PDA

View Full Version : IIDSYCYC



Quickshoe
01-24-2004, 11:36 PM
This clause seems to come up fairly often.

However, what about this?

ITCS 17.1.4.B "...other than those specifically allowed by these rules, no component or part normally found on a stock example of a given vehicle may be disabled, altered, or removed for the purpose of gaining any competitive advantage "
(emphasis mine)

-and-

ITCS 17.1.4.D"...Modifications shall not be made unless authorized herein"
(emphasis mine)

The GCR defines modify as: "to change a component by reworking, but not by replacing"

So, if one was to remove (not modify) a part that doesn't yield a competitive advantage, wouldn't that be okay?



[This message has been edited by Quickshoe (edited January 24, 2004).]

Knestis
01-24-2004, 11:49 PM
I've tried to make this point before but wonder if it resonates for anyone besides me...

I would argue that, if a racer makes a change (in this case, removes a part), he/she is doing so because at the very least it is perceived as affording a competitive advantage.

Whether or not it does so is sometimes questionable but to spend resources (time, money) making a change and then argue that it doens't provide a competitive advantage seems completely disingenuous to me.

But okay, I'll bite: Someone give an example of a part that can be removed from an IT car that, such that by doing so, some competitive advantage is not gained - no matter how small.

K

Geo
01-25-2004, 12:14 AM
Originally posted by Quickshoe:
ITCS 17.1.4.D"...Modifications shall not be made unless authorized herein"
(emphasis mine)

The GCR defines modify as: "to change a component by reworking, but not by replacing"

I personally think your interpretation is strained. I read modifications to mean modifications to the car. As such, removing components would qualify as modifying the car.


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

Quickshoe
01-25-2004, 01:07 AM
Kirk,

I would tend to agree with you that racers, in general, aren't going to expend any effort if it isn't going to yield some advantage.

I know. Removing some widget that is just along for the ride allows me to add some extra cage structure or ballast down low. But what IF my car is overweight with the minimum cage structure and zero ballast? I remove the widget and make no other changes. What competitive advantage do I have over the guy at minimum weight with the extra cage structure and ballast?

Geo,

Strained???? That seems a little harsh. I am quoting from the book. I didn't interpret anything. The book specifically says "component" not "car".

Banzai240
01-25-2004, 02:35 AM
Isn't removing ANYTHING from the car going to make it lighter?

Even if the weight removal is infintesimal... that's still a "competitive advantage" in my book... However insignificant the advantage might be...

Joe Harlan
01-25-2004, 02:58 AM
We weigh with driver? we have a minimum weight to meet. How is removing weight a competitive advantage? as long as you meet the minimum.

Banzai240
01-25-2004, 04:38 AM
Originally posted by Joe Harlan:
We weigh with driver? we have a minimum weight to meet. How is removing weight a competitive advantage? as long as you meet the minimum.

Not to take this discussion too far down this path, but as you've always told me... it's all where you put the weight.

If I take weight off the top, and put it on the bottom... it helps for a "moment"... so to speak...

My point wasn't that I care one way or the other as to whether or not you take whatever off your car, but rather that just about ANYTHING you do beyond the rules could be argued successfully as being a "competitive advantage"...

Bill Miller
01-25-2004, 05:06 AM
Originally posted by Geo:
I personally think your interpretation is strained. I read modifications to mean modifications to the car. As such, removing components would qualify as modifying the car.




George,

It really doesn't matter what you read modification to mean, what Quickshoe posted was the definition from the GCR Glossary. There's no 'interpretation' [sic] to be strained



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

Knestis
01-25-2004, 09:27 AM
Yeahbut...

"Competitive Advantage" isn't listed in the GCR glossary so we have no choice but to define it for the sake of this discussion: If Darin can remove weight from one place on the car (irrespective of whether he meets the minimum or not), has his competitive position improved compared to his competition, relative to where he was before the change?

K

Joe Harlan
01-25-2004, 09:59 AM
Kirk, I would say that if Darin legally moved weight on the chassis regardless of meeting his minimum. He made the car more competitive but not necessarily gained a competitive advantange. If the modification was legal then it is open to anyone. where is the advantage?

Jake
01-25-2004, 10:47 AM
Ok, I’ll bite (I wanna play too!)

I’ve taken everything off my MR2 that I possibly can and am still overweight (I weigh 180lbs). If I remove the washer bottle, I’ll still be way overweight. You could argue that I am redistributing weight because I’m removing weight from the front of the car and adding weight to the ballast in the driver’s seat. However, this is not a competitive advantage because it works against balancing my already rear-heavy car.

Geo
01-25-2004, 11:44 AM
Originally posted by Quickshoe:
Geo,

Strained???? That seems a little harsh. I am quoting from the book. I didn't interpret anything. The book specifically says "component" not "car".

OK, let's back up for a moment. Where in your quote from the GCR does it refer to "components?" I'll requote here:


Originally posted by Quickshoe:
ITCS 17.1.4.D"...Modifications shall not be made unless authorized herein"
(emphasis mine)

Now let me quote the entire section:

"17.1.4.D: The following modifications are authorized on all Improved Touring Category cars. Modifications shall not be made unless authorized herein. No permitted component/modification shall additionally perform a prohibited function."

IMHO this section refers to modifications to the cars. You seem to be trying to apply it to individual components and this would indeed possibly create a different interpretation, but one I think would be dead wrong. No were in that section does it mention modification to componenets. Further, it seems clear to me it is refering to modifications to the cars, especially since it's in the very first part of the ITCS just before talking about permitted modifications to the cars.

The rule mentions "component/modification," but this is not the same language as "modified component." The "/" would most commonly be interpreted as "and/or."

------------------
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 January 25, 2004).]

lateapex911
01-25-2004, 12:16 PM
Where is it guaranteed that all cars can actually acheive min weight? Not in the GCR.

I'm 100% with Kirk on this one. If a part is removed it can have many effects, such as lower overall weight, "freeing up" weight so it can be placed in another position, increasing reliability, and so on. It's a competitive advantage to somebody

Semantics can be argued until we're all blue in the face, but if it were to ever be protested, I'm sure the rules makers eyes would roll.

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

Quickshoe
01-25-2004, 02:40 PM
Geo,

My quote from the definition of modify from the GCR says component not car.

ddewhurst
01-25-2004, 04:26 PM
***Posted per Geo***

***"17.1.4.D: The following modifications are authorized on all Improved Touring Category cars. Modifications shall not be made unless authorized herein. No permitted component/modification shall additionally perform a prohibited function."

***IMHO this section refers to modifications to the cars.***

***No were in that section does it mention modification to componenets.***

Geo, please read the following slowly.

17.1.4.D.a. Carb parts

17.1.4.D.b. Fuel pumps/fuel filters

17.1.4.D.c. Air cleaners

17.1.4.D.d. Emission control parts

17.1.4.D. Need I continue ? These are components all under the rule you quoted 17.1.4.D. & within the rule the written words tell you what modifications you can make & other words tell you of modifications you can not make to components. Granted the written words do not tell you all of the modifications you can not make the original part of the rule tells you that.

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

erlrich
01-25-2004, 06:17 PM
[B]IMHO this section refers to modifications to the cars. You seem to be trying to apply it to individual components and this would indeed possibly create a different interpretation, but one I think would be dead wrong. No were in that section does it mention modification to componenets. Further, it seems clear to me it is refering to modifications to the cars, especially since it's in the very first part of the ITCS just before talking about permitted modifications to the cars.
B]

Can I play, can I play (he says, with hand up).

IMHO the argument about whether 'modifications' refers to the car or its components is totally irrelevant. Since a car is simply a conglomeration of components, a modification to the car must by default result from a modification to one of its components; conversely any modification of a component must result in a modification to the car. And, since the writers of the GCR were nice enough to define the term modify for us (as noted above), said definition specifically stating "change a component by reworking", I can't see how removing a part could possibly be considered a modification.

I think the relevant discussion here revolves around the meaning of the term 'competitive advantage'. If you believe it means making your car more competitive than it was before the part was removed, then removing any part must result in a competitive advantage. If, on the other hand, you believe it means giving your car an advantage that no other car has, then removing a part just to save weight would not necessarily result in a competitive advantage. The flaw with the second interpretation is, IMO, that you would be opening up a whole slew of parts that could be removed just to save weight, which I don't believe was the intent of the rules.

Wow, this is way more fun than any of the logic courses I had to take!


------------------
Earl
ITA 240SX in process

ddewhurst
01-25-2004, 08:30 PM
Earl, you play nice. Next time don't ask just jump in & play.

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

Geo
01-25-2004, 11:17 PM
Originally posted by erlrich:
IMHO the argument about whether 'modifications' refers to the car or its components is totally irrelevant. Since a car is simply a conglomeration of components, a modification to the car must by default result from a modification to one of its components; conversely any modification of a component must result in a modification to the car. And, since the writers of the GCR were nice enough to define the term modify for us (as noted above), said definition specifically stating "change a component by reworking", I can't see how removing a part could possibly be considered a modification.

Pretty tortured.


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

Quickshoe
01-26-2004, 12:06 AM
Earl,

Sounds logical to me.

I don't have a dog in this fight. I like to think that I can read the rules, as written, and remain unemotional and logical about them.

If they don't want the components removed why not say:

"...can not be disabled, altered or removed."

Why did they add "...for the purpose of obtaining any competitive advantage" unless it was possible to do so without obtaining a competitive advantage?

Knestis
01-26-2004, 08:10 AM
Because the rules move forward from an assumption that the cars are prepared to showroom stock rules - that everything is expected to be there as delivered from the factory unless otherwise specified.

Tortured as in "damp basements and electric wires..."

K

01-26-2004, 11:49 AM
quote fron kirk " has his competitive position improved compared to his competition"

where does anything in IT COMPARE COMPETITION, the whole intent stinks. just look at the results from the ARRC, ITA looked like the Honda challenge, they should have one set of rules that apply to cars that can win and another for everyone else, cause frankly, whos going to care if I lower my washer bottle on my rules relegated backmarker. IMHO

Banzai240
01-26-2004, 11:59 AM
Originally posted by 7'sRracing:
... on my rules relegated backmarker. IMHO

Just curious... How have the "rules relegated" ANY car to be a "backmarker"???

Everyone has to follow the SAME rules... don't they??

------------------
Darin E. Jordan
SCCA #273080, OR/NW Regions
Renton, WA
ITS '97 240SX
http://home.comcast.net/~djjordan/Web/DJ_AV1.jpg

ITSRX7
01-26-2004, 12:03 PM
7'sRacing,

So to sum up your position:

If you have a car that you think isn't competitive, it's ok to cheat to make it more so.

Now THAT's a creative interpritation of the GCR.

AB

01-26-2004, 12:51 PM
Originally posted by Banzai240:
Just curious... How have the "rules relegated" ANY car to be a "backmarker"???

Everyone has to follow the SAME rules... don't they??



sorry Daryl, I didnt mean to deter your thread.

Darren, how about a 130+ wheel hp 1900# honda dropped in with no C.A's, thats relagation backwards for every other ITA car ever classed.

Andy, absolutly not, but Ill share a tidbit with you, last year I came onto a straight right next to car just like mine, and he beat my two race old LEGAL motor by 20 carlenghts down the straight, as did the other 5 cars in front of me that also were "relagated backmarkers", that tells me what most think of our "INTENT" and classification process. thats why im going EP this year, cause I wont do what there doing, whatever it is.

ITSRX7
01-26-2004, 12:55 PM
Originally posted by 7'sRracing:

Darren, how about a 130+ wheel hp 1900# honda dropped in with no C.A's, thats relagation backwards for every other ITA car ever classed.

Andy, absolutly not, but Ill share a tidbit with you, last year I came onto a straight right next to car just like mine, and he beat my two race old LEGAL motor by 20 carlenghts down the straight, as did the other 5 cars in front of me that also were "relagated backmarkers", that tells me what most think of our "INTENT" and classification process. thats why im going EP this year, cause I wont do what there doing, whatever it is.



First off, name the car you are talking about.

Second - sounds like you have a problem with CHEATING, not the RULES. BIG difference. If you put up with a like car doing that to your 100% prepped car, then you deserve your position on track. We must police ourselves at this level.

AB

------------------
Andy Bettencourt
06 ITS RX-7
FlatOut Motorsports
New England Region #188967
www.flatout-motorsports.com

01-26-2004, 01:42 PM
Andy , no I wont, I like these guys and while I dont agree with how things turned out I do see how they got that way, the LEGAL frontrunners were having a good time and a new comp board comes along and classifies a CRX and a ACURA in ITA , they said screw this and did their own C.A's. its pretty even too, they now run with the overdogs. I tried a few things to see what it would take, tried a bigger intakes/venturies on practice day, ect, but it was still not enough. with a 2380# car I would need 145-150 wheel hp to stay with a CRX on the staight, legally you cant make more than 118-120 hp. I would have to go internal to get it so im bowing out. what kind of sorry assed classification was that, and "PER THE RULES" in nine years it couldnt be fixed. Ask yourself this, how far would any multi marked racing organization get if they said "if you run this car you get a 30 hp advantage". but back to Daryls thread, im realllllly sorry Daryl, Daryl made some good points as usual. I have to go to work, got a weber and a fire systen to purchase.....

[This message has been edited by 7'sRracing (edited January 26, 2004).]

ITSRX7
01-26-2004, 02:44 PM
Sorry - I didn't mean the driver and specific car, just the Model. Am I assuming that we are hating the CRX and the Integra - and you are driving a 1st gen RX-7?

Now these cars ARE indeed the class of the class right now, just as the RX-7 was at one point. I also find it a little disturbing that you have a gripe but yet you haven't even maximized the internals of your engine?!? Not saying that would put you on a level playing field, but it does seem like you haven't made the maximum effort.

So, what cars are we comparing? Am I in the ballpark? If I am, we need to start a philisophical thread...

AB

------------------
Andy Bettencourt
06 ITS RX-7
FlatOut Motorsports
New England Region #188967
www.flatout-motorsports.com

cherokee
01-26-2004, 03:28 PM
I think what 7's is getting at is that all things equal any car in ITA,B,C,S should have a shot at winning as long as they are in that class. If a new car comes in it should be in the ball park of all the other cars in the same class. But as the rules are now there is no need to correct a "mistake" in putting a car in any given class (oh they can). Remember "no guarantee". And I think that turns people off of IT.

01-26-2004, 03:55 PM
Yes Andy, you are correct in the cars, and my engine was all new with carbon apex seals, balanced, top notch headers, yaw carb, 4:88'S in the rear. I would have had to port it (alot) to achieve those numbers.

cherokee your right on the money, and to argue about any IT rule other than the first page of the ITCS is a complete waste of your time, as there is no "competition comparison" to argue about, your either running a honda or your a backmarker or your a --------. PCS rules are written as to give the creative mind an advantage but only until the others catch on, its interesting to hear some of those strained interpretations.

edit to add... Im not hating the hondas, I believe they could be placed in ITA correctly with a few changes, add a few pounds and restrict the thottle body a tad and whaalahh, you havnt pissed off every guy thats invested part of his retirement into his racecar. still believe IT could be the biggest class ever with just a shread recognition from SCCA. but then why would anyone move on to its pricier classes.

[This message has been edited by 7'sRracing (edited January 26, 2004).]

ITSRX7
01-26-2004, 04:13 PM
Well there you have it.

I would challenge you to try and 'fit' all the cars listed in the ITCS so that they all have a chance. Can't be done without full-bore Comp adjustments like in Prod or WC. THAT is not the intent of IT.

I think the bottom line is that ITA has passed the 1st gen RX-7 by. Some would argue that is a bad thing and some would argue that IT is in DESPERATE NEED of new blood.

AB

------------------
Andy Bettencourt
06 ITS RX-7
FlatOut Motorsports
New England Region #188967
www.flatout-motorsports.com

Peter Olivola
01-26-2004, 04:33 PM
Maybe that "investment decision" is the real problem.


Originally posted by 7'sRracing:
you havnt pissed off every guy thats invested part of his retirement into his racecar.

01-26-2004, 04:42 PM
Why Andy, do I think if your 2nd gen ITS was 30 hp down from from the E36 we wouldnt be having this conversation, or does your recent move mean it is and being relegated didnt sit well with you?. dosnt matter, I wish you the best in the speedchannel series and we will be cheering your team on. when newbies show up here we welcome them but we really try not to warn them what they will be up against at the wim of a classification, im just as guilty of this even though I myself didnt realize the true impact of "INTENT". if we did they would go spec miata (yuk) or NASA's honda challenge. (yuk)

edit to add, peter, show me a guy that isnt in some way having fun with funds he probly should be putting away. http://Forums.ImprovedTouring.com/it/smile.gif

[This message has been edited by 7'sRracing (edited January 26, 2004).]

ITSRX7
01-26-2004, 04:50 PM
Thanks on the WC stuff. Actually, we aren't moving, just adding on to our schedule. Nick is the only current driver for our WC plans as they sit. While I am confident I will get there, my RACING skills are not up to the task quite yet.

The E36 may eventually relegate the 2nd gen to the history books, the inclusion of the 944S may add to that. Guess what? That just means ITS is evolving. Do I like it? Not from a "me, me, me" perspective but it just may be the best thing for the category as a whole. Try and name a new car built today that would fit into anything below ITA....ITB and ITC are effectivly 'historic'. http://Forums.ImprovedTouring.com/it/smile.gif

When we look at issues like this,lets try and think up solutions. Have any you would like to throw out there for consideration? Some want an additional class, some want PCA's, some want the class left alone. Where do you fall? Let's try for a solution, shall we?

AB

------------------
Andy Bettencourt
06 ITS RX-7
FlatOut Motorsports
New England Region #188967
www.flatout-motorsports.com

01-26-2004, 05:31 PM
First we would have to get past the first page of the ITCS, tear it out and throw it away. we have the formula for success already on the next page that any guy with a decent job in the US can get into. stock floorpanned car slightly modified for fun/racing, no brainer. SCCA tossed out all its old class rules and then there was GT/PROD/SS/IT. All would have been fine except the board decided if C.A's were done to IT no one would ever leave it and move to production and it would dwindle eventually, well with SM/PRO7/Honda challenge/ sentra challenge and all the other spec groups that use the IT formula on a level field, production dwindled anyway. I only see two scenarios curing both problems, 1 is to bring production back to the basic IT formula like it was and eliminate IT or 2, do full bore competition adjustments to IT AND add classes over ITA. Im not holding my breath for either which is why im building an EP car.

Bill Miller
01-26-2004, 06:08 PM
Originally posted by cherokee:
I think what 7's is getting at is that all things equal any car in ITA,B,C,S should have a shot at winning as long as they are in that class. If a new car comes in it should be in the ball park of all the other cars in the same class. But as the rules are now there is no need to correct a "mistake" in putting a car in any given class (oh they can). Remember "no guarantee". And I think that turns people off of IT.


Interesting thought Cherokee. I'm inclined to agree w/ you. Darin seems so worried about doing things that will attract people to IT, yet he's not focusing on what, IMHO, is the largest deterent to people going IT racing, the whole PP&I.


Just curious... How have the "rules relegated" ANY car to be a "backmarker"???

Everyone has to follow the SAME rules... don't they??



C'mon Darin, you're really not that naive are you?


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

Peter Olivola
01-26-2004, 06:10 PM
Smiley face or no, racing is not the place for this. It tends to over focus the mind on things that detract from the fun.


<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">peter, show me a guy that isnt in some way having fun with funds he probly should be putting away. http://Forums.ImprovedTouring.com/it/smile.gif[/B]</font>

Banzai240
01-26-2004, 06:31 PM
Originally posted by Bill Miller:
C'mon Darin, you're really not that naive are you?

Does anyone else also get the impression the Miller actually HUNTS down my posts, just for the opportunity to take another poke???
http://Forums.ImprovedTouring.com/it/rolleyes.gif

01-26-2004, 06:38 PM
Theres software you can buy for $20 that tracks any additions to the internet from a given IP adress and lists them out by date, scary isnt it. but Darren, you did step in that one.

planet6racing
01-26-2004, 06:39 PM
Well, I actually get the feeling that some people don't have enough work on their cars to do in the off season and use that energy to pick apart every single word of the GCR.

Modifying includes remove. You've made its weight 0, therefore it is modified.

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

Quickshoe
01-26-2004, 09:00 PM
Originally posted by planet6racing:
Well, I actually get the feeling that some people don't have enough work on their cars to do in the off season and use that energy to pick apart every single word of the GCR.

Modifying includes remove. You've made its weight 0, therefore it is modified.



Actually Bill, I have 3 races in the next four weeks. My off season is over. I need a little relaxationn time before I go back out to the garage for round 12.

Aren't we, as racers and builders, responsible to familiarize ourselves with the rules?

If you or others want "modify" to include remove, then write a letter and get it added to the definition in the GCR. If you or others want us to not be able to remove any component from our vehicles unless it is specifically allowed, write a letter. Get the words "...for the purpose of obtaining any competitve advantage." removed from the ITCS Intent. Removing those words would end all reasonable debate.

By removing a component I have not modified it. It still has the same mass as it did prior to removing it. Albeit, the car now has a smaller mass.

Stay with me here.

As long as I am over the minimum weight and the rule doesn't tell me I can't remove that specific component and I am able to successfully argue that I haven't gained a competitve advantage by removing that component. What rule have I broken?

ITSRX7
01-26-2004, 09:15 PM
But you can't argue that you haven't gained a competitive advantage. You have removed something that the rules don't say you CAN and lightened your vehicle in the process. A lighter car IS a competitive advantage.

ITCS page 7, 2004 GCR

"D. The following modifications are authorized on all Improved Touring Category cars. Modifciations shall not be made unless authorized herein. No permitted component/modification shall additionally perform a prohibited function."

This statement clearly shows 'modifications' are to the car, not components. After this statement, it would have to say that you COULD remove the item for it to be legal.

AB

Quickshoe
01-26-2004, 09:16 PM
Originally posted by Knestis:
Because the rules move forward from an assumption that the cars are prepared to showroom stock rules - that everything is expected to be there as delivered from the factory unless otherwise specified.


Kirk, all due respect, but I think you missed the mark.

While your history may be correct. How is one to make that "assumption"?

Mr. Newbie comes into SCCA racing. Memorizes the GCR and the ITCS. Keeps current in all the happenings in Fast Track. He even sends in his Rules Nerd annual membership dues. How is he to know what is understood or implied? When the condition "for the purpose of obtaining any competitve advantage" is applied you are open to disable, alter or remove a component IF no competitve advatage is gained. How do you argue that you can't?

Quickshoe
01-26-2004, 09:44 PM
Originally posted by ITSRX7:
But you can't argue that you haven't gained a competitive advantage. You have removed something that the rules don't say you CAN and lightened your vehicle in the process. A lighter car IS a competitive advantage.
AB

Andy, lets say that I remove some widget that isn't mentioned in the good book. I replace this removed weight with an ISAAC system. What competitve advantage have I gained?

ITSRX7
01-26-2004, 09:54 PM
You are formulating to suit your needs. You CAN'T remove the widgit because it doesn't say you can as specified in the rule I quoted. If you want to ADD an Isaac system, you are more than welcome to.

If you could just start removing things, some cars would gain a competitive advantage. Let's say the RX-7 and the 240Z are being compared. The 240Z removes all that the rules allow. The RX-7 removes everything that you are implying you can remove, and then adds that weight back in real low and balances the weight distribution to a perfect 50-50 F/R and L/R. The RX-7 is now at minimum - competitive advantage or not?

The quote I posted above says it all. You can't do it unless it says you can. Period. You can argue the symantics of the Intent section but not the RULES section I quoted.

AB

------------------
Andy Bettencourt
06 ITS RX-7
FlatOut Motorsports
New England Region #188967
www.flatout-motorsports.com

erlrich
01-26-2004, 09:57 PM
Originally posted by ITSRX7:
You can argue the symantics of the Intent section but not the RULES section I quoted.

AB




All due respect Andy, but isn't that just what we've been doing?


------------------
Earl
ITA 240SX in process

Knestis
01-26-2004, 10:03 PM
How is he to know? By precedent.

PLEASE - someone protest Mr. Quickshoe on this point early this season.

I cannot WAIT for the appeal after he is tossed: "But I didn't 'modify' my window glass. I removed it - so it's legal. There's no rule that says I can't take it out." Unfounded. Next?

I will freakin' bust a gut laughing. It's this kind of jailhouse lawyerin' that is largely responsible for the creeping that we have to deal with today but if nobody steps up to do something about it, it gets entrenched and becomes "accepted." Barf.

Or there's a chance that this obtuse argument is just being trotted out there to wind people up.

K

ITSRX7
01-26-2004, 10:07 PM
Originally posted by erlrich:

All due respect Andy, but isn't that just what we've been doing?


Well Mr. Shoe was quoting sections from the rulebook in his first post, so my assumption was that he was arguing that it was LEGAL, not that the intent was confusing.

I could be wrong. Either way, I believe the RULES say you can't do what he proposes.

AB

------------------
Andy Bettencourt
06 ITS RX-7
FlatOut Motorsports
New England Region #188967
www.flatout-motorsports.com

erlrich
01-26-2004, 10:13 PM
Originally posted by Knestis:

Or there's a chance that this obtuse argument is just being trotted out there to wind people up.


I wouldn't bet against it.

I'm just curious (and totally serious), has anyone ever been tossed for not having a washer bottle?



------------------
Earl
ITA 240SX in process

Knestis
01-26-2004, 10:29 PM
Has anyone ever been protested for not having a washer bottle? Different question...

K

EDIT - to clarify: It's not that I necessarily think that all of these rules are "good" or make sense but if they are dumb then they should be changed. If they don't get changed, we can't just individually redefine terms as suits our intentions and expect that the world will agree with us.

[This message has been edited by Knestis (edited January 26, 2004).]

01-26-2004, 10:31 PM
Before you brand Daryl A as someone who just stirs the pot, Ill tell you thats BS, look back at his posts and youll agree. If he thinks something needs clarified it probly does. Disagree with him but dont demean him, there must be a point being missed here. people forget to show the same respect they would in person when using these forums.

01-26-2004, 11:05 PM
"I don't have a dog in this fight. I like to think that I can read the rules, as written, and remain unemotional and logical about them.

If they don't want the components removed why not say: " end quote

"...can not be disabled, altered or removed."

Why did they add "...for the purpose of obtaining any competitive advantage" unless it was possible to do so without obtaining a competitive advantage?

[/B][/QUOTE]


Seems rational and resonable, and he's right, when building my car the first thing I did was plan the cage to be able to toss 90% of the dash structure, is that fair?, rules say it is. I did it because the archaic rules said I could. all he is saying is reword certain phrases in the GCR so as to not create loopholes and debate and protest's and ruined weeekends at the track.
I bought Hiem joints for my EP car thinking after reading the PCS they were legal on my tie rod ends, so did Grayson Upchurch. P.S. anyone want to buy some rod ends?.



[This message has been edited by 7'sRracing (edited January 26, 2004).]

Bill Miller
01-27-2004, 12:24 AM
Originally posted by Banzai240:
Does anyone else also get the impression the Miller actually HUNTS down my posts, just for the opportunity to take another poke???
http://Forums.ImprovedTouring.com/it/rolleyes.gif



Don't flatter yourself Darin. But, please do answer the question. Besides, w/ you, it's like shooting fish in a barrel (or bbl). http://Forums.ImprovedTouring.com/it/biggrin.gif

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

therooster
01-27-2004, 12:34 AM
"'D. The following modifications are authorized on all Improved Touring Category cars. Modifciations shall not be made unless authorized herein. No permitted component/modification shall additionally perform a prohibited function.'
This statement clearly shows 'modifications' are to the car, not components. After this statement, it would have to say that you COULD remove the item for it to be legal.
AB"

Andy,
I disagree with your interpretation that "This statement clearly shows 'modifications' are to the car, not components."

Logical argument premise 1:
GCR17.1.4.D
"The following modifications are authorized on all Improved Touring Category cars. Modifications shall not be made unless authorized herein. No permitted component/modification shall additionally perform a prohibited funtion"

Premise 2:
GCR 22.1 Glossary
"Modify - To change a component by reworking, but not by replacing"

Therefore:
You may change any component, as long as it does not perform a prohibited function.

However, I do agree with you that you can not remove a component and claim immunity under this statute. I do not see any rule that allows a general removal of "components", other than those otherwise authorized byt the GCR and the ITCS.

Christopher M Aylward

Geo
01-27-2004, 12:36 AM
Originally posted by Knestis:
Or there's a chance that this obtuse argument is just being trotted out there to wind people up.

Oh, that wouldn't happen here would it? http://Forums.ImprovedTouring.com/it/wink.gif


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

Geo
01-27-2004, 12:38 AM
Originally posted by Knestis:
EDIT - to clarify: It's not that I necessarily think that all of these rules are "good" or make sense but if they are dumb then they should be changed. If they don't get changed, we can't just individually redefine terms as suits our intentions and expect that the world will agree with us.

Damn Kirk. I couldn't agree more. And you probably thought at one time we couldn't agree on anything.

What's the world coming to?

Cats and dogs living together...... http://Forums.ImprovedTouring.com/it/wink.gif


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

Quickshoe
01-27-2004, 02:18 AM
Originally posted by Knestis:
...If they don't get changed, we can't just individually redefine terms as suits our intentions and expect that the world will agree with us.

Round 12 is over, car's ready for tech.

Kirk,

I agree 100%. WE can't redefine terms to suit our intentions...

Andy,

I guess we are going to have to agree to disagree. Even the rules section that you quote says "Modifications" back to the definition, per the GCR, of modify.

Daryl,

Thanks for the kind words while I was away wrenching. While it is not my normal style. I have been known to stir the pot once in a while to create discussion and thought. Fact is, all too often I see someone come up with the "IIDSYCYC", and I disagree. That isn't always the case.

The $100 helmet for the $100 head is another one that gets me. I spent a lot of money on my helmet, but I certainly think my heads worth a lot more. Many of you may disagree http://Forums.ImprovedTouring.com/it/wink.gif

And for anyone who wants to protest me for anything, feel free to do so. It won't hurt my feelings. It might even be a psychological advantage for me, when you find out you've been beat fair and square.

Too much time and position to be gained by out driving and out racing anyway. No need to get tossed because I left out my window glass, or washer bottle, or every other fastener on the body, or whatever.


Daryl DeArman

I don't always include my signature on my posts, apologies. Not trying to hide anything, just Kirk calling me Mr. Shoe brought it to my attention.

Knestis
01-27-2004, 09:01 AM
I just couldn't remember which Daryl was which and who wasn't one...

K

ITSRX7
01-27-2004, 09:48 AM
Originally posted by therooster:

Logical argument premise 1:
GCR17.1.4.D
"The following modifications are authorized on all Improved Touring Category cars. Modifications shall not be made unless authorized herein. No permitted component/modification shall additionally perform a prohibited funtion"

Premise 2:
GCR 22.1 Glossary
"Modify - To change a component by reworking, but not by replacing"

Therefore:
You may change any component, as long as it does not perform a prohibited function.

Christopher M Aylward

GCR17.1.4.D
"The following modifications are authorized on all Improved Touring Category cars. Modifications shall not be made unless authorized herein."

What this says is that you will find in the rules a list of modifications you can legally do. It does not say you can remove. It does not say you can change anything, it says you can MODIFY when told you can. It specifically states that you can't do ANYTHING unless it authorizes you to do so. How much clearer can that be?

AB

------------------
Andy Bettencourt
06 ITS RX-7
FlatOut Motorsports
New England Region #188967
www.flatout-motorsports.com (http://www.flatout-motorsports.com)


[This message has been edited by ITSRX7 (edited January 27, 2004).]

ddewhurst
01-27-2004, 10:15 AM
Geo, did ya read the response from Andy to therooster ? http://Forums.ImprovedTouring.com/it/wink.gif

[This message has been edited by ddewhurst (edited January 27, 2004).]

Geo
01-27-2004, 11:00 AM
Originally posted by ddewhurst:
Geo, did ya read the response from Andy to therooster ? http://Forums.ImprovedTouring.com/it/wink.gif

[This message has been edited by ddewhurst (edited January 27, 2004).]

You mean the one just above your message?

Yeah. So?


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

01-27-2004, 11:29 AM
Originally posted by Knestis:
I just couldn't remember which Daryl was which and who wasn't one...

K



------------------
Daryl Brightwell
ITA RX7 #11
NORPAC
ITA RX7 #77
SOPAC
EP this summer

Jake
01-27-2004, 12:14 PM
Can you lower CG legally by shoving your head up your arse? http://Forums.ImprovedTouring.com/it/rolleyes.gif

What about lightweight Helmets?

planet6racing
01-27-2004, 12:37 PM
Jake:

You owe me one new keyboard. Please put warnings up before posting stuff like that.

New marketing opportunity: raincoats for monitors and keyboards for people reading funny stuff on the internet!

And, back to the topic at hand: What about common sense? I know half of America doesn't have it, but are we, as racers, a little sharper than the rest? Or is the goal here to make the SCCA only run spec classes so that they can write the wording such that it is clear to the average laymen? Or, better yet, will we have to rent the cars from the SCCA in order to race so that every car is exactly equal and that only the SCCA is interpreting the rules?

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

ddewhurst
01-27-2004, 03:39 PM
***Posted per Geo***

***"17.1.4.D: The following modifications are authorized on all Improved Touring Category cars. Modifications shall not be made unless authorized herein. No permitted component/modification shall additionally perform a prohibited function."

IMHO this section refers to modifications to the cars.

No were in that section does it mention modification to componenets.***


***Posted by Andy***

***GCR17.1.4.D
"The following modifications are authorized on all Improved Touring Category cars. Modifications shall not be made unless authorized herein."

What this says is that you will find in the rules a list of modifications you can legally do. It does not say you can remove. It does not say you can change anything, it says you can MODIFY when told you can. It specifically states that you can't do ANYTHING unless it authorizes you to do so. How much clearer can that be?***

***posted by Geo***

***You mean the one just above your message?

Yeah. So?***

Geo, the "Yeah. So?***" would be that at post 15 within this thread I responded to you with a similar response as Andy did to therooster & you turned on your selective read/respond mode. Why don't you tell Andy he is wrong as you were trying to do to someone earlier on within this thread.

When someone makes a point that I am wrong my response is or will be : You made your point. I might even use the graphic legen http://Forums.ImprovedTouring.com/it/redface.gif

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

cherokee
01-27-2004, 03:55 PM
If I think that something is iffy...then I will bounce it off some people. Racing is full of gray areas at every level. Racers by their nature will try to push the envelope... It is up to others to decide if what they did is outside the box. I would like to think that very few actually do something that they KNOW is cheating. But if you made a "modification" you thaught was TRULY ok then thats different

therooster
01-27-2004, 06:45 PM
Andy,

I am sorry, maybe I was not clear. I only disagreed with you on "This statement clearly shows 'modifications' are to the car, not components".
I do not feel that you can modify/change a component that the ITCS does not authorize, because then that component would perform a prohibited function.

Christopher M Aylward

Quickshoe
01-28-2004, 02:17 AM
Where is that little smiley banging his head on the keyboard when you need him?

This is probably a waste of time because I think you (Andy) are unreachable on this issue.



Originally posted by ITSRX7:
GCR17.1.4.D
"The following modifications are authorized on all Improved Touring Category cars. Modifications shall not be made unless authorized herein."

What this says is that you will find in the rules a list of modifications you can legally do.

agreed

It does not say you can remove.

you are correct, it doesn't tell me that I can remove. But it doesn't have to. I am allowed to remove components when doing so doesn't provide a competitive advantage. Because, one last time, per the GCR modifying and removing are not the same.

I am not arguing what can and can not be removed without giving me a competitive advantage. Only that just because it doesn't say I can doesn't mean I can't. How about IIDSYCModifyYC

It does not say you can change anything, it says you can MODIFY when told you can.

It specifically states that you can't do ANYTHING unless it authorizes you to do so. How much clearer can that be?

If that's is what the rule said it would be crystal clear. However that is not what the rule says. I have answered this question in multiple posts. IT WOULD BE MUCH CLEARER AND EXACTLY HOW YOU INTERPRET IT IF the definition of modify included the word remove, and the words "for the purpose of obtaining any competitve advantage" were removed from the last sentence.

Or even better, take a look at the FCS section D.1 "...any allowable modifications,changes or additions are stated herein. There are no exceptions If in doubt, don't.

How do you argue with that?



on edit--trying to get all the bold unbold things correct.

[This message has been edited by Quickshoe (edited January 28, 2004).]

[This message has been edited by Quickshoe (edited January 28, 2004).]

Quickshoe
01-28-2004, 02:32 AM
Originally posted by Jake:
Can you lower CG legally by shoving your head up your arse? http://Forums.ImprovedTouring.com/it/rolleyes.gif


Jake, the rules nerds would say you can't, because it doesn't say you can. But you've discovered my secret. It's not that widget I removed that has led to my success on the track, it is my driving position. http://Forums.ImprovedTouring.com/it/smile.gif Make sure you don't get it too far up there as your CG will be too high. It is a delicate balance.

lateapex911
01-28-2004, 04:10 AM
Originally posted by 7'sRracing:


I bought Hiem joints for my EP car thinking after reading the PCS they were legal on my tie rod ends, so did Grayson Upchurch. P.S. anyone want to buy some rod ends?.

[This message has been edited by 7'sRracing (edited January 26, 2004).]

Um...a little history here. Grayson had those babies in his car for long enough to be warned of their illegality before the actual protest. He used them to improve bump steer characteristics. Which might be a competitive advantage. Who knows.


Just a comment...this thread has to be an all time high...or low. In this single thread we've 'discussed' wording that to some of us is very obvious but to others appears to be permission to toss whatever components they like as long as the car is abover min. weight. We've hashed out the PPI. Discussed the intent of IT. Discussed the comp board disapprovingly. Allowed as how while we might not cheat ourselves, others do, and it's ok, they can still be our pals. We even questioned whether any of us is being stalked on the net, then learned how to actually do it for $20. Somehow we even twisted moving weight around a car to NOT be a competitieve advantage. The opinion that old cars shoud be "weaned" out of a competitive position was floated. And more...........

This single thread has hit nearly every open wound IT has ...except wheel diameters!

Must be the dead of winter....

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

ITSRX7
01-28-2004, 08:22 AM
Quick,

We will have to agree to disagree. To me, you aren't making sense and to you, I am not making sense.

Maybe when that happens, you have to look to the OBVIOUS intent fo the rules:

IIDSYC-YC.

AB

------------------
Andy Bettencourt
06 ITS RX-7
FlatOut Motorsports
New England Region #188967
www.flatout-motorsports.com

Geo
01-28-2004, 09:00 AM
Originally posted by lateapex911:
This single thread has hit nearly every open wound IT has ...except wheel diameters!

Well, you can remove the wheels if you like.

I don't think anybody will protest that. 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

planet6racing
01-28-2004, 10:03 AM
Yep, dead of winter. Funny thing is, though, instead of going over the GCR with a microscope, I'm working to improve the driver and the car: new engine, new trans, new differential, 100# out of the car, 20# out of me, plenty of seat time at the local indoor kart track, etc.

If it weren't for work, I wouldn't have time to read this board!

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

01-28-2004, 12:07 PM
"If it weren't for work, I wouldn't have time to read this board!"

Same here, heres a new one for you, last year I saw a ITA car with a rear sway bar adjuster mounted in the E-brake pocket next to his seat, and no, I didnt bother pointing out that it wasnt legal, figured he knew it when he put it there. protest him?, no, that weekend he produced the part that allowed me to continue racing after my part separated itself from the car and is now part of the track landscape. how do you walk up and protest people that are so dam nice and are having such a good time racing for a three dollar trophy? I cant do it...

ITSRX7
01-28-2004, 12:43 PM
I am with you. 1st step is never a protest anyway. The 1st step is a casual comment on the piece, then a comment/question about its legality.

After you mention the issue, I would argue that if it stays, that person isn't as 'nice' as you thought. Tough situation either way but legality has to be the end goal.

AB

------------------
Andy Bettencourt
06 ITS RX-7
FlatOut Motorsports
New England Region #188967
www.flatout-motorsports.com

planet6racing
01-28-2004, 01:21 PM
Well, the competitive side of me won't let that slide. I'd make the comment to him ("Hey! That ain't legal!" along with the quote fromt the GCR) and if it stayed, it would be protested.

Well, off to catch a plane...

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