PDA

View Full Version : What about these rules?



Don
11-28-2003, 01:05 PM
I have been reading this board for a while now and yes I too think IT has some problems but not fatal.
I have autocrossed my ITC car but have not attended my drivers school yet; but I have been snooping the IT and PS (Nasa) cars in my regon.
Some of the rules just don't make any sense; it’s like the three stooges wrote the rules. Look under the dash of many IT cars these days and you will see a disconnected heater core zip tied to the dash brace????
A factory wiring harness that is inop and not powered up but new wires run to operate the car ???? Most plastic connectors on the factory harnesses don't last more than 10 years due to engine heat and if they break its new harness time according to the "factory procedures". My IT car set various track records in the late 90's with the previous owner and never had a turn signal switch from the day it was built. No one ever protested it????, but its going to have one now. I saw one car that had that factory harness removed and stuffed into the passenger side dash area.
Door glass... You have to run with the windows down and now you can put in NASCAR bars and take out the drivers side glass but the passenger glass has to be in. In Production the door glass has to be removed, go figure!

Horns and washer bottles .... Why so you can wash the dirt off your window and honk after you get punted off course?
Seems to me that correcting these could make life simpler and let some racers get closer to the weight already set in the GCR. It would not require major restructuring or not turn any bodies car into junk. And it would be standard instead of each regions interpretation of the "gray" rules. It would not add any cost into the racing budget.

Why can’t this be fixed? Did I miss somthing?



[This message has been edited by Don (edited November 28, 2003).]

jc836
11-28-2003, 01:14 PM
You are not the only one scratching the head. There are many here who would like certain elements of the ITCS updated. Me included. I offered the CB my view and was soundly shot down. I do not consider what I suggested to create a "competitive advantage" or to increase the cost of racing. Rather-I feel that certain things can change without changing the character of the class.
Therein lies part of the reason for the ruluctance to update. The fact is that IT was created around stock-street cars. The intent was not to have them as trailered race machines, rather everyday cars with safety items added. There has been a natural outgrowth from this idea. Showroom Stock was truly that for a long time and remains much closer than IT is.
Another thing to consider is the reality of the cost of a car and its maintenance. Many of us have a great deal more invested than our original budgets were set at. Are the cars more competitive-that can be debated elsewhere. The simple fact is that what started out for me as a totally street legal car is now a trailered machine that still has the street stuff on it in working condition.

------------------
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

lateapex911
11-28-2003, 04:42 PM
I can see your confusion, and you make some good points.

But there is often another opinion. I'll take the right side door glsas as an example. As pointed out above, lots of IT cars came from street backgrounds and while the dual purpose nature has been ebbing away for some time now, there are still guys (and gals!) who either street drive their IT cars, or store the outside, or at the very lest, trailer them in the elements. Having a way to keep gallons of water out of the car is a good thing. If the rule were changed, those folks would be at a competitive disadvantage to the cars that gutted the glass. They would need to either just accept it, or gut the glass and build a plexi window to fit when they drive it, or tow or store it. I feel that the CB had a strong tempation pulling at them when they relaxed the rules for the drivers side glass: safety. I am amazed at how so many cars don't take advantage of that offer!

In the end, I think we need to keep in mind that the CB is like the owner of an old house. They have a TON of items to attend to, and while they might like to do some of the "little things" like updating the now long in the tooth IT rules, they need to spend their time on bigger issues.

Like the recent "Book" that was anominously written and released, accusing the CB of 16 counts of various offenses. While the book ws mostly a bunch of BS from a disenfrachised former CB member (The popular consensus) it still had to be researched, and responded to. Which is a huge undertaking. Kinda like having your roof spring a huge leak in a big rainstorm. So things that we racers want get put on the back burner for awhile.

I'll be happy if we can push major items like classification formulas and performance competiton adjustments along. I'm happy to race with my door glass...one less part to make!

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

Don
11-28-2003, 06:55 PM
Originally posted by lateapex911:

I'll be happy if we can push major items like classification formulas and performance competiton adjustments along. I'm happy to race with my door glass...one less part to make!

This is the stuff I like to hear http://Forums.ImprovedTouring.com/it/smile.gif It makes for a better debate.
OK, what good is a adjustment if you can't reach the weight allready posted in the GCR?
From what I've been reading here allot of the more popular cars get down to the minimum weight no problem; but there are allot of cars on the fringes of being competive that cant get to the weight posted in the GCR without some rule changes on what can be removed. It you don't want water in you car the leave them in. I was presenting it as a choice not like Production were its required. On some of theses fringe cars they could drop the spec weight 200lbs but it wouldn't matter because they cant remove another ounce legaly. From your reponse it sounds like weight is not a problem for you?

Wiring, washers and horns ... this would just do the same make it easier to get to the weight allready posted in the GCR, and it would cut down on grey areas.
You stated about the people who drive there cars being at a disadvantage, what about the people allready at a disadvantage who cant get to the weight already listed in the GCR I think there are allot more of them and they are probably at a bigger disadvatage?



[This message has been edited by Don (edited November 28, 2003).]

ddewhurst
11-28-2003, 07:48 PM
IIRC when Darin did a poll on this site of IT car weights the majority of the cars came in at the spec weight or owners stated that they could get to spec weight as the rules now exist. Sometimes people need to read & re-read the rules & the purpose/intent of IT BEFORE they start their car purchase/build. The same can be said for production. Some of those people should be involved in GT cars instead of continiously CREEPING the production rules.

Granted if the driver weighs 250 pounds it's a tough deal.

Back in the 60's production cars were similar to todays IT cars untill CREEP was allowed to take over.

Have Fun http://Forums.ImprovedTouring.com/it/wink.gif
David

Don
11-28-2003, 08:30 PM
Originally posted by ddewhurst:
IIRC when Darin did a poll on this site of IT car weights the majority of the cars came in at the spec weight or owners stated that they could get to spec weight as the rules now exist.Are you reading the "Minimum Achievable weights???" Post? Allot of those cars are 100/200 lbs over the weight listed in the GCR No use doing comp adjustment for those cars... they can't get to the weight now allowed per GCR.
So the big question is why not let it be up to the owner of the car as long as the weight doesn't drop below whats allready posted? Taking out the windows is feasable it costs nothing. Deleting the horn costs nothing (most IT cars dont have horn buttons anyway as they have quick disconect wheels). Removing a disconected heater core costs nothing. Replacing the factory harness with a simpler non stock harness if they choose to do that is a minimal cost.
Originally posted by ddewhurst:
Sometimes people need to read & re-read the rules & the purpose/intent of IT BEFORE they start their car purchase/build.
Have Fun http://Forums.ImprovedTouring.com/it/wink.gif
David
I agree but before some one goes and turns the IT adjustments thing into affect why not try and let Owners of previously built cars get closer to what is already posted in the GCR. I all so think people need to re-read the statement in the front of the ITCS.. Its changed since the late 90's http://Forums.ImprovedTouring.com/it/smile.gif Most IT cars are real race cars and they arrive on a trailer.




[This message has been edited by Don (edited November 28, 2003).]

Russ Myers
11-28-2003, 10:26 PM
Why do we have to go through this debate again and again. It really is very simple. The SCCA set up the classes, The SCCA makes the rules. We are the SCCA. If a rule seems to be not to your liking, there are procedures in the GCR to address these problems. And not everyone is turned down by the comp board.

Now, when you decided to jump into IT, certain rules were in place. you had to either accept these rules. or break them, your choice. Not all cars will be competetive, not all cars will make weight, not all cars will be fast. This brings up another choice, build a car you like, and have fun, or build (or buy) a car that will win. We all know what cars win on a regular basis.

The rules and intent of Improved Touring are all spelled out in the GCR. No, they don't all make sense, but we all have to play by them. If these rules are not satisfactory, I would suggest multiple tries at talking the CB into changing them, or building a car to run your local short oval, or buy a legends car, or run with NASA, or try NASCAR , or build a car for drag racing (you talk about #'s of classes), or maybe go-karts...
As you can see, there are plenty of places to race. Find one where you are happy.

Russ Myers
ITC Ford Fiesta
SSC Nissan Sentra SE-R (as you can see, I tilt at windmills, too. The CB hasen't given me what I want either, but I will STILL race.)

Jake
11-28-2003, 11:12 PM
Great thread!! I am yet another one who can't get down to min weight, but I'm not allowed to take anything else out. I think it's just discrimination for people of average or more body weights. Maybe all they guys on the CB are really skinny? http://Forums.ImprovedTouring.com/it/smile.gif

You forgot my favorite bizarre rule:

Removing the passenger seat is legal, but you cannot put in a racing seat in its place. That's just plain silly.

Knestis
11-29-2003, 08:57 AM
The club racing rules are a great case study in "incrementalism" in policy, where over time interests change a line here, a line there, and a third (or sixty-fifth) line somewhere else. We get a version of this in education where new policies are layered on top of existing ones and nobody asks if the assumptions of each change are in sync.

The GCR needs a complete edit/revision to clarify a thousand of these inconsistencies that have been allowed to sneak in there. (It's like getting pecked to death by ducks.) The problem would be that this would provide an opportunity for new interests to be imposed on the rules - "clarifying" issues in particular directions.

If I were facilitating this process, I would first ask stakeholders to come to consensus on first principles, so the underlying assumptions could be explicated before ANY detail decisions were made.

I've asked questions in this forum that try to get to that level (philosophies of what IT should be) and it still amazes me how little has been offered in response...

K

Russ Myers
11-29-2003, 10:15 AM
If that were the case, then IT cars would become Prod cars and we wouldn't need IT.

Russ

924Guy
11-29-2003, 10:29 AM
Honestly, Kirk, it's hard getting up enough motivation (having put up with the current state of affairs for so long, and been blown off) to put any further effort into the idea of reworking purpose and intent (in the form of first principles). Evidence IT2 - work all you want, you can still be ignored by the comp board. No, not everyone is shot down (or, more frequently, blown off) by the comp board - just most.

Here's my proposal - keep the level of prep about as it is, mostly just a suspension prep, with limited engine work, and spend more time on trying to get the field level!!! But then, we've been batting that old saw around for years now without progress.

------------------
Vaughan Scott
Detroit Region #280052
'79 924 #77 ITA/GTS1
www.vaughanscott.com

Geo
11-29-2003, 11:05 AM
Originally posted by 924Guy:
Honestly, Kirk, it's hard getting up enough motivation (having put up with the current state of affairs for so long, and been blown off)

Or perhaps there are so many agendas that heads would just spin. Just look at this forum. And it's only a tiny portion of the IT community. It's really easy to read this forum and believe everyone else believes the same things, but that would be wrong.


Originally posted by 924Guy:
No, not everyone is shot down (or, more frequently, blown off) by the comp board - just most.

Being rejected is not getting blown off. Well, step back and think about this for a moment. We want the CB to reject most proposals/requests. Why? Well, if not, we would have new rules every month for crying out loud.


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

Jake
11-29-2003, 12:19 PM
Jake's consipiracy theory #18F: The largest stakeholders will be the most reluctant to change.

The people with most to lose, are the ones that benefit most from the status quo. Look around any paddock and see what I mean. You'll quickly find CRX's, 325i's, and other "car-to-have's" with $30-$40,000 invested. Not many people with uncompetitive cars are going to invest that type of money into theirs. I would guess that those with that much cash into their cars are going to be reluctant to any change at all (even if it totally logical).

philstireservice
11-29-2003, 01:10 PM
(It's like getting pecked to death by ducks.)

that's a perfect description.....made me laugh out loud...lol

------------------
Phil Phillips
94 Acura Integra GSR #4
ITS/H3/ST1
www.philstireservice.com
Amsoil Dealer
distributor for FireCharger AFFF fire systems
Hoosier Tire Dealer
Toyo Tire Dealer

Don
11-29-2003, 01:15 PM
Ok just reading the different posts, and different points of view
Russ its like you didn’t read what I wrote at all, and went off on your own tangent.....
I never said I was going to break any rules in fact I stated that I was going to put in a turn signal switch. I’m a big believer in adhering to the rules even if they don't make a whole lot of sense. http://Forums.ImprovedTouring.com/it/smile.gif I thought about production but the close ratio gear box, engine development, fender flares etc. just don’t make sense right now just to be able to remove 35 lbs of stuff from my legal IT car. If you think you can remove the items I suggested and be competitive in your class in production ; then I don't think you have a problem in IT then right http://Forums.ImprovedTouring.com/it/smile.gif

I have a question though. So far all the against reasons for the questions have been ... rules creep, lack of street ability, should have read the statement before year 2000 etc...... Could not all of those arguments be said for any mod allowed over the SS rules? I don’t hear anybody whining to put back in interior and headliners? The rain issue is pretty much nil to because you have to race with the windows down any way. I have done an open track in the rain and had to roll down my windows and got drenched. So if your interior is not rain proof you might as well not go racing or towing if there is a cloud in the sky, right?

I will probably move up from ITC sometime in the future and some of the coolest cars out there are not “the” cars to have. Early MR2’s -Fox bodied Mustang's - Early Celica's, -Neon ..... I'm sure there are others. I’m not sure if this will would help those cars but there are lots of cars that cant get to the GCR weight. Maybe the heater core, horn and passenger side glass won’t get there totally but it would take 30 minutes or less and wouldn’t cost a whole lot to try. In my limited observation it just seems that IT_ is spec _____ (insert five or less cars here) and maybe this could help out a few people without turning the GRC on its ear and costing more than a Big mac http://Forums.ImprovedTouring.com/it/smile.gif. . . I personally don't think that it will affect the intent and purpose of the class one bit. I thought letting cars get to the weight already published in the GCR would be common sense, before doing the adjustment reclassification hoopla
I’m not trying to cause an uproar at all I started this post to help in my understanding.


[This message has been edited by Don (edited November 29, 2003).]

ddewhurst
11-29-2003, 02:25 PM
***Posted by George***

***Being rejected is not getting blown off. Well, step back and think about this for a moment. We want the CB to reject most proposals/requests. Why? Well, if not, we would have new rules every month for crying out loud.***

George, please read the following request to the Comp Board & then read their Fastrack response. Please take your time & understand GCR rule 18.1.2 & then tell me if the Comp Board rejected or blew off my question to them. (Their response is related to roll cage padding. No where in rule GCR 18.1.2 is anything specified about roll cage padding.)


***********From: DAVID DEWHURST <[email protected]>
To: [email protected] <[email protected]>
Date: Saturday, March 30, 2002 11:13 AM
Subject: Protect drivers proactively

Kathy & Gentlemen, this memo is sent to the Competition Board with respect to GCR rule 18.1.2. A system of head restraint to prevent whiplash and rebound, and also to prevent the drivers head from striking the underside of the main hoop shall be installed on all vehicles.

When I read GCR rule 18.1.2 my understanding of the rule is that the integral or non-integral headrest construction and or implementation location is the creation of a system of head restraint to prevent whiplash and rebound, and also to prevent the drivers head/helmet from striking the underside of the main hoop.

If my understanding of GCR rule 18.1.2 is correct please forward confirmation.

If my understanding of GCR rule 18.1.2 is not correct please forward the Comp Board understanding of the rule.

If there is any further information that I may forward to clarify this memo before it is logged please contact David Dewhurst at [email protected]

Sincerely

David Dewhurst
SCCA CenDiv Milwaukee Region
member number 250772


Competition Board June, 2002 Fastrack response.

The following items have been previously addressed, are submitted for information only, or require no further action by the Competition Board.

7. Clarify drivers head restraint & relationship to the main hoop. (Dewhurst) Current rules regarding padding of the roll cage components are adequate.***********

The book of 16 stories could be greatly increased if all blown off members compiled an ongoing list. I understand the Comp Board has a thankless job but at the same time they don't help themselves with responses like their June, 2002 Fastrack to my question.

Have Fun http://Forums.ImprovedTouring.com/it/wink.gif
David

lateapex911
11-29-2003, 03:22 PM
Originally posted by Don:
Ok just reading the different posts, and different points of view
.... I have a question though. So far all the against reasons for the questions have been ... rules creep, lack of street ability, ....

OK, the big reason?? The CB has a s#$tload to do! Have you read FASTRACK??? They are drowning in requests and issues a lot bigger than some IT guys wanting to take their windows out. Sure the rule doesn't make perfect sense today, but as Kirk pointed out, it's a product of a timeline. Rewriting the rulebook would be appropriate, but in the CBs big picture, it is low on the list.



Maybe the heater core, horn and passenger side glass won’t get there totally but it would take 30 minutes or less and wouldn’t cost a whole lot to try.

30 minures to pull all that stuff out and put everything back togather?? I'd like to hire you as my mechanic! http://Forums.ImprovedTouring.com/it/wink.gif

Honestly, think about what you're saying. You want te rules ammended so you can make min weight. You know the guys who are already at min weight will pull the stuff too, then ballast where they need it. (yea, I know about balast rules, but there are tons of ways around that.) So, your trivial gain on the rest of the class is nearly nulified.

But even debating that point is moot, because PCAs won't, in my opinion, give the random underdog (the models that have little representation) a weight break. They will, I bet, try to bring the obvious overdogs back to the fold by adding weight to them.




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

Don
11-29-2003, 04:12 PM
Originally posted by lateapex911:
30 minutes to pull all that stuff out and put everything back together?? I'd like to hire you as my mechanic! http://Forums.ImprovedTouring.com/it/wink.gif
Cool! that's what I do for a living http://Forums.ImprovedTouring.com/it/smile.gif I'm a national award winner From ASE too ( top composite test score in the nation)... how do you think I can afford to play with the rest of you?

Originally posted by lateapex911:
OK, the big reason?? The CB has a s#$tload to do! Have you read FASTRACK???
Honestly, think about what you're saying. You want the rules amended so you can make min weight. You know the guys who are already at min weight will pull the stuff too, then ballast where they need it. (yea, I know about ballast rules, but there are tons of ways around that.) So, your trivial gain on the rest of the class is nearly nullified.
That's just being ignorant, its not just me that can't get down to minimum weight. If you read posts for the last few months there are allot of people that cant get to minimum weight. Besides a kind soul from this board e-mailed me this morning and is going to sell me some early doors. There are allot of people that don't have that option under the back date rule like I do. If you had a choice to race at the spec weight or race at a higher one which one would you choose? Ballast or not!

Using your logic in the early days of IT, IT would have never existed ? You would have told early IT racers to just continue with SS and build / buy new cars? Or stop debating (whining) That SCCA officials have more to do than be bothered with the new IT class rules? Perspective changes quite rapidly does it not?

I was addressing some very outdated rules, the one I want to see is the wiring harness (just try to find a good harness after 20+ years, looks like I will be repairing this winter http://Forums.ImprovedTouring.com/it/smile.gif) The others would be icing on the cake. Trivial gain.... maybe if your at the front and have a BMW or Mazda (I love Mazdas support system all companies should be so involved) http://Forums.ImprovedTouring.com/it/smile.gif There are some people that just would like to drop out a few pounds legally and inexpensively to get closer to the spec weight already in the GCR. That's not as awful or self serving as you may think .... What are you afraid of ? Its not going to cost anything , well maybe 20 bucks if you need a wrench. Its not going reduce the spec weight; it will just get some people closer to it.




[This message has been edited by Don (edited November 29, 2003).]

Geo
11-29-2003, 05:35 PM
Originally posted by ddewhurst:
George, please read the following request to the Comp Board & then read their Fastrack response. Please take your time & understand GCR rule 18.1.2 & then tell me if the Comp Board rejected or blew off my question to them.

David, I'm not trying to be a smarty-pants or a CB stooge, but I have absolutely zero knowledge of what took place, so I don't feel I can comment on that.

I can understand why you feel you were blown off.


Originally posted by ddewhurst:
The book of 16 stories could be greatly increased if all blown off members compiled an ongoing list. I understand the Comp Board has a thankless job but at the same time they don't help themselves with responses like their June, 2002 Fastrack to my question.

I really think part of the problem is the limited amount of space in Fastrack that can be dedicated to responses. I fully (and honestly) believe that often long well thought out answers simply get condensed down to one or two lines. I do know for a fact that many questions that have been asked of the CB related to IT this has happened.

I suspect (but again, have zero actual knowledge of this situation) that in your case the CB was simply trying to say that the current rules are adequate as written. I won't debate whether it's true in this case or not. I simply believe that's it's mostly miscommunication.

Sorry if you think I skirted the question. I just don't know if I can give you a more accurate answer.



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

Geo
11-29-2003, 05:37 PM
Originally posted by Don:
That's just being ignorant...

I don't see it that way.


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

ddewhurst
11-29-2003, 07:48 PM
George, thanks for responding. Just for yourself read my question to the Comp Board & then read the system of head restraint rule 18.1.2, read their response & you will see that there is zero misscommunication. My memo is real clear & suggests that if they do not understand please contact me. After your analysis private e-mail if you desire to [email protected]. They knew dam well what I was talking about because previously I had sent them a picture of a production car with a system of head restraint 6 inches behind the trailing edge of the main hoop of the roll cage.

Have Fun http://Forums.ImprovedTouring.com/it/wink.gif
David

ddewhurst
11-29-2003, 07:54 PM
Don, what is your personal body weight & what year, make & model is your ITC car.

Have Fun http://Forums.ImprovedTouring.com/it/wink.gif
David

Geo
11-29-2003, 09:53 PM
Originally posted by ddewhurst:
George, thanks for responding. Just for yourself read my question to the Comp Board & then read the system of head restraint rule 18.1.2, read their response & you will see that there is zero misscommunication.

Actually, I meant a miscommunication on the part of the CB, not you.

We can have a private discussion if you like. I'm not sure what else I might be able to add however.


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

Don
11-30-2003, 12:10 PM
Originally posted by ddewhurst:
Don, what is your personal body weight & what year, make & model is your ITC car.

Have Fun http://Forums.ImprovedTouring.com/it/wink.gif
David
I weight 169 now; Actually I'm gaining weight, with the new gym program I'm on. Like I said before Its not all about me! Its addressing some absurd outdated rules. Why should you have to weight 150-180 and drive a (insert “the car “ for your particular IT class here) to get any attention. Is it any wonder that ICSCC, and NASA are starting to take large chunks of the road racers over the last few years.

I think allot of people are giving up on the old dinosaur, its a pity. Not to say that the other organizations are perfect, but they are more open to change. Incase you have not noticed I’m not usually a quiet or shy person http://Forums.ImprovedTouring.com/it/smile.gif. One of the most important lessons I have learned in running a successful business is to listen to my customers suggestions. If more than one person has the same or similar complaint and I do not try to address it then I WILL lose customer base. Think market share! If I was the only one raising these issues then ignore me but I'm not! There are allot of people pushing for some type of change and for the most part put out to pasture and told to either build a new car or go to another org. (crazy!)
What if I all of a sudden said I was only going to work on CRX’s , Integra’s and VW’s and only provide customers weighing between 150-180 with priority service? I would be run out of business and loose about 60% of my current customer base!
I have heard stories about ITs beginnings that the SCCA tried to ignore it and it was individual regions that ran it in the beginning. I was not there but the same thing is happening now but its not within SCCA.


[This message has been edited by Don (edited November 30, 2003).]

lateapex911
11-30-2003, 02:20 PM
Originally posted by Don:
That's just being ignorant, ...

Well, that's a first for me here! Ignorant? Hmmm...........


<font face=\"Verdana, Arial\" size=\"2\"> ...Using your logic in the early days of IT, IT would have never existed ? You would have told early IT racers to just continue with SS and build / buy new cars? Or stop debating (whining) That SCCA officials have more to do than be bothered with the new IT class rules? Perspective changes quite rapidly does it not? </font>

No, the perspective is the same...in the early days, SCCA did ignore IT! As is the procedure in SCCA, regions champion new clesses. If they gain momentum and subscription, then they become nationally recognized, either as National, or Regional classes. Once IT acheived critical mass, the CB invested the time, along with some advisory people, and wrote the IT rule book. (That leaves a lot out, but is the Cliff notes version for the sake of the point at hand)


<font face=\"Verdana, Arial\" size=\"2\"> That's not as awful or self serving as you may think .... What are you afraid of ? Its not going to cost anything , well maybe 20 bucks if you need a wrench. Its not going reduce the spec weight; it will just get some people closer to it. </font>

Perhaps, I hope, you misread me. I didn't intend my statements to infer that you were "awful and self serving". But I do restate that if you (the general, or plural you) are within the 35 pounds or so (max!) that the core and window represent, your return will be marginal when everybody pulls them and then "reballasts".
That, in and of itself, will do next to nothing to change the relative order of things . And I have to assume that no-one would do this unless they wanted to move up the relative order.

Let me try to restate this as clearly as I can.
1-IT isn't a broken, or failing category
2-There ARE issues in IT that need attention
3-The biggest single issue, IMHO, is parity and the distruibution of potential 'speed' among the 4 IT classes.
4-The second biggest issue is cheating.

I said in my first post that I agreed with you, that the rules you mentioned don't make as much sense as they used to, but I think that we should concentrate on other issues before we worry about these lesser items.

I think we all, youself included, have far more to gain from work that has been done both publicly and behind the scenes, aimed at item #2.


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

[This message has been edited by lateapex911 (edited November 30, 2003).]

Don
11-30-2003, 03:37 PM
911,I guess I did miss read you,sorry.
Cant say I never missunder stood any one either http://Forums.ImprovedTouring.com/it/smile.gif
There are allot of people (SCCA members) especialy the larger ones who wish they were 35 LBS away from the GCR weight. This means for some people the weight listed in the GCR is only a dream. Letting them remove a few items may not move them from mid pack to the front but its a start in the right directon.
Each one of those racers are customers so to speak, If SCCA doesnt try to provide them with some type of perceived value; then they may stop racing or go to another org. Thats bad! Its a loose/loose situation.
Geo was right too you cant have new rules every month.
Like I said before I never heard anyone crying to put the carpet and headliner back in. A few months ago there was a story In GRM about a ITS Civic racer that now races with NASA in Honda challenge because he had no where to run. How many people is SCCA going to loose before they wake up! In the north west a Conference race I went to had about twice he turn out of the Scca a few weeks later, makes you go hhhm!
I read that a guy from NHRA was brought in to revamp SCCA. Well? I'm not bashing the SCCA its the oposite I think the original Sports car club should start getting with the program and get some of those guys back!




[This message has been edited by Don (edited November 30, 2003).]

ITSRX7
11-30-2003, 07:52 PM
These type of allowances have other ramafications. Yes, it may seem that allowing blower motors, window glass, (insert your favorite un-needed part) to be removed will help some, when in reality all it does is make a path for cheaters.

The 2nd gen RX-7 can get to minimum weight easily. If I removed all of that stuff, I would have to put in 100lbs of ballast AND I would still be under - with a full tank. So what is to stop me from hiding weight in strategic and undetectible places AND helping the performance of my racecar? Corner weighting - weight REAL low (inside the frame rails) is the result...

Then what? The gap between the haves and the have nots gets BIGGER.

It's a very grey area when rules creep starts to set in. I have talked with some people who think that if their car can get below minimum weight, the minimum weight was set too high!

I agree 100% that there are bigger fish to fry. The SCCA is not losing drivers to NASA because you can't remove passenger side door glass in IT. NASA has created a structure that is very limited in it's scope - and is popular to some but could never be popular to many based purely on what they have to offer for classes. The SCCA is trying to do a lot for many and some people think they are failing (I am not one of those people). There are issues, no doubt.

AB

------------------
Andy Bettencourt
06 ITS RX-7
FlatOut Motorsports
New England Region #188967
www.flatout-motorsports.com
http://www.flatout-motorsports.com/images/200_06_checkered.jpg

itafiero
12-01-2003, 02:57 PM
Originally posted by ITSRX7:
These type of allowances have other ramafications. Yes, it may seem that allowing blower motors, window glass, (insert your favorite un-needed part) to be removed will help some, when in reality all it does is make a path for cheaters.

The 2nd gen RX-7 can get to minimum weight easily. If I removed all of that stuff, I would have to put in 100lbs of ballast AND I would still be under - with a full tank. So what is to stop me from hiding weight in strategic and undetectible places AND helping the performance of my racecar? Corner weighting - weight REAL low (inside the frame rails) is the result...

Then what? The gap between the haves and the have nots gets BIGGER.

It's a very grey area when rules creep starts to set in. I have talked with some people who think that if their car can get below minimum weight, the minimum weight was set too high!

I agree 100% that there are bigger fish to fry. The SCCA is not losing drivers to NASA because you can't remove passenger side door glass in IT. NASA has created a structure that is very limited in it's scope - and is popular to some but could never be popular to many based purely on what they have to offer for classes. The SCCA is trying to do a lot for many and some people think they are failing (I am not one of those people). There are issues, no doubt.

AB



Actually I don't agree. Their Pro Sedan class mimics SCCA IT with a few exceptions. Those exceptions include my car, '88 Fiero V6, that at the time that Pro Sedan started was included in PS-2 (ITA like) years before the CB moved it form ITS to ITA. So the club does need to pay attention to the competition and make changes that are appropriate for it's members that are inclusive and not exclusive.

ITSRX7
12-01-2003, 03:55 PM
I would never intentially imply that the SCCA doesn't need to watch, learn and react to it's competition. That is a must.

I know little about NASA but from what I can tell, Pro Sedan is IT but with one less class! And where is the NASA rule set that contradicts the issues first brought up in this forum? Seems PS is the same as IT, issues and all - so why would the SCCA's IT class lose drivers to NASA PS?

Trying to understand...

AB

------------------
Andy Bettencourt
06 ITS RX-7
FlatOut Motorsports
New England Region #188967
www.flatout-motorsports.com
http://www.flatout-motorsports.com/images/200_06_checkered.jpg

itafiero
12-01-2003, 04:10 PM
I should have stated more clearly where I disagreed with your earlier statement. I don't think I can make a solid argument with SCCA losing members to NASA. I was just pointing out that they offer a fairly complete set of classes to run.

Although I can't argue that the club is losing members to NASA I can say that it's possible and depending on how the rules change in IT NASA's class structure may become more attractive to club members. I recognize that NASA offered my car a more competitive location from the get go. That shows they can take initiative in order to make their offering attractive to club members.

grjones1
12-01-2003, 04:22 PM
[quote]Sorry guys, all the philosophizing and proselytizing in the world will not cloud the pure logic of removing passenger-side door glass. It's easy; it's cost-free; the glass must be rolled down anyway; and what's most important, it would increase safety.
I am continually astounded that the danger of leaving a glass "bomb" in my passenger door for no apparent reason has not alarmed more people- and for what reason does the glass remain? Because of a hard-headed adherence to the outdated original intent to provide "dual-purpose" cars. That idea is long past its usefulness.
No reason remains for retaining glass in the passenger-side front door other than someone just doesn't want to be bothered with making a decision.
And I'm sorry again guys but you can take out your blower motors if you install a through-dash horizontal bar for the driver's protection (you are allowed to make room for such a bar).
And I still say that the writers' intent when they said "gauges and instruments may be replaced, altered, or removed" meant that you could get rid of old switches and components as well as read-outs. (VW and a number of other manufacturers, for example, list horns under Instruments.
Why would the rule writers say "gauges and 'instruments,'" if instrument simply meant gauge as many have demanded by GCR definition. An instrument can be a great deal more than a gauge. The GCR is in error obviously because the GCR definition is far too limited, by anyone's understanding of the word "instrument." Surgeons use "instruments" to carve people up and I guarantee the instruments they use do not all have numbers and pointers. The GCR definition was written after the ITCS use of the word and they don't agree, and the ITCS use of the word takes precedence. That should be apparent to any reasonable individual.
Thank you for your indulgence.

G. Robert Jones

[This message has been edited by grjones1 (edited December 01, 2003).]

Knestis
12-01-2003, 05:56 PM
By this logic (applied to the window question only - I'll leave the others alone), IT entrants should remove ALL glass windows and replace them with polycarbonate. And showroom stock cars should do the same.

This is the same kind of rationale that got GT cars to where they are now, from the "Sedan" classes of the '70s. Yes, it is a little arbitrary to define where IT ends and Production starts but it does not make big-picture sense to be making constant incremental allowances in the rules. Not even if they are based on "safety," in as much as "unsafe" conditions are accepted in ANY club racing class.

Fuel cells are not required in IT but are in other categories. Arm restraints are required in formula cars and sports racers but not IT. Where do we draw the line?

And I will argue strongly that the ONLY cost-free modification is the one that is NOT allowed. Time is money or time not spent doing something else.

K

Don
12-01-2003, 06:45 PM
Originally posted by Knestis:


And I will argue strongly that the ONLY cost-free modification is the one that is NOT allowed. Time is money or time not spent doing something else.


You could apply that logic even further if you wish.... Think of all the money and time you would save if you didn't build an IT race car at all http://Forums.ImprovedTouring.com/it/smile.gif. Disconected heater cores and passenger only glass is one foot in and one foot out. Choose one or the other, otherwise its foolishness.

grjones1
12-01-2003, 08:31 PM
Originally posted by Knestis:
By this logic (applied to the window question only - I'll leave the others alone), IT entrants should remove ALL glass windows and replace them with polycarbonate. And showroom stock cars should do the same.

ANS
K, your "logic" never ceases to amaze me- I don't remember seeing too many race cars T-boned in their windshields or even their rear windows, but I 've seen quite a few hit perpendicularly and otherwise in their sides (where the rolled-down window resides). And windshields and rear glass must remain to serve a purpose, they shield the driver and enclose the car. Door windows rolled down in the door serve absolutely no purpose except added weight.
In more than twenty years of racing, I've never seen a showroom, or otherwise, driver cut by broken glass from a broken windshield or rear window, but I've seen plenty of broken glass on the track from sidewindows shattered on the pavement.
The only real reason GT uses polycarbonates is that it is lighter, not safer. _____

This is the same kind of rationale that got GT cars to where they are now, from the "Sedan" classes of the '70s. Yes, it is a little arbitrary to define where IT ends and Production starts but it does not make big-picture sense to be making constant incremental allowances in the rules. Not even if they are based on "safety," in as much as "unsafe" conditions are accepted in ANY club racing class.

ANS:
This is about as weak an argument as it gets: "Lets not be safer because we might be incrementing."
__________
Fuel cells are not required in IT but are in other categories. Arm restraints are required in formula cars and sports racers but not IT. Where do we draw the line?
_____
ANS:
Most IT cars are sedans or otherwise enclosed, arm restraints would be superfluous. Fuel cells are less necessary because IT cars go considerably slower than GT, formula, and Production.

And I will argue strongly that the ONLY cost-free modification is the one that is NOT allowed. Time is money or time not spent doing something else.
___________
ANS: Sounds like you really don't have time to race.
K, you are making excuses not good sense. This is exactly what I mean about people not wanting to go to the trouble to make good decisions, and these really are the weakest arguments I ve heard you present.

Here's another "illogical" one for you to wrestle with: If we took the bumpers off there would be fewer metal-to-metals for obvious reasons.

G. Robert Jones

K



[This message has been edited by grjones1 (edited December 01, 2003).]

Knestis
12-01-2003, 09:18 PM
Even when prepared to IT rules, my car will have both side windows installed and in working order and the door cards in to contain any broken glass.

The heater hoses will be in there, pushing water through the core to keep mist off of the windshield. The air will be moved around by the OEM blower - although the outboard vents and a hunk of each side's duct gave their all for the rollcage A-pillar tubes.

I wear arm restraints even in closed cars, except in enduros where the time-cost of buckling them isn't warranted by the marginal return in safety.

ITS lap records are as quick or quicker than F, G, and H Production, and GT5 cars around the US. That alone doesn't make the decision to require fuel cells.

I am neither unsafe nor illogical: I just don't have the same priorities as others. I am also consistent where others are less so - and (usually) more interested in arguing positions rather than bashing individuals.

K

ITSRX7
12-01-2003, 09:33 PM
Originally posted by grjones1:
I've never seen a showroom, or otherwise, driver cut by broken glass from a broken windshield or rear window, but I've seen plenty of broken glass on the track from sidewindows shattered on the pavement.

What class might you be talking about? In IT, the passenger glass is contained by wither the factory door panel or an aluminum skin as per the rules. Drivers door glass is typically gone due to NASCAR style roll bars and when that style of cage isn't used, removing the door panel isn't legal. How does the glass escape?

AB

------------------
Andy Bettencourt
06 ITS RX-7
FlatOut Motorsports
New England Region #188967
www.flatout-motorsports.com
http://www.flatout-motorsports.com/images/200_06_checkered.jpg

Don
12-01-2003, 09:41 PM
I now see why nothing ever gets done in IT ........... http://Forums.ImprovedTouring.com/it/smile.gif
I am thinking live with ITC for now, next race car will not be ITA. DSR.... no window glass or heaters allowed and minumum weight is just that! http://Forums.ImprovedTouring.com/it/smile.gif If you add up what a competive ITA/S car costs its not that much more.
My ITC Car has a fuel cell. I value my life and others too much. Just another rule that is out dated!

lateapex911
12-01-2003, 10:45 PM
Originally posted by ITSRX7:
How does the glass escape?

AB




Well, Andy, I'm guessing the answer will be something to the effect of, " In a crash severe enough to break the glass, the door skin will often be torn, spreading glass all over the racing surface."

Suddenly it's all so obvious! That fear I get when I'm spinning sideways into something isn't the fear of impact...No! It's the fear of flying glass! Of course! http://Forums.ImprovedTouring.com/it/rolleyes.gif Doesn't automotive safety glass break into a gazillionbabilion bits the size and shape of little pebbles? Granted, I wouldn't walk on it barefoot but hey...those pebbles smart too! Bottom line is, I sure don't spend as much time worrying about this as others, I guess.

And I'd like to address one thing without getting too tangled in this other silliness.

Nobody is going to run to NASA because the SCCA won't let them remove their window glass or heater core, or whatever 5 pound item that they want to remove...that's patently ridiculous! They WILL go to NASA for ONE reason...they think they can win. Period. IF the Oswald Gofast that Bobby Racer races is classed more favorably over there, then Bobby will be pretty darn temped to go there.

If we are worried about the pull of the "dark side", then the best thing we can do is give all racers a fair shot, and have as many cars in a reasonable number of clesses be classed with parity.


<font face=\"Verdana, Arial\" size=\"2\"> ...nothing ever gets done in IT .... </font>

???..

We sit on the eve of the single biggest change in philosophy since the inception of IT...the PCAs. The mere fact that they are being considered speaks heavily as to the fact that IT, as a category, is getting some attention from the CB. IT has always been the ugly stepchild of categories, and that has been no secret. Buyer beware!

Write to them if you like, requesting the change so that some cars that have a difficult time getting to min. weight will have more options, and behind doors, I guarantee you will get rolled eyes. Why??? Because the entire category is potentially about to undergo a major change. If I were them, I'd 'table' it pending PCA activity too.

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

[This message has been edited by lateapex911 (edited December 01, 2003).]

[This message has been edited by lateapex911 (edited December 01, 2003).]

Knestis
12-02-2003, 09:31 AM
<font face=\"Verdana, Arial\" size=\"2\">The mere fact that they are being considered speaks heavily as to the fact that IT, as a category, is getting some attention from the CB.</font>

As dubious as I may be, this is in fact something we should remember.

K

ddewhurst
12-02-2003, 09:32 AM
***Because the entire category is potentially about to undergo a major change.***

& the time frame would be??????????

Jake, don't be specific about a month or day. How about what year? http://Forums.ImprovedTouring.com/it/biggrin.gif

Continue the Fun http://Forums.ImprovedTouring.com/it/wink.gif
David

grjones1
12-02-2003, 05:18 PM
Originally posted by ITSRX7:
What class might you be talking about? In IT, the passenger glass is contained by wither the factory door panel or an aluminum skin as per the rules. Drivers door glass is typically gone due to NASCAR style roll bars and when that style of cage isn't used, removing the door panel isn't legal. How does the glass escape?

AB
AB,
I was refuting the idea of changing to plastic windows, the fact that plastic is used to save weight not to make things safer.
And probably more than a few cars, 2- and 4-door models, in IT, showroom stock, and production all carry OEM glass in their rear side windows, which are not rolled down into door pockets, and which when suffering a heavy blow in the side spew broken glass across the course. And you know, I often wonder just how capable that cardboard door panel is for keeping broken glass from blowing towards the driver's seat after a heavy blow.(I know -a good reason to put in the aluminum panel.)
But realy... the point here is why should we carry anything that has no purpose and in fact may present a risk? Quit trying to be smarter than I am and think. I'll grant you the intellectual superiority if you can give me one good reason to carry a rolled-down window glass in a race car (Showroom Stock notwithstanding as representative of total OEM standards and dual purpose intent.)

GRJ





[This message has been edited by grjones1 (edited December 02, 2003).]

12-02-2003, 05:56 PM
Originally posted by Knestis:
Even when prepared to IT rules, my car will have both side windows installed and in working order and the door cards in to contain any broken glass.

The heater hoses will be in there, pushing water through the core to keep mist off of the windshield. The air will be moved around by the OEM blower - although the outboard vents and a hunk of each side's duct gave their all for the rollcage A-pillar tubes.




define racecar, "an automobile MODIFIED for competition" that my friend Kirk, is why I am having a blast building my ep car. When im done I will have a real racecar.

one of you guys said this already, just build what your comfortable with and leave the rest alone, some of us were never meant to be in improved touring and trying to bring the class around to our standards is just plain stupid.

Knestis
12-02-2003, 06:18 PM
This may be the best point made here yet. Each of us has our own priorities and values and the decision of which class to run reflects them. I hesitate to tell people who argue for more allowances in the rules to "go run Production" but it is one step more toward the "tinkerer" end of the modification continuum. Leave IT where it is - somewhere between SS and Production.

K

Eric Parham
12-02-2003, 10:57 PM
Originally posted by ITSRX7:
How does the glass escape?

AB



Andy, I really don't have a position on the removal of passenger door glass, but I will relay my own experiences. I have lost passenger side window glass twice, both times during hard right hand cornering when someone chose to use my door as an extra brake. During hard right-hand cornering, centrifugal(?) force pulls everything that's not nailed down towards the driver's side! First time I lost my door glass, my rotted cardboard doorcard also came loose, and I managed to continue despite having glass inside my driver's suit, inside my helmet, and under my butt.

After that, I discovered that I could legally update to a later year *plastic* door card (note that many don't have this option). I even added extra non-factory fasteners to make sure it stayed in place. Well, it did it's job, but the collapsing door had less volume than just before being hit, and much of the glass was pushed up through the top of the window opening and proceeded to fly across the car straight into my face. That time I had to pull in on the next lap to fish the glass out of my eyes.

The following race I showed up with racer's tape covering the top of the window opening, which was promptly pointed out by a competitor to possibly help aerodynamics -- against his (and my own) interpretation of the rules!

Well, my latest plan is to apply the thickest and stickiest window tinting that I can find in order to keep all of the glass together the next time it breaks. Technically, I suppose that could be considered ballasting, but I don't think anyone will care under the circumstances. Now the only trouble is that they don't even make that piece of glass anymore...

Just one guy's experience...

ITSRX7
12-03-2003, 09:14 AM
Eric,

Good notes. I think you can chalk the first experience up to poor preparation. The second is noted. We all have to do what we can to to be safe. I run the aluminum skin and with the factory rubber in place on the RX-7, it would take a hurricane to get the glass out.


GRJ,

I am not trying to one-up you intellectually. Why would you say that? Can nobody take an opposing view? Cripes. If the only reason you are looking to remove the galss is for weight, see my first post in this thread. The more stuff you are able to remove, the more SOME will need to add weight - and that means creative additions of weight to the light cars - and THAT is a bad thing for the class.

I, Like Kirk, like what Jake said. Many people complain about rules creep. This is IT and it has a mission statement. I can see the removal of glass for safety reasons (or at least the arguement) but not to get weight down.

AB


------------------
Andy Bettencourt
06 ITS RX-7
FlatOut Motorsports
New England Region #188967
www.flatout-motorsports.com
http://www.flatout-motorsports.com/images/200_06_checkered.jpg

grjones1
12-03-2003, 09:42 AM
Originally posted by Eric Parham:
Andy, I really don't have a position on the removal of passenger door glass, but I will relay my own experiences. I have lost passenger side window glass twice, both times during hard right hand cornering when someone chose to use my door as an extra brake. During hard right-hand cornering, centrifugal(?) force pulls everything that's not nailed down towards the driver's side! First time I lost my door glass, my rotted cardboard doorcard also came loose, and I managed to continue despite having glass inside my driver's suit, inside my helmet, and under my butt.

After that, I discovered that I could legally update to a later year *plastic* door card (note that many don't have this option). I even added extra non-factory fasteners to make sure it stayed in place. Well, it did it's job, but the collapsing door had less volume than just before being hit, and much of the glass was pushed up through the top of the window opening and proceeded to fly across the car straight into my face. That time I had to pull in on the next lap to fish the glass out of my eyes.

The following race I showed up with racer's tape covering the top of the window opening, which was promptly pointed out by a competitor to possibly help aerodynamics -- against his (and my own) interpretation of the rules!

Well, my latest plan is to apply the thickest and stickiest window tinting that I can find in order to keep all of the glass together the next time it breaks. Technically, I suppose that could be considered ballasting, but I don't think anyone will care under the circumstances. Now the only trouble is that they don't even make that piece of glass anymore...

Just one guy's experience...

Thanks Eric. You've proven out my conjecture. Both of us need to put in the aluminum panel, and I'm going to tape the opening, if they want to protest that one I think they would lose on quite a few points: repair, safety, graphics, etc.

Does Eric's report mot suggest to anyone that door glass in the door is not a good idea? Rules creep or no rules creep, the practice is unsafe and should be changed. Period!
G. Robert Jones