PDA

View Full Version : rewiring rules



dickita15
12-25-2004, 09:16 AM
I have now reflected on George’s suggestion that cars with degrading harnesses should leave IT for production as rewiring these old cars without factory pin connectors would reek havoc with the principals on which IT was founded, and possibly cause dogs to lay down with cats. After much soul searching I have decided that moving to a class with an average field around these parts of 3 cars instead of 30 and spending more money than I have made in the last five years to do it, is not for the best. It would be cheaper to push our old cars off a cliff and all buy Crx’s.

Given that, what would a rule look like that would allow simple race prep for old cars and still not have unintended consequences. One of the values of this board is to punch holes in ideas, so if the rule was as follows what could some of the unintended repercussions be.

“Wiring may be repaired, replaced or rerouted in order to create a safe reliable racecar. No above alterations may perform any function not performed by the original wiring harness.”
Dick Patullo
NER ITA Rx7
[email protected]

jc836
12-25-2004, 09:58 AM
Dick:
I am inclined to agree with the general principle here. Actually, as I read it, the rules do allow one to add to the existing harness and repair it using material that conforms to the original design. I have no problem with anyone doing a full rewire if the original number of conductors and their purpose in the cable is unchanged. How this can be enforced is another matter entirely.
Then again I personally believe that it is appropriate to allow the disconnection of wiring and removal from the bundle into a storage packet of conductors. For that matter, other than weight, why keep them in the car at all-spirit of class (?). I happen to be a bit extreme with wiring and use MIL spec teflon coated aviation/aerospace grade wire-is that wrong? I have both 16ga and 18ga on spools here. The problem is that the wire comes to me in White and I have to tag each. I have only done this with the add-ons (gauges, etc).
The large issue that we need to confront is rules "creep." As I noted in my previous answer, there is an unwillingness on the part of the CRB to allow changes; could be for this reason. My CRX will eventually need something of a rewire in the main harness. My preference is to use materials that are able to withstand the environment of a race car better than others. The rules do not allow this as I read them. Would this be creep-I think not as it makes the car somewhat safer. As to pinouts and connectors-they can be reworked (time consuming) and should be kept as that is part of the spirit of the class.

Just another thought.

Happy holidays

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

Ron Earp
12-25-2004, 10:29 AM
Dick,

I am pleased to see that I am not the only one on this forum that felt that George's suggestion to run production in lieu of IT due to wiring harness issues was off in left field. I personally feel it ludicrous to suggest such a thing in light of the situation and how many people it could potentially affect.

IT is SCCAs entry level into the world of competitive motorsports and after being here for a few months I can see where newbies sometimes don't stick with it for reasons related to rules. They should be simple, easy to understand, and more importantly, the rules should foster the building and construction of safe and reliable race cars. Yes, race cars, because that is what we have in IT (actually, mine will be street legal if I can wire the signals up and there are no emissions on my old dog) and to pretend otherwise is a folly.

I am going to give this some thought and see if I can help some with the wording of the rule.

------------------
Ron
http://www.gt40s.com
Lotus Turbo Esprit
Ford Lightning
RF GT40 Replica
Jensen-Healey ITS
My electrons don't care if they flow through OEM wires, do yours?

[This message has been edited by rlearp (edited December 25, 2004).]

lateapex911
12-25-2004, 12:52 PM
Well, it's all about drawing a line in the sand, isn't it???

Dick, I like your rule, but tell me why you included "reroute"?

You know that word will be used to tie the entire harness in a bundle where the competitor thinks the weight will serve him best, while extending the two or three wires he actually needs. Tortured? Perhaps, but you and I both know that will happen.

I DO wish the rule were more open in it's wording so as to allow equivilent connectors, parallel wires to replace ones with multiple faults, but I draw my line where the harness is effectively eliminated.

As you point out, many of the wires aren't needed, but others complain that they will start fires, etc. Most cars have fuses, of course, but what's to stop us from just taking a 1/4" snip out of uneeded wires?

To some degree, this situation is worse than the washer bottle!

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

Knestis
12-25-2004, 12:53 PM
I'll play along. I frankly wouldn't mind at all being able to start from scratch, too - if not on this Golf then maybe on the one that I'm building in my head.

That car will be an "additive" construction, starting with a completely stripped shell and putting on only the parts needed to get the job done. This, in contrast to the "subtractive" approach applied by most IT builders, where things tend to remain as-delivered until actively removed.

I'd start by asking if this new rule would allow me to actively disable functions that are not specifically mentioned in the ITCS - turn signals for example: It doesn't say that I can kill them so aren't they supposed to work?

K

C. Ludwig
12-25-2004, 01:18 PM
I'm on board here for no other reason that the harnesses and more so there sheathing is old, crack, and outside the cockpit always nasty and oil covered. I too am building a new, clean-sheet car in my head. The shell will be stripped to the bone and repainted before I start and just the thought of adding a 20 year old, oily harness back the engine bay makes me cringe.

A minimum weight is already speced. There is a potential with complete removal and rewire to shift the weight balance but any balast still has to be added in the passenger footwell so that effect is not entirely huge.

I work at an assembly plant. I did electrical repair on production vehicles for a couple years. I can assure George that repairing to factory specs is not always as pretty as his imagination is leading him to believe and would not always pass his interpretation of the rule.

I've had to buy two harnesses for my current car. Both used. They're still available new from Mazda but come from Japan (weeks of delivery time) and are MUCH more expensive than I could do the wiring for myself. I'm not a huge fan of buying used harnesses because all of them I've ever pulled from RX-7s were in the same shape to one degree or other. Dry rotted from the extreme underhood temps.

Write up a good, strong rule proposal that is for a maintanence and ease and QUALITY of build purpose only. And I will write a letter in support.

------------------
Chris Ludwig
08 ITS RX7 CenDiv

[This message has been edited by C. Ludwig (edited December 25, 2004).]

dickita15
12-25-2004, 08:16 PM
jake
under my interpretation of what I wrote i think you could heave the old harness and build a new one that only does what you need to race. maybe some do not like where I have drawn that line but like chris I would love to get rid of that dirty oily snake that shed it's skin all over my car. same logic as when many people wanted to get rid of ugly door panels. just trying to make a tidier race car. This is something that was added to A sedan a year or so ago so it is not unprecidented.
by the way to run my car requires: ignition, starter, fan, brake lights, transponder, wipers and defroster. 7 wires and off the top of my head i think it is legal to rewire at least 4 of them now.
dick

Speed Raycer
12-25-2004, 11:19 PM
"Simple" http://Forum.ImprovedTouring.com/it/wink.gif Stock harness must remain. Allow the repair to the stock harness or the installation of additional wiring, but stock harness must remain in original location (allowed to be relocated IN PART for rollcage installation). Stock ECU harness and connector must remain.

------------------
Scott Rhea
It's not what you build...
it's how you build it
http://www.izzyscustomcages.com/images/IzysLgoSm.jpg (http://www.izzyscustomcages.com)
Izzy's Custom Cages (http://www.izzyscustomcages.com)

ShelbyRacer
12-26-2004, 01:16 AM
Originally posted by Speed Raycer:
"Simple" http://Forum.ImprovedTouring.com/it/wink.gif Stock harness must remain. Allow the repair to the stock harness or the installation of additional wiring, but stock harness must remain in original location (allowed to be relocated IN PART for rollcage installation). Stock ECU harness and connector must remain.



See this is exactly the problem with the current rule. Try this on for size---

The stock wiring harness may be used or may be repaired or replaced as a whole or it part. If a replacement harness is used, it will conform to the following:
1) All original electrical functions must be preserved unless specifically allowed to be removed by the ITCS.
2) Wire conductor material shall remain as stock.
3) Wire gauge may be increased over stock, but the stock guage (as specifified in the FSM) shall be the minimum size.
4) Wire length, routing, and connectors are free.
5) No wires may be added to perform any prohibited function (i.e. non-stock sensors or add-on controllers).
6) The competitor shall be able to immediately provide, upon request, a simple wiring diagram that shows any replacement wires. This diagram shall simply note location of wiring within any connector, wire color, wire gauge, and any connections the wire makes with any component or other wires.

The intent of this rule is to allow upgrades of the stock wiring system and to eliminate issues with the lack of availability of factory wire and connectors. This is not meant to sllow wholesale removal of "unnecessary" wiring, nor to allow added wiring for functions prohibited by the ITCS.

Please notice that the above rule is very work-intensive so as to discourage any attempts to quickly circumvent the rules, but does allow the freedom to pursue lower cost alternatives for materials (vs. factory pieces). This is not meant to be a simple "just do it" type of rule, but is meant to make the person really do it right (any custom wiring job should have a diagram and such available anyway...).

Sorry guys, I don't write 'em simple- I write 'em to make it some work "cost" to do it right (labor time, not parts cost).

------------------
Matt Green
"Ain't nothin' improved about Improved Touring..."

ShelbyRacer
12-26-2004, 01:20 AM
Oh, also meant to say-

If you're not going to prohibit aftermarket engine controllers, then eliminate the stupid "stock box, stock connector" fiasco and make it possible for more people to actually use them.

------------------
Matt Green
"Ain't nothin' improved about Improved Touring..."

C. Ludwig
12-26-2004, 02:52 AM
Originally posted by ShelbyRacer:
Oh, also meant to say-

If you're not going to prohibit aftermarket engine controllers, then eliminate the stupid "stock box, stock connector" fiasco and make it possible for more people to actually use them.



YES! I think I've said that somewhere before. http://Forum.ImprovedTouring.com/it/smile.gif I'll say it again. I'd like to see us put the genie back in the bottle. But if that won't happen let's make it easier and cheaper to take advantage of the rule.


------------------
Chris Ludwig
08 ITS RX7 CenDiv

Geo
12-26-2004, 03:11 AM
Originally posted by dickita15:
I have now reflected on George’s suggestion that cars with degrading harnesses should leave IT for production as rewiring these old cars without factory pin connectors would reek havoc with the principals on which IT was founded, and possibly cause dogs to lay down with cats.

Whoa there big fella.

I merely pointed out that there were options for people who didn't want to deal with the current rule as written. Moment of choice. Fix wiring harness per current rule or move to production. I was further pointing out that such IT cars would not be without value because there was this option.

Methinks you're twisting my words a bit. I was pointing out the current options. To suggest otherwise is a bit unfair.

Don't forget I also pointed out that I may be facing the same issue.

As to Ron's suggestion that what I wrote was out of left field... It is not. It's simply the reality of the rules today.


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

Geo
12-26-2004, 03:13 AM
Originally posted by C. Ludwig:
I can assure George that repairing to factory specs is not always as pretty as his imagination is leading him to believe and would not always pass his interpretation of the rule.

Chris, please explain to me how you know what my imagination is.


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

Ron Earp
12-26-2004, 09:04 AM
As to Ron's suggestion that what I wrote was out of left field... It is not. It's simply the reality of the rules today.


George, as you've mentioned before people interpret rules differently. I feel your interpretation of this rule and the suggestion of how to deal with it is out in left field simply because of what I see running on the grid in the SE.

I also say left field because there is a rule on the books, this one involving harnesses, that seems to be flawed to many people. Your suggestion is to not look at the rule and suggest changes so as to accomidate running cars and cars that might be running soon, but instead you point out that it might be a good option for those cars to go run production. The rule is the issue here on the thread, not the cars.

I'd like to suggest we all stop bickering and get back to crafting a reasonable and usable rule. Shelbyracers suggestion looks like a good start.

Ron

------------------
Ron
http://www.gt40s.com
Lotus Turbo Esprit
Ford Lightning
RF GT40 Replica
Jensen-Healey ITS
My electrons don't care if they flow through OEM wires, do yours?

dickita15
12-26-2004, 09:14 AM
Originally posted by Geo:
Whoa there big fella.

I merely pointed out that there were options for people who didn't want to deal with the current rule as written. Moment of choice. Fix wiring harness per current rule or move to production. I was further pointing out that such IT cars would not be without value because there was this option.
well yes you are right but the option of moving to production could be percieved as a little bit of a harsh solution to what seems like a simple problem


Originally posted by Geo:

Methinks you're twisting my words a bit. I was pointing out the current options. To suggest otherwise is a bit unfair.


well yea of course, but only in the finest internet tradition http://Forum.ImprovedTouring.com/it/smile.gif


Originally posted by Geo:

As to Ron's suggestion that what I wrote was out of left field... It is not. It's simply the reality of the rules today.


Yes it may be the reality, but to ron it may seem like a very drastic statement.
dick

Ron Earp
12-26-2004, 10:39 AM
I'd suggest two changes which are marked with below with *.


3) Wire gauge may be increased over stock, but the stock gauge (as specifified in the FSM) shall be the minimum size. *If no minimum size is specified then appropriate wire gauge must be used to carry expected current and voltage loads.*

4) Wire length, routing, and connectors are free and *must be of sufficent size to handle expected current and voltage requirements.*

dickita15
12-26-2004, 11:31 AM
do you guys think it is really neccecary to say how good the harness has to be. I mean if a guys builds to light a harness won't that fix itself when the car stops. and as a tech inspector how would i judge if it was heavy enough for expected loads. if it does not catch fire it is heavy enough.
I think you should focus on keeping people from doing unintended things instead of minimum construction standards.
dick

Ron Earp
12-26-2004, 11:48 AM
You are probably correct. Making rules to define what is "proper" probably makes no sense given we have a tech inspection and "real life consequences" to take care of things that are constructed improperly. Lots of OEM harnesses are not done correctly to carry loadsd imposed on them.

Knestis
12-26-2004, 02:27 PM
Originally posted by ShelbyRacer:
... If a replacement harness is used, it will conform to the following:

1) All original electrical functions must be preserved unless specifically allowed to be removed by the ITCS. ...

4) Wire length, routing, and connectors are free.


Understanding that I'm talking about a 1996 VW Golf, all of which appear to have come with the same harness regardless of how they were optioned from the factory in Mexico...

By "original" do you mean to include the "electrical functions" that my actual car came with, including those associated with parts I can remove per the ITCS (e.g., stereo and ABS) or can I "remove" wires associated with removed components?

Does my "replacement harness" have to replicate wires that were in the original harness, but associated with options that I didn't actually have (e.g., the heated seat option)?

Can I build a "replacement" harness that replicates a hypothetical minimum "base model" appointments for my car (e.g., the Citi model), whether that part exists in the VW parts catalog or not? I'd be tempted to whip out an update-backdate defense on this one.

Can I build one that literally includes only the minimum functions necessary to make it go (a la Dick's "7 wires")?

Regardless of intent - explicit or otherwise - the point at which you include clause #4, you have opened the door and allowed me to do all kinds of things. I'll leave out whatever wires I want and argue that the wires are actually there, only infinitely short - "any length." http://Forum.ImprovedTouring.com/it/biggrin.gif

Hyperbole aside, this wording creates another example of the very bind that kicked off this issue, wherein the specifics of a rule seem to be contradictory to its intent.

Geo gets at this when he applies the "if it says you can, you damn well can" thinking - and there is something to that. Regardless of intent, its the language of the rules that gets inforced.

K

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

pfcs
12-26-2004, 02:59 PM
how many angels can dance on the head of a pin? Does anal compulsive have a hyphen? you guys wear me out! You cannot prescribe perfection-at some point you just get in it's way. Fix/re-fabricate a wiring harness for a Jensen-Healy and I'd guarantee you no one will care. I drove a very competive ITB Volvo with a trailer hitch receiver-clearly outside the rules and clearly visible-and it was never protested, including a trip to the teck/impund shed at ARRC (4th 95). Competitors paid to look at my engine twice however-part of the acceptance process when no-one thought of a Vovo as fast.
Also, a a general point: if it ain't broke, don't try fixin it! I'm still upset that the club dropped the original dual purpose clause. For you newcomers, IT was envisioned as a "true dual purpose class" whereby your racecar was streetable. I still drive to events, not that there's any good reason to other than its really fun and easy. The strange thing about IT is that it's worked so well (what's simplest works best) and it was so simple. Everyone seems to think they can improve it. Please GIVE UP! As others have said before, beware of meddling with rules; sometimes the consequences are unexpected. Take for example all this controversey about changing crank pulleys: how has this class survived for 20 years without being able to change crank pulleys? There's certainly a compelling need to change that situation. Consider the Audi coupe, already able to accelerate smartly. And its waterpump is driven by the cam-belt like so many of the newer cars. But it's crankshaft pulley weighs 10lbs 2oz! and is 8" in diameter. If I drove and Audi, then I'd certainly cut myself a new small/light pulley on my lathe-not to do so would be downright stupid! It would serve me but would it serve the rest of the community? You'd all have to play catch up. The class was once great because of the sense of community it had. Most of the competitors were and still are reaonable, sensible people who do it for fun and for the challenge of maxing out car prep within the context of the rules. I'm real clear that ther is no need to rewrite the IT rulebook, drastically or even slightly. Don't screw up a good thing. phil



------------------
phil hunt

Ron Earp
12-26-2004, 03:22 PM
Something like this then? This was the switch panel portion, I also have a instrument panel portion as well.

http://www.gt40s.com/images/jensen/wiring.JPG

ShelbyRacer
12-26-2004, 04:21 PM
Originally posted by Knestis:

By "original" do you mean to include the "electrical functions" that my actual car came with, including those associated with parts I can remove per the ITCS (e.g., stereo and ABS) or can I "remove" wires associated with removed components?

---snip---

Geo gets at this when he applies the "if it says you can, you damn well can" thinking - and there is something to that. Regardless of intent, its the language of the rules that gets inforced.



Yup, you're exactly right, which is why I offered that as a starting point.

How about changing to read-

1) All original electrical functions must be preserved. If an item is specifically allowed to be removed by the ITCS, any wiring associated solely with this item may be removed.

AND

4) Wire routing and connectors are free. Length may be changed to accommodate re- routing, but the full electrical path to the item must be preserved.

------------------
Matt Green
"Ain't nothin' improved about Improved Touring..."

ShelbyRacer
12-26-2004, 04:25 PM
Originally posted by dickita15:
do you guys think it is really neccecary to say how good the harness has to be. I mean if a guys builds to light a harness won't that fix itself when the car stops.

Yes, but what is to stock someone from running telephone wire (32 ga) to items he/she would "never use" like turn signals and such? I do not agree with the language which makes someone make a judgement about what is "sufficient". I try to only use absolutes, such as those specs from the FSM. I think that the amount of things not mentioned in the FSM as far as wiring would be relatively insignificant.

------------------
Matt Green
"Ain't nothin' improved about Improved Touring..."

ShelbyRacer
12-26-2004, 04:43 PM
Originally posted by pfcs:
Fix/re-fabricate a wiring harness for a Jensen-Healy and I'd guarantee you no one will care.


Right, but rewire an E36 BMW and watch how fast the protests roll in. Why would you do that? Well, what if I could get a fire victim really cheap, but I can't afford to buy a new harness and connectors and such? Why would we stop someone from attempting to build a competitive car inexpensively?



Originally posted by pfcs:
Also, a a general point: if it ain't broke, don't try fixin it! I'm still upset that the club dropped the original dual purpose clause. For you newcomers, IT was envisioned as a "true dual purpose class" whereby your racecar was streetable. I still drive to events, not that there's any good reason to other than its really fun and easy.

Right, and my language would give you the ability to rewire your car completely or in part, but would NOT penalize you since you needed to keep functions like turn signals, lights, wipers, etc.


Originally posted by pfcs:
Take for example all this controversey about changing crank pulleys: how has this class survived for 20 years without being able to change crank pulleys? There's certainly a compelling need to change that situation. Consider the Audi coupe, already able to accelerate smartly. And its waterpump is driven by the cam-belt like so many of the newer cars. But it's crankshaft pulley weighs 10lbs 2oz! and is 8" in diameter. If I drove and Audi, then I'd certainly cut myself a new small/light pulley on my lathe-not to do so would be downright stupid!

Right. However, if anyone would have seen the rule change as submitted, that issue was addressed! Problem is, either CRB or the ITAC didn't feel it was that important. Hopefully, my friend who submitted the change will post the original rule change language so that we can see it.

I supplied the above language not as an exercise in discussion, NOT as something that I'd submit. Why? Because that whole thing would've probably been reduced down to Dick's original suggestion anyway, which allows MUCH more latitude in interpretation.

This is exactly why I've said, and I still say, IT needs to do the following-

#1- Establish a real class intent statement and long range plan.
#2- Rewrite the current rulebook so that things align with that statement and plan.
#3- Make changes in the future based on that statement and plan.

If this is done, the phrase "class philosophy" may actually have some meaning, and the overall intent of the rules can be established. If this is done, then it *should* tend to make protest and appeal verdicts more consistent, as the people who make the decisions can get a larger view of the purpose based on it. If the rules made more sense as a whole unit, we could stop with a lot of this stupid isolated-rule-interpretation process that has us where we are now.

Would it ever be perfect? No. Would it be more consistently imperfect? Hopefully. Don't just treat the symptoms, cure the disease.

------------------
Matt Green
"Ain't nothin' improved about Improved Touring..."

Bill Miller
12-26-2004, 06:12 PM
#1- Establish a real class intent statement and long range plan.
#2- Rewrite the current rulebook so that things align with that statement and plan.
#3- Make changes in the future based on that statement and plan.

There you have it ladies and gentlemen, probably the single most logical post, made on this board. Please read it again!


Bravo Matt!

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

Ron Earp
12-26-2004, 06:14 PM
Matt, that is the shiznit. If this were done, in a modern setting with the curretly active people in the class, it would appear that we'd have something that was a little different from the "class intent" I've read referenced from twenty years ago.

Incidentally, I am one of the "new" people here for sure and I will be able to drive my car to the track. It'll be inspected with all proper working bits, albeit through my harness, but it'll be there. Don't know if I will drive it there since the closest is 1.5 hours and if something breaks......

How many people actually drive there car to the track? 1 in 50? I haven't been that much, only 4-5 races, but have never seen it happen.

Ron

[This message has been edited by rlearp (edited December 26, 2004).]

Knestis
12-26-2004, 08:27 PM
I drove my car to every event that I ran this year, including driver school at Roebling Road, the Blue Ridge hillclimb, and misc events at VIR and CMP. We trailered to the 13 hours simply because we had so much crap to bring anyway...

A revision to the category intent statement would be great - as long as it agreed with my personal philosophy. http://Forum.ImprovedTouring.com/it/biggrin.gif

Seriously - what standard would be applied? If the CRB met and made the decision, would everyone concerned about this plan buy into the new vision, simply because it had been annointed by the PTB (the powers-that-be)?

I suspect that about 1/3 of the entire active IT membership would be PO'd about whatever decision was made, were a substantive revision to come about.

K

Diane
12-26-2004, 08:42 PM
Originally posted by rlearp:
How many people actually drive there car to the track? 1 in 50? I haven't been that much, only 4-5 races, but have never seen it happen.


I do. LRP is about 90 mins away, NHIS is 3 hours. If Tim goes with me there is obviously a support vehicle but I have gone to LRP alone with the tires in the back of the car (hottest day of the year too, right guys?). I am half thinking of a test and tune at NHIS next June by myself, possibly without the tow vehicle.

At the risk of annoying people, which I try hard not to do on this forum, I agree 100% with Phil.

All of us who run IT knew the rules when we picked our class. We picked our cars for different reasons (I picked mine because I owned one and liked it and they do OK in some parts of the country, and sometimes I like a challenge. Not the way to win but I have FUN). But whatever the reason, in 95% of the cases, we knew which class our car was going to be in before we put a tire on the track. We knew roughly how competitive it was or how competitive we hoped it would be. We knew the rules because we had GCRs. We all made this choice willingly so why decide you don't like it now that you're here?

This is a choice we made. There are other racing organizations out there. There are other classes in SCCA. There are clubs that just do track time. There are Test & Tune days (talk about minimal rules for cars other than safety!)

I like IT because of the philosophy of the place where SS cars could play when they were too old for SS. I like the fact that if *I* were a better driver, my car could actually be a decent competitor and still be street legal (OK so the 150K motor needs to go but...). I love driving my car on the street, despite the countless times I have hit the window net clip with my head when exiting. Showroom Stock is minimal mods, IT should not be that far above it!

If I wanted all the rule changes that some of you are dreaming of, I'd be looking at Production.

If a complete overhaul and rewrite is successful, it will not be the end-all for IT. I promise you that in 5 years people will be complaining again and in 10 years there will be another group clamoring for a complete rewrite.

And for those that comment that people show up at an event with a tractor trailer, that's never going to change. I've seen people show up at an autox with some incredible rigs. Same with Showroom Stock. There will always be those that have more. That should have nothing to do with the intent of the class, it's just human nature and it happens in every sport you can imagine.

The simple fact is that we are not racing for money. We are racing for plastic or wooden trophies at best. And it's supposed to be FUN.

http://Forum.ImprovedTouring.com/it/cool.gif

Diane
Ford Escort GT ITB #26
NER SCCA

pfcs
12-26-2004, 09:23 PM
Hooray Diane! Very well put and right on. All you bozzos trying to rewrite history, please take a few minutes (weeks?) to review some of the endless, ad-nauseum, pointy headed, endless, unproductive, unresolved, ......discussions on this site. Do you really think you could ever reach a consensus? Who'd get the last word? You really think you could write better rules than the original ones? (which were, incidently, the 1963 production car rules as far as I know)I seriously doubt it.
And regarding E36 wiring harnesses-you'd be way ahead of yourself to pick up one used, a lot easier and cheaper than fabbing one. I'd be quite suspicious of anyone who would go to the trouble of fabricating one.

------------------
phil hunt

pfcs
12-26-2004, 09:34 PM
PS: not trying to be a total old fart, it's just in my nature.
regarding the intent statement: I agree with Diane and Kirk. If we could agree on an intent satement that satisfied us three, it probably would be wonderful. And that is all we'd need-just that intent statement. All future revisions/appeals, etc, would reflect off that statement and the class would be preserved as God intended it! Utopia! NOT!
I'd want the last word, but Bill Miller or some bozzo would get it. Phil, always a troublemaker, Hunt PS: Merry Christmas to all.

------------------
phil hunt

ShelbyRacer
12-26-2004, 11:56 PM
Originally posted by pfcs:
All you bozzos trying to rewrite history, please take a few minutes (weeks?) to review some of the endless, ad-nauseum, pointy headed, endless, unproductive, unresolved, ......discussions on this site. Do you really think you could ever reach a consensus? Who'd get the last word? You really think you could write better rules than the original ones? (which were, incidently, the 1963 production car rules as far as I know)I seriously doubt it.


Yes, I think I could, but only with some help from some of the people around here. See, I'm against the whole written-by-committee concept. The committee develops the plan, one or two people write the rules, one or two "edit" them, and then the committee gets to discuss them. Now, here's where I'm going to take some real heat I'm sure- the person who writes the rules should NOT have a stake in the overall outcome (should not be a competitor).

There are too many people that examine the rules from the standpoint of how it will affect THEM. You have to look at the good of the overall class as a whole. I personally feel that the open wire harness rule makes sense, but if it is determined that it doesn't conform to the overall intent of the class, so be it. Problem is, I have no idea what IT is really supposed to be. The intent statement says one thing, some people say another, and the rules say something completely different. You wonder why there's no consistent enforcement of the rules? Because the rules themselves are inconsistent! This was the point of my "which ones of these don't belong" topic. I was not suggesting any particular rule, but was more trying to foster a discussion of the lack of rule consistency within the ITCS.

I'm not trying to rewrite history. I'm just trying to make sure what we're writing now will make sense when it is history. If we don't start looking towards the future and making plans, there won't be much of a future to have.

------------------
Matt Green
"Ain't nothin' improved about Improved Touring..."

Joe Harlan
12-27-2004, 01:36 AM
Just one thought here. There is nothinh wrong with the current rule or repair portion of that rule unless you have already broken the rule and want t changed to fit your need.....I have repaired many 240z and 510 harnesses over the years and it can be done correctly and legal if you choose to do it. I think IT will look like production class in short order if we keep fixen to fix the rules with more bad rules. I believe the original intent was a place for abandoned SS cars..... http://Forum.ImprovedTouring.com/it/smile.gif

Geo
12-27-2004, 01:51 AM
Originally posted by ShelbyRacer:
#1- Establish a real class intent statement and long range plan.

The first point already exists. We can argue about the second until the cows come home and then some.


Originally posted by ShelbyRacer:
#2- Rewrite the current rulebook so that things align with that statement and plan.

First a rewrite would mean scrapping the framework of what is one of the most subscribed and succcessful categories in SCCA history. Unless you buy the SCCA lock stock and barrel and establish yourself as Czar (Tsar?), Supreme Ruler, or something like that, I wouldn't hold my breath.

Second you are assuming the second part is not being done.


Originally posted by ShelbyRacer:
#3- Make changes in the future based on that statement and plan.

And you're assuming already that this won't be done.


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

Geo
12-27-2004, 01:54 AM
Originally posted by Knestis:
I drove my car to every event that I ran this year, including driver school at Roebling Road, the Blue Ridge hillclimb, and misc events at VIR and CMP. We trailered to the 13 hours simply because we had so much crap to bring anyway...

A revision to the category intent statement would be great - as long as it agreed with my personal philosophy. http://Forum.ImprovedTouring.com/it/biggrin.gif

Seriously - what standard would be applied? If the CRB met and made the decision, would everyone concerned about this plan buy into the new vision, simply because it had been annointed by the PTB (the powers-that-be)?

I suspect that about 1/3 of the entire active IT membership would be PO'd about whatever decision was made, were a substantive revision to come about.

K

Bravo Kirk.

As I said either in this or another thread, to many the answers are SO obvious. But when you put everyone together you find everybody has different obvious answers.


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

Geo
12-27-2004, 02:07 AM
One of the things I think is funny about this discussion is if we were to open the rules as suggested, $50k cars would become $55k cars and the standard would be mil-spec connectors with gold-plated contacts with custom-made wiring harnesses. If you think not, I must suggest you're just naive.


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

Diane
12-27-2004, 09:20 AM
Originally posted by Geo:
One of the things I think is funny about this discussion is if we were to open the rules as suggested, $50k cars would become $55k cars and the standard would be mil-spec connectors with gold-plated contacts with custom-made wiring harnesses. If you think not, I must suggest you're just naive.




I think the number would be much higher than 55K. There will be no more "affordable" IT (for us with "normal" salaries") if the rules are opened up too much. http://Forum.ImprovedTouring.com/it/frown.gif

Diane

<edit for missing word>


[This message has been edited by Diane (edited December 27, 2004).]

ShelbyRacer
12-27-2004, 10:00 AM
Originally posted by Geo:
One of the things I think is funny about this discussion is if we were to open the rules as suggested, $50k cars would become $55k cars and the standard would be mil-spec connectors with gold-plated contacts with custom-made wiring harnesses. If you think not, I must suggest you're just naive.




OK, but is that anything more than conspicuous consumption? Is there a real advantage to that (performance-wise) versus molex connectors that are well maintained? IF (and it's a big if) your stock harness was in pristine condition, there would be no real advantage to replacement. However, for those who would NOT BE ABLE to acquire a NEW replacement harness (since used is junk in most of those cases), this makes a lot of sense.

Just because it says you can, doesn't mean you "damn well" have to...

Oh, and on the gold-plated idea, it says that conductor material must remain as stock (and if that's too vague we could expand it to include the connection points too).

And I would suggest that if you think that there are not already a good number of $55k or higher IT cars, then you are being naive also...


------------------
Matt Green
"Ain't nothin' improved about Improved Touring..."

ShelbyRacer
12-27-2004, 10:12 AM
Originally posted by Geo:
First a rewrite would mean scrapping the framework of what is one of the most subscribed and succcessful categories in SCCA history. Unless you buy the SCCA lock stock and barrel and establish yourself as Czar (Tsar?), Supreme Ruler, or something like that, I wouldn't hold my breath.

Second you are assuming the second part is not being done.



No, my suggestion does NOT mean scrapping the current rules, just reexamining them to see if they fit with current philosophy. And my issue is NOT with the current ITAC, since I feel that lately things are looking better. My issue is that some of the previously approved rules don't seem to jive with the intent of the class.



------------------
Matt Green
"Ain't nothin' improved about Improved Touring..."

ShelbyRacer
12-27-2004, 10:18 AM
Originally posted by Joe Harlan:
Just one thought here. There is nothinh wrong with the current rule or repair portion of that rule unless you have already broken the rule and want t changed to fit your need.....I have repaired many 240z and 510 harnesses over the years and it can be done correctly and legal if you choose to do it. I think IT will look like production class in short order if we keep fixen to fix the rules with more bad rules. I believe the original intent was a place for abandoned SS cars..... http://Forum.ImprovedTouring.com/it/smile.gif

Agreed on the intent (although I think others would argue with you).

My motives are very simple. I do not currently have an IT car. I have no reason to really care if the rules get changed or stay the same. I do, however, work on IT cars a bit, and I'm just sharing what I feel would make sense. Also, I'm not sure I'd prep an IT car for myself with the current state of the rules, since I'd have to jump through so many hoops to do it. I'll just keep working on the cars of those who "want" to run in the class.

So why am I here? Easy, I joined because I felt I could offer technical knowledge on some topics. Also, in these discussions, I'm simply debating my point and offering it as opinion. I just love the rules-making process itself I guess, but I like to see how those around here interpret (and translate in some cases) the rules that are disussed. This way I know what to expect when I'm at the track...

------------------
Matt Green
"Ain't nothin' improved about Improved Touring..."

[This message has been edited by ShelbyRacer (edited December 27, 2004).]

pfcs
12-27-2004, 11:39 AM
Mat-if you just "love" the rulesmaking process, I urge you to abandon this forum and get into politics. The biggest problem in this club is do-gooders with egos. Sorry again for being so vitreolic, but I've been bumping up against this situation in SCCA since I started in 1971 and it bothers me.

------------------
phil hunt

Knestis
12-27-2004, 11:54 AM
While not on board with the specifics here, I'm going to defend Matt's right as a club member to have - and share - whatever opinions he might want.

I spent a long time arguing that there was a major hole in the IT category, at about the place where a bazillion perfectly good cars should fit, and while it didn't work out that my specific proposal was accepted, I don't think it's too much of a stretch to suggest that it might have made a difference in the long run.

K

(a do-gooder with an ego)

Geo
12-27-2004, 12:05 PM
Originally posted by ShelbyRacer:
OK, but is that anything more than conspicuous consumption? Is there a real advantage to that (performance-wise) versus molex connectors that are well maintained?

Honestly? I don't think it's conspicuous consumption. The mil-spec connectors being used in top professional racing are vibration proof, water proof, fuel proof, etc. They are far less likely to fail. And since failing means losing, they will be used. And they will become the standard for a fully prepared IT car. It would not be a stretch to find someone paying $5k for a true race harness (they are damned expensive items). It wouldn't surprise me to find there are high performance wires out there that are super low resistance combined with light weight and that would drive up the cost. I don't think this is far fetched. We could easily find ourselves five years down the road shaking our heads and wondering how IT got where it did.


Originally posted by ShelbyRacer:
Just because it says you can, doesn't mean you "damn well" have to...

True, you don't bloody well have to (I was mis-quoted http://Forum.ImprovedTouring.com/it/wink.gif ), but people will do it and that is enough. It will become the standard by which full preparation is judged.


Originally posted by ShelbyRacer:
And I would suggest that if you think that there are not already a good number of $55k or higher IT cars, then you are being naive also...

Hehe. No. I'm not that naive. I had to pick a number and $50k is the one usually tossed around here.


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

Joe Harlan
12-27-2004, 01:32 PM
Matt,
I will never have an issue with sharing idea's. I don't currently drive an IT car either. I do maintain 20 to 30 of them a year so I tend to have a good understanding also. My issue is just like the ECU rule when we think we are doing a good thing often times it just becomes another way to raise the bar. For you think that just because it says you can doesn't mean you have to is a little incorrect. When an allowed Mod has an advantage then everyone must have it to be competitive. Everytime we allow a little change just to make it a little easier we head more toward open rules. Sooner or later somebody says "well you did this in the past" and Bam you have another easy set of standards to fall back on.

ddewhurst
12-27-2004, 01:47 PM
Anyone who thinks this rules CREEP a little bit at a time is ok needs to look at what Production cars were in the 60's & what Production cars are today. (They are GT cars with a frame & they wonder why no one wants to play their game.) That my friends is just what your all trying to do with your little bit of rules change at a time within IT. http://Forum.ImprovedTouring.com/it/frown.gif

Happy Newyear http://Forum.ImprovedTouring.com/it/wink.gif
David

ShelbyRacer
12-27-2004, 01:57 PM
Originally posted by Geo:

Honestly? I don't think it's conspicuous consumption. The mil-spec connectors being used in top professional racing are vibration proof, water proof, fuel proof, etc. They are far less likely to fail. And since failing means losing, they will be used. And they will become the standard for a fully prepared IT car. It would not be a stretch to find someone paying $5k for a true race harness (they are damned expensive items). It wouldn't surprise me to find there are high performance wires out there that are super low resistance combined with light weight and that would drive up the cost. I don't think this is far fetched. We could easily find ourselves five years down the road shaking our heads and wondering how IT got where it did.



Well, I don't think it's far fetched, but what I'm questioning is the advantage. Like your query with the Motec issue, I don't think the advantage is there. Actually, I agree there is an advantage with less maintenance, BUT, that can be overcome with a little elbow grease (and some dielectric). I'm trying to put forth something where the $$$ advantage can be overcome by work. This is it. As for "low" resistance, I can start quoting conductivity numbers for copper vs. any other material, and you'd see the advantage would be essentially immeasurable. Again, the weight difference would also be nil, and we still have the whole thing I wrote in my rule about minimum AWG and "stock materials". I have a real problem with counting reliability as a "performance enhancement". Yes, you have to finish to win, but in this type of racing, the "win" isn't worth as much as knowing you outprepared, outdrove, and outwitted your "opponents". I'm sorry, but I can't feel good about getting a win against a superior car just because he/she dropped or crashed out due to a mechanical, especially one that is the fault of the rules themselves! Perhaps I'm not in the norm with that thinking, but it's the way I am.


Originally posted by Geo:

True, you don't bloody well have to (I was mis-quoted ), but people will do it and that is enough. It will become the standard by which full preparation is judged.


Sorry about the misquote... I was spending the holidays with a relative and the "damn well better" phrase was being used. Brain fart on my part http://Forum.ImprovedTouring.com/it/smile.gif

I would agree with you on the standards issue though, but see my "arguement" above.

And BTW- to all who have participated in this discussion so far, thank you very much! It has been a learning experience, and I'm very happy to see that we've gone quite far with this and it has not degraded to the level of some other threads on here.

And Phil, I do like to "do-good" when I can, and I know I have a hell of an ego (which is one of the reasons I'm a racer!). I do see your point and respect it, I just see it differently. I guess that after 7 yrs experience with SCCA, I'm still looking at it from the "new guy" standpoint, but I personally hope to stay that way for a while.

------------------
Matt Green
"Ain't nothin' improved about Improved Touring..."

Geo
12-27-2004, 02:16 PM
Originally posted by ShelbyRacer:
Sorry about the misquote...

Oh phooey! I was teasing. Not an issue at all. In fact, the use of "bloody" in this instance translates well enough with "damn" anyhow. http://Forum.ImprovedTouring.com/it/biggrin.gif

Seriously, it was all in fun. Kirk was the first to write "damn" and I was having a little fun with it since I have always used "bloody" instead of "damn."

And I agree, it's nice to have adult conversations here.

FWIW, I would LOVE to find a way to change the rule to make things simpler, yet not turn into an abomination of what was intended. In this case, I think that would be most difficult, especially since I would be among the first to make a new and better harness if we left that door open even a crack. http://Forum.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

Geo
12-27-2004, 02:25 PM
Originally posted by ShelbyRacer:
I guess that after 7 yrs experience with SCCA, I'm still looking at it from the "new guy" standpoint, but I personally hope to stay that way for a while.


BTW, don't feel the least bit bad about looking at it with "beginner's eyes" as the Japanese would say. One shouldn't judge by the length of membership.

It's no secret that I'm a relative newbie to SCCA membership, but I've been around it in one way or another for over 20 years. I remember when I first heard of IT over 20 years ago and have followed it ever since and almost built a car in 86 (and kick myself for NOT doing so to this day). I've raced in other venues with other organizations since 87 and have been a board member of a kart racing club. The point is, we all have something to contribute and sometimes outside experience is a very good thing. In fact, there is an effort to break up some of the "old boys club" however real or simply preceived.

We should never be afraid of fresh ideas. Steve Johnson has brought a lot of them to the SCCA, much to the benefit of the membership. Fresh ideas are great. We just need to view how to get from concept to reality with a critical eye. IT remains one of the great successes of SCCA club racing and as such, change does not come easily. Must like porting a cylinder head, it's easier to screw it up than it is to get it right.


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

Ron Earp
12-27-2004, 02:34 PM
Originally posted by ShelbyRacer:
I guess that after 7 yrs experience with SCCA, I'm still looking at it from the "new guy" standpoint, but I personally hope to stay that way for a while.


Matt, thanks for looking at it with a New Guy approach. I call it opened minded, but I appreciate it all the same. With any organization, the longer you are with it the more resistant you are to change. As the number of years with an organization approaches a lot, resistance to change approaches infinity.

Still nice to read comments on this thread and a somewhat civil dispute. I'm racing my car in Feburary and my solution to my particular problem is diagramed above.


------------------
Ron
http://www.gt40s.com
Lotus Turbo Esprit
Ford Lightning
RF GT40 Replica
Jensen-Healey ITS
My electrons don't care if they flow through OEM wires, do yours?

Matt Rowe
12-27-2004, 05:29 PM
Wow,

A guy steps away from his computer for two days for holiday travel and this is what happens?

A couple of things

Dick, I would support the idea of a wiring rule change, although your original wording does open the door pretty wide. The version ShelbyRacer put forward certainly has more limits but perhaps too many to be practical. But having written a specifically worded suggestion for a rule change I hesitate to spend too much time on wording when the CRB is likely to completely rewrite as they see fit. Nevertheless, I think the current practice is not practical and does more to hinder car prep than it does to maintain any semblance of parity.

Next, for you people who drive your cars to events. How do you go out on track without being paranoid about how you are going to get home if anything happens? I spent some time running Solo I's and driving to events and was constantly worried about something breaking or ending up of course and impacted into something stationary. That was bad enough, but here you have to worry about all that plus the other people around you trying something overly optomistic. But for those of you driving your car to the track whose compromise is right? Mine to make sure you stay relatively competitive or yours to make it practical for me to prepare a car? Remember we are only racing for plastic trophies and were aren't not gauranteed to be competitive. If you don't want to go all out to prepare your car to the limit of the rules by keeping it streetable why should anyone be worried about where you finish in the running order?

$5000 for a wiring harness - yeah I can build one for that. It would be just as good as the one I built (for a different car) that was fully streetable, used all mil spec connectors (on critical components), high performance wire and still only cost me $350 in parts. Incidently that harness would take me 2 days to build, where a repair to a badly aged harness would cost $150 in parts plus two old harness to reuse connectors from and take 8 days to wire. Which seems more practical? And more importantly if there is no performance difference why shouldn't I have the choice. We don't prevent people from spending $3000 on a paint job when $500 is good enough, if they have the money and it doesn't make them faster than why not? An all out wiring harness is not going to make any difference other than availability and reliability and I'm not looking to beat someone just because his wiring lets him down. Especially when no one here can even definitively say what a factory authorized repair would be. Do I have to rewrap the harness per the factory method, solder connections, wire color? We can all give our opinions, but the COA says is what matters so if I repair mine I have to live in fear of a protest because nothing in the rules tell me what is allowed.

As far as rules creep, and the success of IT, part of the my holiday was spent looking at the production rules and where my car would fit in. After George's comment the only thing keeping me in IT is the participation level. Checking the results for my home track shows 6 times the number of entries in ITA than in EP or FP. I came to club racing because I want to race against people and IT definitely has that going for it. But I also want to race a relatively inexpensive car and if I'm going to have to spend $5k on a Motec or spend 6 hours before every race checking over my old stock wiring harness to make sure it isn't getting ready to short out then I'll go run SRF's or SM or something else. To stick our head in the sand and say we've always done it this way and we are succesful is usually the sign of a series in decline.

BTW. The production car option is not neccesarily open to all IT cars. If you read January's Fastrack you'll find that the CRB turned down a car for classifaction into production based on it's age, they are looking to only bring newer cars into Production. So to say an IT car has the option to move somewhere else is not completely accurate. Some cars really don't have any options.

From what I can see the ITAC is trying to limit changes, but not by completely freezing the rules. I applaud the overall effort of the last few years, where the Motec situation has been the exception, not the rule. But it seems that the people pushing for changes like this wiring rule are looking for allowances that make a car more cost effective to build and maintain without altering the cars performance. Isn't that what IT should be about? That is what the current intent implies. Yes, that is a black and white simplfication but you're never going to completely remove the grey areas from rules. The best we can do is follow a plan and toss around wordings and interperations in discussion like this until we can come to the best compromise. Then you monitoring how the rule is used an if necessary you adjust. It's not perfect, but tell me what is?

Taking a look at the current IT fields I see ITB and ITC have a number of older cars running in them. The front running cars in ITA and ITS may be newer but the mid pack groups are also filled by 20+ year old cars. All of these older cars are running out of stock dealer parts. We just changed rules to allow aftermarket parts that duplicate stock performance and dimensions. But that is all going to be worthless once they can't repair wiring anymore. Do we really want to lose a IT car becuase a small dash fire takes out the only wiring harness left for it? Or is this the plan on how to make room in the classes, by making cars obsolete not based on performance but parts availability? I don't think that will sit well with some long time IT participants.

It is nice to be able to chat about all of this in a friendly environment. Now I'm off to see about getting my car classed as a limited prep FP car. At least there I'm allowed performance adjustements. http://Forum.ImprovedTouring.com/it/smile.gif


------------------
~Matt Rowe
ITA Shelby Charger
MARRS #96

[This message has been edited by Matt Rowe (edited December 27, 2004).]

Geo
12-27-2004, 06:57 PM
Originally posted by Matt Rowe:
$5000 for a wiring harness - yeah I can build one for that. It would be just as good as the one I built (for a different car) that was fully streetable, used all mil spec connectors (on critical components), high performance wire and still only cost me $350 in parts. Incidently that harness would take me 2 days to build

First of all, go price a race car harness. They aren't cheap. I figured someone would think $5k for a harness was nuts. I agree. But apparently people are spending more than that to have someone wire up a MoTeC inside their ECU box. http://Forum.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

Matt Rowe
12-27-2004, 09:03 PM
Originally posted by Geo:
First of all, go price a race car harness. They aren't cheap. I figured someone would think $5k for a harness was nuts. I agree. But apparently people are spending more than that to have someone wire up a MoTeC inside their ECU box. http://Forum.ImprovedTouring.com/it/smile.gif




George,
I priced stuff like that before. But just because some people will pay that doesn't mean the same thing can't (and shouldn't) be built for less. As I said for $350 in mil spec parts and 2 days work I can build a harness as reliable as any race car needs. I know there are probably guys spending that much to have a motec installed, but as I understood that included the cost of the motec plus some baseline tuning. And, if they didn't have to fit it into the stock ECU housing it would be cheaper.

Some people will always spend more than they have to, but why limit the choices so the guys with the small budget don't have any options? As an example, just because there are guys spending a thousand on a torsen are you going to outlaw spring loaded diffs like the phantom grip? They don't make a torsen for my car so should my only choice be having quaiffe build me a custom diff? The torsen is definitely better performance wise but if I can't get one I'll run the phantom grip and save my money for rebuilds.

So is that all you have to comment on after my previous long winded post? http://Forum.ImprovedTouring.com/it/smile.gif

------------------
~Matt Rowe
ITA Shelby Charger
MARRS #96

[This message has been edited by Matt Rowe (edited December 27, 2004).]

ShelbyRacer
12-27-2004, 09:11 PM
Originally posted by Geo:
First of all, go price a race car harness. They aren't cheap. I figured someone would think $5k for a harness was nuts. I agree. But apparently people are spending more than that to have someone wire up a MoTeC inside their ECU box. http://Forum.ImprovedTouring.com/it/smile.gif




See, but someone can do it themselves for a LOT cheaper with some time and energy. My biggest problem with the ECU and wire harness contradiction is exactly what you mentioned. I, even with my experience with electronics, wouldn't feel comfortable cramming the Motec (or any other aftermarket controller) into the stock box. Why? Well, mostly because I just spent up to $4000 (check online and you'll see prices) on the unit itself, and now I have to take it apart and maybe screw something up? I'm sure the fee to pack it into the stock housing isn't very cheap either...

I can wire up a complete harness with Molex connectors for under $200. Would it be as wonderful as the Mil-spec equivalent? Not sure, but I'll guarantee that any advantage gained from those expensive wires and connectors can be overridden by careful and proper maintenance. Replace money with labor, simple as that. Most people don't possess the technical expertise to make the Motec-to-stock-ECU-box change, but I'll bet that most can easily solder some connectors on to decent wire, route the whole thing, and maintain it well. Right now, you have NO OPTIONS. With this rule rewritten, those with perfectly functioning stock harnesses would NOT be penalized, as they could make all the same mods to their stock harness, OR make a new one. Again, my biggest issue with this whole thing is that in IT, the gap is widening between the haves and the have nots. All the current rule does is screw those people who don't have the money to do it the a$$-backwards way.

The essence of my intent here-
You have to keep everything that it doesn't say you can remove.
You can't add anything it doesn't say you can.
You can't use super-hyper-unobtainium type materials.
You either have to work a bit, OR pay someone to do it, but either way you're not forced into spending cubic $$ to be competitive, and that's only if you need to do it in the first place.

If my suggestions are out of line with the "class philosophy", let me know.

Again, I'm putting this all up for discussion's sake. I probably wouldn't try to institute a rule change, since I don't compete in the class at this point. I just think it's interesting to see ahead of time what the comments will be if someone requested this. Also, since there are several ITAC members that are among us, I just want these comments to be part of their thought process. If I'm being presumptuous (sp?) or over-egotistical with that thought/comment, then I am. Perhaps what we talk about here will have no impact on the class, but maybe, just maybe, it will.

And I promised myself that I wasn't going to come into this board and be my normal, loud-mouthed self (yes, I'm a lot like this in person, and yes, I know that sucks). Well, there's always next year...

Hey Dick, did you ever think this topic would get 50 posts in 2 days? I did http://Forum.ImprovedTouring.com/it/smile.gif



------------------
Matt Green
"Ain't nothin' improved about Improved Touring..."

lateapex911
12-27-2004, 10:12 PM
Originally posted by ShelbyRacer:


Hey Dick, did you ever think this topic would get 50 posts in 2 days? I did http://Forum.ImprovedTouring.com/it/smile.gif




Well, you might have known that you'd be adding 20% of the posts!

The more I think about this, the more I think it's really a tempest in a teapot.

Pragmatically, it's pretty workable as is.

We all agree that most of the wires are uneeded. Pull the fuses! Clip the wires at the source that are on shared fuses. And for those that are needed, snip it out, and solder a new one in. It's just not that hard. Wrap it up in tape, and move on.

Connectors bad? Radio Shack has 'em in all sizes and shapes. How will the Jenson dealership repair it? Or the Alfa dealership? They'd do the same thing...if you're lucky! If the car is available in the junkyard, clip it out and solder it in if you're worried about absolute legality. Again, half an hour of soldering.

Honestly....who would EVER come up to you, look at your car, find a repair that isn't factory fresh, and protest you?? First, if it happens, you're dealing with a raging lunatic, or a revenge freak, and second, I can't imagine such a protest being upheld.

(Although the second part COULD go awry!)

I'm thinking the rule is adequate as is....

too many things could got wrong if it were re written.



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

Matt Rowe
12-27-2004, 10:32 PM
Originally posted by lateapex911:

We all agree that most of the wires are uneeded. Pull the fuses! Clip the wires at the source that are on shared fuses. And for those that are needed, snip it out, and solder a new one in. It's just not that hard. Wrap it up in tape, and move on.



But none of that is legal


Originally posted by lateapex911:


Connectors bad? Radio Shack has 'em in all sizes and shapes. How will the Jenson dealership repair it? Or the Alfa dealership? They'd do the same thing...if you're lucky! If the car is available in the junkyard, clip it out and solder it in if you're worried about absolute legality. Again, half an hour of soldering.



Again, radio shack connectors are illegal. And the factory authorized fix for my car is to replace the connector. Of course no dealership will touch the car because of the age. So the factory authorized fix is nothing. Oh and swapping one old brittle connector for another doesn't do anything for reliability.


Originally posted by lateapex911:


Honestly....who would EVER come up to you, look at your car, find a repair that isn't factory fresh, and protest you?? First, if it happens, you're dealing with a raging lunatic, or a revenge freak, and second, I can't imagine such a protest being upheld.

(Although the second part COULD go awry!)



Well, some people have already posted that they would protest anyone they saw with illegal fixes. But more importantly there are people (you included) who have said cheaters suck and should be hung by there own alternator belt. (Slight exageration) But seriously, you say that and know you are telling me to cheat because it's not that big a deal. When is it okay to cheat? When is it not that big a deal? I don't want to run something illegal and we shouldn't be telling people to do so.



------------------
~Matt Rowe
ITA Shelby Charger
MARRS #96

Diane
12-27-2004, 10:44 PM
Originally posted by Matt Rowe:

Next, for you people who drive your cars to events. How do you go out on track without being paranoid about how you are going to get home if anything happens?


Number of options for me.....

When we both raced, we towed Tim's car up and I drove mine. So we did have a trailer with us.

LRP is less than 100 miles from home and we have AAA. (BTW, anyone ever used that for a balled up car?)

For the event I went to on my own at LRP, here are a number of competitors that live in my general area. If I couldn't get the car home, my plan was to bum a ride home and come back with the tow rig the next day to bring it home.

Even with NHIS, we have friends close by we could have left a car at in the event they both needed to be trailed home.

Of course none of this logic would have worked if we went to events further away.

Now back to your regularly scheduled topic...


Diane

lateapex911
12-27-2004, 11:02 PM
Yup- Cheaters suck. And yes I am a guy who will do something about it.

But, like most, when I decide to do something about it, I choose to protest someone who is malicious. Domed pistons and that sort of stuff. Things guys have actually gone out of their way to do for perceived performance gains.

Repairing a connector aint one of 'em.

How is clipping an unused wire that is shorting out down the line cheating? If it has been broken naturally is that cheating?

If you have a wire that has multiple breaks, and you need that wire, how is soldering a same guage wire cheating? I bet thats well in the normal dealership repair parameters.

Maybe you can make a case that they are all cheats, but what exactly is the performace gain from either?

Look, in a perfect world, we might like to ahve a better harness rule...but the costs (unintended consequences) of such a rule are likely to much greater than the status quo.

Plus, there are lots of bigger fish to fry...

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

Geo
12-27-2004, 11:30 PM
Originally posted by lateapex911:
Plus, there are lots of bigger fish to fry...

You should've seen the one that got away! http://Forum.ImprovedTouring.com/it/wink.gif

Re: driving your car to an event....

It's relatively easy actually. You just need to know where the closest U-Haul is. I drove my Infiniti G20 from Houston to DC for the SE-R Club of America convention and drove my car at the annual convention DE event. If I had balled the car up or hurt it beyond repair that far from home, I would have just rented a U-Haul truck and trailer to bring it home. Not cheap, but cheaper than monthly payments on a tow beast (since those who drive usually do so in lieu of having a tow beast).

I have a friend with a street registered race car (SE-R Cup) who was stressing over not having a tow beast because of what might happen. I told him not to stress and just know where the closest U-Haul is. Not that big a deal.


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

Geo
12-27-2004, 11:31 PM
Originally posted by Matt Rowe:
So is that all you have to comment on after my previous long winded post? http://Forum.ImprovedTouring.com/it/smile.gif


If you like I can take requests. http://Forum.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

Matt Rowe
12-27-2004, 11:32 PM
Originally posted by lateapex911:
How is clipping an unused wire that is shorting out down the line cheating? If it has been broken naturally is that cheating?


Well, if it does not perform to stock specs (i.e. works) then it is illegal. So a pulled fuse or a cut wire is illegal.


Originally posted by lateapex911:
If you have a wire that has multiple breaks, and you need that wire, how is soldering a same guage wire cheating? I bet thats well in the normal dealership repair parameters.


Well someone has already commented that without the stock color and tracer the wire doesn't conform to specs. So again, it's illegal.


Originally posted by lateapex911:
Maybe you can make a case that they are all cheats, but what exactly is the performace gain from either?


Oh, so if it's not a performance gain it's okay to cheat. Perfect you walked right into that one.


Originally posted by lateapex911:
Look, in a perfect world, we might like to ahve a better harness rule...but the costs (unintended consequences) of such a rule are likely to much greater than the status quo.

Plus, there are lots of bigger fish to fry...



Okay, but the costs are all passed on to either guys spending money they have too much of on something that won't make them faster or guys who need the allowance to keep a car in racing condition. There may be bigger fish to fry for you but not all of us feel that way.

------------------
~Matt Rowe
ITA Shelby Charger
MARRS #96

Matt Rowe
12-27-2004, 11:40 PM
Originally posted by Geo:
If you like I can take requests. http://Forum.ImprovedTouring.com/it/wink.gif




Actually I was hoping you would comment on what happens to IT cars that can't conform IT rules and won't be classed into production. You had previously stated they we always have the option to go into another class. Production is apparently closed to older cars so what options are they left with? It sounds like they will be between a rock and a hard place.



------------------
~Matt Rowe
ITA Shelby Charger
MARRS #96

lateapex911
12-28-2004, 12:17 AM
quote:Originally posted by lateapex911:
Maybe you can make a case that they are all cheats, but what exactly is the performace gain from either?


quote:Originally posted by Matt Rowe:
Oh, so if it's not a performance gain it's okay to cheat. Perfect you walked right into that one.



http://Forum.ImprovedTouring.com/it/rolleyes.gif

The day someone has an issue with my replacement wire missing it's yellow tracer is the day I get the hell out of there and go back to racing sailboats...yacht clubs are pretty nice places too.

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

[This message has been edited by lateapex911 (edited December 27, 2004).]

Geo
12-28-2004, 12:38 AM
Originally posted by Matt Rowe:
Actually I was hoping you would comment on what happens to IT cars that can't conform IT rules and won't be classed into production. You had previously stated they we always have the option to go into another class. Production is apparently closed to older cars so what options are they left with? It sounds like they will be between a rock and a hard place.

Why can't they conform to IT rules?

If they can't conform, should they be delisted?

Who is saying they can't conform?

What specific car are we talking about that the PAC is refusing to classify?



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

ShelbyRacer
12-28-2004, 01:23 AM
Originally posted by lateapex911:
Well, you might have known that you'd be adding 20% of the posts!


Damn, you're right! Too much time on my hands I guess... I need to get a real job.


Originally posted by lateapex911:
Maybe you can make a case that they are all cheats, but what exactly is the performace gain from either?

Look, in a perfect world, we might like to ahve a better harness rule...but the costs (unintended consequences) of such a rule are likely to much greater than the status quo.



Why does it have to be a perfect world? Let's make a better rule! If we can't all agree, that's OK, but at least we'll see how people could get around (unintended consequences) what is proposed. To this point, no one has offered any way to get around my original suggestion, save the connector issue, that would offer ANY performance advantage. And from what you're saying Jake, no one would protest me (well, at least you wouldn't) because there is no "percieved performance advantage.

Point is, if it's what's done in practice, and it meets the philosophy of the class, shouldn't it be the rule? I believe it bloody well should (I got it right that time George http://Forum.ImprovedTouring.com/it/smile.gif )

--Tangent Time- get some popcorn--

A certain college had a real problem with students shortcutting the paths and walking on the grass. This caused all sorts of unsightly landscaping issues. No matter what the college did, put up banners, barriers, or even set fines, nothing stopped the problem. In fact, a local group got together and made a big stink about the fine thing to the local TV news.

A civil engineering student came up with the solution.

The college tore out most of the old walkways which had been added over the years, then opened everything up as a free-for-all. They observed the pathways taken in the unrestricted environment. Then, they re-worked all the pathways and landscaping around the paths that were formed. Suddenly, there were very few problems with people walking on the grass, and the new system that was developed actually made things easier to deal with for everyone involved.

--end of story-- Yes, it is true.

Now, for those that will argue that this will cause the demise of IT, I would submit that once the rules fit the situation better, it is EASIER TO ENFORCE THEM. It's not that there's less to enforce, it's the fact that no one has to make the judgement of what is a *valid* rule violation. There's no call to be made about, "well, everyone does that" or, "there's no real advantage there, so WTF." Also people seem to be so concerned about what the next permutation will be. Did you ever stop to think that if the rules really fit, the only changes that would be needed are either 1) corrections or edits for clarity and 2) items to address new circumstances that were not in place before?

Some people are criticizing the idea of a rewrite, when I personally feel that it's LONG overdue! We need to get with the times here. I don't see too many cars on the road today that are based off of a 70's chassis and body design (Ford Fox bodies are a horrible exception), so why are we still using a rulebook from that time as the basis for the class?

I didn't mean to go off again here on my same soapbox. I guess it's the thing that one of the first things I read here was Jake's "A Protest Story", and I found it to be an awesome piece. I have a ton of respect for Jake and the other protestors, as they did not go after the guy for "insignificant" items. I guess my issue is, who decides what is insignificant, and if it really makes no difference, then what's the rule for in the first place?

I guess that ITCS really stands for Improved Touring Category Suggestions.

------------------
Matt Green
"Ain't nothin' improved about Improved Touring..."

[This message has been edited by ShelbyRacer (edited December 28, 2004).]

Matt Rowe
12-28-2004, 01:24 AM
Originally posted by Geo:
1) Why can't they conform to IT rules?

2) If they can't conform, should they be delisted?

3) Who is saying they can't conform?

4) What specific car are we talking about that the PAC is refusing to classify?



Well, I'm glad you asked. I added the numbers for clarity.

1) They can't conform because as you originally stated cars that no longer have stock wiring harnesses could or should go somewhere else.

2) I don't know, should we delist a car just because of a parts availability issue which can be worked around with no advantage? That's a question for the ITAC to decide if we want to start excluding current cars. Again, keep in mind IT has been said to be the place to race your car with no guarantee that it will be competitive. Are we changing that philosophy?

3) We are saying they can't conform if the original harness in all it's operational entirity is required.

4) The specifc car is a 70's Toyota Corolla which would currently be an ITC car. The item is listed as Production item #3 on F-8 of the January 2005 Fastrack. But, please don't get too hung up on the specific car, read what the reasoning is. "The club racing board is trying to bring newer cars into club racing."

Again IT has been stated to be the place to run YOUR car even if it doesn't stand a chance to win. Are we really going to change that by excluding people. That seems like more of a risk to IT than anything else including coatings, RR shocks, motecs and anything else you can think of. Making it impossible for someone to run a car they want when it still fits within the performance envelope of a class sounds like that is against class philosophy.

Hecht, maybe the answer is to allow a change like this as long as there is a 10# weight penalty added to the minimum weight. Of course I'm pretty sure that is a road we don't want to head down. http://Forum.ImprovedTouring.com/it/eek.gif

------------------
~Matt Rowe
ITA Shelby Charger
MARRS #96

[This message has been edited by Matt Rowe (edited December 28, 2004).]

ShelbyRacer
12-28-2004, 01:39 AM
Originally posted by Geo:
Why can't they conform to IT rules?

If they can't conform, should they be delisted?

Who is saying they can't conform?

What specific car are we talking about that the PAC is refusing to classify?



Well, one is a mainstay in ITS- the 280Z. What happens when it isn't feasible to repair the wiring in these cars?



------------------
Matt Green
"Ain't nothin' improved about Improved Touring..."

Joe Harlan
12-28-2004, 02:42 AM
If I take a 240z to the dealer with a short in the harness they are gonna cut out the bad wire and solder and heat shrink a section of the closest color wire they can in its place. That would be the current factory authorized repair for an out dated car... It is total BS that you can't make a proper repair to an old harness and make it work. I have been doing automotive wiring for 20+ years and this is total BS....ANTHING can be repaired if there is a desire to do so. I would never consider a protest in a freakin butt connector but don't show up to a race with a full harness replacement and expect me to look the other way...

dickita15
12-28-2004, 07:28 AM
last year the RRB made a rule change for A sedan to allow non stock harnesses to be used in order to allow the use of salvage cars. how is the intent of IT so different that this same rule is a bad idea.
dick

Bill Miller
12-28-2004, 07:49 AM
Diane,

You talk about people knowing where their cars were classed, what the rules were, etc., when they bought/built their cars. Problem is, things have changed (in some cases, quite a bit) since a lot of people bought/built cars. Rules have changed, new cars were introduced at the 'top of the food chain' in a given class. Oh, and if you don't see that part of it, Darin has said that they use the top few cars in a class as the yardstick.

As far as the dual-purpose nature of IT cars goes, I believe it was acknowledged in the 2000 ITCS that it was no longer valid. For those that do still run their IT cars as dual-purpose, have you retained the OEM seatbelts? You do know that a 5/6 pt. racing harness is not DOT approved, and does not meet the seatbelt laws that most (all?) states now have. As far as a street-legal IT car being competitive, I submit that if it is, it's mis-classed, and is an overdog for the class.

As far as IT being the home for old SS cars, I'm not sure how valid that is anymore. SS cars now have a 10 year lifespan, and of the ones that are classed in IT, most are falling into ITS/A, w/ VERY few falling into ITB/C. And what's going to happen if/when SSB/C become T4/5? They're allowing turbo and AWD cars in Touring, how are you going to adjust the IT rules to allow them?


For Mr. Hunt.

Carefull Phil, you're gonna have people thinking you're one of those stero-typical SCCA fossils that don't want new people/ideas.

George,

Do you even hear yourself? Do you actually think that it's ok (and consistent w/ the IT PP&I) to have $50k - $60k cars in IT? People lambast Prod because it costs so damn much to build and run competitive cars. Tony Rivera's Runoffs podium (2nd place) EP 2nd gen. RX7 is for sale right now for ~$22k. That's a fast, top-level car, and every bit the measure of some of these top-prep IT cars (in terms of prep level, it'll blow them into the weeds on the track).

You know, pretty soon (if it isn't there already) it'll be cheaper for someone to build and run a Prod car than it is an IT car.

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

Bill Miller
12-28-2004, 07:59 AM
<font face=\"Verdana, Arial\" size=\"2\">Maybe you can make a case that they are all cheats, but what exactly is the performace gain from either?</font>


Jake, that's a pretty slippery slope you're venturing out on. It's also one of the root causes of rules creep. It's also one of the reasons why self-policing is a problem.

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

Geo
12-28-2004, 08:42 AM
Originally posted by Bill Miller:
George,

Do you even hear yourself? Do you actually think that it's ok (and consistent w/ the IT PP&I) to have $50k - $60k cars in IT?

How do you propose to prevent people from spending their money? You and I may not like it, but we cannot prevent it.


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

ShelbyRacer
12-28-2004, 09:06 AM
Originally posted by Geo:
How do you propose to prevent people from spending their money? You and I may not like it, but we cannot prevent it.




I was just discussing that with aomeone last night. It seems that people are so against the wiring thing because of many *percieved* issues, with increased costs being one (you yourself cited the $5k harness becoming the norm). As this other person stated to me, they'd rather have the people spend $5k on a harness, because it would offer no real advantage over a well built $500 harness, but would mean that those people might have less $$ for other mods, or at least for tuning and track time... http://Forum.ImprovedTouring.com/it/smile.gif

My big issue here is what is good for the class in the long run. Is this a good idea? I think so, but many do not. I would just hope that these arguements are being considered by the ITAC, since I did notice upon rereading FasTrack that wiring (and how it relates to ECUs) was an issue to be discussed.

------------------
Matt Green
"Ain't nothin' improved about Improved Touring..."

Matt Rowe
12-28-2004, 10:31 AM
Originally posted by Geo:
How do you propose to prevent people from spending their money? You and I may not like it, but we cannot prevent it.



No we can't prevent it, but when we see situations where the only way to win is to have the largest budget we should (and have in the past) worked to fix the problem. RR shocks were allowed, but it became obvious that to pull the most performance out of your car you would need to spend thousands just on the shocks. That didn't fit the intent of IT so the rule was changed.

You are saying that you can't stop people from spending their money yet you don't want to make a rule change to wiring to prevent people from spending their money. For the people with the budget, if they are samrt, they are going to spend it on whatever gives them the best return. A wiring change isn't going to make a difference in lap times. But it is the difference for some people (without big budgets) between a safe, reliable, legal car or cheating because it doesn't make a performance difference that no reasonable person would protest.

Yes, you can't stop people from spending too much on their race car, but we shouldn't be stopping people from taking the cheaper route if it doesn't give them an advantage.

------------------
~Matt Rowe
ITA Shelby Charger
MARRS #96

pfcs
12-28-2004, 11:51 AM
Dear Bill, Yes, of course I have retained my factory seatbelts on both sides. And in my estimation my car (anA2 VW) is quite competetive. Do you think I'm an overdog? regarding being thought of as a stereotypical fossil: my issue has always been what I refer to as an "SCCA nerd" .
An SN is forever thinking about uneccesary miutiae, ready to argue/discuss ad nauseum about rules BS but unwilling to do like Jake and file a sensible/appropriate protest. My biggest fear is finding an SN who is chief tech inspector and wants to DQ me because of a butt connector in my harness. Funny thing, tho-that's never happened. Seems the average SCCA official is more sensible than a lot of people in this conversation.


------------------
phil hunt

ShelbyRacer
12-28-2004, 12:38 PM
Originally posted by pfcs:
my issue has always been what I refer to as an "SCCA nerd" .
An SN is forever thinking about uneccesary miutiae, ready to argue/discuss ad nauseum about rules BS but unwilling to do like Jake and file a sensible/appropriate protest. My biggest fear is finding an SN who is chief tech inspector and wants to DQ me because of a butt connector in my harness. Funny thing, tho-that's never happened. Seems the average SCCA official is more sensible than a lot of people in this conversation.


Well, since I feel like I might be one of the people that was aimed at, I'll again mention that I did put my money where my mouth is. I got involved in the transition to Time Trials (from Solo 1 and other areas). I saw issues, so I stepped up and rewrote the rulebook. I did exactly what I'm suggesting here- I kept the core stuff, came up with a plan, and wrote everything based on that, while bringing the rules up to current practice. Much like here, we were doing things before that weren't within the letter of the law. Did anyone make an issue of those things? No, but IF something ever happened and what we did didn't match the book, someone would get screwed.

Did I do a perfect job on the rules? Probably not, but I'm also not going to sit here and say that it can't be changed because it's too much trouble.

I personally choose to be proactive, and if that makes me an SN, I guess I am one. Sitting and taking the attitude of "wait and see, and act if a problem comes up" is half the issue with SCCA right now. I don't know if anyone's noticed, but there are other sanctioning bodies that are ready to strike whenever we give them the chance. I want to see SCCA change because I feel that at the core, SCCA is a MUCH stronger and safer organization. I don't want to lose our past, but I also don't want to lose our future.

Just FYI- I would NEVER bug you or anyone else about a wiring issue (yes, I am an SCCA Official, but I'll leave it at that). I just want to make sure that no one else can either. What I don't understand is since many on here are saying that they wouldn't say anything because it's not a performance issue, then what are we disagreeing about? Why not make it right, rather than just acceptably wrong?


------------------
Matt Green
"Ain't nothin' improved about Improved Touring..."

Knestis
12-28-2004, 01:24 PM
Okay - in summary...

1. A high-zoot harness would clearly be a performance advantage. If it weren't there wouldn't be a company outside of Charlotte getting rich making AN/NAS-spec harnesses for NASCAR teams.

2. Further, the fact that people here are arguing for a change - even if really high-end parts are prohibited somehow - is prima facie evidence that they see it as beneficial to them - reliability just inceases the likelihood of winning. Gaining that reliability for less money than would have to be spent under the current rules, leaves those benefiting from the change with more money to buy tires, coaching, or track time - improving their relative competitive position.

3. There is simply no way to legislate budget in IT. Arguments about cost are not germane to the issue at hand. Concerns about increasing costs are a red herring because you can't keep me from spending that $5000 to go faster, whatever the rule. Similarly, suggestions that "it would be cheaper and easier" to build a reliable harness put us back at Point 2.

4. RE: trying to limit construction, material, and other attributes of allowed replacement harnesses: It is impossible to anticipate and legislate against every possible idea that someone might try. Writing a rule defnining what is NOT allowed will ALWAYS leave room for new, clever interpretations.

5. Those interpretations are the root of unintended consequences and rules creep. This is the TRUE potential downside of proposed changes to the wiring rules.

6. Balanced against that is the very real issue faced by racers of older cars. However, I have yet to see any actual work proposed here that can't reasonably be accomplished under the current "repair" rule.

K

Matt Rowe
12-28-2004, 01:37 PM
Originally posted by pfcs:
My biggest fear is finding an SN who is chief tech inspector and wants to DQ me because of a butt connector in my harness. Funny thing, tho-that's never happened. Seems the average SCCA official is more sensible than a lot of people in this conversation.



I would fear your competitors more, especially the guy who you just barely beat that race or that championship. He's the one likely to protest and very likely to win because your car is technically illegal if you have a non factory connector. It doesn't say you can so you can't. I must have missed the section of the ITCS where it says which rules you can ignore because it doesn't make a difference. Because that is what we are telling people to do when we say just patch it and no one will care. Obviously there are people that take this seriously enough to spend $60K on a $6 trophy and if you beat their car what's to say they won't spend the time to write the paper on yours. Personally, I don't care if I lose the position in the final results in that situation, but I don't want to be labeled as a cheater and face penalties for something that didn't make a damn difference. So, lets fix the rule so that no one has to face that situation.

As George has already pointed out everyone has a different idea of what is obvious when looking at the rules or a rule change. But when it comes down to a black or white decision nowhere in the rules are you allowed to break a rule because of some gentleman's agreement that it won't be protested. If we have a practice that everyone is doing that is outside of the rules we either need to change the rule to reflect reality or enforce it.


------------------
~Matt Rowe
ITA Shelby Charger
MARRS #96

pfcs
12-28-2004, 01:54 PM
perhaps someone overlooked my prev post. So I ran a very competetive car, won 50%+ of all races, held numerous track records, all the while with a nasty looking, 25lb trailer hitch receiver under the bumper. Twice my engine was torn down (legal) but not once did anyone make anything of the hitch (I towed a Coleman to events). And this was when sometimes we had 50 ITB cars at the Glenn. I'm not afraid of the guy I barely beat, I expect he'll be a sportsman. He's usually the guy you spend a half hour in impound with, energetically talking about the great time you both had.

------------------
phil hunt

Tom Donnelly
12-28-2004, 01:58 PM
Replacing wiring with wires of similar size, albeit not color, is something that is done all the time to make it work. This includes Radio Shack connectors. And this is not cheating, its a repair.

Replacing the connectors and wiring associated with the ECU and its sensors is another matter altogether.

That seems to be the real issue here. Or am I missing something?

Tom

Matt Rowe
12-28-2004, 01:58 PM
Originally posted by Knestis:
Okay - in summary...

1. A high-zoot harness would clearly be a performance advantage. If it weren't there wouldn't be a company outside of Charlotte getting rich making AN/NAS-spec harnesses for NASCAR teams.

K

Does a $3000 dollar paint job make a car faster too? Just because someone is spending/making money on something doesn't make it faster.


Originally posted by Knestis:
2. Further, the fact that people here are arguing for a change - even if really high-end parts are prohibited somehow - is prima facie evidence that they see it as beneficial to them - reliability just inceases the likelihood of winning. Gaining that reliability for less money than would have to be spent under the current rules, leaves those benefiting from the change with more money to buy tires, coaching, or track time - improving their relative competitive position.

K

If forcing people with older cars to live with less reliabilty is a way of deciding who is a better driver or car builder than we must be racing in two different series. Under the current repair rules I can't rebuild a harness to as new condition, so beacuse of that I should be at a disadvantage to a guy with a 5 year old car? This isn't like a wheel bearing where I can install a new one and it's my own fault if I don't and the car doesn't finish. I can't replace every wire in my harness as preventative maintenance (especially if the harness was never there) so


Originally posted by Knestis:
3. There is simply no way to legislate budget in IT. Arguments about cost are not germane to the issue at hand. Concerns about increasing costs are a red herring because you can't keep me from spending that $5000 to go faster, whatever the rule. Similarly, suggestions that "it would be cheaper and easier" to build a reliable harness put us back at Point 2.

K

I agree you can't legislate a budget but restricting changes to those with big budgets hurts the have nots. A rule that puts everyone on the same ground is better than a restriction that limits what is possibly to those with the bigger checkbook.


Originally posted by Knestis:
4. RE: trying to limit construction, material, and other attributes of allowed replacement harnesses: It is impossible to anticipate and legislate against every possible idea that someone might try. Writing a rule defnining what is NOT allowed will ALWAYS leave room for new, clever interpretations.

5. Those interpretations are the root of unintended consequences and rules creep. This is the TRUE potential downside of proposed changes to the wiring rules.
K

Yes, rules creep is something to be avoided but not at the cost of making it impossible, inpractical or unaffordable to put a legal car on track. There are times where modifications must be made and you do your best to write the rules to limit them. You may get it wrong, which is why you can rewrite the rule if the problem is serious. Otherwise, why don't we just go back to the car must be raced as built by the factory?


Originally posted by Knestis:
6. Balanced against that is the very real issue faced by racers of older cars. However, I have yet to see any actual work proposed here that can't reasonably be accomplished under the current "repair" rule.
K

Then you haven't been paying attention to those people who don't have original intact harnesses, those with insulation that is cracking off the wires, conductors that are broken every 5 feet in every run, or factory connectors that are no longer available or sevicable. Those or the problems faced and a FSM doesn't show any way to legally fix them.


------------------
~Matt Rowe
ITA Shelby Charger
MARRS #96

Matt Rowe
12-28-2004, 02:34 PM
Originally posted by Tom Donnelly:
Replacing wiring with wires of similar size, albeit not color, is something that is done all the time to make it work. This includes Radio Shack connectors. And this is not cheating, its a repair.

Replacing the connectors and wiring associated with the ECU and its sensors is another matter altogether.

That seems to be the real issue here. Or am I missing something?

Tom

Actually, according to the current rules using a radio shack connector is cheating. No where in the rules are you allowed aftermarket connectors. But yes, it is frequently done, which is why it should probably be made legal. That is what part of the argument is about.

------------------
~Matt Rowe
ITA Shelby Charger
MARRS #96

Joe Harlan
12-28-2004, 04:51 PM
<font face=\"Verdana, Arial\" size=\"2\">No where in the rules are you allowed aftermarket connectors.</font>

Actually its is covered and legal under the current rule, You are just trying to hard not to see it. Making the best attempt to repair to the factory standard is all that is needed. If a protest were actually upheld by a steward I think it would be overturned in the COA.

Matt Rowe
12-28-2004, 05:33 PM
Originally posted by Joe Harlan:
Actually its is covered and legal under the current rule, You are just trying to hard not to see it. Making the best attempt to repair to the factory standard is all that is needed. If a protest were actually upheld by a steward I think it would be overturned in the COA.

No where in my factory procedures is an aftermarket connector allowed. And if it doesn't say you can then you can't. My best attempt to repair to factory standards would include mil spec connectors as radio shack does not make anything suitable. Does that mean that mil spec connectors are allowed? If radio shack is allowed than you just opened the door to anything. The only procedure I've seen a factory tech use when a replacement connector wasn't available was to cut the broken connector out and solder the leads together. Is that an allowable repair? If so I can hear the sound of a hundred pairs of dykes snipping wires and removing connectors as we speak. I'm not trying hard not to see what you want, I'm trying to see what else is allowed under your interpretation, including all of the unintended consequences.

What's obvious to one person is not necessarily obvious to everyone. Do we really think a hundred stewards across the country are going to have the same intepretation on when one repair is okay and when it offers a performance advantage and should be penalized? And the COA doesn't use precedents so everytime this comes up it might get be decided in your favor or it might not.

If it is allowed (which by your interpretation would have to include the allowance for mil spec connectors) why isn't it clearly stated in the rules? The only thing obvious is everyone has a different interpretation of what the current rules allow and how far a competitor has to go before they protest them. If the rule is that unclear than a change serves more good than bad.

------------------
~Matt Rowe
ITA Shelby Charger
MARRS #96

[This message has been edited by Matt Rowe (edited December 28, 2004).]

Knestis
12-28-2004, 05:56 PM
My Golf was throwing a "vehicle speed sensor" code and, after farting around with a new sensor and even different guage cluster, we bypassed the wire in the bundle with a long jumper, replicating the original wire between the two. Now, am I...

A) AOK under the repair clause?
B) A big, stinky cheater?
C) Not a big cheater but screwed if I get protested?

K

[This message has been edited by Knestis (edited December 28, 2004).]

pfcs
12-28-2004, 06:21 PM
"D" supporting this nonsensical thread by feedin it. I'm outa here!

------------------
phil hunt

Matt Rowe
12-28-2004, 06:34 PM
Originally posted by Knestis:
My Golf was throwing a "vehicle speed sensor" code and, after farting around with a new sensor and even different guage cluster, we bypassed the wire in the bundle with a long jumper, replicating the original wire between the two. Now, am I...

A) AOK under the repair clause?
B) A big, stinky cheater?
C) Not a big cheater but screwed if I get protested?

K

[This message has been edited by Knestis (edited December 28, 2004).]

Keeping in mind this is just my interpretation:

If you didn't bypass any connector while laying in a new wire than I would say A. If you did bypass a connector than it might be A it might be C, it depends on how the steward interprets the rule.

Now take the case where the bulkhead connector in a car cracks, new parts and servicable used parts aren't available. A comparable bulkhead connector is used to replace it. Apply your same choices.

------------------
~Matt Rowe
ITA Shelby Charger
MARRS #96

Joe Harlan
12-28-2004, 07:02 PM
Again I think you are reaching to extremes Matt and this has becme a waste of time. Call the dealer and ask them what they would do to fix a connector that is no longer available...That would be the current factory standard and legal per the book.

Kirk if the OEM wire was bad and you replaced it with a factory equivalent part no issue.

DavidM
12-28-2004, 07:14 PM
Ok. I've been reading this thread with interest because the ITA car I'm buying should have the wiring harness replaced to prevent electrical gremlins according to the current owner. The options I see for doing this are:

1) Get a used harness from a junk yard and use in its entirety. This harness may not be in much better shape than the one I have. This appears to be legal.

2) Get a used harness and go through it and repair or replace bad wires and connectors. Seems like this may be legal if I use the same color wires and connectors. It's not legal if I use different color wires and "radio shack" connectors.

3) Get a new harness. This assumes that I actually can get a new harness. This is gonna run a few hundred bucks I figure. This appears to be legal.

4) Fabricate my own harness. This will be very time consuming, but could result in a much more efficient and clean harness at the end. This could be fairly cheap or could be costly depending on the parts used. This is not legal.

5) Go through the harness in the car and repair or replace wires and connectors as needed. This is pretty much the same as #2 and may or may not be legal depending on the color of the wires and the connectors used.

Have I missed anything? Nothing like a case study.

I'm going to do what makes the most sense and is the easiest to accomplish. I've got better things to do than spend time building a harness so #4 is out (not to say that somebody else wouldn't do this, but I won't). #2 and #3 seem to be the best options. I'll see if I can find a new harness and if it's not too, too expensive that's probably what I'll do. If it's too expensive or I can't get one, then it's #2. I'll repair or replace parts on the donor harness as needed. And I won't be worrying about wire color or connector type. If some a-hole wants to protest the color of my wires because I got one spot closer to the plastic trophy than them, so be it. What comes around, goes around.

I'll be at the back of the pack this year anyways, so I don't think I'll have any problems. Hopefully I'll move up towards the front, though, as my driving skills catch up with the car.

I'm a newb at this, but it seems to me the intent of IT is to provide a class where it's relatively easy and has a comparatively low cost to go racing. At least, I think this is why a lot of people are attracted to IT. So, it seems rules should keep this philosophy in mind. Any rule change that makes things simpler and/or cheaper would seem like a good thing to me. I like simple and I defintely like cheap. Note that simpler and cheaper don't necessarily equate to slower.

I personally think the rule should be changed so that somebody can repair/replace their wiring harness in whatever manner suits them best without the possibility of them being illegal. There may be some case out there where somebody has band-aided their wiring harness all they can and no new or used ones are available. Their only option may be to build their own. I think they should be able to do that. If this means some rich dude can go out and spend $5k on gold-plated mil spec connectors, such is life. Wish I could do that. There's always going to be somebody who can spend butt loads of money on their car. I don't think a rule can be limited by these people if it makes life easier for a majority of the people. Especially if the competitive advantage afforded to the rich people is not that great.

Seems like IT rules should be geared towards making racing as cheap and easy as possible while maintaining as level a playing field as possible. I'm still learning, but from the discussions I've seen here I would guestion whether this was taken into account when some of the rules were written. People with more money are always going to be able to build faster cars. That's just a fact of life. I don't know that attempting to write the rules to keep this from happening is very beneficial.

I don't know if this has added anything to the discussion, but it kept me busy at work for a while http://Forum.ImprovedTouring.com/it/smile.gif. I'll go back to lurking now.

David

Bill Miller
12-28-2004, 07:48 PM
Originally posted by pfcs:
Dear Bill, Yes, of course I have retained my factory seatbelts on both sides. And in my estimation my car (anA2 VW) is quite competetive. Do you think I'm an overdog?

Did you also keep the cat? Will the car actually pass the state emissions test(NJ has pretty tough standards)? Not sure where you're racing, or who you're racing against, but I just don't see a full-on A2 Golf being competitive in ITB. I know guys w/ very well prepped versions, that are good drivers, that have to work for wins at Summit Point.


regarding being thought of as a stereotypical fossil: my issue has always been what I refer to as an "SCCA nerd" .
An SN is forever thinking about uneccesary miutiae, ready to argue/discuss ad nauseum about rules BS but unwilling to do like Jake and file a sensible/appropriate protest. My biggest fear is finding an SN who is chief tech inspector and wants to DQ me because of a butt connector in my harness. Funny thing, tho-that's never happened. Seems the average SCCA official is more sensible than a lot of people in this conversation.




So which is it, being sensible, or following the rules. Unfortunately, it happens all too often that stuff gets ignored, or people look the other way, because they feel that it doesn't matter. As I said, a root cause of rules creep.


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

Matt Rowe
12-28-2004, 09:12 PM
Originally posted by Joe Harlan:
Again I think you are reaching to extremes Matt and this has becme a waste of time. Call the dealer and ask them what they would do to fix a connector that is no longer available...That would be the current factory standard and legal per the book.



Actually I think your interpretation reaches to extremes I'm just trying to follow your logic, and others, to see how the rule is interpretted. So your saying if my local dealer (who here doesn't know a dealer that will say anything they want them to) tells me it's okay to either remove a broken connector and hard solder it or replace it with an alternate connector from a supply house than that is okay?

Do we really allow what any dealer says to become a factory authorized procedure? I'm pretty sure there are some BMW guys that would like the rear subframe body mounts welded based on their local dealer reccommendations. http://Forum.ImprovedTouring.com/it/smile.gif

Again, I'm trying to understand how the rule is being interpretted since a large number of people seem to think the current rules will work for all situations.


------------------
~Matt Rowe
ITA Shelby Charger
MARRS #96

seckerich
12-28-2004, 11:13 PM
I see most of the posts on this thread looking at their perceived extremes to justify major rules creep. Repairs are covered in the ITCS if you are reasonable. I guess since the spot weld procedure for repair of a right quarter is not spelled out in the book I need to throw my car away and go to production if I dent it? Do I need national to spell this out for you or is there some common sense here? If no harness is available for a car and none can be sourced there is a process to have parts listed on a vehicle spec page. Every repair ever needed for a car is not spelled out for you and using that arguement to open the harness rule is a useless stretch of reason. Using A Sedan as a precedent is useless as they are carbs and will not benefit from the rule. It is hard enough to find hidden sensors now without open harness rules. You piss and moan about Motec and $5000.00 harnesses and want to open the door further with a totally unecessary rule. Most that whine about money show up in a car that never saw a can of degreaser in its life and think that the flashy paint and money are winning and not a well prepared car built with more work than money. On to a thread with hopefully some reason and sanity.
Originally posted by Matt Rowe:
Actually I think your interpretation reaches to extremes I'm just trying to follow your logic, and others, to see how the rule is interpretted. So your saying if my local dealer (who here doesn't know a dealer that will say anything they want them to) tells me it's okay to either remove a broken connector and hard solder it or replace it with an alternate connector from a supply house than that is okay?

Do we really allow what any dealer says to become a factory authorized procedure? I'm pretty sure there are some BMW guys that would like the rear subframe body mounts welded based on their local dealer reccommendations. http://Forum.ImprovedTouring.com/it/smile.gif

Again, I'm trying to understand how the rule is being interpretted since a large number of people seem to think the current rules will work for all situations.

ShelbyRacer
12-29-2004, 12:31 AM
Originally posted by Knestis:

4. RE: trying to limit construction, material, and other attributes of allowed replacement harnesses: It is impossible to anticipate and legislate against every possible idea that someone might try. Writing a rule defnining what is NOT allowed will ALWAYS leave room for new, clever interpretations.

5. Those interpretations are the root of unintended consequences and rules creep. This is the TRUE potential downside of proposed changes to the wiring rules.


Since I don't want to further this too much more, I'll simply address this part.

If you reread my suggested rule you'll see it's not telling you what you can't do, it's telling you what you can, and what you must do to take advantage of the rule. It sets requirements, not restrictions. Look again-

The stock wiring harness may be used or may be repaired or replaced as a whole or in part. No matter the harness used, it will conform to the following:
1) All original electrical functions shall be preserved. If an item is specifically allowed to be removed by the ITCS, any wiring associated solely with this item may be removed.
2) Wire conductor material, including conductors within the connectors, shall remain as stock.
3) Wire gauge may be increased over stock, but the stock guage (as specifified in the FSM) shall be the minimum size.
4) Wire routing and connectors are free. Length may be changed to accommodate re- routing, but the full electrical path to the item must be preserved.
5) No wires may be added to perform any prohibited function (i.e. non-stock sensors or add-on controllers).
6) The competitor shall be able to immediately provide, upon request, a simple wiring diagram that shows any replacement wires. This diagram shall simply note location of wiring within all connectors, wire color, wire gauge, and any connections the wire makes with any component or other wires.



Yes, there are some minor differences, which is why I reposted it here. These differences are to accomodate issues brought up in this discussion (see, I do listen sometimes). Yeah, it's complicated, but it should be pretty clear. Honestly, I think numbers 4 and 5 could be eliminated (I think they're redundant), but I included them tobe crystal clear in my intent.

Anyway, it's probably a moot point anyway, so I'll go back to my technical discussions in other threads and stop preaching and whining... http://Forum.ImprovedTouring.com/it/smile.gif



------------------
Matt Green
"Ain't nothin' improved about Improved Touring..."

miketrier
01-02-2005, 04:39 PM
I vote for open wiring in IT. I just don't see where it can make much difference in performance over the open wiring we currently have for plug and distributor wires. Maybe my interpretation of the philosophy of the class differs from others. IT cars are not (for the most part) street-driven and there is not reason to pretend they are. IT means low-cost, mildly modified (primarily for reliability and safety) race cars. IT needs to avoid becoming a money-spending contest like Prod and GT. Nevertheless, cheap, labor-intensive but low-cost reliability enhancements and things that make the cars easier to maintain should be allowed. IT racing is for fun and DNF's are not fun. Requiring stock wiring harnesses on 20 year-old cars is silly at best.

Bill Miller
01-02-2005, 06:07 PM
<font face=\"Verdana, Arial\" size=\"2\">IT means low-cost, mildly modified (primarily for reliability and safety) race cars. IT needs to avoid becoming a money-spending contest like Prod and GT</font>

I hate to say it, but this went out about the time the cars became dedicated race cars, and were no longer dual-purpose. If you don't think ITS (especially) and ITA are money-spending contests, you haven't been spending much time on this board or at the track.

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