is allowed to cease so dispite have a removeable steering wheels the horn must work. Your low and high beam lighes connected & working. The wipers, wiper transmission, wiper washer tank, pump & hoses and squirt noozles shall be on the car all in it's original location & operational. I did check and wire loom is considered an alternate fastner in lieu of electrical tape. I'm sure there's more but the above is enough.
Not saying I agree just saying that's the way I interpret the rules or lack of rules.
Harry

[This message has been edited by Harry (edited September 30, 2003).]

cherokee
09-30-2003, 12:57 PM
I am not trying to pull a fast one here...just trying to save my self a bunch of useless work. If it is ok to run a generic wire loom beside the original and run it to the lights and all that would be great. I just don't want to do it all if it is not ok. If I have to run one wire at a time....my winter is cut out for me. I would go the junkyard route but that is not an option...they where all gone years ago...an orphan remember.

Knestis
09-30-2003, 06:06 PM
Way to go, Harry - I wish more people thought like that.

Where old cars are concerned, as harsh as it sounds, at some point it just becomes too costly to maintain them to the standards required by the rules. It isn't reasonable, given the march of time, to re-write the rules to assure that older and older cars will be allowed to run or be competitive.

Kirk

itafiero
09-30-2003, 06:10 PM
Originally posted by cherokee:
I am afraid that I already know the answer to this but: What chassis electrical wires do I have to keep...The wireing in my 30yr old car is basically useless (unless starting fires counts) Can I go with a aftermarket generic wire kit ie: Painless or am looking at re-wireing the whole car. Mfg replacements are not available. Do I have to keep headlights,parking lights,horn,turn signals? In the book all I have found is "All chassis/structural/electrical repair if performed shall be in concurrence with factory procedures." By that my thinking is I have to manually re-run each wire.

thanks

Reading the GCRs under the ITCS section I believe what your asking to do is covered by 17.1.4 section D.8.h "All chassis/structural/electircal repair, if performed, shall be in concurrence with factory precedures, specifications, and dimensions. ..."

If your harness needs to be repaired because of age or damage the above rule seems to cover reasonable replacement meeting original specifications.

Geo
09-30-2003, 08:37 PM
Originally posted by Knestis:
Where old cars are concerned, as harsh as it sounds, at some point it just becomes too costly to maintain them to the standards required by the rules. It isn't reasonable, given the march of time, to re-write the rules to assure that older and older cars will be allowed to run or be competitive.

I have to agree with Kirk here. I know that may disturb some - especially since I'm on the ITAC, but do we really want to become a vintage series like Production? Also, don't forget that my car (Porsche 944) is 19 years old already. I'm not for forcing out the older cars, but I personally don't believe in changing the rules to keep making it easier for the older cars to comply.


------------------
George Roffe
Houston, TX
84 944 ITS car under construction
92 ITS Sentra SE-R occasionally borrowed
http://www.nissport.com

cherokee
09-30-2003, 09:19 PM
I am not for changing the rules...however I see no reason why I cant go to a replacement loom from Painless...everything will still work just like factory...just not with the factory loom. I thaught the issue was everything working...I can make that happen one way or another...just buying the new loom and installing would be a lot better on many fronts. My ITA car now has everything in it....people come by and say "you got a lot of sh*t in there that you don't need"...I still have carpet. My point is I will follow the letter of the rules but they are not too clear on this point...does it realy matter if the little electrons flow down a factory harness or an aftermarket one....the job still gets done. I don't want to sound snooty but the rule should say the headlights should work...park lights should work who cares how the 12v gets there.

Geo
09-30-2003, 11:01 PM
Originally posted by cherokee:
I am not for changing the rules...however I see no reason why I cant go to a replacement loom from Painless...


Is it virtually the same as OEM? If so, I don't see a problem with it. What is the difference?

If it's a direct replacement, I think it falls under "repairs in concurrence with factory procedures." But that's just IMHO.


------------------
George Roffe
Houston, TX
84 944 ITS car under construction
92 ITS Sentra SE-R occasionally borrowed
http://www.nissport.com

RSTPerformance
10-01-2003, 12:42 AM
First off I would vote yes on updating the rule to make it easier for older cars. we do not want to become like production like others said but.... I would say the more diversity and cars allowed will foster growth so allowing older cars to continue to compete legally is a good thing.

I also need to add that the components do not have to work they just need to be there. We are not obligated under any rules to make repairs, except for the body which falls under the appearance rules.

oh ya and to answer the original question. Even though I do not agree with it..... Yes all the wiring should be there. It is a competitive advantage not to put it back. Why you ask? If you didn't spend the time and money to fix the wiring then what did you spend that time and money on? Tires, suspension setup, a new engine? In the front of the ITCs it clearly says that no modifications that create a competitive advantage are allowed unless specified in the rules.

Stephen

Harry
10-01-2003, 05:16 AM
Cherokee,Your right you already knew the answer and it's the original harness must remain but you can repair or replace it with all new wiring and use loom in lieu of tape. Painlss wiring is for kit car not race cars. If you can no longer get the parts then have your dealer simply sign an avidavit you hand write with the parts listed they can no longer supply. You write it so all they have to do is confirm the parts are NLA and have the parts manager sign it along with a couple of witnesses sign it then foward it to SCCA so you can get approval to use new connectors of an equal type. If you have a 30 year old car the harness is going to be pretty simple to make. I rebuilt a MGB harness in 2 days where rats had ate most of the covering away while it sat in a barn for 10 years. It's just another project you can learn from.

Scott, Go buy a used harness. I have three RX7 parts cars. It's no big task to find one. Then hook everthing up. The rule on the radios Is: "Radio recievers may be removed or replaced. Two-way radios are permitted" That's all it says so the wiring must stay.

George, Why wouldn't you just unplug the wiring from the radio in lieu of cutting it. It's much more dangerous to have a bunch of wires cut off than unpluged.
When IT began they drew a line in the sand that said 1968 and up. That's the way it should stay because I have no intention of being a party to eliminating any car built for IT by moving the date up. I hate that new car mentallity. Our racing is far from being a spectator racing series like Nascar, F1, etc. Putting newer cars on the track is not going to change that except in Pro Racing. Local dirt track racing gets more attention than the SCCA racing.
If GM's proposal to take the automobile out of the energy equation by using our most abundant element source for fuel and it's only emission is clean water that you could actually drink. Then Hydrogen will be our next fuel source. GM has not spent billions plus their now getting some money from Bush to continue their goal to have hydrogen power cars priced at the same level that cars cost today. All this in the next ten years. We had better hold on to anything that we can race old or new.
George, You don't belong on the ITAC if you feel exception here & there should be overlooked. You should stand to enforce the rules as written or make suggestions to the balance of the board the the rule should be rewritten. I highly reccomend that ITAC find out just who seems to have the final word on the Bomp Board about IT. Because what I here is that all they want to do is keep things the way HE wants it since it's his baby.
This sit back and wait and see over 4 to 5 years is BS. Changes need to happen now to bring about any parity in IT.
I could start in on you George and have you wanting to kill me behind the woodshead. I started racing IT when it first started. Never in my wildest dreams did I every think a 944 would be consider a low cost car. My car cost $1,990 new. No matter.
Someone on the Comp Board wants to try to keep IT low cost and at the same time does give a damn about the older cars. They've already went too far in some areas that they cannot police.
So from what I hear you say I don't think your in favor of competition adjustments. True or false? Where exact does George stand? We do know that he's ready to take my ass out behind the woodshead over the radio wires. HA HA HA (laughing)
Geroge you can remove 28 lbs. of non-essential wiring out of a new generation RX7.
Please know.... I know you are trying to do a very difficult task on the ITAC and I respect you for all your dedication and hard work. Keep up the fight.

I can still buy any of about 30 different new wiring harnesses for my car. It may not be the one for my year model or transmission type but it can be modified to work and with all new connectors.
Enough is enough.
Harry


[This message has been edited by Harry (edited October 01, 2003).]

Geo
10-01-2003, 08:22 AM
Originally posted by Harry:
George, Why wouldn't you just unplug the wiring from the radio in lieu of cutting it.


I would and did. If you reread what I wrote, it was in reference to a theft recovery and the potential of someone protesting the radio connector being cut off. Let's be real OK?


Originally posted by Harry:
It's much more dangerous to have a bunch of wires cut off than unpluged.


I would expect a reasonable person to cap such wires, but I suppose it's not safe to assume most people are reasonable. But I agree, cut wires hanging loose is unsafe. Again, please go back and reread what I wrote in the context in which it was written.


Originally posted by Harry:
When IT began they drew a line in the sand that said 1968 and up. That's the way it should stay because I have no intention of being a party to eliminating any car built for IT by moving the date up.


I haven't heard anyone say anything about moving this date up. I certainly would be against it. What I am opposed to is rewriting rules just because it's harder for older cars to find parts. Sorry. For me that doesn't fly.



Originally posted by Harry:
George, You don't belong on the ITAC if you feel exception here & there should be overlooked.


Please be more specific. If you're concerned about my reference to the radio connector being missing, I think you're a bit over the top. If it's in reference to something else, you'll have to be specific.


Originally posted by Harry:
You should stand to enforce the rules as written or make suggestions to the balance of the board the the rule should be rewritten.


I don't think there is anyone who could say I've done anything but this.


Originally posted by Harry:
I highly reccomend that ITAC find out just who seems to have the final word on the Bomp Board about IT. Because what I here is that all they want to do is keep things the way HE wants it since it's his baby.


I'm not aware there is a single person on the CB with personal final word on IT. I think you're making assumptions.


Originally posted by Harry:
This sit back and wait and see over 4 to 5 years is BS. Changes need to happen now to bring about any parity in IT.


Thank you for your input. http://Forums.ImprovedTouring.com/it/wink.gif


Originally posted by Harry:
I could start in on you George and have you wanting to kill me behind the woodshead.


I think you have started in on me. That's fine. You're not the first. You won't be the last. I accept that I will get some criticism because I do post publicly and also post my personal opinion.


Originally posted by Harry:
I started racing IT when it first started. Never in my wildest dreams did I every think a 944 would be consider a low cost car.


I'm not sure where that came from. But, I'll bet my 84 944 will be cheaper to build than most ITS cars. Sure, I could throw money at it in a big way and spend 2-3x as much, but it's not necessary.


Originally posted by Harry:
My car cost $1,990 new. No matter.


I assume your point is that IT cars are becoming more expensive. That's true. It concerns me as well. But I have to ask.... Have you bought a new road car in the last 30 years? They've become a lot more expensive too. Unless you want to require IT cars to be at least say 25 years old, no IT car is going to have been as cheap as yours to buy.


Originally posted by Harry:
Someone on the Comp Board wants to try to keep IT low cost and at the same time does give a damn about the older cars.


Yes, like the low cost E36 at $50k?


Originally posted by Harry:
They've already went too far in some areas that they cannot police.


I don't think there is anything anyone can do about the ECU issue. And once you start allowing modifications, the price really starts to climb. If you're talking about the ECU, there's not much anyone can do. If you're talking about something else, you'll have to be less general.


Originally posted by Harry:
So from what I hear you say I don't think your in favor of competition adjustments. True or false? Where exact does George stand?


Apparently you haven't been paying close attention. I've never hid my feelings on the subject. But, for the sake of clarity (and since I'm being called out)....

I was initially against comp adjustments. I feel if nothing else that there is too much disparity in drivers and prep in IT to be able to make reasonable adjustments.

Then Jake (lateapex911) suggested very limited adjustments to weight only. I like the idea in concept, but wasn't sure that box should be opened and I wasn't sure it could be done right.

Then, during one discussion, I came to believe that the rash of spec categories that are proliferating are in many ways a result of the dissatisfaction with parity within IT. I changed my position (and posted it here) that any harm from some sort of limited adjustments would be far less than the harm of people leaving IT for spec series. And that is where I stand today. I support the ITAC's "Performance Compensation Adjustment" proposal.


Originally posted by Harry:
We do know that he's ready to take my ass out behind the woodshead over the radio wires. HA HA HA (laughing)


If you protested someone because their radio connector was missing (but the wires still there), I think I would have to stand in line. That would be an awfully petty protest, don't you think?


Originally posted by Harry:
Please know.... I know you are trying to do a very difficult task on the ITAC and I respect you for all your dedication and hard work. Keep up the fight.

Thanks. I will.


------------------
George Roffe
Houston, TX
84 944 ITS car under construction
92 ITS Sentra SE-R occasionally borrowed
http://www.nissport.com

[This message has been edited by Geo (edited October 01, 2003).]

planet6racing
10-01-2003, 08:46 AM
Can someone please post the Radio Rule for me, straight from the GCR? I can't seem to find my PDF disk. I don't remember it saying "Radio Receiver"...

I'm one of the people who believes the wires are part of the radio. Without the wires, the radio doesn't work, therefore it is part of the radio. Just like without the wires going to the washer bottle, the washer pump doesn't work (see how I did that? I got the whole washer bottle in there too! http://Forums.ImprovedTouring.com/it/tongue.gif ). I don't think the 1 pound of wire from that and the speakers is going to make a lick of difference.

As for the original question, well, I'd probably just coil up the original harness, stick it in the glove box, get a painless wiring kit that will make everything work, and go racing. This is supposed to be about the fun of racing, not the "fun" of picking through every wire in a wire harness for 14 days just trying to get it right. Besides, show me where I can get pink wire with a green stripe so I can wire it the same as the factory did!

{edit} Stupid Smiles...

------------------
Bill
Planet 6 Racing
bill (at) planet6racing (dot) com

[This message has been edited by planet6racing (edited October 01, 2003).]

cherokee
10-01-2003, 10:24 AM
Looks like I am going to clean up the fuse box and run new wire from there...kind of hard getting a dealer letter when there has not been a dealer in the US for a long time...unless you count imported for Buick. Thanks for your advice. I am still on the fence on this car now...keep the ITA car and build the "new" car for ITB or go FP... It is hard to tell intent on the printed word I am not trying to be a pain...You Can't buy any kind of wire harness for this car...and Harry you are correct you are lucky in that you have a MG you can build one from scratch with all the repro parts out there...not so with my car. If we have to hang on to the cars we have but we have to move the rules along with the times "ECU's for example" You can now chip your car and remove your rev limit fiddle with air fuel mix at any rpm and who knows what else. Where my poor old car is stuck with rear drum brakes, and a out of production Carb...seems like the new cars got a LOT more performance possibilities out of a ECU upgrade then I ever will by pulling 10lbs of old wiring....The car will still be heavy spec line wise if I could do that.

planet6racing
10-01-2003, 12:03 PM
Cherokee:

No offense, but since you are just building your car now... No one says that you have to build this car into a race car. If there are no parts available, what are you going to do when you crash it?


------------------
Bill
Planet 6 Racing
bill (at) planet6racing (dot) com

cherokee
10-01-2003, 01:45 PM
I would like to think of that as IF I crash it. I can make body pannels that will look good on the car. I can get A-Arms, trans, rear ends, racks, glass, even new side marker lenses...just not the &%&# wire harness. Normal wear and tear items are not an issue, as well as common mechanical parts. Someone once said of the cars "on a good day you got one made by Hans the craftsman, on a bad day one by Atilla the Hun" I have yet to meet an owner that has not had to replace the wireing...I guess everything has a week point. I got my answer it is just going to come down to the joy of building an orphan. Another on this forum said if you are building an orphan you had better love it when you start....you are going to hate it when it is over...he was real close...I still love the car, I don't care if I run dead last, It will just be too cool to see it running out there. It sounds way too cool to next to those little Hondas and VW's....Just gotta be different and thats the price you pay.

eh_tony!!!
10-01-2003, 03:37 PM
Cherokee, You're not the only one in that boat, as there has not been a FIAT dealer in the US for quite some time as well. I am one-step better off though and at least have Linea Rossa, a fiat authorized parts provider. I would have to re-read the 'unavailable part' rule again, but I think you'd be defendable in a protest if.

1) You replaced what wiring was bad (all?) with the painless (or other) kit.
2) You kept the original harness inside the car.

Ever seen the creative interpretation of the door-glass rule?? (door glass shattered in a bag in the door).

Also, don't overlook the repair wording.
17.1.4 section D.8.h "All chassis/structural/electircal repair, if performed, shall be in concurrence with factory precedures, specifications, and dimensions. ..."

Read again... "IF PERFORMED"

Hell, you could even argue that Opel has no applicable "factory procedures" anymore. Why do I say that?? I'll bet there isn't a shop manual available from an "authorized dealer" to document those procedures.

SilverHorseRacing
10-01-2003, 06:47 PM
Ok, let's see the rules nerds figure out this one!

Example car has been in a fire, and is being repaired. Wiring that is required to make the car function is repaired according to factory standards so far as gauge, length, etc. Ignition, fuel pump, two-way radio wiring is added as allowed. All other wires burned in fire are not replaced.

Rule states"all repairs...if performed".

Please explain how the wires have to go back. Remember, stay within the letter of the rules http://Forums.ImprovedTouring.com/it/smile.gif

------------------
-Marcello Canitano
www.SilverHorseRacing.com (http://www.SilverHorseRacing.com)

[This message has been edited by SilverHorseRacing (edited October 01, 2003).]

Knestis
10-01-2003, 08:36 PM
Choose to "perform" the repairs? You will be out of compliance if you don't do them following factory-prescribed practice: Don't do the repairs? You are out of compliance under "Modifications shall not be made unless aughorized herein" since there is no clause in the ITCS that allows you to run burned-up wiring. Two different issues, two different rules.

It makes no difference if the part burned up, fell off, got swiped, or was purposefully removed by the owner: If it ain't there but is supposed to be, it's not legal. Kind of like the mufflers that used to "fall off" when we first started trying to quite club racing cars in the early '80s.

PLEASE don't take us down the "bag of glass" road again. If the glass breaks, it must be replaced to be legal: "Shattering" is certainly an included term under "modifying"
and is not allowed by any section of the ITCS that I've seen.

Bill - We don't have the luxury of deciding whether a cheat actually makes a difference or not when deciding whether it is legal. The radio won't work without the battery either but that doesn't make the allowed removal of the radio an excuse to take IT out. Look at your own language for clues to your true intentions: You use two different nouns - "wire" and "radio" - to describe two different things, that you subsequently decide to call parts of one.

NERD

SilverHorseRacing
10-01-2003, 09:36 PM
Originally posted by Knestis:
Choose to "perform" the repairs? You will be out of compliance if you don't do them following factory-prescribed practice: Don't do the repairs? You are out of compliance under "Modifications shall not be made unless aughorized herein" since there is no clause in the ITCS that allows you to run burned-up wiring. Two different issues, two different rules.

It makes no difference if the part burned up, fell off, got swiped, or was purposefully removed by the owner: If it ain't there but is supposed to be, it's not legal. Kind of like the mufflers that used to "fall off" when we first started trying to quite club racing cars in the early '80s.

NERD


Kirk,

Hope you're having fun with this, as am I. FWIW, I've got the horns on my car, but then again, I have tags and insurance on her too! Makes going to the shows easier.

But I digress....

Let's quote the rule, verbatim, and see what lands where...

From the 2003 GCR
8.h."All chassis/structural/electrical repair IF PERFORMED shall be in concurrence with factory procedures, specifications, and dimensions. Unless specifically authorized by the manufacturer for repair or allowed by these rules, no reinforcement, i.e. seam welding, material addition, etc. is permitted." (emphasis added by me)

Now, going back to the example I posted...the car is on track, the ignition switch in the column shorts out (common in Fords), the car burns to the ground. Driver lives to fight another day, and the chassis, mechanically, is in good shape. I have not made any UNAUTHORIZED modification. There was damage to the vehicle. The rules do not state I have to make the repair, but if I CHOOSE to, I must do it per the factory specs. Since I choose not to repair the wiring, the crumbled dust sits in the channel or what's left of the loom or whatever, and whatever wires I do choose to repair, I do per factory specs. Your analogy to mufflers don't hold water. I HAVE to meet sound control, and a "suitable" muffler "may" be required, depending on application. Ditto on the battery, since it states it must be int he original location, and of the same type and size as well. As well, if you read my original (or was it my second) post on this, the base model vehicles open up a lot of leeway in removing wiring as well, since if the car doesn't have a CD-changer in the trunk in the base model, you don't have to leave the wiring there in your optioned-out ride, since you fall under the update / backdate rule. Same for extra speakers, power locks, courtesy lighting, etc...

If we took your side of the argument to the extreme, since it "doesn't say we can, we can't"... Your horns got wet, and quit working. It didn't specifically say we could modify the horns by soaking them in a rain soaked track, so do we have to repair them? IF we don't, and the horn circuit shorts out, and burns the harness, are we making an unauthorized modification? http://Forums.ImprovedTouring.com/it/smile.gif Can an act of God (the rain) be considered an illegal modification? How would you word the protest to that, using what rationale?


http://Forums.ImprovedTouring.com/it/smile.gif


------------------
-Marcello Canitano
www.SilverHorseRacing.com (http://www.SilverHorseRacing.com)

Geo
10-01-2003, 10:01 PM
Originally posted by SilverHorseRacing:
Now, going back to the example I posted...the car is on track, the ignition switch in the column shorts out (common in Fords), the car burns to the ground. Driver lives to fight another day, and the chassis, mechanically, is in good shape. I have not made any UNAUTHORIZED modification. There was damage to the vehicle.

Well, if you choose to repair any of the loom, you must repair the entire loom or replace the entire loom. Too easy.


------------------
George Roffe
Houston, TX
84 944 ITS car under construction
92 ITS Sentra SE-R occasionally borrowed
http://www.nissport.com

planet6racing
10-01-2003, 10:18 PM
Kirk:

I'll assume this wasn't an attack, just because I know how passionate you are.

As far as the radio/battery thing, the radio will work without the battery as long as the car is running. Sorry.

The wiring for the radio is protest proven, IIRC. I believe that was mentioned above. Reasonable people may disagree with this, but in my opinion, wiring is part of the radio (just like the knobs, lcd display, and any other part you can name).

So, now what about speakers? And, what about the spare tire? I don't see those listed specifically, but I know those are gone on all the cars I have seen... (not trying to de-rail anything, but I seriously don't see any provision for removing the spare. It is clearly pointed out in SSS, but not in the ITCS that I can find).


------------------
Bill
Planet 6 Racing
bill (at) planet6racing (dot) com

Knestis
10-01-2003, 10:23 PM
Certainly not an attack, Bill - just the way it is. Over and over again it's been upheld that an modification beyond that allowed by the rules is illegal regardless of intent or the degree to which it provided a "competitive advantage."

On the other hand, Marcello is just being a big silly.

K

EDIT - Provision allowing removal of spare is on p. 22 of the ITCS.

[This message has been edited by Knestis (edited October 01, 2003).]

Geo
10-01-2003, 10:49 PM
Originally posted by planet6racing:
The wiring for the radio is protest proven, IIRC. I believe that was mentioned above. Reasonable people may disagree with this, but in my opinion, wiring is part of the radio (just like the knobs, lcd display, and any other part you can name).


I hope it's not protest proven. Most cars have the same wiring harness from the factory whether or not the radio is intalled from the factory. My Sentra SE-R was delivered to me with no radio. When I went to install it, all the wiring was there of course. So, the wiring is part of the stock harness, not the radio. I'm sure there are different cases for different cars, but I'll bet this covers most.


Originally posted by planet6racing:
And, what about the spare tire? I don't see those listed specifically, but I know those are gone on all the cars I have seen... (not trying to de-rail anything, but I seriously don't see any provision for removing the spare. It is clearly pointed out in SSS, but not in the ITCS that I can find).

That's because you're not a real nerd. http://Forums.ImprovedTouring.com/it/wink.gif

ITCS, p22 (2003) 17.1.4.D.10.i: "Spare wheels and tires may be removed."



------------------
George Roffe
Houston, TX
84 944 ITS car under construction
92 ITS Sentra SE-R occasionally borrowed
http://www.nissport.com

SilverHorseRacing
10-01-2003, 11:12 PM
Originally posted by Knestis:
Certainly not an attack, Bill - just the way it is. Over and over again it's been upheld that an modification beyond that allowed by the rules is illegal regardless of intent or the degree to which it provided a "competitive advantage."

On the other hand, Marcello is just being a big silly.


LOL... at least I'm not being called a big meanie-head http://Forums.ImprovedTouring.com/it/smile.gif Just having some fun here while I decide what to do for next season...



------------------
-Marcello Canitano
www.SilverHorseRacing.com (http://www.SilverHorseRacing.com)

Harry
10-02-2003, 02:49 AM
Originally posted by Geo:
I'm on the ITAC, but do we really want to become a vintage series like Production?I'm not for forcing out the older cars, but I personally don't believe in changing the rules to keep making it easier for the older cars to comply.
George,
I haven't seen any rule changes to keep making it easier for older cars to comply. Sounds to me like you want to dump the older cars to me. My car complies and it has always been competitive. 5 championships. I could race equally an beat the Honda's in "95 & '97 when all they were only allowed is to send false readings to the ECM to lean or richen the mixture. My ITS car 280Z won three MIdiv chamionships with no EFI modifications. That was on sponsored 205-60-14's because that was as big a tire in 14" that they offered.
All you needed to stop the cheating was to watch, check & investigate and then make the punishment fit the crime. If caught you never get to race SCCA again. Screw second chances.
I'll reply to you later to explain more and apoligize for not reading the sentence after the woodshead paragraph.
George I've been protested for some really small crap that only dealt with additional safety for myself or one of my drivers.
I've seen cars in the last few races that the builder couldn't have possibably read the GCR or ITCS rules because the car was so illegal it was patheic. I could see 20 plus items the instant I viewed the car.
My problem with you is that you think gray.When rules are black and white. The little crap doesn't matter and your give the impression that it's ok if it's nothing big. The car that had 20 plus little things wrong added up would make a difference.
I don't go around protesting anyone but if I don't police my own class and share my opinion with the other competitors then nothing gets fixed. I date back to the original ARRC's of'67 '68 & '69 and I've been consantly working to improve the rules.
They took back steps on coatings and high dollar shocks. Allowing the ECU rule was what I was refering to an it needs reversing. Like I said above make the penalty fit the crime and most of the cheating will disappear. I have enough feedback from the Comp. Board to know we have leaders & a few sheep.
More Later,
Harry



[This message has been edited by Harry (edited October 02, 2003).]

Geo
10-02-2003, 07:04 AM
Originally posted by Harry:
George,
I haven't seen any rule changes to keep making it easier for older cars to comply. Sounds to me like you want to dump the older cars to me.


Harry, this is the kind of crap that starts out of a misunderstanding, gets perpetuated, and eventually gets further twisted and retold incorrectly to the point where people complain about those who volunteer in the SCCA and say all sorts of things about them that are not true.

I personally have no interest in dumping older cars. For God's sake, my car is already 19 years old. It's only approximate 5 years newer than yours. You've misread me and perhaps are a bit sensitive to this issue (and I can understand why) and I think it has become a self fulfilling prophesy for you now. Please don't put a label on me that doesn't belong.

The issue I addressed was making allowances for older cars, and specifically it was in reference to the wiring harness and not requiring a full and correct harness. Sorry, but in that case I make no allowances and if you (in the global sense, not you specifically) are not willing to repair or replace your harness, don't ask the CB (or your competitors) to make allowances for you. Fix it or move on to a newer car that has parts available. If you reread what I wrote, you will find this to be what I addressed and was trying to say with the exception of the comment about protesting someone for a radio connector (not wires) being missing. I mean, that would be stupid IMHO - especially since those are often cut to install aftermarket radios and in the case of theft recovery, theives usually simply cut the wires to remove a radio.

I DO NOT WISH TO DUMP OLDER CARS. I SIMPLY WISH NOT TO MAKE ALLOWANCES BECAUSE PARTS MAY BE SCARCE. End of story.


Originally posted by Harry:
All you needed to stop the cheating was to watch, check & investigate and then make the punishment fit the crime. If caught you never get to race SCCA again. Screw second chances.


That's a bit Draconian, don't you think? I mean, a lot of people have trouble reading the rule book. Furthermore, there is grey in the rules. As the GCR says "reasonable people can disagree."


Originally posted by Harry:
I've seen cars in the last few races that the builder couldn't read the GCR or ITCS rules because the car was so illegal it was patheic. I could see 20 plus items the instant I viewed the car.


I know exactly what you mean. At one race last year we were on the grid and looked at the car next to us and could see at least half a dozen illegal items without really even looking.


Originally posted by Harry:
My problem with you is that you think gray. When rules are black and white.


1) Please be more specific

2) The rules in many cases are grey. Let me clarify, in many cases the rules are not specific enough.

Furthermore, there are those who spend time trying to figure out the intent of the rules. Once the rule is written, intent has zero meaning beyond what is in black and white. Unintended consequences occur. That is not the competitor's problem. It's up to the rules makers to write clear rules that say exactly what they intended. I've said this several times in ITAC discussions.

I believe the rulebook is not your enemy, but your friend. It tells you exactly what is allowed. And if it says you can, you bloody well can.

That said, yes, I look for every loophole and open door the rules makers left in the rulebook. That is not unsporting. That is being competitive. If it says I can, I can, whether or not it was intended. Again, if you would like to discuss specifics, I would be happy to.


Originally posted by Harry:
The little crap doesn't matter and your give the impression that it's ok if it's nothing big.


I have no idea where you got this impression of me. Illegal is illegal. I may not protest someone, but it doesn't mean I think it's OK. Again, you'll have to be specific. I think you are way off base. Again, unless you think it's cool to protest someone for a radio connector being missing.


Originally posted by Harry:
I don't go around protesting anyone but if I don't police my own class and share my opinion with the other competitors then nothing gets fixed.

Harry, I couldn't agree more.

Again, I don't know where or how you got these impressions, but I suspect it's from misreading some things and then creating a self fulfilling prophesy about me somehow. If you want to accuse me of something, you'll have to be more specific, because the things you've said are off base.


------------------
George Roffe
Houston, TX
84 944 ITS car under construction
92 ITS Sentra SE-R occasionally borrowed
http://www.nissport.com

[This message has been edited by Geo (edited October 02, 2003).]

cherokee
10-02-2003, 08:25 AM
Wow guys...I did not mean for this to get so heated...I was thinking it was a little gray also so wanted to see what everyone was thinking on this. When I read the rules I saw the "IF" in there and was thinking I did not have to fix it...I will just snip the wires so I don't turn into a crispy critter. I want to have the lights there..what if I want to run an enduro. We all can agree that our cars are always works in progress, lights may not be the first thing installed but they will get there. Silverhorse has my situation understood, anyone who has been around Opels know about the GT and the front head light wireing. I did find a aftermarket loom for the firewall forward...it is not factory...uses bigger wires to fix some problems. I was thinking that this was out because of the wire size changes from factory. There has got to be someone that can say yes you can or no you can't...forgive me I am in my first season. I was thinking that if someone protested you that was a VERY bad thing and was wanting to do everything I could to prevent that.

Ascona1973
10-02-2003, 08:38 AM
Cherokee, the GT front harness is not all that tough to make. Figure about 8 hours to remove the OEM front harness, make a new one from scratch, and re-install. I use SXL wire, it takes the heat better, and you don't need to change/increase the wire size. The OEM wire was not German, but rather French-made, and was covered in natural rubber. As you know, the insulation completely crumbles and falls off leaving bundles of exposed copper....

Bob

RSTPerformance
10-02-2003, 08:45 AM
"So, now what about speakers? And, what about the spare tire? I don't see those listed specifically, but I know those are gone on all the cars I have seen... (not trying to de-rail anything, but I seriously don't see any provision for removing the spare. It is clearly pointed out in SSS, but not in the ITCS that I can find)." (Bill)

LOL I was skimming this thread and saw this and it quickly reminded me of getting my anual tech this year... we run the Audi's with our spare tires (no, they are not lead filed http://Forums.ImprovedTouring.com/it/wink.gif )as the cars are so close to their minimum weight (we also like to add as much weight to the back as possible as we struggle having our engines mounted infront of the front wheels).

Anyway we were questioned as to if it was legal to run with our spare tires!!!

I thought it was funny http://Forums.ImprovedTouring.com/it/smile.gif

Raymond "no need to worry about a flat" Blethen

cherokee
10-02-2003, 09:12 AM
Yea..I know I can remake it, and thats what I am going to do...The one that OGTS sells has larger wires to take modern lights that pull more amps and that kind of thing. I am Going to just snip it and re-run it with factory size wire...but my question kinda still stands...the turn signals are below the bumper, they have to go what about the wires? I am of the mind now that I will just re-run everything even for the external voltage reg. that I know I can replace. But for the sake of argument this has been fun...what else am I going to do while the car is at the painters. Its going to be soooo cool silver with a black stripe, just like the electric GT.

itafiero
10-02-2003, 10:59 AM
Originally posted by planet6racing:
Kirk:

<snip>

So, now what about speakers? And, what about the spare tire? I don't see those listed specifically, but I know those are gone on all the cars I have seen... (not trying to de-rail anything, but I seriously don't see any provision for removing the spare. It is clearly pointed out in SSS, but not in the ITCS that I can find).




It's listed in the ITCS section: 17.1.4 D.10.a.5.i - Spare wheels and tires may be removed.

As to the speakers since that was spelled out as a removable component in SSS. I suspect it will be clarified for IT at some future date. ;->

Harry
10-02-2003, 11:10 AM
Spare wheels and tires may be removed. See i on page ITCS 20.
My single AM speaker remains in the center of the dash.
Harry http://Forums.ImprovedTouring.com/it/wink.gif

Harry
10-02-2003, 01:56 PM
Originally posted by Geo:
Harry, I couldn't agree more.

Again, I don't know where or how you got these impressions, but I suspect it's from misreading some things and then creating a self fulfilling prophesy about me somehow. If you want to accuse me of something, you'll have to be more specific, because the things you've said are off base.



Your right, I am using you to debate with to get my views read since I'm for Compitition Adjustments and Parity in IT. You voiced enough anti-old cars ("Do we want to be like Production") that's why I I chose you plus your position on the ITAC.

Guys with FI are always for the new rules ECM rules period. They always did complained before that the carbed cars had an advantage to begin with which is crap. I could see allowing a unbias source to make aterations to eliminate the Rev limitaion of the ECM but now it's Haltech ect. ect.! I can get a factory EFI system from Japan to fit my car that was designed for my type & cc engine. Shoud a carburated car be allowed to upgrade to EFI system? Should I design and manufacture a spec two barrel 32-36 downdraft EFI adjustable system to replace the DGV's. It's do able. Can we allow 240Z's to use 280Z EFI with the same allowances that the other EFI cars now get. ITM offers SU EFI replacement for the SU' already. There's no adaptor in a EFI car. Would you opposed to port matching at the carb to carbuator manifold flange on DGV carbs. because we're having to run restictor plates now?? There's no restrictor in the modified EFI system.

The following statement you made really upset me, "What I am opposed to is rewriting rules just because it's harder for older cars to find parts. Sorry. For me that doesn't fly." Please explain why.
The rules have always allowed parts superceding ie. G cam in ITC Rabbits. Are you against this written rule in Section C that allows IT to Supercede? Yes or No?

I took surveys at several races and passed out letters to IT members to respond to the Competition Adjustment issue and it was 90% for 10% against in the paddock. I was total shock when I saw the results.


If GM gets the hydrogen car off and selling in 10 years as expected using the most abundant source of energy (hydrogen). We'll have cars that's only emission is water that's clean enough to drink. It takes the car right out of the fuel equation. They have built hydrogen powered generators to power a large building. GM is doing some amazing things with hydrogen.

Eventually down the road the enviromentist will get their way. All you have to do is look back 50 years and imagine the next 50 years. Our next agenda will be energy focused. Bush has already given GM more money.

I've had two rule changes made to the ITCS this year and have many more that I'm sure you'll see shortly. I'm sure they will amuse you when you see them.

I apoligize for targeting you and if I've offened you.

Regards,
Harry
Note I edited my last post. I was very tired when I posted it.





[This message has been edited by Harry (edited October 02, 2003).]

Knestis
10-02-2003, 04:38 PM
Minor highjack...

Hydrogen is NOT an energy source, any more than is the electricity stored in the batteries of a Honda Insight. It is an energy storage and transportation technology since the manufacture of the hyrdogen to power an internal combution or fuel-cell system requries a bunch of electricity to make.

I am all for developing new technologies but there are some smoke-and-mirrors policy and R&D decisions being made out there. A gallon of methanol currently requires more than a gallon of petroleum fuel to produce, given current technologies.

We now return you to the rant already in progress...

K

Geo
10-02-2003, 05:38 PM
Originally posted by Harry:
Your right, I am using you to debate with to get my views read since I'm for Compitition Adjustments and Parity in IT. You voiced enough anti-old cars ("Do we want to be like Production") that's why I I chose you plus your position on the ITAC.


Fair enough.


Originally posted by Harry:
Guys with FI are always for the new rules ECM rules period. They always did complained before that the carbed cars had an advantage to begin with which is crap.


I also agree with you (surprise!). As I've stated in the past, I don't think we can police ECUs, but I'm all for giving carbed cars a one-time across-the-board weight break. I don't know what the right weight is, but I'd venture it's between 50-75 lbs. That's just a guess, so don't anyone hang me on that. I think the carbed guys got unintentionally screwed (not that I believe the CB intentionally screws anyone).


Originally posted by Harry:
I could see allowing a unbias source to make aterations to eliminate the Rev limitaion of the ECM but now it's Haltech ect. ect.!


I've also stated, both here and in private ITAC discussions, that IMHO the rule should be changed to require the original circuit board to remain in place in the stock location. This would prevent gutting and installing a stand-alone system, while still allowing chip replacement and in the case of somce cars, daughterboards, to remap the otherwise stock ECU. I believe this would bring the letter of the law in line with the intent here.


Originally posted by Harry:
Would you opposed to port matching at the carb to carbuator manifold flange on DGV carbs. because we're having to run restictor plates now?? There's no restrictor in the modified EFI system.


I have no opinion on this since I don't have enough knowledge of the particulare nuances of the issues in play.


Originally posted by Harry:
The following statement you made really upset me, "What I am opposed to is rewriting rules just because it's harder for older cars to find parts. Sorry. For me that doesn't fly." Please explain why.


Because the rules are the rules. As we make allowances for older cars to substitute alternate, non-stock parts (or official supercession parts), we hop on the slippery slope and start pissing contests. IMHO, if you can no longer source the required parts for your old IT car you are faced with a choice: find another class for your car to run in or find another car. Is this harsh? I guess that depends upon what side of the equation you fall on. I think it's the only way to keep it fair.


Originally posted by Harry:
The rules have always allowed parts superceding ie. G cam in ITC Rabbits. Are you against this written rule in Section C that allows IT to Supercede? Yes or No?


Again, I don't know the particular nuances here so it's hard for me to say. The manufacturer specifying superceding parts for a given car are certainly fair game. Substituting newer design parts that are not an official supercession is not IMHO. If that is what has occured, all I can say is that I did not vote yes for it and would not. The ITAC was faced with a similar request for cams for the Datsun 510 and my answer is/was a firm "no."


Originally posted by Harry:
I took surveys at several races and passed out letters to IT members to respond to the Competition Adjustment issue and it was 90% for 10% against in the paddock. I was total shock when I saw the results.


Well, we (the ITAC) were a bit shocked by some of the results. After some asking around by a number of members of the ITAC it became clear that exactly how the question was framed was important. It is very clear the bulk of the IT community does not want Production style comp adjustments. Something along the line of what we proposed seems to have rather strong support however.


Originally posted by Harry:
I apoligize for targeting you and if I've offened you.

Not at all Harry. As a member of the ITAC and a active member of this on-line community, I expect to be put on the spot, asked hard questions, have voodoo dolls made of me, etc. http://Forums.ImprovedTouring.com/it/wink.gif It comes with the job and I don't think anyone on the current ITAC feels any different.

I do wish more people would write to the CB rather than just complain here. Most requests will not fly, but well framed, well researched requests always get serious consideration, I assure you.

Lastly, while I was and am not offended, my biggest concern was being branded like so many other SCCA volunteers based upon misunderstanding and bad information.

Keep writing the CB. http://Forums.ImprovedTouring.com/it/smile.gif

------------------
George Roffe
Houston, TX
84 944 ITS car under construction
92 ITS Sentra SE-R occasionally borrowed
http://www.nissport.com

[This message has been edited by Geo (edited October 02, 2003).]

grjones1
10-02-2003, 10:54 PM
Originally posted by Geo:
[
I do wish more people would write to the CB rather than just complain here. Most requests will not fly, but well framed, well researched requests always get serious consideration, I assure you.

[/B]
Gentlmen,
May I join the fray by saying Harry and I have already had a few words and I'm beginning to think that Harry would be much happier in a courtroom than on a racetrack. Thank goodness most of the people I race with would be embarrassed to protest a missing radio wire. We really have more important things to worry about. But, let me shorten this by saying you all have missed one statement in the ITCS that allows Harry to remove most of the junk he has left in his car: 9.c. "Gauges and instruments may be added, replaced or removed." The operative term here is "instruments," which can be construed to mean a variety of items, such as light switches and turn signals; e.g., the VW factory manual lists horns as instruments. Now I know that I'll be thrown into the gray area people, but that's what makes racing so much fun: the gray area. People like Harry will build their cars under a cloud of paranoia and run 10 seconds behind the rest of the field and then run off to see what item they can protest. And every once in a while they will win a protest and in some way glean satisfaction from that practice, when most of us just want to be competitive within the rules as they make sense. When they don't make sense, like leaving old wires dangling around, we ignore them. And when they leave an opening for individual interpretation we take advantage of them until someone forces a clarification, like with the interior/exterior coating debacle. That's racing. And I'm not sure racing would be much fun if self-righteous mamby pambies take over declaring that their interpretation is the only one that makes any sense, especially when their interpretation is 180 out.

I guess while I'm at it I'll throw one out: Does it make sense to leave a glass panel (passenger side door), that must by the rule be rolled down, in a door that will likely be T-boned before the car finishs its racing career. (Yes Harry, my passenger doorwindow is still in place.) Seems to me in the name of safety we could remove that thing, lose some weight, and run more safely.
And has anyone realized how it would reduce the front-to-rear metal-to-metals if we could lose our bumpers. One would be a little more careful about punting another car if it meant he might puncture his radiator? And the cars would look neater and go faster.
Just some more muck for the raking.
G. Robert Jones

pikup_andropov
10-02-2003, 11:00 PM
Quote:
Choose to "perform" the repairs? You will be out of compliance if you don't do them following factory-prescribed practice: Don't do the repairs? You are out of compliance under "Modifications shall not be made unless aughorized herein" since there is no clause in the ITCS that allows you to run burned-up wiring. Two different issues, two different rules
unquote:

Kirk,
All your rod bearing clearances, timing chain slack, valve lash, scratches in the windshield, etc. had all better be in factory clearance specs cause under your argument "wear" is not an allowable modification. C'mon, isn't that a stretch?? The rules have to allow for wear, damage, and repair. These are mechanical devices. If the rules do not allow for this, we better just go ahead and have a standing start, race, and finish so no-one gets any "illegal valve deposits" in the exhaust ports.
I for one, assume that the folks that wrote the rules had enough smarts to realize autos would break, get wrecked, and wear. Given that huge leap of faith, the insertion of the words "IF Performed" make repair of any wear,damage optional as long as it is not mandated by another rule (i.e. neat and clean for instance).

Harry
10-03-2003, 04:44 AM
[/B][/QUOTE]
Gentlmen,
May I join the fray by saying Harry and I have already had a few words and I'm beginning to think that Harry would be much happier in a courtroom than on a racetrack.[/B]
Your right I will be in Federal Court on the 8th & 9th next week and I WILL WIN (there's no doubt in my mind) the right for all the Disabled & Senior Citizens in American on Medicare and those that do not have medical insurance because they can not afford or it's not available where they work. The can't buy their medication due to the astronomical high prices in the US. These are people that must first pay the rent and grocery bill first and have to put the medications last. Some die early because they can not afford the medications. These people are far more important to me than racing. When I'm done I will have defeating the the domestic and foreign drug companies for overcharging the all Americans just because we are Americans We allow our Goverment agency the FDA to be corrupted by the drug companies. Roche a Swiss drug compamy earns 2 billion in profit off one drug every quarter. The pills are made in Puerto Rico and cost about .30 cents to manufacture but since Roche is protected for 17 years by the FDA they can charge what ever they want and they want and they get 17.20 a pill. I take of these 12 pills a day or I die. I'm on a crusade. I'll save millions of Americans millions of dollars.
I've already set the wheels in motion that will supply drugs free to residents in nursing homes as their money supply depleats. ONE BILL HAS PASSED IN THE HOUSE AND NOW HEADED TO THE SENATE. Even if the goverment wins I have it set upthatiwin either way.
I have taken the time to tell my Driver Don Stephens what you said about his driving skills.
[/B} Thank goodness most of the people I race with would be embarrassed to protest a missing radio wire.{/B}
I just stated the rule as it is written in the ITCS you on the other hand accused me of been some sort of protest nerd that couldn't drive therefore the only way I could win was in the tech shead. IN 38 YEARS I HAVE PROTESTED THE SAME PERSON TWICE PRIOR TO THE RACE LET HIM MAKE THE CORRECTIONS THEN I ASK THE STEWARDS NOT TO PENTALIZE HIS GRID POSITION STARTED BEHIND HIM ON THE GRID IN THE RACE I PASSED HIM TWICE ONCE THE LEFT then let I him pass me back AND THE ONCE ON THE RIGHT ON THE SAME LAP THEN JUST DROVE AWAY. Me and Don call that driving circles around the Smart___. Rodbert the car was A Fiesta. I know you know DJ and the last time I race against that car a Topeka John had a ITE Camaro push the Fiesta down the front and back straights to out qualify us. We still beat them on Saturday and that was the cars first race. On Sunday John brought in ringer named Duane to see if he could beat us but that didnt work either. I bought & keep a orange Fiesta and I know every part that's suppose to be on the car as well as the weights of all the parts.
We need to move this back to the Fiesta post cause I'm going to make you eat crow next. I'm going to make an ass out you for what you said there.

{/B} But, let me shorten this by saying you all have missed one statement in the ITCS that allows Harry to remove most of the junk he has left in his car: 9.c. "Gauges and instruments may be added, replaced or removed." The operative term here is "instruments," which can be construed to mean a variety of items, such as light switches and turn signals; e.g., the VW factory manual lists horns as instruments. Now I know that I'll be thrown into the gray area people, but that's what makes racing so much fun: the gray area.[/B]

The GCR definiion for Instruments is: An indicator or readout which when active, contains infomation about some aspect of car operation for driver reference.
Sounds like a gauge not a horn to me. http://Forums.ImprovedTouring.com/it/tongue.gif


[/B] People like Harry will build their cars under a cloud of paranoia and run 10 seconds behind the rest of the field and then run off to see what item they can protest. And every once in a while they will win a protest and in some way glean satisfaction from that practice, when most of us just want to be competitive within the rules as they make sense. When they don't make sense, like leaving old wires dangling around, we ignore them. And when they leave an opening for individual interpretation we take advantage of them until someone forces a clarification, like with the interior/exterior coating debacle.[/B]
Damn I hate to be so humble. In my entire racing career I've had one 2nd place finish one third at the '91 IT Festival Topeka and I could have sent the winner home but instead I let him borrow suspension parts so he could race (it was a Rebello prepared 510 from CA) the other got away with useing a FF head (RIP Ken Kimball) and I let it slide. It will never slide again. If you don't have a federal head on your car you had better stay home cause I'm caring the correct head inspected an certified to be the only legal head for a Fiesta. There is no other legal head. You also called me a lair when I told you a Volvo had be declared illeagal for having to small of valves. The driver didn't know they where to small but Chris Albin won the ARRC in ITB in '95 because they were too small. I can email you the race report.
All the balance of my races were FIRST place except two DNF both involved being hit by another car. My last trip to Hallett running backwards was @ 135.32 that was the ARRC gear and on used up 185-60 Toyo's.
I'm having to replace all the coated partsof my engine because I'm the person that used and advertised using coating since '97. The Club Tech department came to me to provide them with the data so they could reword the rules to slam the door on internal coatings.
Last week you quote P. on page ITCS-11 All engine components not otherwise listed in theses rules shall meet factory specification for stock parts as a way to justify using a Formula Ford head on your Fiesta. The problem is that heads are listed parts P. deals with parts not listed.
Please carefully read the rules.
I'm trying to tell you now rather than later that my car will be a legal car and yours will have to be also.
Coating were legal when I used them last.
Please read the GCR.
Harry

Harry
10-03-2003, 04:52 AM
George,
When did the 510 cam thing come up?
Harry

Geo
10-03-2003, 07:23 AM
Originally posted by Harry:
George,
When did the 510 cam thing come up?
Harry

It has not been made public yet. I debated mentioning it, but since it will likely be in Fastrack, I figure there shouldn't be a problem in mentioning it.


------------------
George Roffe
Houston, TX
84 944 ITS car under construction
92 ITS Sentra SE-R occasionally borrowed
http://www.nissport.com

Geo
10-03-2003, 07:26 AM
Originally posted by grjones1:
But, let me shorten this by saying you all have missed one statement in the ITCS that allows Harry to remove most of the junk he has left in his car: 9.c. "Gauges and instruments may be added, replaced or removed." The operative term here is "instruments," which can be construed to mean a variety of items, such as light switches and turn signals; e.g., the VW factory manual lists horns as instruments.

I have to side with Harry on this one. The GCR is clear what is defined as an instrument. Nothing needs to be or should be construed.


------------------
George Roffe
Houston, TX
84 944 ITS car under construction
92 ITS Sentra SE-R occasionally borrowed
http://www.nissport.com

Knestis
10-03-2003, 08:00 AM
Originally posted by pikup_andropov:
All your rod bearing clearances, timing chain slack, valve lash, scratches in the windshield, etc. had all better be in factory clearance specs cause under your argument "wear" is not an allowable modification. C'mon, isn't that a stretch?? ...

Nyet, Pikupovich. The rules do allow for wear, precisely as it is defined by the factory manuals - all of which I am confident profide all KINDS of min/max accepted tolerances for all KINDS of parts and systems.

A great current example is the issue of ECUs "throwing codes" in Touring. One isn't allowed to say, "Oh, gee - I guess there's something wrong with my engine" when a light comes on: Fix the "broken" sensor and make it legal.

K

[Edit - even though he will probably throw his 2003 GCR at his monitor when I say it, I couldn't agree more with George on these points.]

[This message has been edited by Knestis (edited October 03, 2003).]

cherokee
10-03-2003, 08:20 AM
Ok lets say I snip the wires out of the car...don't fix them someone protests me. Then what happens, will they suspend me? kick me out? make me pay a fine? I just don't know. Sorry if I am nieve<sp> about this but I never gave it much thought.
This is a race car forum lets keep our politics out of it please! But I started this mess so let me say:

(on soap box)
Harry and all who think like him, companys are in the business to make money. If you have a problem with that move to China. People like you are why I pay 25% in income taxes...not to mention taxing me when I save money and spend money...I have got to pay for everyone else to get everything they want. The middle class is beginning to wake up and say you are not getting any more of MY MONEY. If you want to help these people out sell your race car move into a one bedroom apartment and give all your money to whatever your cause of the week is, put your money where your mouth is....I will look for the classified.
(off soap box)

We all have our own opion on how our great country or the SCCA should be run...healthy banter like this is one of the RIGHTS that we have...lets hope we don't ever loose that, and we might.

Sorry if I got heated...goverment politics have no business in a race car Rules & Reg. forum...I don't mean to make anyone mad.

10-03-2003, 10:00 AM
cherokee, you dont have to do this,

" Looks like I am going to clean up the fuse box and run new wire from there..."

the rules say if the fuse box is in the way of where you want the cage to go you can relocate it, dosnt say how far... I screwed mine into the front of my glove box door for easy access, play by the rules but try and use them to your advantage when you can, its called racing, wasnt it AJ Foyt that stepped out of his indy car with a nitrous bottle in his drivers suit, he was opening the bottle up and letting it flow into the air intake behind him, probly had him cracking up in the cockpit too. two gallon filler necks in donahues trans am camaros, ect ect ect. dont break them, use them. I had a EP driver walk up to me at laguna and ask me if my ITA RX7 was street ported, well its not, ports are bone stock but it sure sounds like its ported, has to do with prim/sec jet sizes and with the timing but thats all legal, then again my motors last four stinkin weekends but hey.



[This message has been edited by 7'sRracing (edited October 03, 2003).]

10-03-2003, 10:06 AM
double post

[This message has been edited by 7'sRracing (edited October 03, 2003).]

grjones1
10-03-2003, 10:35 AM
Originally posted by Harry:


goverment wins I have it set upthatiwin either way. [Q]

Thank you for defending America.

I have taken the time to tell my Driver Don Stephens what you said about his driving skills. [Q]

I wasn't talking to Don Stephens I was talking to you.

We need to move this back to the Fiesta post cause I'm going to make you eat crow next. I'm going to make an ass out you for what you said there. [Q]

I look forward to debating you there.

The GCR definiion for Instruments is: An indicator or readout which when active, contains infomation about some aspect of car operation for driver reference.
Sounds like a gauge not a horn to me. http://Forums.ImprovedTouring.com/it/tongue.gif [Q]

The GCR definitions do not apply in all circumstances and if gauges are instruments, why does the rule say "gauges and instruments." Sounds circular to me, and if factory manuals appear to be sources by which some rules are made, what are we going to do about VW calling horns instruments?


I'm having to replace all the coated partsof my engine because I'm the person that used and advertised using coating since '97.
Coating were legal when I used them last.
Please read the GCR.[Q]
Harry

Why Harry, it sounds like you've been in the grey area of the rules all this time??! I'm shocked.
G. Robert Jones


[/B][/QUOTE]

grjones1
10-03-2003, 10:45 AM
Even if the goverment wins I have it set upthatiwin either way.

Thanks for defending America. I did that in Viet Nam.
GRJ

I have taken the time to tell my Driver Don Stephens what you said about his driving skills.

I wasn'ttalking to DonI was talking to you.

[/B}
We need to move this back to the Fiesta post cause I'm going to make you eat crow next. I'm going to make an ass out you for what you said there.

Ilook forward to it. GRJ


The GCR definiion for Instruments is: An indicator or readout which when active, contains infomation about some aspect of car operation for driver reference.
Sounds like a gauge not a horn to me. http://Forums.ImprovedTouring.com/it/tongue.gif

The GCR definitions are second to ITCS. And why would the rule read "gauges and instruments" if they were the same? And haow do we deal with VW calling horns instruments?
Factory manuals appear to be the guiding principle for most IT rules?
GRJ

Coating were legal when I used them last.
Please read the GCR.
Harry


[/B][/QUOTE]
Why Harry, it sounds like you've been in the grey area all thistime?!! I'm shocked.
GRJ

grjones1
10-03-2003, 10:46 AM
Even if the goverment wins I have it set upthatiwin either way.

Thanks for defending America. I did that in Viet Nam.
GRJ

I have taken the time to tell my Driver Don Stephens what you said about his driving skills.

I wasn'ttalking to DonI was talking to you.

[/B}
We need to move this back to the Fiesta post cause I'm going to make you eat crow next. I'm going to make an ass out you for what you said there.

Ilook forward to it. GRJ


The GCR definiion for Instruments is: An indicator or readout which when active, contains infomation about some aspect of car operation for driver reference.
Sounds like a gauge not a horn to me. http://Forums.ImprovedTouring.com/it/tongue.gif

The GCR definitions are second to ITCS. And why would the rule read "gauges and instruments" if they were the same? And haow do we deal with VW calling horns instruments?
Factory manuals appear to be the guiding principle for most IT rules?
GRJ

Coating were legal when I used them last.
Please read the GCR.
Harry


[/B][/QUOTE]
Why Harry, it sounds like you've been in the grey area all thistime?!! I'm shocked.
GRJ

grjones1
10-03-2003, 10:54 AM
Originally posted by Harry:


Gentlmen,
May I join the fray by saying Harry and I have already had a few words and I'm beginning to think that Harry would be much happier in a courtroom than on a racetrack.[/B]
Your right I will be in Federal Court on the 8th & 9th next week and I WILL WIN (there's no doubt in my mind) the right for all the Disabled & Senior Citizens in American on Medicare and those that do not have medical insurance because they can not afford or it's not available where they work. The can't buy their medication due to the astronomical high prices in the US. These are people that must first pay the rent and grocery bill first and have to put the medications last. Some die early because they can not afford the medications. These people are far more important to me than racing. When I'm done I will have defeating the the domestic and foreign drug companies for overcharging the all Americans just because we are Americans We allow our Goverment agency the FDA to be corrupted by the drug companies. Roche a Swiss drug compamy earns 2 billion in profit off one drug every quarter. The pills are made in Puerto Rico and cost about .30 cents to manufacture but since Roche is protected for 17 years by the FDA they can charge what ever they want and they want and they get 17.20 a pill. I take of these 12 pills a day or I die. I'm on a crusade. I'll save millions of Americans millions of dollars.
I've already set the wheels in motion that will supply drugs free to residents in nursing homes as their money supply depleats. ONE BILL HAS PASSED IN THE HOUSE AND NOW HEADED TO THE SENATE. Even if the goverment wins I have it set upthatiwin either way.
I have taken the time to tell my Driver Don Stephens what you said about his driving skills.
[/B} Thank goodness most of the people I race with would be embarrassed to protest a missing radio wire.{/B}
I just stated the rule as it is written in the ITCS you on the other hand accused me of been some sort of protest nerd that couldn't drive therefore the only way I could win was in the tech shead. IN 38 YEARS I HAVE PROTESTED THE SAME PERSON TWICE PRIOR TO THE RACE LET HIM MAKE THE CORRECTIONS THEN I ASK THE STEWARDS NOT TO PENTALIZE HIS GRID POSITION STARTED BEHIND HIM ON THE GRID IN THE RACE I PASSED HIM TWICE ONCE THE LEFT then let I him pass me back AND THE ONCE ON THE RIGHT ON THE SAME LAP THEN JUST DROVE AWAY. Me and Don call that driving circles around the Smart___. Rodbert the car was A Fiesta. I know you know DJ and the last time I race against that car a Topeka John had a ITE Camaro push the Fiesta down the front and back straights to out qualify us. We still beat them on Saturday and that was the cars first race. On Sunday John brought in ringer named Duane to see if he could beat us but that didnt work either. I bought & keep a orange Fiesta and I know every part that's suppose to be on the car as well as the weights of all the parts.
We need to move this back to the Fiesta post cause I'm going to make you eat crow next. I'm going to make an ass out you for what you said there.

{/B} But, let me shorten this by saying you all have missed one statement in the ITCS that allows Harry to remove most of the junk he has left in his car: 9.c. "Gauges and instruments may be added, replaced or removed." The operative term here is "instruments," which can be construed to mean a variety of items, such as light switches and turn signals; e.g., the VW factory manual lists horns as instruments. Now I know that I'll be thrown into the gray area people, but that's what makes racing so much fun: the gray area.[/B]

The GCR definiion for Instruments is: An indicator or readout which when active, contains infomation about some aspect of car operation for driver reference.
Sounds like a gauge not a horn to me. http://Forums.ImprovedTouring.com/it/tongue.gif


[/B] People like Harry will build their cars under a cloud of paranoia and run 10 seconds behind the rest of the field and then run off to see what item they can protest. And every once in a while they will win a protest and in some way glean satisfaction from that practice, when most of us just want to be competitive within the rules as they make sense. When they don't make sense, like leaving old wires dangling around, we ignore them. And when they leave an opening for individual interpretation we take advantage of them until someone forces a clarification, like with the interior/exterior coating debacle.[/B]
Damn I hate to be so humble. In my entire racing career I've had one 2nd place finish one third at the '91 IT Festival Topeka and I could have sent the winner home but instead I let him borrow suspension parts so he could race (it was a Rebello prepared 510 from CA) the other got away with useing a FF head (RIP Ken Kimball) and I let it slide. It will never slide again. If you don't have a federal head on your car you had better stay home cause I'm caring the correct head inspected an certified to be the only legal head for a Fiesta. There is no other legal head. You also called me a lair when I told you a Volvo had be declared illeagal for having to small of valves. The driver didn't know they where to small but Chris Albin won the ARRC in ITB in '95 because they were too small. I can email you the race report.
All the balance of my races were FIRST place except two DNF both involved being hit by another car. My last trip to Hallett running backwards was @ 135.32 that was the ARRC gear and on used up 185-60 Toyo's.
I'm having to replace all the coated partsof my engine because I'm the person that used and advertised using coating since '97. The Club Tech department came to me to provide them with the data so they could reword the rules to slam the door on internal coatings.
Last week you quote P. on page ITCS-11 All engine components not otherwise listed in theses rules shall meet factory specification for stock parts as a way to justify using a Formula Ford head on your Fiesta. The problem is that heads are listed parts P. deals with parts not listed.
Please carefully read the rules.
I'm trying to tell you now rather than later that my car will be a legal car and yours will have to be also.
Coating were legal when I used them last.
Please read the GCR.
Harry


[/B][/QUOTE]
Harry,
Thanks for defending America. I did in Viet Nam.
I wasn't talking to Don Stephens, Iwas talking to you.
The GCR definitions are secondary to use in the ITCS and if gauges are instruments, why does the rule say "gauges and instruments," and why does VW call horns instruments?

And Harr, if you've coated your motor interiorly sounds like you've been in the gray area all this time. I'm shocked.
GRJ

Geo
10-03-2003, 10:56 AM
Originally posted by grjones1:
The GCR definitions do not apply in all circumstances and if gauges are instruments, why does the rule say "gauges and instruments." Sounds circular to me, and if factory manuals appear to be sources by which some rules are made, what are we going to do about VW calling horns instruments?

Oh my. I'm sorry, but this is strained. The GCR warns about strained definitions as well. I'd bet big money you are dead wrong. Oh, and VW does not set the definitions, the SCCA does.

By your thinking I can run a turbo. Let's see.... Exhaust is open after the cylinder head. So, I can install a turbo manifold and a turbo, right? Now, if I install the compressor side before the air flow metering device and source the air from either the stock location, or under the hood, I'm legal. Wow.


------------------
George Roffe
Houston, TX
84 944 ITS car under construction
92 ITS Sentra SE-R occasionally borrowed
http://www.nissport.com

grjones1
10-03-2003, 11:01 AM
Harry,
Thanks for defending America. I guess you could say I dended her in Viet Nam.

Iwasn't talking to Don Stephens, I was talking to you.

The GCR definitions are not absolute. And if gauges are instruments, why does the rule say "gauges and instruments." Sounds circular to me. And why would VW call instruments horns? And Harry, if you have coated your motor, it sounds like you've been in the grey area all this time. I'm shocked.
GRJ

Geo
10-03-2003, 11:05 AM
Originally posted by Knestis:
[Edit - even though he will probably throw his 2003 GCR at his monitor when I say it, I couldn't agree more with George on these points.]

Hehe. Hey Kirk, I know it may sometimes feel we are at odds. I think it's less so than you think. I probably agree with you much more philosophically than you imagine. Where I think we differ is in practical application to the issue at hand in the current environment. A good example of this is I 100% support your MT2 initiative.

It's fresh. It's very clearly written, and it's a good example of taking a philosophical position and turning it into excellent practical application. The only thing I disagree with is using valve area as part of the regs. Just use a inlet restrictor and be done with it. You'll eliminate pissing contests that would crop up over vale area.

As I've said from the start, I don't think IT2 stands a chance in hell within the current IT framework since it would require it's own rules subset within the ITCS and from a pratical standpoint, it just won't fly.


------------------
George Roffe
Houston, TX
84 944 ITS car under construction
92 ITS Sentra SE-R occasionally borrowed
http://www.nissport.com

grjones1
10-03-2003, 11:11 AM
Originally posted by Harry:


Gentlmen,
May I join the fray by saying Harry and I have already had a few words and I'm beginning to think that Harry would be much happier in a courtroom than on a racetrack.[/B]
Your right I will be in Federal Court on the 8th & 9th next week and I WILL WIN (there's no doubt in my mind) the right for all the Disabled & Senior Citizens in American on Medicare and those that do not have medical insurance because they can not afford or it's not available where they work. The can't buy their medication due to the astronomical high prices in the US. These are people that must first pay the rent and grocery bill first and have to put the medications last. Some die early because they can not afford the medications. These people are far more important to me than racing. When I'm done I will have defeating the the domestic and foreign drug companies for overcharging the all Americans just because we are Americans We allow our Goverment agency the FDA to be corrupted by the drug companies. Roche a Swiss drug compamy earns 2 billion in profit off one drug every quarter. The pills are made in Puerto Rico and cost about .30 cents to manufacture but since Roche is protected for 17 years by the FDA they can charge what ever they want and they want and they get 17.20 a pill. I take of these 12 pills a day or I die. I'm on a crusade. I'll save millions of Americans millions of dollars.
I've already set the wheels in motion that will supply drugs free to residents in nursing homes as their money supply depleats. ONE BILL HAS PASSED IN THE HOUSE AND NOW HEADED TO THE SENATE. Even if the goverment wins I have it set upthatiwin either way.
I have taken the time to tell my Driver Don Stephens what you said about his driving skills.
[/B} Thank goodness most of the people I race with would be embarrassed to protest a missing radio wire.{/B}
I just stated the rule as it is written in the ITCS you on the other hand accused me of been some sort of protest nerd that couldn't drive therefore the only way I could win was in the tech shead. IN 38 YEARS I HAVE PROTESTED THE SAME PERSON TWICE PRIOR TO THE RACE LET HIM MAKE THE CORRECTIONS THEN I ASK THE STEWARDS NOT TO PENTALIZE HIS GRID POSITION STARTED BEHIND HIM ON THE GRID IN THE RACE I PASSED HIM TWICE ONCE THE LEFT then let I him pass me back AND THE ONCE ON THE RIGHT ON THE SAME LAP THEN JUST DROVE AWAY. Me and Don call that driving circles around the Smart___. Rodbert the car was A Fiesta. I know you know DJ and the last time I race against that car a Topeka John had a ITE Camaro push the Fiesta down the front and back straights to out qualify us. We still beat them on Saturday and that was the cars first race. On Sunday John brought in ringer named Duane to see if he could beat us but that didnt work either. I bought & keep a orange Fiesta and I know every part that's suppose to be on the car as well as the weights of all the parts.
We need to move this back to the Fiesta post cause I'm going to make you eat crow next. I'm going to make an ass out you for what you said there.

{/B} But, let me shorten this by saying you all have missed one statement in the ITCS that allows Harry to remove most of the junk he has left in his car: 9.c. "Gauges and instruments may be added, replaced or removed." The operative term here is "instruments," which can be construed to mean a variety of items, such as light switches and turn signals; e.g., the VW factory manual lists horns as instruments. Now I know that I'll be thrown into the gray area people, but that's what makes racing so much fun: the gray area.[/B]

The GCR definiion for Instruments is: An indicator or readout which when active, contains infomation about some aspect of car operation for driver reference.
Sounds like a gauge not a horn to me. http://Forums.ImprovedTouring.com/it/tongue.gif


[/B] People like Harry will build their cars under a cloud of paranoia and run 10 seconds behind the rest of the field and then run off to see what item they can protest. And every once in a while they will win a protest and in some way glean satisfaction from that practice, when most of us just want to be competitive within the rules as they make sense. When they don't make sense, like leaving old wires dangling around, we ignore them. And when they leave an opening for individual interpretation we take advantage of them until someone forces a clarification, like with the interior/exterior coating debacle.[/B]
Damn I hate to be so humble. In my entire racing career I've had one 2nd place finish one third at the '91 IT Festival Topeka and I could have sent the winner home but instead I let him borrow suspension parts so he could race (it was a Rebello prepared 510 from CA) the other got away with useing a FF head (RIP Ken Kimball) and I let it slide. It will never slide again. If you don't have a federal head on your car you had better stay home cause I'm caring the correct head inspected an certified to be the only legal head for a Fiesta. There is no other legal head. You also called me a lair when I told you a Volvo had be declared illeagal for having to small of valves. The driver didn't know they where to small but Chris Albin won the ARRC in ITB in '95 because they were too small. I can email you the race report.
All the balance of my races were FIRST place except two DNF both involved being hit by another car. My last trip to Hallett running backwards was @ 135.32 that was the ARRC gear and on used up 185-60 Toyo's.
I'm having to replace all the coated partsof my engine because I'm the person that used and advertised using coating since '97. The Club Tech department came to me to provide them with the data so they could reword the rules to slam the door on internal coatings.
Last week you quote P. on page ITCS-11 All engine components not otherwise listed in theses rules shall meet factory specification for stock parts as a way to justify using a Formula Ford head on your Fiesta. The problem is that heads are listed parts P. deals with parts not listed.
Please carefully read the rules.
I'm trying to tell you now rather than later that my car will be a legal car and yours will have to be also.
Coating were legal when I used them last.
Please read the GCR.
Harry


[/B][/QUOTE]
Harry, Thanks for defending America. I guess you could say I did that in Viet Nam.

I wasn't talking to Don Stephens, I was talking to you.

GCR definitions are not absoliute. And if gauges are instruments, why does the rule say "gauges and instruments"? Sounds circular to me. And why would VW list horns under instruments if your definition were the only one?

And Harry, if you've been using interior coatings, sounds like you've been in the grey area all this time. I'm shocked.
G. Robert Jones

grjones1
10-03-2003, 11:25 AM
Originally posted by Harry:


Gentlmen,
May I join the fray by saying Harry and I have already had a few words and I'm beginning to think that Harry would be much happier in a courtroom than on a racetrack.[/B]
Your right I will be in Federal Court on the 8th & 9th next week and I WILL WIN (there's no doubt in my mind) the right for all the Disabled & Senior Citizens in American on Medicare and those that do not have medical insurance because they can not afford or it's not available where they work. The can't buy their medication due to the astronomical high prices in the US. These are people that must first pay the rent and grocery bill first and have to put the medications last. Some die early because they can not afford the medications. These people are far more important to me than racing. When I'm done I will have defeating the the domestic and foreign drug companies for overcharging the all Americans just because we are Americans We allow our Goverment agency the FDA to be corrupted by the drug companies. Roche a Swiss drug compamy earns 2 billion in profit off one drug every quarter. The pills are made in Puerto Rico and cost about .30 cents to manufacture but since Roche is protected for 17 years by the FDA they can charge what ever they want and they want and they get 17.20 a pill. I take of these 12 pills a day or I die. I'm on a crusade. I'll save millions of Americans millions of dollars.
I've already set the wheels in motion that will supply drugs free to residents in nursing homes as their money supply depleats. ONE BILL HAS PASSED IN THE HOUSE AND NOW HEADED TO THE SENATE. Even if the goverment wins I have it set upthatiwin either way.
I have taken the time to tell my Driver Don Stephens what you said about his driving skills.
[/B} Thank goodness most of the people I race with would be embarrassed to protest a missing radio wire.{/B}
I just stated the rule as it is written in the ITCS you on the other hand accused me of been some sort of protest nerd that couldn't drive therefore the only way I could win was in the tech shead. IN 38 YEARS I HAVE PROTESTED THE SAME PERSON TWICE PRIOR TO THE RACE LET HIM MAKE THE CORRECTIONS THEN I ASK THE STEWARDS NOT TO PENTALIZE HIS GRID POSITION STARTED BEHIND HIM ON THE GRID IN THE RACE I PASSED HIM TWICE ONCE THE LEFT then let I him pass me back AND THE ONCE ON THE RIGHT ON THE SAME LAP THEN JUST DROVE AWAY. Me and Don call that driving circles around the Smart___. Rodbert the car was A Fiesta. I know you know DJ and the last time I race against that car a Topeka John had a ITE Camaro push the Fiesta down the front and back straights to out qualify us. We still beat them on Saturday and that was the cars first race. On Sunday John brought in ringer named Duane to see if he could beat us but that didnt work either. I bought & keep a orange Fiesta and I know every part that's suppose to be on the car as well as the weights of all the parts.
We need to move this back to the Fiesta post cause I'm going to make you eat crow next. I'm going to make an ass out you for what you said there.

{/B} But, let me shorten this by saying you all have missed one statement in the ITCS that allows Harry to remove most of the junk he has left in his car: 9.c. "Gauges and instruments may be added, replaced or removed." The operative term here is "instruments," which can be construed to mean a variety of items, such as light switches and turn signals; e.g., the VW factory manual lists horns as instruments. Now I know that I'll be thrown into the gray area people, but that's what makes racing so much fun: the gray area.[/B]

The GCR definiion for Instruments is: An indicator or readout which when active, contains infomation about some aspect of car operation for driver reference.
Sounds like a gauge not a horn to me. http://Forums.ImprovedTouring.com/it/tongue.gif


[/B] People like Harry will build their cars under a cloud of paranoia and run 10 seconds behind the rest of the field and then run off to see what item they can protest. And every once in a while they will win a protest and in some way glean satisfaction from that practice, when most of us just want to be competitive within the rules as they make sense. When they don't make sense, like leaving old wires dangling around, we ignore them. And when they leave an opening for individual interpretation we take advantage of them until someone forces a clarification, like with the interior/exterior coating debacle.[/B]
Damn I hate to be so humble. In my entire racing career I've had one 2nd place finish one third at the '91 IT Festival Topeka and I could have sent the winner home but instead I let him borrow suspension parts so he could race (it was a Rebello prepared 510 from CA) the other got away with useing a FF head (RIP Ken Kimball) and I let it slide. It will never slide again. If you don't have a federal head on your car you had better stay home cause I'm caring the correct head inspected an certified to be the only legal head for a Fiesta. There is no other legal head. You also called me a lair when I told you a Volvo had be declared illeagal for having to small of valves. The driver didn't know they where to small but Chris Albin won the ARRC in ITB in '95 because they were too small. I can email you the race report.
All the balance of my races were FIRST place except two DNF both involved being hit by another car. My last trip to Hallett running backwards was @ 135.32 that was the ARRC gear and on used up 185-60 Toyo's.
I'm having to replace all the coated partsof my engine because I'm the person that used and advertised using coating since '97. The Club Tech department came to me to provide them with the data so they could reword the rules to slam the door on internal coatings.
Last week you quote P. on page ITCS-11 All engine components not otherwise listed in theses rules shall meet factory specification for stock parts as a way to justify using a Formula Ford head on your Fiesta. The problem is that heads are listed parts P. deals with parts not listed.
Please carefully read the rules.
I'm trying to tell you now rather than later that my car will be a legal car and yours will have to be also.
Coating were legal when I used them last.
Please read the GCR.
Harry


[/B][/QUOTE]

Thanks for defending America, Harry. I like to think that's what I did in Viet Nam.

I wasn't talking to Don Stephens, Harry, I was talking to you.

GCR definitions are not absolute. Why would the rules say "gauges and instruments" if they were the same? And how could VW list horns under instruments if your definition were the only one?

And I'm shocked Harry thet you would coat the interior of your motor without strict interpretation of the rules. You were in the grey area!
G. Robert Jones

eh_tony!!!
10-03-2003, 02:04 PM
ROBERT!!!!!!!!!

STOP HITTING SUBMIT!!!!!!!!!!!!

grjones1
10-03-2003, 03:03 PM
Originally posted by Geo:
Oh my. I'm sorry, but this is strained. The GCR warns about strained definitions as well. I'd bet big money you are dead wrong. Oh, and VW does not set the definitions, the SCCA does.

By your thinking I can run a turbo. Let's see.... Exhaust is open after the cylinder head. So, I can install a turbo manifold and a turbo, right? Now, if I install the compressor side before the air flow metering device and source the air from either the stock location, or under the hood, I'm legal. Wow.



Gentlemen,
I vehemently apologize for the repeats. Sometimes my computer skills are lacking. But to the point: I respect your rebuttals and your judgement in many cases but I would ask please answer the responses. You still haven't answered if gauges and instruments are the same thing as defined, why does the ITCS say "gauges and instruments." And I would offer up in the case of the G grind cam that VW in fact does write the rules. You are ignoring the fact that the rules themselves allow the manufacturer's to write the rules: If the manufacureer provides a list of alternative parts for a certain model, BY THE RULES those parts are allowed: "Parts or assemblies which the manufacturer lists in factory service manuals or parts guides for a particular model which supercede or replace original parts or assemblies are permitted."

As far as GCR definitions: "Should any of the definitions contained in this glossary
appear to be in conflict with a specific rule, then the GCR or Spec Book will take precedence."

I'm sorry to continually quote the book but we either go by the letter of the law (as Harry would have it) or not. Come on now.

And George I think it's pretty clear in a mumber of places that turbos are taboo - bad analogy. And I recognize your hyperbole.
G. Robert Jones

rage_racing
10-03-2003, 03:15 PM
I must say reading the same post oh what 20 freaking times was quite enlightening....not!!!!!

and as far as being the forum newb I am all that much more confused about it all!!!

grjones1
10-03-2003, 03:20 PM
Originally posted by Harry:


Gentlmen,

Last week you quote P. on page ITCS-11 All engine components not otherwise listed in theses rules shall meet factory specification for stock parts as a way to justify using a Formula Ford head on your Fiesta. The problem is that heads are listed Harry


[/B][/QUOTE]
Where are heads "listed"?
GRJ

10-03-2003, 03:25 PM
BLAH BLAH BLAH, poor guy asks a simple question on the race car site and you guys fill him full of BS, why dont you guys go have your pissing matches in private so we all dont have to read them, were here to talk about friggin race cars............

------------------
Daryl Brightwell
ITA RX7 #11
NORPAC
ITA RX7 #77
SOPAC

cherokee
10-03-2003, 03:34 PM
SAY IT AGAIN BROTHER http://Forums.ImprovedTouring.com/it/smile.gif

What would happen to me if a protest like this was upheld?

10-03-2003, 04:01 PM
C, or nameless one, I have been racing my ITA car in two different regions since march 02 with none of the stock wiring harness in the car at all, and no one has said a word about it. people need to get out more often if they think all these racers across the country give a hoot what you have unless your gaining a competitive advantage illegally. in other words MOST of us would just be glad you came out to play with us rather than nitpick your car, hell we'll even try to help you go faster if we can. dont let these morons give you any indication what scca racers are like.

edit to answer original question.

if some a--hole protested you because you were missing some of the stock wireing he would be labeled an a--hole and nobody in the pits would talk to him for a long while.
the officials in my region would tell you if your going to be finishing up high and racing with crybabies you (a) dont let them near your car, or (B) at least make it look legal. if you were racing for first place in points everything is possible and you will get DQ'ed if some one pushes the matter, but, not likely for a non competitive gaining infraction such any wireing issue.

[This message has been edited by 7'sRracing (edited October 03, 2003).]

planet6racing
10-03-2003, 04:08 PM
7's racing is right. Get the car together, come out, and have fun. If you're in my area/division (Milwaukee Region, Central Division) and we are at the same track, stop by, have something to drink, and we can discuss the "fun" things we went through putting our cars together.

No matter how you build your car, someone is going to have read the rules different. Reasonable people may disagree. Accept it and move on.

As for what would happen in a protest, it would probably be the minimum penalty of times disallowed for the day and a note in you logbook to fix it. Of course, I've never been protested, so don't hold me to this...


------------------
Bill
Planet 6 Racing
bill (at) planet6racing (dot) com

grjones1
10-03-2003, 04:09 PM
Originally posted by 7'sRracing:
BLAH BLAH BLAH, poor guy asks a simple question on the race car site and you guys fill him full of BS, why dont you guys go have your pissing matches in private so we all dont have to read them, were here to talk about friggin race cars............


Again I' m sorry, Daryl, for hitting SUBMIT too many times. The space is now returned (at least for my part) to those who want to talk about real racing.
G. Robert Jones

planet6racing
10-03-2003, 04:54 PM
I think what Daryl was trying to say was:

We're all racers. We understand the sacrifices some have to make to get the car on track. We're happy to see you out there and having fun. If we have a problem with something, we'll come talk to you about it and resolve the situation amicably.

http://Forums.ImprovedTouring.com/it/smile.gif

10-03-2003, 05:14 PM
http://Forums.ImprovedTouring.com/it/smile.gif

itaintegra31
10-03-2003, 05:28 PM
I also agree with my buddy Daryl, if not having the stock wiring harness is going to make your car a lot faster then worry about getting protested, if it is not going to make the car faster then just go out and have fun. This thread has been getting on my nerves since it started, thanks Daryl for telling it how it is.

------------------
Ron Carroll
REC Motorsports Inc.
#35 ITA integra

lateapex911
10-03-2003, 07:44 PM
Phew!

It's getting hot and long winded in here! Perhaps the Santa Anas are blowing........


Kirk has, as usual, provided clarity. If parts or conditions have 'worn' beyond their allowable clearances, they are protestable. In some cases it is conceivable that a performance gain could be realized. And that the contestant has created such a condition on purpose. Ridiculous as it may sound, what's to stop a competitor from intentionally shorting/burning whole and uneeded sections of wiring looms? (The RX-7 axle 'bend' concept comes to mind here)

I can't believe it has gone this far....

I'm heading out to the shop to double check my radio connectors!

But.......in a gazillion years I would't think about writing paper on a radio connector....but I do want people to make their best efforts, on a continuing basis, to run a well prepared legal car, and to show respect for the rule set. And that respect does include clever, open minded problem solving solutions that meet the letter of the law, but not always the intent. OK, Geo? http://Forums.ImprovedTouring.com/it/wink.gif

------------------
Jake Gulick
CarriageHouse Motorsports
ITA 57 RX-7
New England Region
[email protected]

[This message has been edited by lateapex911 (edited October 03, 2003).]

Geo
10-03-2003, 08:26 PM
Originally posted by lateapex911:
Ridiculous as it may sound, what's to stop a competitor from intentionally shorting/burning whole and uneeded sections of wiring looms? (The RX-7 axle 'bend' concept comes to mind here)

Hate to open an old wound, but that modification is 100% legal since there is absolutley no spec on rear camber of a gen I RX-7.


Originally posted by lateapex911:
I can't believe it has gone this far....


With this crowd?? Three margurita lunch today? http://Forums.ImprovedTouring.com/it/wink.gif


Originally posted by lateapex911:
But.......in a gazillion years I would't think about writing paper on a radio connector....


Amen.


Originally posted by lateapex911:
but I do want people to make their best efforts, on a continuing basis, to run a well prepared legal car, and to show respect for the rule set. And that respect does include clever, open minded problem solving solutions that meet the letter of the law, but not always the intent. OK, Geo? http://Forums.ImprovedTouring.com/it/wink.gif

Couldn't agree more Jake. Dispite some of what has been written here, I would love to see more peer pressure to field a legal car.


------------------
George Roffe
Houston, TX
84 944 ITS car under construction
92 ITS Sentra SE-R occasionally borrowed
http://www.nissport.com

Knestis
10-03-2003, 08:44 PM
Originally posted by 7'sRracing:
...if some a--hole protested you because you were missing some of the stock wireing he would be labeled an a--hole and nobody in the pits would talk to him for a long while.
the officials in my region would tell you if your going to be finishing up high and racing with crybabies you (a) dont let them near your car, or (B) at least make it look legal.

I am the biggest moral relativist that I know but this is a pretty sad state of affairs.

This conversation is NOT about wiring harnesses: It's about cheating. We all have to decide what we are comfortable with in our own behavior and in that of others. If any given driver exactly what he/she will give, in terms of running a legal car, then at least he/she has a defensible position.

However, the point at which someone with a illegal stuff raises a stink over a post-race beer about so-and-so's cheater car, he or she is officially, to SOME DEGREE, a hypocrit. It's been my experience that a lot of the angst at the average club race comes from allegations, innuendo, gossip-mongering, and general bitching about cheaters - often by the cheaters. People rationalize their illegalities in all kinds of ways, most often by invoking the fact that "everyone else is doing it."

I'm just not sure that i like this aspect of our game.

K (who seems to be running the risk of being an a--hole in addition to a NERD)

cherokee
10-03-2003, 09:00 PM
I will do what I can to make the car legal...but as now I am running 4-7 place out of about 15-20 cars...I doubt that anyone would go after me...I did win one time in my class...it was my second race and I did not even know that I won. If someone wants to take it to the letter of the law I will just deal with it then...if a DQ is the worst that can happen...big deal, I am just happy to be racing...I don't care if I am first or last....still just as fun.

10-03-2003, 10:50 PM
Quote "It's been my experience that a lot of the angst at the average club race comes from allegations, innuendo, gossip-mongering, and general bitching about cheaters - often by the cheaters."

I used to get mired in that crap, till I noticed I wasnt having any fun, when you race a car thats underpowered, outdated, and doomed by the very intent of the rules why sweat the petty stuff, go race and have fun and when you can afford a real race car, go national class. this will be my last season in ITA, my EP rx7 should be ready for the june race at laguna. and no K your not an a--hole, you just play one on the internet. LOL just kidding http://Forums.ImprovedTouring.com/it/smile.gif everyone's always too serious on the forums.

Geo
10-03-2003, 10:59 PM
Originally posted by cherokee:
I am just happy to be racing...I don't care if I am first or last....still just as fun.

Then why cheat?

What a crock.


------------------
George Roffe
Houston, TX
84 944 ITS car under construction
92 ITS Sentra SE-R occasionally borrowed
http://www.nissport.com

Geo
10-03-2003, 11:00 PM
Originally posted by grjones1:
And George I think it's pretty clear in a mumber of places that turbos are taboo - bad analogy. And I recognize your hyperbole.

Too bad you didn't get the point.


------------------
George Roffe
Houston, TX
84 944 ITS car under construction
92 ITS Sentra SE-R occasionally borrowed
http://www.nissport.com

10-03-2003, 11:08 PM
George, forgive me but, do you actually race or do you just hang around to harrass newbies. you guys are going to make newcomers think maybe golf wasnt such a bad idea. just an opinion.

Geo
10-04-2003, 12:09 AM
Originally posted by 7'sRracing:
George, forgive me but, do you actually race

Yeah I do. A legal car too. What a concept.

CHEATERS SUCK


------------------
George Roffe
Houston, TX
84 944 ITS car under construction
92 ITS Sentra SE-R occasionally borrowed
http://www.nissport.com

dickita15
10-04-2003, 07:30 AM
wow this thread got nuts.
I was quite suprised that when i suggested a rule change to allow us to remove the stock harness i got such a negative responce. to me the point is not if i will get protested. i just want to have a neat, reliable race car. I have wired 3 ita rx7's and mine was the only one that still uses the old harness to run the car. the others all have the discusting harness in place but use 7 new wires to power everthing actually needed to run the car. i have no problem with new cars needing to be competitive but I see no reason to make it harder to run the "standards" My best result this year was a 7th, but that is not bad in $5,000 class.
am i missing something. is allowing a non stock harness a large advantage in a later model car with the computer system. I just don't see the slope as very slippery.
dick

MK
10-04-2003, 07:45 AM
Wires missing/non stock = rolling slowly through the stop sign while making sure no one's coming.

Cheater cams = running through stop sign at 40mph on a blind corner.

Both are illegal, but let's get a grip. If you protest someone for a few missing wires, you are an a--hole.

But of course rolling through stops signs is the "gateway" infraction that leds to speeding through them.

cherokee
10-04-2003, 10:13 AM
Geo...you mean to tell me that your car is 110% legal? Sorry but I doubt it. Given some time I am sure that we could find a gray area on your car that would go eather way on an any given day. If you feel that cutting a half pound of crusted up wires is a advantage on a car that is already 200lbs heavy...and if it makes you feel like a big man to protest a little silver Opel that is running at the back of the pack, more power to ya. Like has been said before you would most likely earn a not too flattering adjetive around the pits by others.

Like I said before I don't know if it is leagal or not and it seems like there are just opions here...if I got a YES OR NO I would know what to do..but this has gone on for two pages and it is still up in the air. I will talk to the reagon Tech Guy and see what he says....That should clear it all up...in the reagon anyway.

Geo
10-04-2003, 11:13 AM
Originally posted by cherokee:
Geo...you mean to tell me that your car is 110% legal?


No, but it's 100% legal. http://Forums.ImprovedTouring.com/it/smile.gif


Originally posted by cherokee:
...and if it makes you feel like a big man to protest a little silver Opel that is running at the back of the pack, more power to ya.


Oh go cry somewhere else. I've never protested anyone and don't intend to (but can't categorically say I won't ever).

And as long as you want to make it personal now...

And take that passive-aggressive stuff elsewehere. If someone did protest you and you were found to be illegal, who would be the one in the wrong here? If you get caught, act like an adult and accept your fate instead of whining about someone pointing out the transgression. Whatever happened to honor?


Originally posted by cherokee:
Like has been said before you would most likely earn a not too flattering adjetive around the pits by others.

I find it sadly amusing that people get up in arms about protests, but don't about cheaters. It should be the other way around. Then again, I'm not one to protest anyway. Most cheats are relatively minor (which is all the more sad since it's just petty) and I personally figure I should just learn to be that much better a driver and/or that much better at car prep to overcome it. Always have felt that way. Cheating to get up front just wouldn't be rewarding for me.


Originally posted by cherokee:
Like I said before I don't know if it is leagal or not and it seems like there are just opions here...if I got a YES OR NO I would know what to do..but this has gone on for two pages and it is still up in the air. I will talk to the reagon Tech Guy and see what he says....That should clear it all up...in the reagon anyway.

I applaud you for that. As you said, it doesn't necessarily clear it up completely (since only the COA can make an official ruling) but at least you would be in compliance with what is accepted within your region.

FWIW, in my own personal opinion, if you have to create a rudimentary harness just to get on the track, do it. But keep working on building a legal harness and get it in the car as soon as you can. If I had some minor infraction on the car but it got me out on the track, I'd get out on the track (I'd also accept my fate if I got dinged for it). But, I'd also keep working to fix it as soon as I could.


------------------
George Roffe
Houston, TX
84 944 ITS car under construction
92 ITS Sentra SE-R occasionally borrowed
http://www.nissport.com

grjones1
10-04-2003, 11:16 AM
Originally posted by Geo:
Too bad you didn't get the point.



Sorry to get back in this guys, but I can't let this one go by.


[This message has been edited by grjones1 (edited October 04, 2003).]

grjones1
10-04-2003, 11:35 AM
Originally posted by grjones1:

Originally posted by Geo:
Too bad you didn't get the point.



Sorry to get back in this guys, but I can't let this one go by.
George, I got your point. But what you don't get is that if you can't write a rule without ambivalence, without contradiction, and without reasonable alternative interpretation, you can't be surprised that people will take advantage of your inability to communicate accurately. And if you are bending axles to gain camber and getting away with it because the manual doesn't give a rear camber setting, you are doing a little stretching of the interpretations yourself. Rid yourself of some of that intellectual hubris and concentrate on wiriting clear precise rules. We're no more hypocrits or idiots than you are, we look for driving and mechanical advantages so we can win. That's racing.
G. Robert Jones

Geo
10-04-2003, 11:41 AM
Originally posted by grjones1:
George, I got your point. But what you don't get is that if you can't write a rule without ambivalence, without contradiction, and without reasonable alternative interpretation, you can't be surprised that people will take advantage of your inability to communicate accurately. Rid yourself of some of that intellectual hubris and concentrate on wiriting clear precise rules. We're not hypocrits or idiots, we look for driving and mechanical advantages so we can win. That's racing.

Ah, now on this point Robert, I couldn't agree more. To accuse me of intellectual hubris is way off the mark, at least certainly on the point you make above. Those who pay more attention here will back me up.

1) I not only agree, but have recently gone on record here as saying the rulebook is your friend, not your enemy. It tells you what you can do if you read it correctly.

2) I've also stated that intent has no bearing on interpretation of the rules. The written law is what counts and finding loopholes and open doors is indeed part of racing. I intend to take advantage of every loophole and open door than I can. There is absolutely nothing wrong with that.

3) Related to "2" above, I also mentioned that I've said several times in ITAC meetings that our job is to propose rules (we don't actually make the rules, that's the CB's job) where the written word supports our intent.

So, on this point we are in 100% agreement. However, there will always be people who create strained and tortured interpretations.


------------------
George Roffe
Houston, TX
84 944 ITS car under construction
92 ITS Sentra SE-R occasionally borrowed
http://www.nissport.com

grjones1
10-04-2003, 11:49 AM
So, on this point we are in 100% agreement. However, there will always be people who create strained and tortured interpretations.


[/B][/QUOTE]
And I repeat George, if you are bending axles, you are doing a little straining (no pun intended) yourself. ("Let he who is without sin ...")
GRJ



[This message has been edited by grjones1 (edited October 04, 2003).]

10-04-2003, 12:51 PM
quote by george "Most cheats are relatively minor (which is all the more sad since it's just petty"

george, have you ever tried to wire a master into a stock rx7 harness and keep everything in factory spec working order, it impossible.
I spent two weeks trying to do that, then ripped it all out and rewired the car, that was not the intent of scca to chase people away with stupid requirements that arnt achievable to the average person, which is why they look the other way on matters like this, its only a small group of condecending people that give a hoot if your grille matches the contour of the fender, of which I take at face value, petty indeed. how in one breath can you say "thats not fair" in another say "no fairness is intended. C/A's or scrap the class, no C/A's in 05, ill convert my sons ITA's to EP as well. George, in case you hadnt noticed things in IT took a turn around 1992, then really changed with the E36, cars were relatively classed proportinatly before 92, by 2002 if you look at season end points there only 4-5 cars in each region that competed every race for points, why is that? the clinton's bare the brunt for most of the nations immoral trends but in IT the intent of the class really showed its ugly head, people felt the gloves were off by blatent misclassifications by the board, mostly in car weights. time dosnt change people, people change people. I hear talk about how the production classes are falling off, I believe its directly attributed to the failure of IT as most production drivers start out in the lower classes, if IT frustrates someone into quitting thats one future prod driver gone. Im not a cheater George, nor am I a quitter, I will move on to EP and enjoy going to the runoffs every year wishing all of you the best of luck.

Geo
10-04-2003, 12:51 PM
Originally posted by grjones1:
And I repeat George, if you are bending axles, you are doing a little straining (no pun intended) yourself.

Sorry. Not at all. There is absolutely no spec for rear axle camber for the first gen RX-7. How can any amount of camber be illegal? It cannot. If the SCCA wants to change this, the CB will have to set a spec. That's black and white. Sorry. No spec is no spec.


------------------
George Roffe
Houston, TX
84 944 ITS car under construction
92 ITS Sentra SE-R occasionally borrowed
http://www.nissport.com

Geo
10-04-2003, 12:54 PM
Oh, and there isn't even a violation of the "intent" of the rule (rear gen I RX-7 camber) since there is no rule.

Now you could say if it doesn't say you can, you can't. Doesn't apply. No spec. None what so ever to declare the practice illegal.


------------------
George Roffe
Houston, TX
84 944 ITS car under construction
92 ITS Sentra SE-R occasionally borrowed
http://www.nissport.com

planet6racing
10-04-2003, 01:08 PM
GENTLEMEN!! PLEASE!!!

It's obvious that this has become very passionate. Let's all just take a step back, take a deep breath, then talk with some calm. We're all feeling the end of the season pressure, knowing that we aren't going to be racing for a little while (unless you live in the South, or California, or, well, you get the point). Let's save our remaining energy for the fight on track and enjoy our last races of the season.

Don't make me bring the CC.com smack talk over here...


------------------
Bill
Planet 6 Racing
bill (at) planet6racing (dot) com

grjones1
10-04-2003, 01:58 PM
Originally posted by Geo:
No spec is no spec.




Camber is not the issue, it's how you decambered. Where does it say you can bend the axle? - not a factory spec, "and if it does't say you can do it, you can't. Right? And please don't bother to explain how you contort the rule to make it work. You see George when you strain the rule it's ok, if someone else bends it, it's not ok. Clear enough?
GRJ
PS
Now that I think of it - I hope you guys are not staying within factory specs for camber. Now that would be ridiculous. So you see how whether or not the manual gives you a camber spec does't even enter the picture. The legal method to change camber would have been with shims or concentric bushings, not by bending the axle!


[This message has been edited by grjones1 (edited October 04, 2003).]

itmanta
10-04-2003, 02:15 PM
"There is absolutely no spec for rear axle camber for the first gen RX-7"

There are many parts and dimensions on all vehicles that do not have "specs" available to the general public. This does NOT allow you to modify them as you please. Maybe I should chop my roof for better aero? Try to find a "spec" on the heighth of my roof. Just another example of inconsistent interpretation of the rules by the ITAC and the CB.

"Now you could say if it doesn't say you can, you can't. Doesn't apply. No spec. "

I would suggest that the first strongly supercedes the latter.

------------------
Peter Linssen
ITB Opel Manta
Pacific NW Region

Knestis
10-04-2003, 02:29 PM
Ooh! Well done, Peter!

K

Geo
10-04-2003, 03:45 PM
Originally posted by itmanta:
There are many parts and dimensions on all vehicles that do not have "specs" available to the general public. This does NOT allow you to modify them as you please.


If you can prove a RX-7 rear axle is out of spec, go for it. The problem is you can't. Now, I'm not saying there shouldn't be a spec. Last time this holy war came up I strongly advocated that the CB should set a spec. But until is does, I ask you how you could find one to be illegal? If you are going to do that you'd better have some methodology to do so. At the moment it does not exist. You can be as philosophical as you like, but as a practical matter, there is no way to find it illegal.


Originally posted by itmanta:
Just another example of inconsistent interpretation of the rules by the ITAC and the CB.


The ITAC and the CB do not interpret rules. The stewards and the COA do this. The CB writes rules and the ITAC advises.


Originally posted by itmanta:
"Now you could say if it doesn't say you can, you can't. Doesn't apply. No spec. "

I would suggest that the first strongly supercedes the latter.

Please explain how you would protest someone with a bent axle and expect them to be declared illegal.


------------------
George Roffe
Houston, TX
84 944 ITS car under construction
92 ITS Sentra SE-R occasionally borrowed
http://www.nissport.com

grjones1
10-04-2003, 03:59 PM
Originally posted by Geo:
Please explain how you would protest someone with a bent axle and expect them to be declared illegal.



If that axle was obviously bent to provide extra camber, and because there is no provision for bending axles, I would have expected you to be declared illegal and told to gain camber through shims or eccentric bushings as the rules allow.

Establishing a spec on camber is wholly unnecessary - camber is free ITCS 5.Chassis d.1.-2. ...may...decamber wheels... .I hope.

GRJ

[This message has been edited by grjones1 (edited October 04, 2003).]

[This message has been edited by grjones1 (edited October 04, 2003).]

[This message has been edited by grjones1 (edited October 04, 2003).]

itmanta
10-04-2003, 05:45 PM
I have been a proffesional automotive technician for over 15 years. I have never encountered a rear wheel drive solid rear axle vehicle where the rear camber from the factory was not supposed to be 0. Very minor variations can be found on new vehicles and certainly variations can be found on used vehicles. But when you walk through the paddock and find multiple RWD solid axle vehicles with evenly decambered rear wheels there is absolutely no other explination than the axle tubes were purposely bent. Why should I even have to create a protest. The cars should be found out of compliance during random post race impound inspections.

------------------
Peter Linssen
ITB Opel Manta
Pacific NW Region

Geo
10-04-2003, 07:03 PM
Originally posted by grjones1:
If that axle was obviously bent to provide extra camber, and because there is no provision for bending axles, I would have expected you to be declared illegal and told to gain camber through shims or eccentric bushings as the rules allow.


And how would you prove that with no spec? I'm not exactly trying to be argumentative here. This is a very real example of a grey area. Regardless of any provision for bending axles or not, without a factory spec, you absolutely 100% cannot prove anything. One way or the other actually.

Just step back and open your mind for a second. I suggest if a protest were lodged it would go down this way (might have to go to the COA to get there, but none the less...):

Protestor: This axle is cambered. It's illegal.

Tech to Protestee: Let's see your FSM.

Tech to Protestor: There is no spec. Now way to determine legal camber.

Again, how do you prove it's in spec or out of spec with no spec?


Originally posted by grjones1:
Establishing a spec on camber is wholly unnecessary - camber is free ITCS 5.Chassis d.1.-2. ...may...decamber wheels... .I hope.

Actually, reading through sections 1-4 it talks about camber but does not mention solid axles.

Again, I'm not trying to be a jerk about this. I think it's a really good example of a grey area. Common sense would tell you it should be zero. Reality is, people have measured their rear camber on these cars and they have been all over the place. So is everyone out of spec or only those who good camber? See what I mean.


------------------
George Roffe
Houston, TX
84 944 ITS car under construction
92 ITS Sentra SE-R occasionally borrowed
http://www.nissport.com

Geo
10-04-2003, 07:11 PM
Originally posted by itmanta:
I have been a proffesional automotive technician for over 15 years. I have never encountered a rear wheel drive solid rear axle vehicle where the rear camber from the factory was not supposed to be 0.


Peter, check out a FSM for the gen I RX-7. You won't find a spec. Check out the MOOG suspension catalog (I have one in the bookcase next to my computer - I used to be the inventory accounting manager for Big A Auto Parts). There is no spec, not that an aftermarket parts catalog is an official spec. What you assume or think it should be is not official. Sounds like I'm being stupid and just won't listen to reason, but we're talking the letter of the law here. It doesn't have to make sense.


Originally posted by itmanta:
Very minor variations can be found on new vehicles and certainly variations can be found on used vehicles. But when you walk through the paddock and find multiple RWD solid axle vehicles with evenly decambered rear wheels there is absolutely no other explination than the axle tubes were purposely bent. Why should I even have to create a protest.


You can't prove it. So, somehow there must be a way to establish legality. There is none. What you think you know and what you can prove are two different things. And is it the only explanation? When this subject last came up there were reports of RX-7 axles having all sorts of different camber. Just because an axle has favorable camber doesn't mean someone bent it. People build balanced and blueprinted SS engines from parts bins and no machining. Again, what you think you know and what you can prove are two different things.

You can argue that the car owner must prove legality. True. But with the lack of a spec you can prove either way.


Originally posted by itmanta:
The cars should be found out of compliance during random post race impound inspections.

Based upon what pray tell? Your opinion?


------------------
George Roffe
Houston, TX
84 944 ITS car under construction
92 ITS Sentra SE-R occasionally borrowed
http://www.nissport.com

lateapex911
10-04-2003, 07:37 PM
And, to take it to another level, let's say geo is right. (And technically, he is. Morally is another arguement.)

So we have cars out there with whatever the camber has wound up being through wear and tear. Like mine. Lets say that my left has .5 degree and my right 1.5 degree. Then there is my CA buddy who is very efficient, lives for racing and working on his car, and his is 1.5 on both sides. Maybe he took it to a press to even things up...I can't remember.

All other cars that have adjustments built in are allowed to adjust, and lets say the CB has been aware of the issue but, as it has better things to do, and because most of the rest of the class gets to adjust, they have decided to let it be.

But a request comes through the door, and now they HAVE to do something. So, they decide to set a limit on what is "normal" as there is no factory spec. They decide 1 degree will be the line in the sand, and then add a fudge factor. The final rule reads "First generation RX-7 must have <1.5 degrees camber in the rear". Less than... .

Now we have a problem. We have created criminals where before we had none. I read the new rule, raise my eyebrows, and go out to the garage to measure. I am shocked to find that while yesterday I was squeaky clean, today I am a cheater. And those folks who read the rule, identified the loophole and took advantage of it in an effort to keep up with the cars that could adjust are too.

We all have work to do, and if we don't get it done we risk the actions and penalties that could arise.

It's tough to put the genie back in the bottle.


Back to our Opel friend. If I look in his car someday and see just a few wires, and it is obvious that the factory harness is gone, ( for wahtever reason , I shake my head and lament the lack of respect he has shown for me and the rest of the competitors. But if he has left the harness, retaped it, perhaps cut some wires that weren't needed, and maybe added some for reliability, I walk away applauding his effort.

In the end, it is the competitors choice to race and if the car he chooses has issues such as these, or poor parts availability, he has put himself in a bad way, but that was his choice.



------------------
Jake Gulick
CarriageHouse Motorsports
ITA 57 RX-7
New England Region
[email protected]

SilverHorseRacing
10-04-2003, 09:18 PM
And if the poor soul ever just uses the existing power and ground wires and the speaker wiring to run the mic and earphone for his two-way radio, which is legal, he kills two birds, one stone, is totally legal, and doesn't worry one lick about you guys and your protests or your opinions. You wanted facts....

1) You can add two-way radios
2) You can remove original stereo equipment
3) You can re-use the wires left in the harness to power the new radio
4) Go race, have fun.

And Bill, do you know what would happen if we unleashed a smartstick*™ around here? http://Forums.ImprovedTouring.com/it/smile.gif

------------------
-Marcello Canitano
www.SilverHorseRacing.com (http://www.SilverHorseRacing.com)

cherokee
10-04-2003, 09:32 PM
"Back to our Opel friend. If I look in his car someday and see just a few wires, and it is obvious that the factory harness is gone, ( for wahtever reason , I shake my head and lament the lack of respect he has shown for me and the rest of the competitors. But if he has left the harness, retaped it, perhaps cut some wires that weren't needed, and maybe added some for reliability"

Thats what I am going to do, cut it back to where there is ins. on all the wires and just re-run them...I am going to a one wire alt. But I am going to run all wires for the external regulator...Don't want to modify that holy harness.

Geo, I don't eat sleep and breath SCCA regs...I have a life, I am done with this...after the car gets in primer it is going to have the cage installed...I will let you know what the Tech Guy says.

one more thing I am not passive agressave...it is so hard to tell intent on the written word and wanted everone to know I was not being nasty or hostile or whatever, this is not worth getting pi$$ off over...I save that for important things.

itmanta
10-05-2003, 12:20 AM
"Sounds like I'm being stupid and just won't listen to reason"

Not at all, I understand completelty the point you are making. I just have trouble swallowing it. I have done thousands of alignments on solid rear axle cars. I have never seen a vehicle that has not been in an accident deviate more than .5 deg in camber. So I just do not buy it.

So if my car has a rear camber spec of say
-1.5 - +1.5 I can legally adjust my rear camber to any where in that range. Or if no spec exists I can be legal and do nothing or I can perform a modification that I am not supposed to do and get away with it. Am I correct? The ITCS seems to actually refer to front suspension types and independent rear suspensions only except for the ambiguous point chassis/5/d/2 "on other forms of suspension, camber adjustment may be achieved by the use of shims and/or eccentric bushings"

Sorry Cherokee this thread got seriously hijacked. I forgot the GT's had French wiring. After Bob L. made his post I took a good look at my 30 year old harness and found it to be in great condition still. I would not worry about what you need to do with your harness. Just make it safe and reliable and do not worry about being legal, your conscience should be clear.

------------------
Peter Linssen
ITB Opel Manta
Pacific NW Region

Geo
10-05-2003, 02:15 AM
Originally posted by itmanta:
Not at all, I understand completelty the point you are making. I just have trouble swallowing it. I have done thousands of alignments on solid rear axle cars. I have never seen a vehicle that has not been in an accident deviate more than .5 deg in camber. So I just do not buy it.

OK, this is a great place to start. So, you can find variance from 0. So what is the allowable spec? Don't forget, you and I don't get to just make one up. Of course, the CB can. And should IMHO. But as Jake said, that is also a minefield.


------------------
George Roffe
Houston, TX
84 944 ITS car under construction
92 ITS Sentra SE-R occasionally borrowed
http://www.nissport.com

grjones1
10-05-2003, 08:07 AM
[Again, I'm not trying to be a jerk about this. I think it's a really good example of a grey area.

[/B][/QUOTE]

George,
OK George, let's be friends. You've come around to where I wanted us to be originally: there are grey areas.
Now I would ask only that you pay close attention to the point: I've been around long enough to know that the camber issue was resolved a long time ago in production when I beleive someone's camber was protested at the run-offs and it was indeed decided that camber changes can occur during a race. The protest was disallowed because all drivers had to do was bounce off a few curbs and whatever their camber was it was legal. That's why national decided they could not enforce camber settings and it has pretty much been free in all classes since (even showroom stock). Now, in IT I would argue as I said that the means you achieve a desireable setting may be in question. In your case you have a reasonable argument, your axle may have been damaged during the race and your camber changed. Again, the camber setting is not the issue. The bent axle is the issue and you need to straighten it (repair) and it should be noted in your logbook, technically. I personally could care less as a competitor - set your camber wherever and however you choose, but please realize my right to interpret badly written rules to my advantage also. I would go so far as to say if the rules say I can decamber to whatever degree, then I must be allowed whatever means are available to accomplish the decambering, or I won't have the same advantage as my competition. See how that works?
And yes guys we all pay when the rules are changed such as the fact that the internal coating rule made illegal the repair on my cracked Fiesta head (we used an internal porcelain coating to fill porosity cracks). And I had to find a legal head (and I'm trying to have FF heads legalized because they don't crack). The process continues and we all face it, and we do the best we can and try to retain clear consciences;however, none of us should ever assume that someone else might not have a better idea, solution, or interpretation.
G. Robert Jones

[This message has been edited by grjones1 (edited October 05, 2003).]

Knestis
10-05-2003, 08:33 AM
The fact that Toyo Kogyo or its OEM supplier built the components and final assembly of the third member in question is proof that there IS a specification. Nothing gets made using the processes required without tolerances having been defined for it.

The truth is out there somewhere.

The ITCS requires that, to "establish the originiality and configuration of the vehicle, each driver/entrant shall have a factory shop manual..." Further, "proof of legality shall rest upon the protestor and or/portestee" - they have equal rights and responsibilities in any action, even if this abrogates the club's or officials' responsibilities. But that's another matter.

Interestingly, the book further allows that, "an aftermarket shop manual will be accpete with proof of non-availability from the vehicle manufacturer." The lack of any particular specification in the factory manual is proof prima facie that said number is not available from that source - duh - making a specification published by any aftermarket source an acceptable alternative.

The absence of a factory-published source defining a rear camber figure is NOT evidence that there is no specification. It is permission to use another source. If one were to protest a decambered axle and pesent any published figure as evidence to support my claim, it should be upheld.

Now, to find it...

K

EDIT - this really isn't that big of a highjack: The lack of replacement parts and accurate specifications are both results of cars getting older. Further, old car owners might want to consider the possiblity that the practice of "not repairing" "damaged" wiring harnesses might disproportionately benefit NEWER cars. I'll bet I have more pounds of wiring in my 1996 Honda - that becomes "useless" in IT trim - than even the most heavily optioned Opel came with.

[This message has been edited by Knestis (edited October 05, 2003).]

grjones1
10-05-2003, 09:13 AM
[).][/B][/QUOTE]
K,
#@$%^ K, In IT as the rules are written, camber is free, and no amount of legalese is going to change that!

And George on solid axles not being mentioned: on Rabbits for example shims are provided originally for adjusting rear camber on their beam axles so I'm reading "other forms of suspension" to include solid axles. And I know technically the axle may not be considered "suspension" but if the suspension settings can be influenced by geometry on the axle I would think they meant to include axle treatment.

The factory specs on my Fiesta camber because of an original "negative scrub radius" geometry shows camber settings at +3 to +1 tolerances. Are you trying to tell me that I'm expected to run positive camber on a road racer. Where in the world did you get the idea that supension settings had to be within factory specs. And why would we be allowed camber plates and the like if all had to be accordingly. We could simply use the original set up and save a great deal of money. Use your heads. The rule says I can "decamber" which in no amount of misinterpretation could mean anything else but setting to negative. Don't be ridiculous!
GRJ

[This message has been edited by grjones1 (edited October 05, 2003).]

[This message has been edited by grjones1 (edited October 05, 2003).]

[This message has been edited by grjones1 (edited October 05, 2003).]

[This message has been edited by grjones1 (edited October 05, 2003).]

10-05-2003, 10:59 AM
QUOTE "The factory specs on my Fiesta camber because of an original "negative scrub radius" geometry shows camber settings at +3 to +1 tolerances."

This is exactly what all the VW and Honda guys would have you believe, the fact that IRS cars can adjust camber any way they please and the solid axel cars cant is yet another example of the comp board side stepping legal issues. They know its wrong to allow only some to run camber but if they SAY you can, on your solid axel car and you lose a bearing and crash they can be sued. the answer is to put in the ITCS "ALL CARS RUN -+.5 degrees". but so far the board just moonwalks the issue, like the intent, a failing set of class rules.

Knestis
10-05-2003, 12:02 PM
With respect, Mr. Jones - I completely understand that camber value is free. The method allowed to adjust camber to that free value is NOT and there is no provision in the rules to allow bending the third member.

I am not arguing whether there should or shouldn't be an allowance to do this - only that it is not. You really don't need to unleash any special keyboard characters on me.

K

Geo
10-05-2003, 12:04 PM
Originally posted by grjones1:
Again, the camber setting is not the issue. The bent axle is the issue and you need to straighten it (repair) and it should be noted in your logbook, technically.

Based upon what? Don't think of this so much as an argument, as a challenge to find something in the rule book that would (or should) invoke this. It simply doesn't exist.


------------------
George Roffe
Houston, TX
84 944 ITS car under construction
92 ITS Sentra SE-R occasionally borrowed
http://www.nissport.com

Geo
10-05-2003, 12:12 PM
Originally posted by Knestis:
The fact that Toyo Kogyo or its OEM supplier built the components and final assembly of the third member in question is proof that there IS a specification. Nothing gets made using the processes required without tolerances having been defined for it.

Manufacturing tolerance is not the same as acceptable variance in use which is what the FSM should cover. For another example pulled out of the air... A timing chain has one manufacturing tolerance and another for being acceptable for use. Two different things.


Originally posted by Knestis:
The truth is out there somewhere.


Mulder and Scully have been retired. http://Forums.ImprovedTouring.com/it/wink.gif


Originally posted by Knestis:
The ITCS requires that, to "establish the originiality and configuration of the vehicle, each driver/entrant shall have a factory shop manual..." Further, "proof of legality shall rest upon the protestor and or/portestee" - they have equal rights and responsibilities in any action, even if this abrogates the club's or officials' responsibilities. But that's another matter.

Interestingly, the book further allows that, "an aftermarket shop manual will be accpete with proof of non-availability from the vehicle manufacturer." The lack of any particular specification in the factory manual is proof prima facie that said number is not available from that source - duh - making a specification published by any aftermarket source an acceptable alternative.

The absence of a factory-published source defining a rear camber figure is NOT evidence that there is no specification. It is permission to use another source. If one were to protest a decambered axle and pesent any published figure as evidence to support my claim, it should be upheld.

Kirk, for a rules nerd, I'm shocked. The rule does not read that in absense of a factory spec, another can be substituted. It reads if a factory service manual is not available, an aftermarket manual will be accepted with proof of non-availability. Those are two very different things. If the FSM does not spec rear camber, and someone has the FSM you have zero basis upon which to look elsewhere.

Furthermore, I have a MOOG suspension parts catalog and it does not spec a rear camber for the RX-7 anyway, not that it matters.


Originally posted by Knestis:
EDIT - this really isn't that big of a highjack: The lack of replacement parts and accurate specifications are both results of cars getting older. Further, old car owners might want to consider the possiblity that the practice of "not repairing" "damaged" wiring harnesses might disproportionately benefit NEWER cars. I'll bet I have more pounds of wiring in my 1996 Honda - that becomes "useless" in IT trim - than even the most heavily optioned Opel came with.

I couldn't agree with you more Kirk. We should all examine rules we would like changed for one reason or another for unintended consequences (and the ITAC doubly so).


------------------
George Roffe
Houston, TX
84 944 ITS car under construction
92 ITS Sentra SE-R occasionally borrowed
http://www.nissport.com

Geo
10-05-2003, 12:16 PM
Originally posted by grjones1:
Where in the world did you get the idea that supension settings had to be within factory specs.

Never said that. Ever. This only came up in relation to the discussion of bent live axles and how you would prove one to be illegal.


------------------
George Roffe
Houston, TX
84 944 ITS car under construction
92 ITS Sentra SE-R occasionally borrowed
http://www.nissport.com

grjones1
10-05-2003, 02:00 PM
Originally posted by Knestis:
With respect, Mr. Jones - I completely understand that camber value is free. The method allowed to adjust camber to that free value is NOT and there is no provision in the rules to allow bending the third member.

I am not arguing whether there should or shouldn't be an allowance to do this - only that it is not. You really don't need to unleash any special keyboard characters on me.

K

Mr. K,
That is exactly what I was attempting to impart to George and you. You keep referring to the FSM for camber "values" and the FSM camber specs are not germane to the issue {camber is free). Whether or not you can bend the axle is the issue. And I assume, and maybe I was wrong, that axles on most cars are supposed to be straight except where shims or eccentric bushings allow the axle stub to be set at an angle. [And 7's RX or whoever, VW Rabbits use a rear beam axle, and I don't consider that IRS (but again I may be wrong). Oh the limits of the written word, Mark Twain had it right.

Respectfully,
G. Robert Jones

[This message has been edited by grjones1 (edited October 05, 2003).]

[This message has been edited by grjones1 (edited October 05, 2003).]

Geo
10-05-2003, 02:10 PM
Originally posted by grjones1:
Whether or not you can bend the axle is the issue.

Yes and no. Axles get bent all the time. The real question is how do you determine legality? The practical answer is you can't.


------------------
George Roffe
Houston, TX
84 944 ITS car under construction
92 ITS Sentra SE-R occasionally borrowed
http://www.nissport.com

grjones1
10-05-2003, 02:32 PM
Originally posted by Geo:
Yes and no. Axles get bent all the time. The real question is how do you determine legality? The practical answer is you can't.



Good. Bend the &*%$^ axle. I've got to go work on my car for a race next weekend. Believe it or not it's been fun talking to you guys.

Regards,

G. Robert Jones
ITC 22
[email protected]

itmanta
10-05-2003, 04:22 PM
I am satisfied with how this discussion has evolved. All participents have made their valid points clear. Frankly I could care less how much camber is being used, but if the act of bending is taking place and it is giving that car a performance advantage, I would like to see a stop to it.

------------------
Peter Linssen
ITB Opel Manta
Pacific NW Region

jc836
10-05-2003, 04:40 PM
Having read this thread from the beginning I wonder if anyone has taken sight of the fact that the ITCS and GCR do NOT allow the removal of the stock wiring harness in IT. If there is optional equipment such as a sunroof then all of the materials for that assembly can come out because the ITCS says so. I I was told I could roll up any unused wiring and stow it in the general area of the loom that it relates to-so that is what I did. New wiring was run as needed in its own harness.
Now to the axle issue. I agree that it is very difficult to police without spec's and measuring points being available. I am aware that "live" or solid axle tubes have been bent to change Camber. However, where in the rules is it actually permitted. Many of you have indicated that we are permitted specific remedies for Camber adjustment and nothing more. So far as I can tell there is no mention of permissible modifications to the housing in the ITCS. If I am wrong-point me to it.
Just my observation-not a criticism.

------------------
Grandpa's toys-modded suspensions and a few other tweaks
'89 CRX Si-SCCA ITA #99
'99 Prelude=a sweet song
'03 Dodge Dakota Club Cab V8-Patriot Blue gonna tow

SilverHorseRacing
10-05-2003, 05:35 PM
What kills me on this whole thing is that you guys want EVERYTHING spelled out for you. That just reeks of a spec series, and personally I find it quite boring.

When I see a creative interpretation of the rules, I applaud the effort, not call my lawyer and start a battle royale over it. I gave you a great answer to the radio rule. You want me to keep the stock wiring, fine. I'll use it to power the radio I added. Creative interpretation.

As to the axle thing, my solid axle car is straight, but I see the advantage to cambering it. Would I? Don't know.... do I think someone else should be disallowed? Nope. Even though I find the :lack of spec" argument to be somewhat weak in this instance, I could see how defining a number could make things uglier than they are now.

Geeze... just go to the track and have fun. This isn't bench racing, this is a soap opera gone bad here....

------------------
-Marcello Canitano
www.SilverHorseRacing.com (http://www.SilverHorseRacing.com)

Geo
10-05-2003, 05:59 PM
Originally posted by SilverHorseRacing:
As to the axle thing, my solid axle car is straight, but I see the advantage to cambering it. Would I? Don't know.... do I think someone else should be disallowed? Nope. Even though I find the :lack of spec" argument to be somewhat weak in this instance, I could see how defining a number could make things uglier than they are now.

Yeah, it's a double edge sword. Currently there is no spec by which to DQ someone for doing it, but by creating a spec, it invites it.


------------------
George Roffe
Houston, TX
84 944 ITS car under construction
92 ITS Sentra SE-R occasionally borrowed
http://www.nissport.com

lateapex911
10-05-2003, 07:11 PM
Originally posted by SilverHorseRacing:

Geeze... just go to the track and have fun. This isn't bench racing, this is a soap opera gone bad here....



OK, ok! But I can't just yet......I gotta check my radio harness, and my rear axle...although I'll do that just so I know if I'm legal, or if I'm legal er !

Se ya'll in Atlanta!



------------------
Jake Gulick
CarriageHouse Motorsports
ITA 57 RX-7
New England Region
[email protected]

itmanta
10-05-2003, 08:10 PM
"What kills me on this whole thing is that you guys want EVERYTHING spelled out for you."

No, this is not an open form of racing with unlimited modifications. We are discussing the legal limits of a few particular situations. Where's the harm? We have unearthed many valid view points.

------------------
Peter Linssen
ITB Opel Manta
Pacific NW Region

SilverHorseRacing
10-06-2003, 12:19 AM
Originally posted by itmanta:

No, this is not an open form of racing with unlimited modifications. We are discussing the legal limits of a few particular situations. Where's the harm? We have unearthed many valid view points.




Because if you have been here for a while, you will have discovered that there is NO END to the number of opinions on what isn't spelled out in detail enough, and once again, you're back to a spec series. If you want that, you can go race NASCAR or Spec Miata. Personally, I like the ambiguity in the rules, it allows me to use my mind, instead of just my wallet to go faster.


------------------
-Marcello Canitano
www.SilverHorseRacing.com (http://www.SilverHorseRacing.com)

itmanta
10-06-2003, 01:13 PM
I understand your point and enjoy that aspect also. However you cannot have a "spec" series with different makes of cars and we do need a solid guidline to build our cars by. Thats all.

------------------
Peter Linssen
ITB Opel Manta
Pacific NW Region

Joe Craven
10-13-2003, 09:59 AM
I've been following this thread. Much of my car's electrical wiring has been replaced - oops, I mean repaired. If I was told that I absolutely had to reinstall a stock harness for a 30+ year old car, I'd probably quit racing in that organization.

My rear axle got bent in an accident and I actually want to get it straightened. I have a solid axle car and I measured my axle and I have 3/16" toe out, and .5 degree negative camber. I didn't bend it on purpose and I want to fix at least the toe out. It appears that this isn't easy to control with no specs so.....

37 ITB

Knestis
10-13-2003, 11:50 AM
Remember that the fundamental assumption here is that there is NO spec in the factory manual for the RX7 - the example that started this piece of the conversation. If a spec IS published for your car, you don't have that argument to invoke...

K

Eric R287
10-16-2003, 09:52 AM
If a new ECU were to be installed would you need to adapt the stock engine wiring harness to it?

Geo
10-16-2003, 10:20 AM
Originally posted by Eric R287:
If a new ECU were to be installed would you need to adapt the stock engine wiring harness to it?

What do you mean by a new ECU? Regarless of what engine management software you are using, it must fit inside the stock ECU box in the stock location, connecting to the stock (unmodified) wiring harness, using the stock connector on the ECU.


------------------
George Roffe
Houston, TX
84 944 ITS car under construction
92 ITS Sentra SE-R occasionally borrowed
http://www.nissport.com

Eric R287
10-16-2003, 10:41 AM
Originally posted by Geo:
What do you mean by a new ECU? Regarless of what engine management software you are using, it must fit inside the stock ECU box in the stock location, connecting to the stock (unmodified) wiring harness, using the stock connector on the ECU.


I see. I plan to put new guts into the stock ECU box. I wasn't sure of what else was needed for a legal install of the new ECU. Such as using the stock connectors, but I knew the wiring harness had to remain intact whether used or not. What if the stock connector were gutted and the isdides replaced with the new connector? I have a feeling that ain't going to fly...

Greg Amy
10-16-2003, 10:58 AM
Eric, there are very strong and credible rumors of some folks developing Motec engine management systems for the BMW 325 that fits in the stock ECU box and attaches to the unmodified wiring harness.

WAY Cool, clever, impressive, attrociously expensive. And they say removing the washer bottle is not within the philosopgy of the rules...<wink>?

Eric R287
10-16-2003, 11:08 AM
I'm already making an ECU so it won't be too much a hassle to use all the original wiring and connectors. I just feel bad about cannibalizing the L-Jet circuit board over a measely connector. Oh well, I'll get over it.

"Yeah, uhh.. I'm going to have to go ahead and ask you to put a washer bottle into your car."

Geo
10-16-2003, 08:06 PM
Originally posted by grega:
Eric, there are very strong and credible rumors of some folks developing Motec engine management systems for the BMW 325 that fits in the stock ECU box and attaches to the unmodified wiring harness.

WAY Cool, clever, impressive, attrociously expensive. And they say removing the washer bottle is not within the philosopgy of the rules...<wink>?

Greg, I have argued that the rule should require the stock IC board to remain in the stock location as well. This would prevent the gutting and installation of a stand-alone. And I agree with you. It's not within class philosophy. I think the rule is dumb as written. The requirement to keep the stock board in place is that it would not leave enough room for a stand-alone inside.

If you'd like to write the letter, I'll champion it. http://Forums.ImprovedTouring.com/it/biggrin.gif



------------------
George Roffe
Houston, TX
84 944 ITS car under construction
92 ITS Sentra SE-R occasionally borrowed
http://www.nissport.com

Knestis
10-16-2003, 08:16 PM
Dum rool.

Greg Amy
10-16-2003, 09:29 PM
"Hey, we gotta find a way to beat these clever rules interpretations. We can't just say that reprogramming ECUs is allowed; someone will find a clever way around it. How about we make it harder by saying the wiring harness and housing have to be stock? Let's see 'em get around *THAT*, har-har-de-har!"

Eric R287
10-17-2003, 05:02 PM
Originally posted by Geo:
The requirement to keep the stock board in place is that it would not leave enough room for a stand-alone inside.


You know that would be a problem for me since my L-Jet is made from '80s technology and the boards inside take up so much space. I'd enjoy the challenge, though. =)

itmanta
10-17-2003, 08:11 PM
Actually, modern piggyback units that allow full remapping of your fuel map are very small. I already verified that one will fit inside the existing box of my '75 Ljet control unit

------------------
Peter Linssen
ITB Opel Manta
Pacific NW Region

Bill Miller
10-18-2003, 07:50 AM
I'll first qualify my comments by stating that I have not followed this thread, but I did read the last page. As far as the RX7 rear axle camber spec goes, from what I've read, there's no spec in the FSM, and there doesn't apprear to be a spec in the aftermarket parts books.

Has anyone looked at repair manuals/specifications that body shops use? The information you are looking for could very well be there.

Another thought is that it shouldn't be that hard to derive the rear camber value from existing data. Along the collision repair line of thinking, I would think that spec dimensions for pickup point locations should be available. Couple that w/ the dimensions of the axle, and I think that you should be able to derive what the rear camber (at static conditions) should be.

And for those in the repair business, what is the prescribed way for determining if the rear axle is bent (for purposes of determining if repair/replacement is warranted)?

------------------
MARRS #25 ITB Rabbit GTI (sold) | MARRS #25 HProd Rabbit
SCCA 279608