PDA

View Full Version : March FasTrack is up!



Pages : [1] 2

Bill Miller
01-29-2005, 06:40 PM
Here

http://www.scca.com/_Filelibrary/File/05-0...03-fastrack.pdf (http://www.scca.com/_Filelibrary/File/05-03-fastrack.pdf)

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

Bill Miller
01-29-2005, 07:15 PM
Haven't had a chance to read the whole thing, but here's something I did notice.

2.0 16v VW Golf/Jetta goes from ITS to ITA.

Golf gets a 255# weight addition, and the Jetta gets 405# http://Forum.ImprovedTouring.com/it/eek.gif

How do two cars that share the same chassis/engine/transmission/suspension end up getting spec'd ~450# apart? Especially after the weights on the VR6 versions were set to be the same?

ITAC guys, can you shed some light on this?

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

Catch22
01-29-2005, 08:54 PM
Its good to see the Accord and the early Si Hondas go to ITB where they belong.

Then again, the request to move the 88-91 Civic DX has been denied in order to monitor the performance.
Well, it will be pretty hard to monitor the performance of a car nobody will build because its terribly uncompetitive.
Quite simply, theres nothing to "monitor".
Nobody in their right mind would build a 92hp Civic DX for ITA when they can build a 108hp Civic Si.
NOBODY!
What a waste of several thousand cheap and easily built chassis.

I guess you gotta take the bad with the good.

Jake
01-30-2005, 09:44 AM
"monitor performance" - at least that's something. I noticed they are also "monitoring" the performance of the first get RX7 - that's better than the "classified correctly" stuff I got when I asked to move Mr. Two.

R2 Racing
01-30-2005, 12:38 PM
Originally posted by Catch22:
Then again, the request to move the 88-91 Civic DX has been denied in order to monitor the performance.
Well, it will be pretty hard to monitor the performance of a car nobody will build because its terribly uncompetitive.
Quite simply, theres nothing to "monitor".
Nobody in their right mind would build a 92hp Civic DX for ITA when they can build a 108hp Civic Si.
NOBODY!
What a waste of several thousand cheap and easily built chassis.

This is one of those things that as I look at the GCR, it just friggin cracks me up:
'88-91 Honda CRX Si - 2140lbs
'88-91 Honda Civic Si - 2175lbs
'88-91 Honda Civic DX - 2225lbs

uhhh, HELLO?! MCFLY?! That DX would be a great addition to ITB and frankly, I'm shocked (and kind of want to vomit a little bit but that might have something to do with the buckets of beer last night) that it got shot down.


------------------
Kevin
Ruck Racing
'92 ITA Acura Integra RS
'92 ITC Honda Civic CX
'85 ITC Honda Civic S
'95 ITS Honda Prelude Si

Catch22
01-30-2005, 02:05 PM
That exactly my point.

In this case, the "monitor" thought process simply won't fly because there just isn't anything to monitor. Look at those numbers Kevin just posted... Only a complete MORON would build a DX for ITA.
For ITB... Excellent. Great car.
ITA... Thats funny.

If someone wants to donate $15K so I can build an ITA Civic DX and run ITB lap times... So the AC can have something to monitor... I'll be glad to do it. Otherwise, I guess this particular chassis is dead.
Too bad.

K_speed
01-31-2005, 03:20 PM
Speaking of this “monitor thought process,” can anybody explain to me how the SCCA goes about monitoring a car? I’m asking this because it just so happens that I am one of those NOBODYS (as stated above) that built a ’90 Crx DX for Improved Touring. I guess it was out of sheer ignorance more than anything. So call me a complete moron but the fact of the matter is that I built one and would like to know what I need to do to try to put it in its rightful place in ITB. Also, being a novice to road racing, and only having my school requirements complete I figure that this car will be a great learning tool in the world of road racing even if it doesn’t get its chance in ITB. But it never hurts to try get it to be more competative.



------------------
Konrad K. mem# 323927

Underpowered 1990 Honda CRX DX- ITA, hopefully in ITB soon!
[email protected]

ITSRX7
01-31-2005, 03:37 PM
On the VW, that has to be a typo. We will check the notes.

On the Honda's: I think we can all agree that there are some issues. Most of them are ones that we have inherited. By monitoring, right now we want to make sure the moves we have made over the last 6 months are the right ones. Moves like the variety of ITS cars that have come down into ITA. We need to make sure we are doing the right thing and using the right target number etc. We think we are, but before we start trying to sell a whole pile of changes to the BoD/CRB, we need to know our baseline stuff is correct.

ITB is much more 'dusty' than ITA. A wrong move into ITB could really hurt the class so we want to move with caution. It's obvious that those Honda's aren't ITA cars to me, but we have to make sure that they ARE ITB cars...and make sure our performance envelope in ITB can be met but not exceeded by these cars. Honda's are typically faster than they are on paper so we want to err on the side of caution for now. *I* think ITB is the right choice but we shall see.

AB

------------------
Andy Bettencourt
Spec Miata 1.6 (ITA project)
New England Region R188967
www.flatout-motorsports.com (http://www.flatout-motorsports.com)

Banzai240
01-31-2005, 04:38 PM
Guys... again, the sky is NOT falling...

It's only January... NO decision we make today is going to take place until 2006, at least not so far as car classifications are concerned...

That said, I am suppose to have a meeting with the CRB in March to discuss the ITACs view on the future of IT, as well as how to best utilize PCAs. Once some understanding is gained there, we will either be able to make some moves that make sense to us, or we won't be able to make moves that would otherwise make sense to us... I can assure you that I will do what I can to try to get everyone on the same page...

Until then... go race your cars just as you always have, as you've been provided a "place to race", as is the purpose of IT as stated in the ITCS...

Enjoying it or not... I'll leave that up to you...

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

Catch22
01-31-2005, 04:48 PM
Nobody said the sky is falling. I actually think you guys are doing a great job.

I was only pointing out that its hard to monitor the performance of a car that isn't being raced. Now, if the intention of the "monitor" statement is to look at all the recent moves as a whole, and not intended to be a monitor of the particular chassis in question... Then, OK. That makes sense. I'll buy that.

This is my same argument that I had supporting the Beetle in ITC. Put it in ITC and if its a killer you can move it up. Put it in ITB and it looks horrid on paper so nobody will build one. If you do that, there was no sense in classing the car in the first place.

You guys are taking risks, which will mean some mistakes will be made, but on the whole all of IT will benefit.
Keep taking risks. Just be extra careful with ITS since there ain't nowhere to move a mistake thats made there.
But in ITA through ITC... Get crazy and go with your gut.

Just my humble opinion.

gran racing
01-31-2005, 05:24 PM
Andy, so the 1:06s I’ve been doing at LRP are really 1:04s? I always thought timing and scoring has a little Honda multiplier. (We have to try to get Darin a bit less grumpy, right?)

Konrad – In all honesty going into ITB for a year or two might be the best thing for you. I say this coming from personal experience. My Prelude was originally classed in ITA and I was a bit upset about the classification. But looking back, that was probably the best thing that could happen to me. When in ITA, there was little motivation to spend much money on the car so I spent the majority of my efforts on myself. If I went directly to ITB, I’m not so sure I wouldn’t have spent more money on the car and less on me (seat time as one example). I’m sure you will find plenty of people to battle with and have a great time as I did in ITA.

Catch – I can’t say I agree with the moving cars more abruptly and see what happens method; then if a mistake because of not looking at it as thoroughly / using more caution then necessary move it back up a class. I would be very, very upset if the club moved a car down to a class and I spent money and time on it only to have it moved back up. It would not be doing people a favor who currently races the car a favor. Then think about the people who all of a sudden go out and buy now that it’s in a lower class. You are right it is hard to monitor what isn't happening, it really is a just we need some time to think things out and are considering it response.

That said, there are cars that really should be re-classed. I’m looking forward to other cars being looked at more.


------------------
Dave Gran
NER ITB #13
'87 Honda Prelude si

Bill Miller
01-31-2005, 07:20 PM
Originally posted by Banzai240:
Guys... again, the sky is NOT falling...

It's only January... NO decision we make today is going to take place until 2006, at least not so far as car classifications are concerned...

That said, I am suppose to have a meeting with the CRB in March to discuss the ITACs view on the future of IT, as well as how to best utilize PCAs. Once some understanding is gained there, we will either be able to make some moves that make sense to us, or we won't be able to make moves that would otherwise make sense to us... I can assure you that I will do what I can to try to get everyone on the same page...

Until then... go race your cars just as you always have, as you've been provided a "place to race", as is the purpose of IT as stated in the ITCS...

Enjoying it or not... I'll leave that up to you...



Darin,

The way I read it, the Honda (Accord, Civic, CRX) moves were effective 1/1/05.

BTW, please take Greg's advice


<font face=\"Verdana, Arial\" size=\"2\">On the VW, that has to be a typo. We will check the notes.</font>

Thanks Andy!



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

evanwebb
02-01-2005, 02:58 AM
Hey Darin, I don't know you at all (or anyone else on the ITAC for that matter), but I have to say this: IT has had some aspects of its philosophy and rules seriously screwed up for years, and I really like the way things are starting to go now. I definitely think IT is headed in the right direction. I know you guys on the ITAC are busy and you don't want to do too much too fast, and also it obvious that you don't want to do too little either, as evidenced by all the great moves you have made recently. Great job and thanks for all the hard work to benefit the IT community as a whole.
I have a few ideas on additional changes that can be made to the class as a whole (generally of the "admit that IT cars are real race cars and allow us to do some more things to the cars that are fun and don't cost much" variety) that I will put up on this website to get some feedback and then I'll send them in for consideration. But again, so far, job well done.

JLawton
02-01-2005, 08:47 AM
Andy,
I think the Honda's should stay in ITA!! http://Forum.ImprovedTouring.com/it/biggrin.gif
Not that my personal feelings are involved here.........

I have to say, you guys are in a tough position where there will ALWAYS be unhappy people. Keep up the good work!!

------------------
Jeff L
#74 ITB GTi

ddewhurst
02-01-2005, 10:57 AM
***(generally of the "admit that IT cars are real race cars and allow us to do some more things to the cars that are fun and don't cost much" variety)***

Every time I read someones statement that they want "to do some more things" with their IT race car I wonder if at the present time they are winning a large % of the races they enter. What people need to remember is that there is a class called Production where the modifications that can be made are pretty wide open compared to IT. Step up to the plate with your need for more modifications. Oh, & bring your dollars just like the fast guys do in Production.

Have Fun http://Forum.ImprovedTouring.com/it/wink.gif
David Dewhurst
CenDiv

ps: Production cars were like todays IT cars in the pre 70's.

Catch22
02-01-2005, 12:46 PM
I don't know what exactly Evan has in mind, but I think he may be talking about things like wiper washer bottles, passenger side door glass, and heater cores. These things cost nothing to remove and serve no purpose on a race car.

Frankly, I'm surprised that we're not required to remove the door glass for safety reasons. It baffles me that we are actually required to KEEP it.

Higher compresssion, cams, ect... I agree. Just go to production if you want to do that.

Joe Harlan
02-01-2005, 01:27 PM
Removal I can see as an ok thing, it is getting very hard to find stock replacments for some of this stuff. Cam compression wide open ECU's should make the next leap. I think the problem with moving to prod is there is not as much competition in most cases.

ddewhurst
02-01-2005, 02:42 PM
***I think the problem with moving to prod is there is not as much competition in most cases.***

Joe, ya can't say stuff like that. Some one's going to tell the teacher. http://Forum.ImprovedTouring.com/it/wink.gif If ya can't find a part it's time to retire the car. http://Forum.ImprovedTouring.com/it/frown.gif


***I think he may be talking about things like wiper washer bottles, passenger side door glass, and heater cores. These things cost nothing to remove and serve no purpose on a race car.***

How do YOU draw the line & when do the changes stop? That is the same thought process that got Production where it is today. Sorry, but facts are facts.

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

Joe Harlan
02-01-2005, 04:08 PM
David I don't really disagree. I think when you can't buy a washer bottle for a 240z you should be able to replace it with a JC whittney universal unit though.

As far as telling the teacher goes you know how I feel about that. I have been told many a time if I just learned to suger coat it most people would like me...... http://Forum.ImprovedTouring.com/it/smile.gif

Problem is I hate suger. http://Forum.ImprovedTouring.com/it/wink.gif

ddewhurst
02-01-2005, 06:11 PM
***I think when you can't buy a washer bottle for a 240z you should be able to replace it with a JC whittney universal unit though.***

Joe, as you would say real sugar coated like. The person would need some real SAK to protest a JC washer bottle.

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

oanglade
02-01-2005, 06:22 PM
It's not about protesting someone else. It's about "myself" fielding a legal car.

------------------
Ony Anglade
ITA Miata
Sugar Hill, GA

Catch22
02-01-2005, 09:19 PM
Well, David, its simple really. I draw the lina at the simple stuff. The things that have no function in a race car but we are required to keep.
The things I mentioned above.

Its understandable in Showroom Stock, because as the name implies, the cars are s supposed to be showroom stock. So they SHOULD have all the stuff on them that they had when they rolled out of the factory doors. They should even keep things like the Air Conditioning and stereo if it was standard equipment on the car.
Anything that isn't a safety issue (like air bags) should stay. Otherwise it should be called "Kind of Stock."

But in IT... No reason to keep some of these items on the car.
Washer bottle... Why?
Heater Core... Why? (unless you just WANT it because you live in Oregon)
Pass Side Door Glass... Why?
Rear Wiper... Why?

Thats where I draw my line David. Its easy, folks like you that try to suggest that every little rules change will turn IT into a "Production Lite" disaster just need to take a deep breath and get over it.

If changes are mismanaged, yes, disaster can ensue.
But just because mistakes have been made in the past, you can't fight every attempt at improving the rules because "We tried that in 1974 and it was a complete failure."

Keep that attitude and our beloved IT classes, already known to many of the younger generation as "ITJ" (Improved Touring Jalopy), will die when we die. That would kind of suck wouldn't it.

I can see it now. The "backwards bizzaro world" version of David D. in the year 2030...
"I remember back in 2005 when they wouldn't update the rules of IT to reflect new technology and trends. That was when everything really started to fail and NASA took over in 2015. It was worse than the Production fiascos of the 70s" .

Knestis
02-01-2005, 11:35 PM
Originally posted by evanwebb:
..."admit that IT cars are real race cars and allow us to do some more things to the cars that are fun and don't cost much" ...

I don't know, guys. I tend to side with Mr. D. on this issue. http://Forum.ImprovedTouring.com/it/eek.gif I don't think that it's washer bottles and door glass that's likely to keep the next generation from thinking IT is cool.

The fact that there are still a lot of cheap, available, potentially useful cars that aren't classified MIGHT help do that, though. It's not realisitic to expect a kid who thinks Kias or Hyundae are cool to go through the VTS/request process to get an ITB or ITC car listed. And the old guys - like many of us are or are becoming - are past our car brand formative years, so WE sure aren't likely to go to the trouble...

What was the question, again?

K

Catch22
02-02-2005, 12:33 AM
Originally posted by Knestis:
I don't know, guys. I tend to side with Mr. D. on this issue. http://Forum.ImprovedTouring.com/it/eek.gif I don't think that it's washer bottles and door glass that's likely to keep the next generation from thinking IT is cool.





I agree Kirk, I was just using the washer bottle thing as an example of a silly rule that has no real purpose. Yet, if someone mentions the word "change," there are folks that start getting ready to pack up the family and move down to the storm shelter.

You're right though. We need to start getting the low bucks cars from the 90s classified in IT. They are the future, and the fear that they will obsolete the Fiestas and 510s and 70s Rabbits just needs to go away.

evanwebb
02-02-2005, 04:28 AM
OK, I've been out for a day and I have stirred the pot. Yay! Scott Giles is exactly correct in his suspicions about what I had in mind. Basically simple stuff like: get rid of door glass, gut the passenger door, get rid of dumb stuff like washer bottles and heater core/hoses, put the battery wherever you want and use whatever kind of bettery you want, cut off brackets to things you were allowed to remove, and be able to cmo up with some kind of rule that says you can modify or replace the electrical harness in the car as long you don't violate another rule is the process.
On the last point, I find it absurd that I just had to pay $355 for a brand new stock fuel injection electrical harness for my Volvo 142 because the old one was falling apart due to being 33 years old. It's just frickin' wire! I could have built a new harness for $50 out of wire and connectors I mostly have laying around the garage. Stupid. These are race cars: all of what I just said could be done for almost no cost, the reason I know this is because I did it when I converted my ITC car to HP. It really doesn't cost much to take parts off the car. If you want to keep them, fine, you aren't required to remove them any more than you are required to pay Rebello $5000 or whatever to build you a motor. I don't really understand any argument that says that IT is turning into the current form of Production because you moved the battery. Get real. The E36 BMWs have the battery in the right rear trunk, why can't I put the battery in my Volvo there? It doesn't cost anything (OK it costs a little...) and it's an easy way to get the weight balance right on the car. Taking out the dumbass washer bottle sure doesn't cost anything. For me it's a question of aesthetics: what the hell is a washer bottle doing in my race car? Well, actually, it's doing nothing.
And Mr. Dewhurst, I'm really not sure what my winning pecentage has to do with it, or whether I race production (which I also do with an HP Scirocco), but in my racing career over the last four years I have entered about 15 races or so and I have won two, both last year. Which is about a 6% winning average, more or less. I'm pretty sure I've come dead last on at least two occasions as well, which would also be about 6%.
OK, bring on the flames!

Knestis
02-02-2005, 09:27 AM
Mwah-hah-hah! (sinister, not hysterical)

Kirk (who hopes that it rains for 12 hours in WV the first weekend in June, so we can beat not only all of the other ITB cars but EVERYONE who took out their washer bottle and defogger.

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

K

gran racing
02-02-2005, 10:00 AM
The issue with allowing some of these additional modifications is that it may cause unintended consequences. I realize that people would still have the option to keep the stuff as is, but the perception especially from new people would be that it should be done. The goal of IT is to provide people a relatively “easy” way to enter into racing and this just makes it slightly more complicated. The washer bottle? Fine, that one can go however I would keep mine in and have benefited by keeping just a bit of fluid in it. Like Kirk alluded to with the heater core, there are definite benefits to having that in the car. It may be more evident in northern states, but it does. Taking the passenger side window out…that may create storage issues for people. Sure I can throw a plastic tarp over the car / window but now it opens things up to vandilizim and other issues.

Do you really think that not allowing some of these minor modifications (as it is being termed) keeps younger people from IT racing? That is simply not the case. And people that these things keep them from racing IT or SCCA, maybe this isn’t the right place for them. Getting newer model cars such as Civics will certainly help. There are many other reasons I believe more younger people have not become involved in club racing and none of them relate to washer bottles, battery relocation, or passenger side windows. I’m am in the opinion that we need to focus on making club racing less expensive (or at least change misperceptions) and easier to get into.

------------------
Dave Gran
NER ITB #13
'87 Honda Prelude si

ITSRX7
02-02-2005, 10:26 AM
Originally posted by Catch22:


Keep that attitude and our beloved IT classes, already known to many of the younger generation as "ITJ" (Improved Touring Jalopy), will die when we die. That would kind of suck wouldn't it.



This ain't so much because the cars are old as it is the average IT car is a POS. If the average driver took as much time and effort into car prep (both race and cosmetic) as they do trying to figure out why everyone else is faster, it wouldn't have that rep.

Jalopy:
Pronunciation: j&-'lä-pE
Function: noun
Inflected Form(s): plural ja·lop·ies
Etymology: origin unknown
: a dilapidated old vehicle (as an automobile)

AB

------------------
Andy Bettencourt
New England Region R188967
www.flatout-motorsports.com (http://www.flatout-motorsports.com)

[This message has been edited by ITSRX7 (edited February 02, 2005).]

cherokee
02-02-2005, 10:43 AM
I think that new cars should be classed but if you think that it is going to get the bling bling 20 something in to racing I think you are mistaken, and running after the wrong thing. I would bet that 90% of the people under the age of 30 in SCCA have a family member involved in SCCA in one form or another. My 8yr old thinks that GT6's are the coolest car in the world, and he has only been around for a couple of months has not even been to a race yet.

I do not think that the for the most part the desire to shell out a minimum of 3k for a car 1k for safety stuff 2k for a season that exists of getting to run your car maybe 12 times for a grand total of about 12 hours is something most young adults are going to do, other things to spend their money on road racing is expensive at the entry level. Why do you think so many kids drag race, get a DOT helmet for 29.99 and go.

I think we need to spend less time trying to get the 20yr olds and pay closer attn to why we are loosing our market share to people like NASA and mark specific classes, what are they doing that makes people want to run there? You can't be all things to all people but the fact that there are classes like H#,American Iron ect proves that there is something wrong.

Catch22
02-02-2005, 12:53 PM
Originally posted by Knestis:
Mwah-hah-hah! (sinister, not hysterical)

Kirk (who hopes that it rains for 12 hours in WV the first weekend in June, so we can beat not only all of the other ITB cars but EVERYONE who took out their washer bottle and defogger.

K


You still have an upper left coast mindset in North Carolina Kirk.
Its called Rain X, and it works on both sides of the glass. No defrost/defog needed. And if its cold enough to have ice forming on the inside of the glass... The water in the washer bottle will be frozen too.

We need to discuss this over beerz. Its hard to get your point across on a web board.

I'm not saying that pass side glass and washer bottles will keep the younger folks out. I'm saying the resistance to change that is evident in the "If you allow washer bottles to be removed you'll get rules creep and eventually unlimited compression will be allowed" mindset will stagnate things and keep the younger crowd away.

And I agree Andy, to a degree. But it takes alot of time and money to keep a 30 year old race car looking good. A 7 year old one doesn't take so much. But Ohhhhhh... If we classify the 1996 Honda Civic DX in ITB then my 25 year old Rabbit will be uncompetitive. Change BAD! Change BAAADDDD!!!.

And when I refer to the younger crowd I'm not referring to the NOPI car show baggy pants and cocked cap crowd. I don't want those people anywhere near me.
But, if you've never been to a NASA event you're missing HUNDREDS of people in their 20s racing and doing HPDEs. Mostly in cars that are not IT classed. The ones that are classed at all aren't done competitively so.

Everyone I know that attends both NASA and SCCA events say that the one thing that sticks out the most to them is the age difference. While the SCCAs experience level is great, all of these people are going to eventually die. Given that, I think its a good idea to try to start taking some people from NASA.

A good start is to not be scared of rules changes, especially the easy ones, and to forget about trying to keep 25 year old cars competitive and move forward.

I own a 1991 model race car, and if I'm still driving it I EXPECT it to be uncompetitive by 2011. If its not, then there is something WRONG.
If you want the rules to keep cars competitive until they rust into dust, you are holding back the entire club. Sorry, its true.

cherokee
02-02-2005, 01:44 PM
Originally posted by Catch22:



And when I refer to the younger crowd I'm not referring to the NOPI car show baggy pants and cocked cap crowd. I don't want those people anywhere near me.
But, if you've never been to a NASA event you're missing HUNDREDS of people in their 20s racing and doing HPDEs. Mostly in cars that are not IT classed. The ones that are classed at all aren't done competitively so.

Everyone I know that attends both NASA and SCCA events say that the one thing that sticks out the most to them is the age difference. While the SCCAs experience level is great, all of these people are going to eventually die. Given that, I think its a good idea to try to start taking some people from NASA.


I own a 1991 model race car, and if I'm still driving it I EXPECT it to be uncompetitive by 2011. If its not, then there is something WRONG.
If you want the rules to keep cars competitive until they rust into dust, you are holding back the entire club. Sorry, its true.



I could not agree with you more. Why are they there? That is what needs to be fixed, and fixed quickly. Will it ruffle some fethers yep, but in the long run it will be better.

And I agree again I just built a 33yr old race car, however I think you can keep the old and the new together just not in 4 classes. I do not see what the big deal is over adding a class, I run at the same time as ITC and ITE cars. I see no difference if you have a class above ITS, I doubt it will be faster then the Viper and the Cobra R that I have to share the track with now.

racer-025
02-02-2005, 01:54 PM
This is one of the reasons why the Ontario Region of CASC as adopted the bracket racing rule to road racing. Basically "run what you brug", and they will stuff you into a class. Just dont go any faster than your class, or they will bump you into the next faster class. It seems to work for them.

Yes, I realize all the issues regarding "sand bagging" etc. but it seems to work. ie: if you want to race your GT1 Camaro in the same class as that young kid with the B16 Turbo Civic with his Super Touring wing - then Bob's your uncle.

I'm not suggesting for IT to go that route, but it sure eliminates all the politics, protests & policing in road racing...

ITANorm
02-02-2005, 02:14 PM
Interestingly enough, at the Convention last week, discussons evolved surrounding:
The loosening of regs in PDE's;
The possibility of "bracket" classing for road racing;
The additional exposure for the Club that would be afforded by a few well placed sponsorship links on tuner and marque websites (kids spend more time surfing than watching Speed Channel!);
Other topics.

You guys really should consider going - full registration, with the $65 a plate sandwich luncheons, is a bit expensive - but it's common knowledge that you don't have to register to attend the seminars (and the bar).

gsbaker
02-02-2005, 03:05 PM
Originally posted by cherokee:
I could not agree with you more. Why are they there? That is what needs to be fixed, and fixed quickly...

They are there because the SCCA has a rule book that weighs more than their sound system's amplifier. Seriously. Cars are fun and rules are boring. The two don't mix at that age.

The younger drivers are not going to spend Sundays in the hammock reviewing the Fastrack. If the time and money needed to follow the rules is minimal, they will do it. Otherwise, forget it. I know a guy who drag races his street car nearly every weekend. He could easily break 12 seconds, but if he did he'd have to install a cage, so he doesn't bother.

G

gsbaker
02-02-2005, 03:07 PM
Originally posted by Knestis:
Mwah-hah-hah! (sinister, not hysterical)

IT'S DR. EEEEVIL!!! http://Forum.ImprovedTouring.com/it/wink.gif

G

evanwebb
02-02-2005, 06:13 PM
I am in favor of changing the rules about washer bottle, door glass, battery placement, etc. because the current rules are goofy, not because I think that it will attract 20-somethings. Why do the rule changes only get discussed in that context? We are living with the mother of all screwups in the rule that say you can change out the ECU in your car as long as the new one fits is the old box. That's unnecessary, a completely insane escalation and completely unfair to prople with old cars and yet, it hasn't made IT go away, has it? Please, everyone raise a ruckus and let's get rid of that rule (just like they got rid of the remote reservoir shocks) and go back to the old way. Anyone who could afford to buy a Motec in the first place can afford to take a loss on it and sell it on Ebay to a ricer drag-racer. It is for the good of the category that ECU rule get rescinded. In comparison, the relatively simple proposed changes I mentioned are completely within the character and philosophy of IT.

ITSRX7
02-02-2005, 06:24 PM
These web-boards gererate good ideas and bad ideas. If anyone feels strongly about there idea, write an e-mail to the CRB and get ot on one of our agendas.

crb (at) scca.com

AB

------------------
Andy Bettencourt
New England Region R188967
www.flatout-motorsports.com (http://www.flatout-motorsports.com)

Bill Miller
02-02-2005, 08:46 PM
Andy,

Any luck finding that weight on the 2.0 16v Jetta?

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

lateapex911
02-02-2005, 09:04 PM
Originally posted by Catch22:



And I agree Andy, to a degree. But it takes alot of time and money to keep a 30 year old race car looking good. A 7 year old one doesn't take so much. But Ohhhhhh... If we classify the 1996 Honda Civic DX in ITB then my 25 year old Rabbit will be uncompetitive. Change BAD! Change BAAADDDD!!!.



First, yes, (duh) new stuff should be classed..we have four classes...lets use 'em!

But BS, on the old vs. new cost comparo. Not that simple. Old cars, popular ones can be very cheap due to the commonality and ease of getting inexpensive parts. New carfs can cost a ton ...it all depends.



A good start is to not be scared of rules changes, especially the easy ones, and to forget about trying to keep 25 year old cars competitive and move forward.

I own a 1991 model race car, and if I'm still driving it I EXPECT it to be uncompetitive by 2011. If its not, then there is something WRONG.
If you want the rules to keep cars competitive until they rust into dust, you are holding back the entire club. Sorry, its true.



No, it's not true.....

Nor should it be! We have 4 classes! Look,,...there are two basic ways to do this. First, establish performance parameters for each class, and add cars appropriately. New additions should not overrun the class...if they do, they were added incorrectly and need adjustment. OR, two, add the new cars, let the class performance escalate, and move the formerly "in the hunt" cars that have now become backmarkers down a class. Its EASY! A little weight adjustment can balance things nicely.

There is no reason to disenfranchise large groups of customers merely because they are driving cars whose age is not what you want. I think it's kinda cool to see a mix of origins and age all fighting it out ...we aren't pro racers, we aren't shilling for Volvo or BMW...there is no reason why we all can't race together effectively, and competitively.

As for moving the battery et al, ....why? It's more work, it is a post classification change (very bad), and it does cost money. Same for the defroster/heater core..what harm does it do? The rules allow the hose to be blocked if the fear of hot water is too great...Too much ado about nothing....



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

oanglade
02-02-2005, 09:35 PM
Originally posted by gran racing:
The issue with allowing some of these additional modifications is that it may cause unintended consequences. I realize that people would still have the option to keep the stuff as is, but the perception especially from new people would be that it should be done. The goal of IT is to provide people a relatively “easy” way to enter into racing and this just makes it slightly more complicated.




Just like the ECU rule...


------------------
Ony Anglade
ITA Miata
Sugar Hill, GA

zooracer
02-03-2005, 06:16 PM
Just my two cents as a newbie to road racing.
I actually think newer cars are more available/common then older ones. How often do you see an 80's GTI or rx-7 on the road? Same with 85 civic's?
On the other hand, you can find early 90's civics, sentras, etc. all over the place. Most of the kids these days are driving cars from the 90's, not the 80's.
So lets classify these cars competively in IT. If there is a slight advantage with the car, put some weight on it or something. Four classes is enough, just make adjustments within each class.
I also agree about the stupidity of keeping wipers and heaters and such on the cars. If it doesnt cost anything, and there is no measureable performance advantage, why not allow it's removal (or substitution, like the wiring harness for the 240z)?
I really think its the rigidity of the SCCA that makes NASA so attractive to youngsters.
matt

Russ Myers
02-03-2005, 09:23 PM
Face it, Everyone wants to be God. "We will make this class in MY image. everything the way I want it." Folks, not every one wants the same things as every one else. I personally want to see all fuel injected cars and ECU's bannished from the earth so that my carb'ed beast doesn't swallow even more bucks. I want all "R" compound tires burned in a large pile (environmental effects noted) because they are expensive. I want my 25 year old Fiesta to be competitive for many years to come so I can finish putting my son through school, remodel the kitchen, and save a little for my retirement, and not sink large capital outlays into the NEW car of the year. I want other rule changes made, but I realize that most, if not all, will never be acted upon, so I work on my POS Mk.I JALOPY as best as time and funds allow, go to the track and enjoy myself. I like to win as much as the next guy, but even running around in last is more fun than leaning on the fence watching.
The SCCA is a wonderful playground. There is really something for all. GT racing for serious deep pocket racers, Prod racing for modifiers, SS racing for those who want the latest NEW, NEW, NEW, cars, but don't want to work real hard at working on them. Form cars, Sports racers, etc. a veritable smorgasbord of car types. IT racing was really a place foe old retired SS cars to have a place to play because those SS racers didn't have the money to buy any more NEW cars. Remember, SS cars were only good for three years back then. But some people want the class remade the way they think is best(for them). As to the tag line "real race cars don't have washer bottles", well, THESE AIN'T REAL RACE CARS. At least they weren't supposed to be. They weren't ment to be. It's a cheap place for folks to play at the track.
Now let me qualify this by saying that I have spent large sums at this racing thing. People told me that SS racing was oh so cheap. One year of nationals and a trip to the Runoffs later, and I was seriously broke. So, of course, I bought a C Prod Datsun. Thank goodness I got married, bought a house, had kids, and got a divorce, or I would have been in real financial trouble. Running against the factories in that beast was tons o'fun, but you talk about money, WOW!
I guess what it is , is that many of us have seen class after class, group after group, slowly, but surly, RUINED by what is now known as rules creep. Sedan became GT, Prod cars are now just mini-GT's, my really cheap SS car is now a really expensive top of the line wonder toy(I knew people who caced National's with $2000 Pintos and WON, Try that now). Find one group(IT) set the rules up, AND LEAVE THEM ALONE FOR AT LEAST TWENTY YEARS. For those who want to tinker, there are many other places to play, and Godspeed to ya. But please, leave just one group alone so those of us with not really much money to spend on race cars can have some place to play too.

Russ Myers
ITC Ford Fiesta

Ron Earp
02-03-2005, 10:10 PM
Call me a stupid newbie but why does removing the silly washer bottle or heater core rule mean that 13:1 compresion and $3,000 ported heads are coming?

Can't we fix a few of the "silly" rules that we all agree hvae no real purpose or is a safety issue (who really likes having a glass in their passenger door?) and call it a day?

Ron

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

zooracer
02-03-2005, 10:44 PM
well, you keep saying the words "cheap" throughout, and I completely agree with you on this. I wouldnt even mind if the allowable modifications were even more restrictive (like no bump of half a point in compression, or porting half inch in, or even R tires). Wouldnt it be great if we all had to run toyo's or some such?
But, if removing a washer bottle cost's nothing, then doesnt it meet your criteria of "cheap"?
Also, I also really want your 25 year old car to still be competitive in it's class. Adjusting weights within each class would fix this (just like the pro classes do). This way, a 90's model could race with your fiesta, and both be somewhat equal in performance.
But, the lack of flexibility is hurting us here. Ask any business owner about flexibility. If you cannot adjust to the times, you will not succeed.
matt

Geo
02-03-2005, 11:40 PM
Originally posted by Russ Myers:
Face it, Everyone wants to be God. "We will make this class in MY image. everything the way I want it." Folks, not every one wants the same things as every one else.

Boy howdy.


Originally posted by Russ Myers:
Prod cars are now just mini-GT's

Funny you should mention that. Production cars are what GT cars were at the start. Anybody remember Tom Davey's three straight GT3 championships with his Sciroccos? GT went to hell not long after when they started allowing those tube framed "funny cars."


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

Catch22
02-04-2005, 01:20 AM
<sigh>

As so well pointed out above, some flexibility in IT is the ONLY hope for 25 year old Fiestas remaining competitive with newer Hondas and such in ITC.
And if you don't classify newer Hondas and such in ITC, within 10 years there WILL BE NO ITC!!! Who is going to race in this class when all of you Fiesta and 510 drivers are dead or in wheelchairs??? It sounds brutal, but its a question that needs an answer. The generations that are coming behind you don't even know what a Fiesta is.

Change does not automatically mean a disaster.
Flexibility does not automatically mean rules creep.
But I will say that I DO now understand how IT became such a mad disaster over the last few years. Man. Its almost hard to believe. What do some of you guys do for a living and has it not changed in the last 20 years??? How do your companies survive?

Nobody is asking for 14/1 compression motors, unlimited attachment cages, carbon fiber body panels, and free cams, so calm down a little.
As a matter of fact, I'd LOVE it if motors were required stock compression and stock heads. No port matching, no valve jobs, no 1/2 point compression bumps. Stock final drives... Hell YEAH!!!
But those rules are there and allowed and its wayyyy too late to change that stuff.

What gets me is this...
Whats more reasonable for a class thats supposed to be relatively budget minded and easy to get involved with... Ripping out the wiper/washer bottle or allowing $1500 custom cut final drives???
Amazingly, we can spend a months house payment on a final drive, but we can't kick the wiper/washer bottle to the curb to make it easier to run brake ducts (cost... zero).

Change, if properly managed, is good.
Flexibility, managed, is even better.
Really.
It is.
Honest.

------------------
#22 ITC Honda Civic
3rd Place 2004 ARRC
1st Place 2004 ARRC Enduro

Geo
02-04-2005, 09:13 AM
Originally posted by Catch22:
But I will say that I DO now understand how IT became such a mad disaster over the last few years.

Can you explain to me how IT has become such a mad disaster? I must have missed it.

IMHO when you add up all the changes various people are suggesting, essentially what we would be left with as a different between IT and productin is engine, slicks, lexan instead of glass (and that would probably be argued on safety grounds), and cages attached to the front strut towers (and that would be argued for as how much can 2 2' sections of tubing cost?).

The fact is, there is already a category set up with all these rules some people seem to want. And if you have a car allowed in Production as limited prep, the engines aren't that much more expensive. For instance, for the 944 there are essentially 3 things I can do to the engine I cannot in IT: cam, adjustable cam sprocket (and these have been requested for IT), and alternate rods. I can already shave the head and install alternate pistons. Head prep is otherwise the same.


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

gran racing
02-04-2005, 10:09 AM
There are a few discussions here that need some separation. For some of the points being made people are arguing with…I’m not sure who.

Should SCCA classify newer cars within the existing classes? Yes of course. Has anyone objected to this? And it can be done without disrupting the existing cars as others have stated. Why can’t the old Volvos race against the newly classed Golfs and work? Of course it can. It does not matter what year the car is only its performance potential. Stop getting hung up on the year that precedes the vehicle model. Older cars are great to have classed competitively. (As I look at the classified section and see an ’88 Honda Accord Lxi listed for $1,000 running well with a parts car.) Again, I think we are all in agreement that SCCA needs to continue classing newer cars.

About removing stuff from IT cars that is free. When do we draw the line? Washer bottles, fine. Since it was asked, I for one like having the passenger side window. What about cruise control stuff? The dash wouldn’t cost anything to gut. There are bunches of free things that can be done but for what purpose? Most new people to the sport look at what modifications are allowed. Although these modifications are not required, people will perceive that it really should be done. Change is good, but it needs to be controlled.

------------------
Dave Gran
NER ITB #13
'87 Honda Prelude si

Catch22
02-04-2005, 12:41 PM
And if you have a car allowed in Production as limited prep, the engines aren't that much more expensive. For instance, for the 944 there are essentially 3 things I can do to the engine I cannot in IT: cam, adjustable cam sprocket (and these have been requested for IT), and alternate rods.

Yeah, and one can easily drop $1000 on a custom cam. You can potentially add $2k to the price of limited prep prod motor over an fully built IT motor.
And don't forget stuff like $5000 Houseman gear boxes. Thats allowed in limited prep... You know that? Right?
Flared alternate fender panels...
The list is pretty big, even in limited prep.

So don't confuse someone who thinks passenger side glass and washer bottles are stupid with someone who wants to spend another $10K on their car to go Prod racing. Thats just ridiculous.

Should SCCA classify newer cars within the existing classes? Yes of course. Has anyone objected to this? And it can be done without disrupting the existing cars as others have stated.

No Dave. Its pretty much the same argument. All of these things end up being under the same umbrella in the end.
Say for example its the year 2011, and there are a bunch of new 2000 to 2005 model cars in ITC. In order to help me remain competitive, the Board does me a big favor and removes 75lbs from my little 1991 Honda Civic.
Now, thats just awesome. Only problem is... Where is that going to come from?
Well, it could come from the useless things that I'm required to keep right now. Heater core, passenger glass. Thats not 75 lbs, but its a start.

The ITAC is currently using power to weight as a big part of classing cars. Thats a great idea, but why not add more ways to get down to that weight (without skimping on cage, which unfortunately some people do).
Lexan... Sure. Make it legal in IT. If the minimum weights stay the same what damned difference does it make??? The people that need help getting down to minimum weight have another tool to get there, the people who are already there, like me, skip it because we don't need it.

And if it can be argued that a couple of extra cage points or tubes running to the shock towers REALLY IS actually safer, then we should be allowed to do it. Period.
Who is going to argue against that?

The people here that are scared of change are going to be scared of anything that doesn't directly help them. How can anybody possibly argue against the removal of the washer bottle unless its just that they fear any change in general?
Its a friggin washer bottle, it serves no purpose in a race car, it costs nothing to remove, and its right where I want to put my left brake duct. Why should I keep it? Because removing that bottle will result in Improved Touring Anarchy???
C'mon guys. Seriously.

gran racing
02-04-2005, 01:23 PM
I don't disagree with the washer bottle.

Send in your letter to the board...

------------------
Dave Gran
NER ITB #13
'87 Honda Prelude si

Russ Myers
02-04-2005, 01:24 PM
It(the washer bottle, door glass, etc.) should stay because this is in the phylosophy of the class. This is how it was laid down from the begining. To change this is to change the PHILOSOPHY and it wouldn't be Improved Touring anymore. It would just be Production Lite.

Russ

itracer
02-04-2005, 01:53 PM
Originally posted by Russ Myers:
It(the washer bottle, door glass, etc.) should stay because this is in the phylosophy of the class. This is how it was laid down from the begining. To change this is to change the PHILOSOPHY and it wouldn't be Improved Touring anymore. It would just be Production Lite.

Russ

And we could all run vintage.

Showroom stock has evolved.

It is time for IT to evolve. As long as it does not impact the philosophic idea that it is a good place to start and a good place to race.

I think that the ITAC is doing a good job at evolving, but I think that they need the encouragement to keep going.


------------------
Jason
ITB 17 (NER SCCA)
VW Scirocco

Andy Bettencourt
02-04-2005, 02:06 PM
Let me give you my thoughts on the washer bottle issue specifically.

I am NOT in support of the stance that 'it is in my way, so I think we should be able to move it'. I really don't care that someone can't run brake ducts because the car they chose is prohibiting the facilitation. That certainly shouldn't motivate a rule change.

I am in support of a change based on the fact that some IT classes (specifically ITB and ITC) are aging rapidly. These classes have tons of cars where parts like this are very hard to find. This would help keep old cars on the legal side of the fence.

Having said that, when do we start to phase out cars like that? In order to keep IT fresh and attractive, new cars must come in. The technology is such that a trickle-downwould have to happen. We can do our best to help the old compete with the new, but it would be handicapping the new in order to keep the old competitive. Any comp adjustments to the old would be against class philosophy and impossible to manage.

It's an interesting philisophical discussion when you drill down a little.

AB

------------------
Andy Bettencourt
New England Region, R188967

www.flatout-motorsports.com (http://www.flatout-motorsports.com)

mustanghammer
02-04-2005, 02:57 PM
From Catch22

The ITAC is currently using power to weight as a big part of classing cars. Thats a great idea, but why not add more ways to get down to that weight (without skimping on cage, which unfortunately some people do).
Lexan... Sure. Make it legal in IT. If the minimum weights stay the same what damned difference does it make??? The people that need help getting down to minimum weight

have another tool to get there, the people who are already there, like me, skip it because we don't need it.

And if it can be argued that a couple of extra cage points or tubes running to the shock towers REALLY IS actually safer, then we should be allowed to do it. Period.
Who is going to argue against that?

Catch,

Not me. I am living this scenario right now. I just completed a refit of my cage and have purposely left out tubes that I know can make a difference in safety and stiffness. Why? Because of the extra weight.

IT cars are RACECARS and requiring pass. door glass, washer bottles, headlights, wiring for crusie control, etc makes NO SENSE. We are not building dual purpose steet/Racecars and most are also not converting old SS cars to IT either.

If the fact that IT 'could' become a Production Lite if we are allowed to remove unnecceassary brick-a-brake from our cars....then so what? If you can't tell the difference between an E Prod racer and it an equvilant IT Racer then you don't know much about cars. I share shop space with a really good E Prod RX7 and the reason why his car cost 3 times what mine does (and my IT car ain't no slouch) has NOTHING to do with alternate battery location, missing door glass or MIA washer bottles.

IT cars are spec'd by weight. The IT rules now allow balasting. What difference does it make how I make weight it the important aspects of an IT car are maintained? You know, stock engine, stock running gear, Stock suspension components, Spec wheel sizes, limited cage constuction, stock bodies, stock brakes....etc etc etc.




------------------
Scott Peterson
KC Region
IT7 #17

Greg Amy
02-04-2005, 03:00 PM
<font face=\"Verdana, Arial\" size=\"2\">...when do we start to phase out cars like that?</font>

Here's something to get everyone's panties in a twaddle.

When Improved Touring was formed, in 1983, the idea was to give someplace for the old showroom stock cars to go play before they got moved to Production (I know this, I was there). To facilitate that, nothing older than 1968 was allowed in the category.

Chew on that: 15 years old, maximum.

As time progressed, no one ever thought to adjust that rule, and today - over twenty years after IT's inception - We're trying to pigeon-hole 35-year-old cars into IT instead of moving them to Production as was originally intended.

So, those of you purists insisting that we retain the "original philosophy and purpose" of the class, better be careful what you wish for. Because if we cling to that I must insist we place a 15 year moratorium on car classifications; that means effective immediately, anything older than 1990 is outta here and into Production... GA

cherokee
02-04-2005, 03:49 PM
I think that IT is no longer a place for SS cars go go when they die. This is now the entry class for SCCA road racing. We have people that still want to build 35 year old cars, thats the car that they picked, that is the car that they want to drive and they want to start in IT perhaps never move up to Prod, not everyone wants to race a jelly bean. Now that some of these old cars have some very hard to find parts and are in pretty bad repair when we get them what is the harm in removing any of the parts above. Who gives a lick if there is no washer bottle, other wireing, no passanger window as long as the minimum weight is met. The weight is the bottom line right...that is what I have been "lead" to believe. The original intent went out the window long ago when shocks,computers,passanger seats,wheel sizes and who knows what else was changed

BTW anybody got a washerbottle for an Opel GT laying around http://Forum.ImprovedTouring.com/it/smile.gif

Joe Harlan
02-04-2005, 03:56 PM
ALlowing old cars to fade away is gonna happen. The key is not bringing in cars in an overdog fasion to kill them and not keeping new cars from being competitive. I see some of the new rules being able to do that. If you have reasonable bench marks in every class then we should over a short period be able to adjust to that bench mark quickly. I woek on a lot of 240z's they will not last forever even if the E36 wasn't in the picture. We are running out of factory parts. That will force them off to vintage or production one day but the ones that stick around and are willing to spend the money to stay competitive should be able to as a benchmark. We can't have what we had with the Miata's in ITS that would never be competitive just left to go off and have to start a private class. These spec classes are born out of a need to be competitive and if the miata's and the RX7's had of been treated correctly they would all be IT cars not spec cars.

Matt Rowe
02-04-2005, 04:16 PM
Originally posted by GregAmy:
So, those of you purists insisting that we retain the "original philosophy and purpose" of the class, better be careful what you wish for. Because if we cling to that I must insist we place a 15 year moratorium on car classifications; that means effective immediately, anything older than 1990 is outta here and into Production... GA

Well, I'm sure I'm not a purist, but I would be careful with that 15 year argument. Recent statements in Fast Track have shown the PAC and the CRB is unwilling to classify older cars, they to are trying to inject new sheet metal (fiberglass?) into the class. So if we were to start enforcing the 15 year rule in IT then there will be a lot of old race cars sent for the scrap yard. Not that I think, or hope, that Greg is proposing to get rid of those cars.

Probably the best we can do is stick to the "no guarantee you'll be competitive" statement and the less capable cars will eventually fade away. I don't see that increasing the number of classes is good in the long run. It dilutes the number of competitors and adds one more performance envelope to manage to. I don't envy the job the ITAC has in keeping that performance envelope intact but the recent years have certainly been more confidence inspiring.

Also, keep in mind that we currently have a range of car prep limited by SS on one end and Production on the other. Limited prep rules for production has significantly shortened that range. Pushing too close to SS isn't likely but moving too close the limited prep starts to make us unnecessary and obsolete. Yes, we must adapt to survive, but adapt doesn't automatically mean opening up the rules.


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

Catch22
02-04-2005, 05:00 PM
"Yes, we must adapt to survive, but adapt doesn't automatically mean opening up the rules.

See, I think this is where the disconnect exists.
I don't think anybody in either of these threads is arguing for "opening up the rules." What some people want is to eliminate the ones they feel are just plain dumb and useless.

There is a HUGE difference between "opening" up the rules and "cleaning" up the rules.

To me, all of this comes under the umbrellas of willingness to change and flexibility. I see no difference in the willingness to move the '87 CRX Si to ITB and the willingness to get rid of dumb, outdated rules. Both have value.

What does change and flexibilty buy you???
Well, I can PROMISE you that if the current state of IT (with open communication, cars getting reclassed and restrictor plates being added to overdogs) existed 4 to 5 years ago there would be no NASA Honda Challenge (NASAs most popular race class, by far). That competition to SCCA club racing wouldn't even exist. Those classes were created mainly to give the unclassed and misclassed Hondas in IT (94+ Integra RS/LS, 1st gen CRX/Civic Si, 92+ Civic EX/Si, etc.) a place to competitively race. Back then, writing a request to reclass some of these cars got you either no response or a terse "car is correct as classed." and you were done.
So what we do? We did what most people do when nobody will adjust unfair rules in a game and won't even listen to your argument... We created our own game. And in the first year we had an average of 21 cars per race take the green flag.
21 doesn't sound like a big number, but it is when you consider that...
1. It didn't even EXIST one year before
2. It was nothing but IT type prepped Hondas.
Thats 21 cars per race that were there for one reason and one reason only... SCCA was unflexible and wouldn't listen.

Now they do listen, and guess what??? IT is starting to steal some Honda Challenge drivers BACK from NASA. Go figure.

In the long term, these things matter and they matter alot. Keep that in mind when you start thinking that heater core removal will result in anarchy. It won't, and that attitude in general is bad for the club.

Knestis
02-04-2005, 05:03 PM
The problem is that, wherever the line in the sand gets drawn, it is arbitrary.

In and of themselves, washer bottles don't make any sense. Neither does the requirement for stock wiring harnesses. Neither does the passenger window. Neither does the glass in the rear doors of 4-door cars. Neither does the side backseat glass of 2-doors. Neither does the rear glass. I can't find a windshield for my Cortina, so it only makes sense that I should be able to use Lexan like other real race cars. Fenders are NLA, too so...

This is a completely different isssue from classifying new cars, or aging old ones out. We need to be careful to separate the two.

K

OTLimit
02-04-2005, 05:07 PM
For the life of me, I can't see what the big deal is about the passenger door window glass being a safety issue. If your car is legal, it's either behind the stock door panel or sheet metal, right?

Heater cores don't bother me since you can already plug them, but I can tell you that Chris will likely never remove one from an IT car even if it is allowed. He took it out of the GP car (weight) and has regretted it several times.

And I really don't care if you remove you washer bottle or not.

(And with a huge dose of sarcasm) If you didn't like the rules for IT, why did you build one to begin with?

Now, it's Friday afternoon, it's beautiful outside, and I'm going home to play with my dogs while Chris works on getting the B car ready for it's first race of the year. Everyone take a deep breath and enjoy the weekend.


------------------
Lesley Albin
Over The Limit Racing
Blazen Golden Retrievers

cherokee
02-04-2005, 05:52 PM
Ya but I am stuck at work till 5pm and there is nothing better to do http://Forum.ImprovedTouring.com/it/smile.gif

I am glad to hear that people are coming to SCCA from NASA. That shows me that SCCA is fixing some problems. These are the customers that we need to get back.

RFloyd
02-04-2005, 06:29 PM
Originally posted by Russ Myers:
It(the washer bottle, door glass, etc.) should stay because this is in the phylosophy of the class. This is how it was laid down from the begining. To change this is to change the PHILOSOPHY and it wouldn't be Improved Touring anymore. It would just be Production Lite.


To quote Col. Potter, "Horsehockey!"

If anyone even thinks that allowing the removal of washer bottles, pass. window glass, and heater cores will somehow be changing the "philosophy" of IT, PLEASE, PLEASE PLEASE explain how anyone could justify allowing alternate ECU's, custom FD units, limited slips, port matched heads, and open exhausts?

That, I think, is part of what Catch is trying to say. To imply that common sense allowances, NONE of which enhance performance, NONE of which are mandatory in order to be allowed to compete, and NONE of which COST ANYTHING, yet allow people to buy $1500 MOTEC systems and justify it by saying "well, we can't stop people from cheating in that manner because we can't check everyone, so we better open up the rules" is just silly. It is NOT RULES CREEP. It's not even a matter of allowing the same level of change in some areas of the car that is allowed in other areas, because in some ways the horses are already out of the barn (ecu, blueprinted engines, port matched heads, LSD's, alternate FD's, etc) but it's just a matter of applying the same logic that makes some things OK (removing all interior panels, gutting dash, removing the AC, etc) to other things (washer bottle, rear wiper, heater core, side window glass).

Where do we draw the line?

You can resolve a lot of these issues by making sure that whatever change is made complied with these 2 criteria:

It costs little or nothing (as dumping a washer bottle, heater core, rear wiper, or passenger door glass doesn't cost the person throwing them in the trash a dime, just a little effort - OK, maybe a little square of metal riveted over a hope where the wiper was, but hey - not a perfect world, right?)

Makes no improvement in vehicle performance. I mean seriously people. I really would like someone to show me how losing 10 pounds in the passenger door makes any sort of measureable performance increase, and then convince me that that .001 second improvement in lap time outweighs the safety benefit of not having a bunch of glass 3 feet away from me inside the car. Washer bottle, rear wiper, heater core? Oh yeh, there's an unfair advantage for someone who runs without one of those... http://Forum.ImprovedTouring.com/it/rolleyes.gif

If something cannot be deemed to be in accordance with those two criteria, then it should not be considered. This is just common sense folks.

BTW, you guys on the ITAC are doing one hell'ova good job. Everything you've done so far rules wise I think is great, and highly appreciated.

------------------
Richard Floyd
'86 Acura Integra LS #90
SCCA ITA / NASA ECHC H5

RFloyd
02-04-2005, 06:37 PM
Originally posted by OTLimit:
For the life of me, I can't see what the big deal is about the passenger door window glass being a safety issue. If your car is legal, it's either behind the stock door panel or sheet metal, right?

You're right. The stock door panel will do a wonderful job of containing that glass in a side impact. Why bother finding a better way? :sarcasm off:

I have $100 for the person who can show me how it is cheaper to buy a 2'x3' sheet of aluminum to cover that door than it it would cost to just remove the glass altogether. Put that in you pipe, you "escalating costs, rules creep" Chicken Littles! http://Forum.ImprovedTouring.com/it/wink.gif http://Forum.ImprovedTouring.com/it/wink.gif



------------------
Richard Floyd
'86 Acura Integra LS #90
SCCA ITA / NASA ECHC H5

RFloyd
02-04-2005, 06:43 PM
Originally posted by OTLimit:
And I really don't care if you remove you washer bottle or not.

But someone who cares about being legal does.


<font face=\"Verdana, Arial\" size=\"2\">(And with a huge dose of sarcasm) If you didn't like the rules for IT, why did you build one to begin with? </font>

You're right. We should all just shut up, be content, and never try to do anything that we feel would make things better. Who the hell do we think we are? http://Forum.ImprovedTouring.com/it/rolleyes.gif

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

------------------
Richard Floyd
'86 Acura Integra LS #90
SCCA ITA / NASA ECHC H5

[This message has been edited by RFloyd (edited February 04, 2005).]

Russ Myers
02-04-2005, 07:04 PM
Lawyers have a phrase that they use(yeah, I know, lawyers, ugh!) when arguing cases that might have an effect on a precedent. They refer to "the slippery slope". I don't say the rules are good, I don't say they are bad,ut they are the rules. I think if you do not have a stock ECU in your car you are not legal(in the spirit of IT). Vintage racing has been mentioned, well, the grids at a vintage meet are lousy with old SCCA racers who didn't want (or couldn't afford) to update their cars every time the CRB heard that this or that was cheaper, safer, etc. As we have seen with Form Ford, Prod, Sedan nee,GT when you start down the slippery slope...well.
Isn't it interesting that the two most popular classes with the largest car counts every year are Spec Racer and FV, the two classes with, FOR THE MOST PART, the most stable rules package in all of racing. Spec Miata could be this way too, but already, people know in their hearts how to "improve" the class, how to make it better, how to shape it in their image. What's wrong with it now? Car counts are through the roof. Competition is tight and fantastic. I guess that is really not good enough.
In 1983, when IT started, car counts were large. Many competed throughout the land. But can you tell me that the same exist today. Fields are alot shorter now.
As the practicioners of juris prudence are wont to say, once you start down that slippery slope, who knows where you will end up. No first or forth ammendment rights, or thinly disguised prod cars. I myself would like to leave well enough alone.

Oh, by the way, it has been said that it dosen't cost anything to remove this stuff. Well, it dosen't cost anything to leave it on the car, either.

Russ

Russ Myers
02-04-2005, 07:23 PM
More thoughts on rules etc. I am not so stogy(if that is the word) that I say all change is bad. But even in IT, rules creep is a fact of life. In 1983, these were really chaeted up SS cars. They had interiors, carpets, headliners (boy, do I remember the stink over that one), license tags, and (GASP) passenger seats!!! All gone now. Threaded collars on shocks, hearsey back in the day. I want FF heads allowed for little Fords because federal heads are gittin' scarce, oh well. So I'll see y'all at the bottom.


Russ

lateapex911
02-04-2005, 08:17 PM
Originally posted by mustanghammer:
From Catch22

The ITAC is currently using power to weight as a big part of classing cars. Thats a great idea, but why not add more ways to get down to that weight (without skimping on cage, which unfortunately some people do).
Lexan... Sure. Make it legal in IT. If the minimum weights stay the same what damned difference does it make??? The people that need help getting down to minimum weight

have another tool to get there, the people who are already there, like me, skip it because we don't need it.



Sreeeeeech! Hold on there....if you allow it, and ONE guy does it, EVERY one will have to...just to keep the status quo.

Think about it for a second...how much does all the glass in a car weigh? Lets WAG it at 40 lbs. Now, who wouldn't want to remove 40 lbs from essentially 12" under the roof, largely concentrated at the perimeter of the car, and put it wherever they need it? (I know....legally, "ballast" has to be mounted in a specific spot...but it rarely winds up there as blocks of lead,if you know what I mean....) Before you reply that most guys won't go to the trouble, just look at how many spend HOURS scaping and freezing and burning undercoating off the car to save what...40 pounds? Forty pounds that is already LOWER than where the ballast is required to be mounted! But they do it anyway, and you can be damned sure that they day lexan is allowed, hundreds of IT guys will trudge to the garage, glass removal tools in hand.




IT cars are RACECARS



Actually, they are not. They are production based street cars that are prepped for racing. A racing car is one that was designed from the outset to compete. The Radical, and of course all the Formula car designs are real race cars.




IT cars are spec'd by weight. The IT rules now allow ballasting. What difference does it make how I make weight it the important aspects of an IT car are maintained?




See above, but post classification changes must be made carefully


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

[This message has been edited by lateapex911 (edited February 04, 2005).]

lateapex911
02-04-2005, 08:31 PM
Originally posted by cherokee:
I think that IT is no longer a place for SS cars go go when they die. This is now the entry class for SCCA road racing. We have people that still want to build 35 year old cars, thats the car that they picked, that is the car that they want to drive and they want to start in IT perhaps never move up .... Now that some of these old cars have some very hard to find parts and are in pretty bad repair when we get them what is the harm in removing any of the parts above. Who gives a lick if there is no washer bottle, other wireing, no passanger window as long as the minimum weight is met. The weight is the bottom line right...that is what I have been "lead" to believe.


First, if you decide to race a car, it behooves you to do due diligence. It is NOT a decision to be made lightly...only a fool would argue otherwise. And in that due diligence, you will be told time and again by those more experienced in the category, a lot of truths, one of which will be to choose a popular car, that has plenty of brothers still on the road, or at least in folks back yards, (LOL) so there is a steady stream of parts to keep the racecar going. Choosing to race an old or limited prodution car is done for the love of it, and there are concessions that go with that decision. You makes your choices and you takes your chances...



The original intent went out the window long ago when shocks,computers,passanger seats,wheel sizes and who knows what else was changed



This is an illogical conclusion. The orginal intent is to keep your car dent free. When you get a crease in the fender, do you run around the car with a sledgehammer because the original intent has been lost? Of course not!

Mistakes have surely been made along the way...but using them as reasoning arguments falls short in my book.

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

[This message has been edited by lateapex911 (edited February 04, 2005).]

lateapex911
02-04-2005, 08:37 PM
Originally posted by RFloyd:
You're right. We should all just shut up, be content, and never try to do anything that we feel would make things better. Who the hell do we think we are? http://Forum.ImprovedTouring.com/it/rolleyes.gif

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



Or.....deal with it, be a little creative, and use the offending washer bottle as your required overflow/catch can of greater than 1 qt size capacity.....kills two birds with one stone.



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

Geo
02-04-2005, 10:43 PM
Oh God, I'm probably going to regret this, but what the hell....

Complaining about $2k for a cam, cam gear and a couple of other things? Yet wanting to have open wiring harnesses in IT that will end up costing $2-5k? Don't believe me? Price out a professionally designed and built racing wiring harness with mil-spec connectors and all. Oh, yes, you don't have to do this right? Neither do you need to spend $5k on a gearbox in limited prep Production.

Let's look again at all the things being thrown out here:

Remove headlights
Remove door glass
Replace other glass with Polycarbonate
Open wiring harness
Open ECU (to be fair this is actually see both extremes and in between)
Cages tied to the front strut towers
Removal of dashes
Removal of WW bottles
Relocated batteries
and more...

This is all legal in Production. Why not just go Production racing?

I truly don't understand the logic of turning IT into Production with slightly de-tuned engines and gearboxes.


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

Catch22
02-04-2005, 10:57 PM
if you allow it, and ONE guy does it, EVERY one will have to...just to keep the status quo.

Well, you are just plain WRONG.
I can promise you I wouldn't do it. Why???
1. I don't need to lose any weight from my car.
2. It costs money and it gains me nothing.
3. The current placement of that weight is no worse than the LEGAL alternate placement in a block of lead... In the front of the passenger side floor.
I'd rather have it in the back thanks.
4. It gets scratched up easily, and I gain nothing from it.

RFloyd did a good job of condensing what I've been trying to say. I owe you a cold Sammie Floyd. Thanks.

BTW - I wouldn't even remove my heater core. If I did I'd just have to replace it with lead. The wiper bottle I DO currently use for a catch can, so I likely wouldn't remove it either. I will admit that I would remove the passenger glass though, more than any other glass on the car it is just begging to get shattered.

And to answer the question above about what not requiring that door glass gains you...

1. Its just that much less glass that might need to be cleaned up (that aluminum cover can get bent and mangled in a side impact).
2. Its a useless piece that I don't have to replace if it gets broken.
3. Removing that glass is easier and cheaper than fabbing/buying an aluminum cover for the door.

Maybe instead of allowing us to remove the passenger side glass we should be required to tape it up to keep it from making a mess in a crash (please note that this is sarcasm).

Catch22
02-04-2005, 11:02 PM
Complaining about $2k for a cam, cam gear and a couple of other things? Yet wanting to have open wiring harnesses in IT that will end up costing $2-5k? Don't believe me? Price out a professionally designed and built racing wiring harness with mil-spec connectors and all. Oh, yes, you don't have to do this right? Neither do you need to spend $5k on a gearbox in limited prep Production.

Oh c'mon George. You can do better than that. One makes the car nicer and easier to work on, the other makes it faster, significantly so, on the racetrack.

If you read the other thread you'll see I personally am against the wiring harness thing. I think THATS where you get into stuff thats hard to police and where people will cheat.
You can't compare stuff like this to thinking that being required to keep the passenger side glass (when the rules state that the window MUST be open by the way) is just plain dumb.

Geo
02-04-2005, 11:58 PM
My point is that you want all those things to be legal in IT but for some reason you don't want to race in a class where they already are.

I don't get it.


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

RSTPerformance
02-05-2005, 12:44 AM
Originally posted by RFloyd:
I have $100 for the person who can show me how it is cheaper to buy a 2'x3' sheet of aluminum to cover that door than it it would cost to just remove the glass altogether. Put that in you pipe, you "escalating costs, rules creep" Chicken Littles! http://Forum.ImprovedTouring.com/it/wink.gif http://Forum.ImprovedTouring.com/it/wink.gif




I left it stock. No time involved to take the glass out. Time equals money. Since I left it stock with my stock door panel I have done nothing, spent zero dollars and zero time and it is equally safe.

You owe me $100.00

Stephen Blethen

I accept Paypal please see my website www.rstperformance.com (http://www.rstperformance.com) and scroll to the bottom. I have provided you with a link for my paypal account.

924Guy
02-05-2005, 09:17 AM
Originally posted by Geo:
My point is that you want all those things to be legal in IT but for some reason you don't want to race in a class where they already are.

I don't get it.



Simply - because nobody races in Prod!!! OK, so I can't speak for everyone here, but I know that I, in spite of having not one but TWO classes in which I could run my car in Prod, cannot see running there in the forseeable future - cause I like competition!!! I'm really looking forward to moving back to B - cause I'll have even more cars to race than in A, and I'll be closer to them! Even though it's a "slower" class.

I do also think the $5k wiring harness argument is rather stretching it - kinda like arguing RR shocks are a safety item. Remember that line? Sure, reliability makes you competitive (or at least keeps you there) - but I fail to believe that spending $5k on an outsourced wiring harness for my car would make be any faster or more reliable than my own talents rebuilding my own wiring harness from the old connectors and parts and supplies I can find at Home Depot/Lowe's.

It's been stated here that we're aiming at things that are cheap and easy - removal of unnecessary parts and adequate leeway in repairs. I'll propose another standard by which to judge suggested rule changes here: The kind of repairs a college student would do to his 15-yr-old daily driver just to keep it running. I'd say that's not a half-bad analog for our situation.

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

Russ Myers
02-05-2005, 09:23 AM
Mr. Vaughn,
My point exactly. The more you make IT like Prod, The less cars you have. Why do we need Prod Lite?

Russ

mlytle
02-05-2005, 09:50 AM
Originally posted by Joe Harlan:
I woek on a lot of 240z's they will not last forever even if the E36 wasn't in the picture. We are running out of factory parts. That will force them off to vintage or production one day but the ones that stick around and are willing to spend the money to stay competitive should be able to as a benchmark.

what is the age break to be eligible for vintage racing? it would not be very forward thinking to hold a vintage eligible car up as the benchmark for any it class.

Ron Earp
02-05-2005, 11:03 AM
<font face=\"Verdana, Arial\" size=\"2\">I do also think the $5k wiring harness argument is rather stretching it - kinda like arguing RR ........ but I fail to believe that spending $5k on an outsourced wiring harness for my car would make be any faster or more reliable than my own talents rebuilding my own wiring harness from the old connectors and parts and supplies</font>

Amen. George likes to pull out the old "$5k wiring harness" everytime the wiring harness dicussion comes up but it just doesn't hold water. People will spend $5k to have someone strip their car and paint it for them too, but it doesn't make them any faster and repeating it on multiple threads doesn't make it truth.



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

Catch22
02-05-2005, 11:30 AM
Originally posted by Geo:
My point is that you want all those things to be legal in IT but for some reason you don't want to race in a class where they already are.

I don't get it.


Really?
You don't get it?
Really?

So, your position is that anyone who thinks keeping the passenger side door glass is stupid should just go ahead and run prod, because its already legal there???

OK. I'll do that.
There are just a few other minor details that go with it though...

- Fuel Cell
- Fire system
- An extra $2K in my motor
- Close ratio tranny
- Flared fenders
- Lexan

Just a few minor details. About $10 to $15K worth of minor details. And when I get done spending that time and money, I can go run against the 4 other people in GP in my division.
You know... The light is on for me now!!!
THANKS George for clearing that up.
WHAT A GREAT PLAN!!!

Scott, who doesn't, and won't, see how cleaning up a few stoopid IT rules will turn it into "prod lite."
Even limited prep prod is a LONG way from IT. Alot further away than removing 3 or 4 useless items.

PS - Before anyone trys to throw my earlier lexan argument in my face asking me why I need it for prod and don't need it for IT.
My car...
Minimum IT weight - 2140
Minimum Prod Weight - 2000
So yeah, I'd NEED me some lexan to help lose that poundage. I don't NEED it in IT, so I wouldn't buy it.

Its only complicated if you make it complicated.

Bill Miller
02-05-2005, 12:41 PM
<font face=\"Verdana, Arial\" size=\"2\">For instance, for the 944 there are essentially 3 things I can do to the engine I cannot in IT: cam, adjustable cam sprocket (and these have been requested for IT), and alternate rods. I can already shave the head and install alternate pistons. Head prep is otherwise the same.</font>

George,

Last I looked, you were required to run stock rods on an l-p car. You can however, lighten them, just like you can do to the stock crank (something else that's not allowed in IT).

Hey Andy, any luck finding that VW data?

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

Andy Bettencourt
02-05-2005, 12:56 PM
Originally posted by Bill Miller:
[quote][b]

Hey Andy, any luck finding that VW data?



I'll post something when I get it.

AB

------------------
Andy Bettencourt
New England Region, R188967

www.flatout-motorsports.com (http://www.flatout-motorsports.com)

Andy Bettencourt
02-05-2005, 01:01 PM
Originally posted by rlearp:
Amen. George likes to pull out the old "$5k wiring harness" everytime the wiring harness dicussion comes up but it just doesn't hold water. People will spend $5k to have someone strip their car and paint it for them too, but it doesn't make them any faster and repeating it on multiple threads doesn't make it truth.



Did you know that a full Pi Stack Data Acquisition setup with Motec engine management can cost over $25K ITSELF? If you allow wiring to be free, it facilitates the things that DO make you faster.

AB

------------------
Andy Bettencourt
New England Region, R188967

www.flatout-motorsports.com (http://www.flatout-motorsports.com)

Joe Harlan
02-05-2005, 01:13 PM
Originally posted by mlytle:
what is the age break to be eligible for vintage racing? it would not be very forward thinking to hold a vintage eligible car up as the benchmark for any it class.

Why? After 30 years of development I would think we would know what the car is capable of? Now if you asked me to classify a 30year old car that had never been race before I would NO the interest is not great enough to deal with it. Every class needs to have a few benchmarks to work with. without a benchmark you have no plan. With no plan you always have somebody pissed off. If the 240Z, second gen RX7, and E30 BMW are used as the ITS bench mark then the E36 has been a little bit to quick. No big deal make a minor adjustment back on the bimmer and you have a larger group of cars to choose from. Do not attempt to speed up the benchmarks. When a car is found to be to slow then make adjustments and lower it a class.The benchmarks will go away on their own but by the time they do we will have other models with enough history to work from. The time will come when we need a class above S and that will be a good thing. I personally see a need for an IT Turbo class in the not to distant future. As far as getting into the gutting car argument I don't believe it is all that needed to keep this type of cars healthy. Remember you don't have to run Nationals to run production and production allows all the mods you are looking for.
The 5k mil spec wiring harness is a pile of golden poop Geo and you need not whip it out every time you need an extreme view. I would probably do it exactly that way for a customer and build my own out of wire and connectors from radio shack....The result would be the same. We are not trying to pull a 7g inverted dive so having connectors that would take that is not needed....Besides some would say if you survive a 7G inverted dive in a race car your wiring harness would be the least of your worries. To the ITAC....You all doing a great job this group is like steering a big ship......little corrections and wait till she comes around. http://Forum.ImprovedTouring.com/it/wink.gif

Andy Bettencourt
02-05-2005, 01:26 PM
Originally posted by Joe Harlan:
To the ITAC....You all doing a great job this group is like steering a big ship......little corrections and wait till she comes around. http://Forum.ImprovedTouring.com/it/wink.gif



That is a GREAT way to put it. Thanks.

AB

------------------
Andy Bettencourt
New England Region, R188967

www.flatout-motorsports.com (http://www.flatout-motorsports.com)

ddewhurst
02-05-2005, 03:21 PM
Things seem to be golden in IT racing.

Things are not golden in Production racing.

As Production racing is being reeled back via Restricted Suspension (in theroy) a few people from within the IT ranks have a desire to open the IT rules which moves IT race cars closer to Production race cars. (I beleive the roll cage rules between IT & Production should be identical going forward.)

It would be interesting to know the age of ALL the people throwing the rules thoughts around. http://Forum.ImprovedTouring.com/it/wink.gif

Continue the Fun http://Forum.ImprovedTouring.com/it/wink.gif
David Dewhurst
CenDiv

Joe Harlan
02-05-2005, 03:46 PM
haha David I am an old man.....Not as old as you though. http://Forum.ImprovedTouring.com/it/smile.gif

RFloyd
02-05-2005, 04:07 PM
Originally posted by Russ Myers:
Lawyers have a phrase that they use(yeah, I know, lawyers, ugh!) when arguing cases that might have an effect on a precedent. They refer to "the slippery slope". I don't say the rules are good, I don't say they are bad,ut they are the rules. I think if you do not have a stock ECU in your car you are not legal(in the spirit of IT). Vintage racing has been mentioned, well, the grids at a vintage meet are lousy with old SCCA racers who didn't want (or couldn't afford) to update their cars every time the CRB heard that this or that was cheaper, safer, etc. As we have seen with Form Ford, Prod, Sedan nee,GT when you start down the slippery slope...well.
Isn't it interesting that the two most popular classes with the largest car counts every year are Spec Racer and FV, the two classes with, FOR THE MOST PART, the most stable rules package in all of racing. Spec Miata could be this way too, but already, people know in their hearts how to "improve" the class, how to make it better, how to shape it in their image. What's wrong with it now? Car counts are through the roof. Competition is tight and fantastic. I guess that is really not good enough.
In 1983, when IT started, car counts were large. Many competed throughout the land. But can you tell me that the same exist today. Fields are alot shorter now.
As the practicioners of juris prudence are wont to say, once you start down that slippery slope, who knows where you will end up. No first or forth ammendment rights, or thinly disguised prod cars. I myself would like to leave well enough alone.

Oh, by the way, it has been said that it dosen't cost anything to remove this stuff. Well, it dosen't cost anything to leave it on the car, either.

Russ

Russ,

Do you realized the things that have been made legal? Alternate ECU's as long as they fit within the original housings? Threaded body shocks? The rest of the laundry list I've already mentioned?

Using your "slippery slope" argument, well, we're already well down the slope, sliding fast, and you're here saying "If we're not careful we'll slip and fall down this slope!" Hello! Bueller? Bueller?

FWIW, I don't think we should have lexan allowed. You'll notice that doesn't fit one of my two "criteria." It costs money.

As far as the washer bottle, my car had it, being used as a catch can, right to the day it was sold. That's beside the point. It shouldn't be require to be there to begin with, for the sake of those who have cars that finding a replacement washer bottle for is nearly impossible, and locating one may well be an expensive proposition, if not in $$ at least in time. Sure, those situations are probably few and far between, but fact is that it is a component who's being required to be present in the first place is just STUPID.

I stand by my previous statements, make each consideration meet the no cost, no performance enhancement criteria and you automatically weed out all of the "5K$ wiring harness, 2K$ cam, Prod-light" BS arguments.

To use the same logic as some of you guys, why don't YOU guys go race Showroom Stock if you're worried about somebody removing a useless part from his car?

And Raymond, no $100 for you. Reading is fundamental, bro.

------------------
Richard Floyd
'86 Acura Integra LS #90
SCCA ITA / NASA ECHC H5

[This message has been edited by RFloyd (edited February 05, 2005).]

Russ Myers
02-05-2005, 04:35 PM
Richard,
I know it's coming, I've been at this long enough to have seen what has become of SS, Prod, Sedan(GT), et.al. I know it will happen, but what I want to point out is just because one thinks its a stupid rule, dosen't mean everyone thinks its a stupid rule. Some might actually like the way the rules are set in a particular class or group.

Lobby the CRB, write your area reps, but if the changes don't come fast enough, or at all, bite the bullet and build your car by the present rules. I know Prod people who are still waiting for the brake rules to be rewritten. And not to sound uppity, but if you don't like a certain rules pack, go where you can like them. My sled is heavy enough to make the slippery slope a real fun ride.

Russ

Knestis
02-05-2005, 05:01 PM
Originally posted by RFloyd:
... locating one may well be an expensive proposition, if not in $$ at least in time. ...


But waitaminute - I thought that "removing stuff" was free. It costs time doesn't it? Pick an argument and stick with it guys.

I call BS on a lot of the rationale that get applied to opening up rules in IT. At the end of the day many of the suggestions grow out of (a) a desire to improve one's own competitive position (real or imagined), (B) a desire to make one's car faster (cuz faster is funner, no?), or © some conception about what "racing cars are supposed to be" (e.g., they don't have door glass so you can crawl in and out like Little E.

With only a smidge of hyperbole,

K

dickita15
02-05-2005, 05:33 PM
Originally posted by Knestis:
I call BS on a lot of the rationale that get applied to opening up rules in IT.


well then Kirk I get to call BS on many of the slippery slope go to prod rationales. "most" of these guys are not talking about speed mods, they are just pointing out things that they feel from thier point of view are illogical.
I really find the go to prod statements insulting

dick patullo

Joe Harlan
02-05-2005, 05:49 PM
I really find the go to prod statements insulting

dick patullo


I know for myself it is not meant to be insulting. It means that there are levels of prep and there is no reason to change the whole rules set for one catagory when there is a catagory to move to. It would be really cool if our safety stuff reflected being able to make those moves easy and allow folks to dip a toe in the water kind of thing. I certainly don't think that it should be insulting to anyone to suggest going to the next level.

Knestis
02-05-2005, 06:39 PM
Originally posted by dickita15:
well then Kirk I get to call BS on many of the slippery slope go to prod rationales. ...

Totally within your right, Dick.

But how do we then explain the ongoing tendency for any given class to become incrementally more liberal in rule allowances, as time goes on? What is to keep it from happening to IT like it demonstrably HAS to Production, GT, and even Showroom Stock? The trunk-kit cars of a couple years ago were prettty much where IT was in 1983. They've all gone too far and had to be throttled back somehow.

My point is that, just as a case can get made for passenger side door glass, so can a case be made for one more allowance. And one more. And one more...

I am pointedly NOT arguing the rationale for or against any one of the changes being tossed around here. They all make some sense when considered in isolation but a man can drown a drop at a time.

How do we know when to stop?

K

Catch22
02-05-2005, 06:39 PM
Originally posted by ddewhurst:
It would be interesting to know the age of ALL the people throwing the rules thoughts around. http://Forum.ImprovedTouring.com/it/wink.gif



I'll be 37 in a couple of months.
Now that you know this, tell me what the hell it has to do with anything?
I happen to have a buddy that is Randy Pobst's World Challenge crew chief. He's 25 years old.
Now tell me what age has to do with ANY sort of knowledge about the sport. I'm dying to hear your thoughts?
If you tell me that you have more experience, I'll counter it with my opinion that many of your experiences have made you stale and inflexible... So lets go.
Its an argument neither of us could win, but whatever, I'm up for it.

And I'll only say this one more time.
Very few people here have argued to "open up" the rules in IT. We just want them cleaned up to get rid of the silly things that serve no purpose.

If you want your pass. side glass... Fine, keep it. Same goes for the other stuff.

But I for one don't want to be hunting around the junkyard looking for a friggin' washer bottle or a piece of unbroken door glass after an incident on the track. These are things that will cost me time and money to repair and they SERVE NO PURPOSE on my car. The freakin' rules even state that I MUST run with my windows DOWN!!!
Its just stupid. STOOPID!
If you want to keep yours, fine. But let me take mine out. And don't tell me that you've seen similar stuff happen that lead to the Great Production Disaster of 1978. If you honestly think that removing washer bottles and door glass will lead to rampant and mindless spending in IT, you need to get your prescription refilled.

Scott, who isn't suggesting unlimited compression and free cams and never would.

Catch22
02-05-2005, 06:45 PM
Originally posted by Knestis:
How do we know when to stop?

K


I'm going wayyyyyyyyyyyy out on the limb here, but I'm going to say it anyway...

<ahem>
"Common Sense."

Thank you. Thank you.
Please tip your servers.
I'll be playing here all week.

Scott, who is neither old nor young, and thinks some of you young guys are nieve and some of you old guys are scared of your own shadows (including you Dr. K).


[This message has been edited by Catch22 (edited February 05, 2005).]

Catch22
02-05-2005, 06:54 PM
By the way.
It makes me giggle to sit here reading how some of you guys think removing washer bottles will lead to the Improved Touring Dark Ages, while at the top of the page there sits a banner advertising ITS BMW rebuilds starting at $6500.

Good stuff.
Excellent.

Joe Harlan
02-05-2005, 07:11 PM
Scott, If it were just removing washer bottles it would not be an issue. You are saying how stupid it is and others feel it would be stupid to allow it. I personally would be fine with the washer bottle deal but leave door glass and heater cores and that kind of stuff alone. Hell I may even have to rethink my position on batteries. The things you want to do are out there waiting for you.



[This message has been edited by Joe Harlan (edited February 05, 2005).]

ddewhurst
02-05-2005, 08:34 PM
Joe, on this monday 2/7 I'll be 17 via my method of counting. My counting method is similar to the "common sence" methods used by some to attempt to change the IT rules. IMHJ if some of these folks who have a desire to change the IT rules would understand that changes within IT are not a ready given thing they would quit posting & start writting letters to the CRB/ITAC. After a few undefined rejections in Fastrack of their rules thoughts/letters they would realy have something to bitch about. Then we will hear. They (CRB) can't respond with a undefined NO to ME I am a MEMBER of the SCCA & they are there to SERVE ME. Joe, IIRC you are just just over my age line.

Scott, your age puts you under my defined age line. & why don't you provide a last name so that when you start writting letters we all can see the varity of reasons the CRB uses for rejecting your rule change requests... Within a few request letters to the CRB using your "common sence" thoughts the CRB will have dulled your brass aggressiveness.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

***"Common Sense."*** by Scott

I'll be 37 in a couple of months.

Now that you know this, tell me what the hell it has to do with anything?

Now tell me what age has to do with ANY sort of knowledge about the sport.

I'm dying to hear your thoughts?

If you tell me that you have more experience, I'll counter it with my opinion that many of your experiences have made you stale and inflexible... So lets go.

Its an argument neither of us could win, but whatever, I'm up for it.

And I'll only say this one more time.
Very few people here have argued to "open up" the rules in IT. We just want them cleaned up to get rid of the silly things that serve no purpose.

But I for one don't want to be hunting around the junkyard looking for a friggin' washer bottle or a piece of unbroken door glass after an incident on the track. These are things that will cost me time and money to repair and they SERVE NO PURPOSE on my car.

The freakin' rules even state that I MUST run with my windows DOWN!!!
Its just stupid. STOOPID!

And don't tell me that you've seen similar stuff happen that lead to the Great Production Disaster of 1978.

If you honestly think that removing washer bottles and door glass will lead to rampant and mindless spending in IT, you need to get your prescription refilled.

Scott, please let me know when YOU write your FIRST sucessful letter to the CRB & a rule change is accecpted.

<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<

An ol man on new prescription drugs......... http://Forum.ImprovedTouring.com/it/wink.gif
David Dewhurst
CenDiv

Geo
02-05-2005, 09:09 PM
Originally posted by 924Guy:
Simply - because nobody races in Prod!!! OK, so I can't speak for everyone here, but I know that I, in spite of having not one but TWO classes in which I could run my car in Prod, cannot see running there in the forseeable future - cause I like competition!!!

Right! So I can't see the point of making IT nearly the same as Production.


Originally posted by 924Guy:
I do also think the $5k wiring harness argument is rather stretching it

I'm not sure if you're saying it won't happen or if there is no advantage, but in light of $50-60k IT cars, I guarantee it would happen. Perhaps not quite $5k, but perhaps not (I know a professionally built race car wiring harness can certainly cost that). And once it happens that will be the standard upon which "fully prepared" will be judged.


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

Geo
02-05-2005, 09:23 PM
Originally posted by dickita15:
I really find the go to prod statements insulting

Dick, if you're referring to me, please read more carefully. What I want to know is if someone wants all these rules changes that would make an IT car very nearly a Production car because "it's a race car" why don't these people race in Production. It's a fair question and I have NOT told anyone to go race in Production.

What I have done is summarized all of the things people in this thread have suggested for a variety of reasons and said, and tried to list as best I could the remaining differences between that and Production. And then I asked the question again. And again, a very valid question.

I further asked how would people like to differentiate between Production and IT. It's also a very valid question since if we implemented all of these suggestions, the only real differences would be the drivetrain.


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

Geo
02-05-2005, 09:32 PM
Originally posted by ITSRX7:
These web-boards gererate good ideas and bad ideas. If anyone feels strongly about there idea, write an e-mail to the CRB and get ot on one of our agendas.

crb (at) scca.com

AB



I second this and I'm sure the entire ITAC do as well. This is probably the best response on this thread. Complaining here is just complaining. If you think you have a valid beef over any rule, by all means write the CRB. It is the means by which change generally occurs.


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

Geo
02-05-2005, 09:36 PM
Originally posted by Bill Miller:
George,

Last I looked, you were required to run stock rods on an l-p car. You can however, lighten them, just like you can do to the stock crank (something else that's not allowed in IT).

Thank you Bill. I've just started reading through the PCS. Personally I find it a bit confusing keeping full and limited prep straight sometimes.


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

[This message has been edited by Geo (edited February 05, 2005).]

Ron Earp
02-05-2005, 10:43 PM
Originally posted by Catch22:
By the way.
It makes me giggle to sit here reading how some of you guys think removing washer bottles will lead to the Improved Touring Dark Ages, while at the top of the page there sits a banner advertising ITS BMW rebuilds starting at $6500.


My thoughts exactly, along with other things like $3000 MoTec ECUS, custom gears, etc. I just don't know why it is so hard for some to beleive that some illogical rules should be changed AND THAT IS IT - nothing more. The washer bottle rule is really silly and changing it does not have to lead us to Production cars no matter how many times people want to write on this board that this will happen.

I say follow the GCR the best you can, use common sense, make a safe race car, and enjoy racing the car. That is my plan and I do not have a washer bottle nor is it likely I'll find a washer bottle for my 32 year old ITS race car (Wait! Maybe that is too old and I should be forced to race Vintage since I can't get a real washer bottle part any longer....aghhhhhhhhh...or maybe I should be forced into Production since I can't get a wiring harness any longer and can't make my own since there are no factory procedures, the factory is gone! Help!)

I'm 36 and new to the SCCA. No, I haven't been here long but more than a few people told me the SCCA was highly resistant to change and it seems so. I've yet to be "Assimilated" and if resisting every "new" concept that comes along is part of the SCCA Assimilation process I hope that I do not become "Assimilated".

On the other hand, the SCCA is the best game in town for fun amatuer racing (remember it is supposed to be fun), in my opinion, and I'm happy to be associated with it. I just wish "new" ideas weren't squashed just for the sake of them being "new" and different from "what we've done before" or "how we used to do it".

Ron


[This message has been edited by rlearp (edited February 05, 2005).]

apr67
02-05-2005, 11:02 PM
I personally don't see any reason to change a rule because somone decided to build an old and unsupported car.

Sure, dump the washer bottle. And in some cars it is part of some other structure and they can dump that too now, because it is the washer bottle.

Lose the passenger side door glass. What about the rear door glass on 4 door cars? Sure, right?

Wire harness? Fix the one you have. I don't understand why people make such a MOUNTAIN out of what is a flat spot in the desert.

Joe Harlan
02-05-2005, 11:07 PM
This site like most starts to crack me up after a bit. Why does anyone that races cars always have to get there ass in a knot over the stupid stuff? If a protest happens over a washer bottle the protestor should be taken out behind the shed and have a washer bottle shoved firmly up their butt. If a common sense repair to a harness isn't allowed then we need to hang it up now. WHat I read here is like watching the republicans and democranks take every extreme position possible to try to make a point. I would be I could walk through the paddock of any regional and find an illegal issue on every car there. Lets all just grow up a bit. This is a dam hobby. If you can't find an OE washer bottle put some plastic pop bottle in its place, At least you tried. It is the big crap that's going to kill IT and it doesn't matter if its 1200 or 25000 for a FI system it is still out of line for this catagory. If you want more but don't want Production then go start your own set of classes cause there are plenty of people that like IT just fine. I race a class called RS cause I wanted to race a WC touring car without having to go on the road to do it. I dig it its fun and I did it with out causing all of my IT customers and friends to run wings and 18 inch wheels. My choice. The rules for the class are now being used in NW region and Calclub also. So I did my part to get what I wanted with out effecting a whole catagory to do it. End of my rant. Now again my feelings are after seeing the things that are happening as of late that the ITAC is doing a very good job on it's forst batch of reclassifications and adjustments. I like the effort some much I am encouraing my customers to stick it out and enjoy the future.
BTW I am only 42.....not the old man David is... http://Forum.ImprovedTouring.com/it/smile.gif


[This message has been edited by Joe Harlan (edited February 05, 2005).]

Andy Bettencourt
02-05-2005, 11:44 PM
The funny hing about this whole rant is that the 'washer bottle' has become a monster of it's own.

The WB is, in effect, the poster child for IIDSYCYC. Those who argue against it's removal aren't debating the merits of the WB itself (because there is no rule that points to it specifically), but to the fact that you would have to SPECIFICALLY call it out in the GCR if it could stay. There is a hundred other "washer bottle" type parts that people would then want to remove.

This is where the "where does it stop" position comes from.

If I see a car without a WB, I could care less...even if they beat me. But how many little pieces of menutia do I have to find missing, because they just graduated from the school of COMMON SENSE, before I start to feel slighted? 4? 5? 10? Each one of these common sense items would have to be specifically added as allowed in the GCR...

Does THAT mnake sense?

Food for thought.

AB

(Edit: I am 34 years old and a 14 year member...)

------------------
Andy Bettencourt
New England Region, R188967
www.flatout-motorsports.com (http://www.flatout-motorsports.com)

[This message has been edited by Andy Bettencourt (edited February 05, 2005).]

Catch22
02-06-2005, 12:11 AM
To David and George,

You guys are beyong me. How you can turn some thoughts about cleaning up silly rules into the IT apocalypse and refer to it as "making them nearly into prod cars" is just plain ludeykrus. Your argument appears to be that the ITAC and Board have no self control and 2 or 3 changes will automatically lead to 25. If we allow the removal of washer bottles and door glass, within 5 years tube framed IT cars will be legal.
I hope that sounds stupid to you, because that is basically what you are saying... One change, the slightest little one, will leas to disaster.
Thats just excellent. Really.

Andy,
The reason I don't believe a washer bottle and passenger side glass (and maybe even heater core) change would lead to anything else is that
1. These are the poster children for stupidity in the IT rules.
2. Nobody really talks about anything else in any sort of volume.

Sure, a few people want some wiring allowances and some other things, but nothing raises hackles like the bottle and the glass. They raise hackles not because that are all that big of a deal, but because its dumb to be required to have them.

I'll say this one more time for those who aren't catching the irony...
I'm required to have door glass that I'm required to keep rolled down during a race.
See... Thats dumb.

And I won't be writing a letter because Evan already said he was going to. But if he doesn't. I will.
I've written several lately, I can write a couple more.

gran racing
02-06-2005, 12:41 AM
What is the purpose of removing some of this stuff? In previous posts, it was to attract younger people to IT, right? Can you define what SCCA's / IT's target market is or should be? Can you honestly tell me that they are not joining IT because of passenger side windows, battery location, ect.? Wasn't this a big part of this argument originally? Or what really is the point of making some of these changes? Honestly, who does it benefit? Oh, that's right, the club and it's future. If you say so. ???

------------------
Dave Gran
NER ITB #13
'87 Honda Prelude si

Joe Harlan
02-06-2005, 12:50 AM
Scott, I think everybody has your take on what you find stupid by now........

You wanna know what I find stupid? It's haw something so petty can bug you so much.....I bet 100 bucks that when your out on the race track that window doesn't even get thought about.

Geo
02-06-2005, 12:54 AM
Originally posted by Catch22:
To David and George,

You guys are beyong me. How you can turn some thoughts about cleaning up silly rules into the IT apocalypse and refer to it as "making them nearly into prod cars" is just plain ludeykrus. Your argument appears to be that the ITAC and Board have no self control and 2 or 3 changes will automatically lead to 25. If we allow the removal of washer bottles and door glass, within 5 years tube framed IT cars will be legal.
I hope that sounds stupid to you, because that is basically what you are saying... One change, the slightest little one, will leas to disaster.
Thats just excellent. Really.

Tube framed IT cars? That's not what I'm saying. Not even close. Although I did mention (I think it was this thread) that GT cars weren't even originally tube framed. Tom Davey won the first three GT3 championships with a unibody Scirocco!

I did summarize the rule changes being argued here and asked why not race in LP Production instead since the differences would be few? I also asked how we should differentiate LP Production from IT?

So, yes, really.

And I submit Scott, that if these things really matter to you, YOU would write and not leave it to someone else.

While that admittedly sounds argumentative, it surely is not meant to be. There is no other way to say it. Individual letters mean something. Polls sent in mean little. The very same letter sent by a number of individuals means little. Individual letters do mean something. That's not to say that all are approved. Of course they are not. But sometimes, over time, a lot of letters can create change. But don't forget that people also disagree and write the opposite so not every request actually comes true. But the only real way to make a case it to write. So, I encourage you to write, despite someone else doing the same.


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


[This message has been edited by Geo (edited February 06, 2005).]

Turfer
02-06-2005, 02:00 AM
There is sure a whole of energy spent on the small items around this forum. Door glass? Water Bottle? Useless items on the car!!!

Where was all this energy when the ECU got peeled wide open? It is not just Motec for the BMW's. There are plenty of aftermarket ECU's that fit into the stock housings and to evaluate. Loads of $$$ spent on this endeavor.

If the prevailing winds are such that we are worried about the runaway train, then lets do something meaningful like bring the ECU rule stock less programming (we all know we cannot police the software). *uck the proverbial out of the bottle genie and the folks that have spent the money. I am one of them and I think it is rediculous. But racing being what it is, I am compelled to try and exploit the rules and find an advantage.

Personally, I'd rather just meander out the shop with my bourbon-coke and take the washer bottle off, roll my passenger window up and down a few times and call it an evening.

Rick

lateapex911
02-06-2005, 02:58 AM
Originally posted by Joe Harlan:
This site like most starts to crack me up after a bit. Why does anyone that races cars always have to get there ass in a knot over the stupid stuff? If a protest happens over a washer bottle the protestor should be taken out behind the shed and have a washer bottle shoved firmly up their butt. [This message has been edited by Joe Harlan (edited February 05, 2005).]


Joe- I didn't even READ the rest of your comment...but that comment ROCKS! Better yet, take the dude, wait til he uses a porta poddy and knock it over...door side down...in July!

Yeah, common sense is important...the washer bottle has become the standard bearer for dumb items left on the books...it needs to go, to be sure, but the line is drawn not that far upstream of it...I'd rather miss downstream than up, so as far as I am concerned, the washer bottle is dumb, but it's not that big a deal.


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

[This message has been edited by lateapex911 (edited February 06, 2005).]

lateapex911
02-06-2005, 03:10 AM
yeah...I'm with you! Who gives a rats ass about the passengers window! leave it in! Less work for me, we all need it so it's not a competiitve advantage either way, and the guys who are worried about it due to safety????...they are race car drivers?????Huh?

Give me another beer and lets move on!

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

lateapex911
02-06-2005, 03:13 AM
sorry ....dbl post

[This message has been edited by lateapex911 (edited February 06, 2005).]

Greg Amy
02-06-2005, 10:29 AM
Howard Stern's penis!

Bill Miller
02-06-2005, 12:27 PM
Originally posted by grega:
Howard Stern's penis!

Uh Greg, is there something you should be telling us??? http://Forum.ImprovedTouring.com/it/eek.gif

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

Knestis
02-06-2005, 06:57 PM
Just a little test: Shut your mind off to the big issue and ask if the rationale for each of the following rule changes is as sound as those presented - in and of themselves - for the passenger glass and washer bottle:

"Turn signals and marker lenses may be removed" - We don't signal on the race track, and when they get hit (they're in the worst place - they get busted. This is expensive, particularly if I race an old car, and the pieces on the track are a safety hazard. The fact that we are supposed to tape them is proof of the above.

"Headlight assemblies may be removed" - Ditto. Air is going to be blowing in the holes, they may be used to provide air to the engine or front brakes.

"Alternate gear ratios available stock in other models of the car being raced may be substituted" - Front drive cars have to bust open the gearbox to change the final drive, it is reasonable to allow them to fit other commonly available individual gear ratios. Rear drive cars should get the same allowance to be fair.

"Aftermarket cams are allowed" - They often cost less than a new stock cam. This is also a common modification to street cars and will attract interest of new members who are used to this type of performance improvement.

"Power steering may be removed or disabled" - Cars would be more reliable, another source of fluid on the track would be eliminated, and it costs nothing.

"Stock windshields may be replaced with a polycarbonate version of the same shape" - Over several seasons, a plastic windshield would be far stronger, less expensive (not as likely to break), and would be far safer since it wouldn't leave glass on the track in a rollover incident.

"Fenders may be modified for tire clearance" - The danger of tires being damaged by fenders would be eliminated in cases where the current rule doesn't allow sufficient room.

"Inner bumper assemblies may be removed or lightened" - Cars that currently struggle to meet minimum IT weight would have a better chance to be competitive.

"Door reinforcement beams or bars may be removed if they interfere with the installation of door bars" - Additional space between the driver and door bars increases safety.

"The '8th pick-up point' of the rollcage assembly may be located anywhere" - Rollcage structures may be more effectively tailored to individual chassis designs, increasing safety at no difference in cost to the current rule.

"Compression may be increased 1.5 points" - Performance would be enhanced across the board without adding signficantly to the cost of building an IT-spec engine, making the cars more fun to drive and exciting to watch.

"Any number of bolt-on chassis reinforcement bars (e.g., strut bars) are allowed" - One is already allowed and this would prevent potential stress damage to the car's chassis.

"Door handles may be removed and latches disabled, provided that doors are securely pinned or fastened shut" - Safety will be increased in rollover incidents if doors can't come open.

"Larger diameter rotors and aftermarket calipers may be fitted, as long as they use the original mounting points" - Safety would be improved as consistent braking performance is assured over the distance of a race. Kits for this type of modification are popular improvements for street cars and allowing them on IT cars would better connect the catagory with the aftermarket and new IT participants.

How many of those options fit within any number of reasonable persons' definition of "common sense?" I've had to explain that IT doesn't allow most all of the above to someone, somewhere over the last year - to which the most common response was, "That's stupid."

K

Bill Miller
02-06-2005, 07:30 PM
Kirk,

When I started to read the list, I thought you had pulled the options (not the editorializing) from an old PCS.

As I've said before, when the CRB/BoD put the language in the ITCS, that stated that the cars were no longer viewed to be dual-purpose (2000, I think), it was a tacit acceptance of the statement that they are now 'real' race cars. I know that's not how logic theory deals with it, which is why I said it was a tacit acceptance.

The problem (as I see it) lies in the fact that some rules are made that appear to be consistent w/ this view, and others are turned down, that appear to be consistent, but are given the reason that they're "not consistent w/ class philosophy". It's a mixed message.

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

ShelbyRacer
02-06-2005, 09:34 PM
Originally posted by Knestis:
Just a little test: Shut your mind off to the big issue and ask if the rationale for each of the following rule changes is as sound as those presented - in and of themselves - for the passenger glass and washer bottle:

-snip-

K

Kirk- I have to complement you on that list. There are som items on there that I'm not sure how I'd react, and I think it did give me a better idea of the "fears" of some that this could "turn into Production" if we're not careful. I especially think that now that Production is going to National IT, um, I mean limited prep, the line is that much more blurred.

Definitely something to think about...


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

ddewhurst
02-06-2005, 11:21 PM
Come on Scott how about a last name so that I may keep a close eye on the Fastrack responses the CRB puts fourth for your washer bottle letter.

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

Catch22
02-07-2005, 12:36 AM
Originally posted by Knestis:
Just a little test: Shut your mind off to the big issue and ask if the rationale for each of the following rule changes is as sound as those presented - in and of themselves - for the passenger glass and washer bottle:

"Turn signals and marker lenses may be removed" - We don't signal on the race track, and when they get hit (they're in the worst place - they get busted. This is expensive, particularly if I race an old car, and the pieces on the track are a safety hazard. The fact that we are supposed to tape them is proof of the above.

"Headlight assemblies may be removed" - Ditto. Air is going to be blowing in the holes, they may be used to provide air to the engine or front brakes.

"Alternate gear ratios available stock in other models of the car being raced may be substituted" - Front drive cars have to bust open the gearbox to change the final drive, it is reasonable to allow them to fit other commonly available individual gear ratios. Rear drive cars should get the same allowance to be fair.

"Aftermarket cams are allowed" - They often cost less than a new stock cam. This is also a common modification to street cars and will attract interest of new members who are used to this type of performance improvement.

"Power steering may be removed or disabled" - Cars would be more reliable, another source of fluid on the track would be eliminated, and it costs nothing.

"Stock windshields may be replaced with a polycarbonate version of the same shape" - Over several seasons, a plastic windshield would be far stronger, less expensive (not as likely to break), and would be far safer since it wouldn't leave glass on the track in a rollover incident.

"Fenders may be modified for tire clearance" - The danger of tires being damaged by fenders would be eliminated in cases where the current rule doesn't allow sufficient room.

"Inner bumper assemblies may be removed or lightened" - Cars that currently struggle to meet minimum IT weight would have a better chance to be competitive.

"Door reinforcement beams or bars may be removed if they interfere with the installation of door bars" - Additional space between the driver and door bars increases safety.

"The '8th pick-up point' of the rollcage assembly may be located anywhere" - Rollcage structures may be more effectively tailored to individual chassis designs, increasing safety at no difference in cost to the current rule.

"Compression may be increased 1.5 points" - Performance would be enhanced across the board without adding signficantly to the cost of building an IT-spec engine, making the cars more fun to drive and exciting to watch.

"Any number of bolt-on chassis reinforcement bars (e.g., strut bars) are allowed" - One is already allowed and this would prevent potential stress damage to the car's chassis.

"Door handles may be removed and latches disabled, provided that doors are securely pinned or fastened shut" - Safety will be increased in rollover incidents if doors can't come open.

"Larger diameter rotors and aftermarket calipers may be fitted, as long as they use the original mounting points" - Safety would be improved as consistent braking performance is assured over the distance of a race. Kits for this type of modification are popular improvements for street cars and allowing them on IT cars would better connect the catagory with the aftermarket and new IT participants.

How many of those options fit within any number of reasonable persons' definition of "common sense?" I've had to explain that IT doesn't allow most all of the above to someone, somewhere over the last year - to which the most common response was, "That's stupid."

K

I have no idea why I'm bothering. I guess its because I'm not sleepy and nothing is on TV, but here goes...

Turn Signals - Good idea Kirk. It is. No purpose and a source of broken plastic on track. We didn't require them in Honda Challenge for this very reason. You could either cover the hole or use it for brake ducting.

Headlight assemblies - Not useless as there are quite a few nightime races for IT cars each year. Also helpful in enduros for flashing lapped traffic. Certainly not a useless item.

Alternate Gear ratios - Expensive and gives an obvious competitive advantage. C'mon Kirk, I'm disappointed in you for this one.

Cams - See above.

Power Steering - Sure. Yank it. Why not?

Poly Windsheilds - I don't see why not. If minimum weights don't change it would be pretty close to meaningless. If someone with deep pockets wants to wasye that money... Whatever. If someone needs help getting down to their minimum weight... More power to them. Have at it.

The rest of it... C'mon Kirk.
1.5 points of compression to make things more fun??? Flared fenders???
Did you really write that stuff?
Were you being serious?

But I'm done now. I simply suggested that we remove some of the "horse and carriage laws" that are still on the books and some of you guys want to suggest that allowing the water bottle to be removed isn't much different than wanting unlimited cams and free gearboxes.
Maybe I'm the dumb one. I guess I am.

Scott = Done here.

PS - David, I have no idea who you are or what you've done, but I've been hanging around this website for a couple of years and have seen pretty much nothing but defeatism, negativity and cynicism from you. Even your patented "Have Fun" signature, taken in context with 90% of your writings, smacks of sarcasm.
I hate to break it to you, but there has been progress in IT. Cars are being reclassed, restrictor plates are being added (for better or worse), and letters to the comp board are being answered with things OTHER than "Shut up, we'll do it our way."
Maybe YOU should be the one to go run in Production??? I think your attitude would be a better fit there.
But thats just my young and uniformed opinion.



[This message has been edited by Catch22 (edited February 06, 2005).]

evanwebb
02-07-2005, 03:33 AM
Hey! Lots of funny stuff on this thread. I hope anyone who posted or has an opinion will please reply to my question on the Poll on Rules Changes" thread? Thanks.

Knestis
02-07-2005, 09:30 AM
Originally posted by Catch22:
I have no idea why I'm bothering. ...

I know that it's done out of love, Mon. http://Forum.ImprovedTouring.com/it/smile.gif

I put a range of suggestions in that example knowing full well that some of them were a stretch beyond the magnitude being discussed but I betcha that SOMEONE reading that list thought that they were reasonable.

Hell - dealing with trying to find the LEGAL 4th gear pair required to install the R&P that I found for the Golf has made me dream wistfully of being able to pick and choose from among the common ratios available for my commonly available box. I could put together a GREAT gearset and the going rate is $30-50 per pair for used gears.

K

Ron Earp
02-07-2005, 09:51 AM
Heck, I certainly thought the first one and the power steering reasonable. But the others were just bait! ;-)

Ron

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

ddewhurst
02-07-2005, 10:20 AM
I'll be watching Fastrack for your washer bottle removal request. Or is your posting relative to issues/rules that you don't care for just more up front chatter. If I sucked up to your issues/rules thought process in a favorable manner would that make me a GOOD GUY/BUDDY in a white hat?

Have Fun http://Forum.ImprovedTouring.com/it/frown.gif
David

Ron Earp
02-07-2005, 10:30 AM
David, like someone mentioned here, I really don't think your signature is indicative of your feelings toward most on the board.

At any rate, yes, once I get done building my car and on the track I do plan to write on the issue of "washer bottles". Remember, I'm one of those FNGs and have my first race in Feb, although I'll have to use a different car.

More pressing though for my personal situation will be a letter requesting a parts clarification so that I can obtain a new cylinder head and one allowing me the use of a 4 speed transmission. Seems the ITCS has the year listed incorrectly (73-79, incorrect, 75 is last) but only lists the 5 speed transmission, 75 only equipment. I have both but want to be legal if I run the 4 speed.

So yes, but it'll be awhile and more likely you'll see a request from another member before me. Whether or not you agree with me has no bearing on your "Good guy/bad buy white suit status" - those sorts of things are generally decided on your personal attitude more than thoughts on a given topic.

Ron

------------------
Ron Earp
http://www.gt40s.com
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 February 07, 2005).]

gran racing
02-07-2005, 12:27 PM
The poly windshields would not so bad right as a way to get down to min. weight currently, but what about it’s possible long term effects? Would the board ever use this weight savings method when determining future min. weights? You may say no, this current board may even say no but what about the next board? It could easily go from a way to reduce weight into something that could become a necessary mod. to achieve the min. weight.

------------------
Dave Gran
NER ITB #13
'87 Honda Prelude si

Joe Harlan
02-07-2005, 01:24 PM
98 240sx stock windshield 17lbs

lexan MR7 1/4 inch thick 9 lbs

rear window 12 lbs

lexan replacement 8 lbs

Lexan always fogged in cool weather.

Please look at the GT and most of the prod cars running. most are moving back to glass cause you can defog it and use a wiper blade on it. Stuff like this is a waste of time for this catagory.

Kirk the issue I have with the gear set stuff is not everybody can do it so you end up with requests from those that can't.

For any of you that think Dave has a bad attiude your wrong he just can't type emotion. I spent a 2 weeks at Ohio with the old dude and he is far from negative...Anyone that can survive a month on pizza and beer crewing for loshak may tend to get a little crusty in the winter.
I would bet the writer of the original IT rules never ever considered removing the washer bottle was an issue. I do take issue with SCCA in general when they place weights on a car that the car cannot legally achieve. That part needs fixed. I think if a car has proven it will never make weight it should have weight added and dropped a class. For the ITC gang I don't know what to say for you and hope fully we don't have an issue there. I know my old 510 could make it.

Have fun, Have a nice day, Happy trails.... http://Forum.ImprovedTouring.com/it/smile.gif

ddewhurst
02-07-2005, 02:56 PM
Thanks Joe..........

I was going to blister a couple folks with wise mouths but because of your post Joe I will leave those folks alone.

What I do have to say in a mild manner to those with wise mouths is that I have NEVER atacked them personally. I may have attacked their thoughts on rules but never their person or of their method of presentation. There are a couple other people on the two sites I read that have presentation skills that suck worse than mine. Many people blister these folks with what they consider poor presentation skills. I have met (face to face) these people with poor presentation skill & I sit back & laugh because they are great people.

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

Ron Earp
02-07-2005, 03:39 PM
I certainly don't have any problems with David or most of the people I've met through the IT forum - good community. And, I don't have any problems with folks that disagree with my viewpoints because, after all, they are just my view points and don't mean much. Disagreeing and discussion leads to change in most organizations and I hope the SCCA is no different.

I just wish that we could easily "fix" and lot of the little incongruent details that in many cases defy logic, again, IMHO. We all know what they are and they have different levels of importance for different people - for some the "I can't remove the washer bottle but you can spend $3k on a MoTec" is a big issue, for others it is the weight problems that show up on cars that are the same but have different hp motors (I remember a Honda issue that someone posted not long ago).

I'm sure this thread will generate some letters to the board, at least I hope it will, and maybe we will see some changes that will remove these, IMHO, illogical parts of the IT rulebook. I know that I will write some letters of my own to see how the system works and learn what it takes to instigate change.

Best,
Ron

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

Geo
02-07-2005, 10:08 PM
Originally posted by rlearp:
I just wish that we could easily "fix" and lot of the little incongruent details that in many cases defy logic, again, IMHO. We all know what they are and they have different levels of importance for different people...

Quite honestly Ron, opinions do vary greatly. Whether it's fundemantal or it does just vary with importance is hard to say, but my guess is it's often just fundemental and often polar opposites.

The other thing I've found is that while this is indeed a microcosm of the IT community, I've found it doesn't really represent the community as a whole. I've found that when I talk with people who are not active here, they often hold VERY different opinions from what is often the consensus here.

This is meant in NO way to be argumentative. It's just an observation to keep in mind should you get frustrated with the process.


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

P Sherm
02-08-2005, 02:54 PM
Coming in late to the discussion.....

In the Solo rulebook, under the Street Prepared category (in which IT cars are classed, btw) I believe there is a rule which states if a part is no longer available from the factory, then a similar part can be obtained from any source, provided that there's no change in basic spec/performance. I'll have to go look it up for the exact wording.

WHY isn't there something along those lines in the ITCS? Wouldn't something like this go a long way to alleviate problems like washer bottles and such, especially for cars that are getting long in the tooth?

------------------
#59 SSC Neon
Wichita Region
Yes, I know it's not an IT car... yet... :)

ITANorm
02-08-2005, 06:36 PM
Originally posted by P Sherm:
Wouldn't something like this go a long way to alleviate problems like washer bottles and such, especially for cars that are getting long in the tooth?

Whoa!!! You're starting to mess with my income now. I don't have 6 MR2 parts cars for nothing - and all but one has an intact washer bottle. http://Forum.ImprovedTouring.com/it/smile.gif

Banzai240
02-08-2005, 07:27 PM
Originally posted by P Sherm:
WHY isn't there something along those lines in the ITCS? Wouldn't something like this go a long way to alleviate problems like washer bottles and such, especially for cars that are getting long in the tooth?



You guys need to READ your 2005 ITCS... If you recall, we implemented a rule that allows you to use other than factory replacement parts that meet certain criteria... (if I recall, something to the effect of "exact equivalent OEM replacement" comes to mind...)...



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

P Sherm
02-08-2005, 10:02 PM
Originally posted by Banzai240:
You guys need to READ your 2005 ITCS...



You actually expect us to read our GCR's? http://Forum.ImprovedTouring.com/it/smile.gif
J/K

The ITCS statement is similar to the Solo rule with the exception of the "exact equivalent" wording, whereas the Solo rule states "as similar as possible". Personally, I don't care one way or the other, but maybe somebody could argue the semantics of "exact" and "equivalent". I'll use the washer bottle as an example since that seems to be one of the issues - Racer Sam wants to race car model XXX, but no original washer bottles are available new or used. Per the rules does an "exact equivalent" part exist? But "as similar as possible" means he could go to an auto parts store and buy a replacement bottle from the shelf and be legal.

These opinions/ideas are just my .02. Maybe I'm being too simplistic, I don't know.

I really do appreciate what you guys on the ITAC have accomplished so far, in spite of all of us.


------------------
#59 SSC Neon
Wichita Region
Yes, I know it's not an IT car... yet... :)

RSTPerformance
02-09-2005, 03:56 AM
Originally posted by ddewhurst:
Come on Scott how about a last name so that I may keep a close eye on the Fastrack responses the CRB puts fourth for your washer bottle letter.

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



Not sure why Scott isn't telling you but here goes....



Name: SCOTT GILES
Member#: 251063-00
Hometown: LEESBURG GA
Class: ITC
No: 21
Make/Model: HONDA CIVIC


Stephen Blethen



[This message has been edited by RSTPerformance (edited February 09, 2005).]

ddewhurst
02-09-2005, 10:31 AM
Thanks Stephen, his last name did cross my mind. He may have a reason why he didn't post his last name. That's ok.

P, even tho my response was no to the 5 rules change questions if a person can't find an EXACT used or new buy some sort of washer bottle & put it in place. End of story.

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

Tom Donnelly
02-09-2005, 03:45 PM
Once again I am late in posting but..

I think David is funny as hell most of the time.

Tom Donnelly
ITS 240z

Bill Miller
02-10-2005, 12:54 AM
Hey Andy,

I had occasion to speak w/ John Bauer in Topeka today. Among other things, I spoke w/ him about the 2.0 16v Golf/Jetta move from ITS to ITA. I asked him about the new weight on the Jetta in ITA.

John informed me that the new ITA weight of the car (2935# IIRC) was not a typo, and that was the intended weight. When I asked him why the Jetta got more weight than the Golf, and why the Jetta weighed more than the Golf, when they're essentially the same car, his response was that it was due to the fact that the Jetta was spec'd at a higher weight in ITS.

Based on this, I've got a couple of questions.

In the case of a reclassification, especially in light of the new classification process, what does the 'old' weight have to do with the new weight?

If a car is a candidate for a downward reclassification, and it takes 400+ lbs to make it fit in the lower class, wouldn't it seem to make more sense to take another 100 or so lbs out of it and leave it where it is?

Finally, how do two cars that are essentially identical (w/ the exception of the bodywork) end up in the same class, but ~450# apart in weight?

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

[This message has been edited by Bill Miller (edited February 10, 2005).]

Knestis
02-10-2005, 09:08 AM
I've grown confident that the ITAC members are all on the same page and thinking progressively but it doesn't surprise me that other folks in the system aren't following the same first principles.

We know that some ITAC folks are actually doing math on the cars, even if it isn't strictly prescriptive to setting race weights, but it would STILL be a good idea to define the process and assumptions behind it.

That the ITAC can answer a question like, "How much would my Borgward likely have to weigh if it were in ITB?" is evidence that they assume that spec weight should be set based on a desire to get a good fit, and the
"Beetle in C" case is evidence that they consider realistic minimums (and indirectly, stock curb weights) as considerations after that step.

Mr. Bauer's response makes it clear that others are doing something completely different. If I were an ITAC member, I'd be pretty sore about this.

K

[This message has been edited by Knestis (edited February 10, 2005).]

Bill Miller
02-10-2005, 09:46 AM
Originally posted by Knestis:
but it would STILL be a good idea to define the process and assumptions behind it.


Not to mention that it would discourage such obvious deviations as the Jetta example. Much easier to wiggle numbers if people don't know how you arrive at them.


That the ITAC can answer a question like, "How much would my Borgward likely have to weigh if it were in ITB?" is evidence that they assume that spec weight should be set based on a desire to get a good fit


Glad you mentioned that Kirk. For anyone on the ITAC, what's the process say the Jetta should weigh?

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

ddewhurst
02-10-2005, 10:41 AM
To my knowledge we don't have a very large clue from which magic forumla IT car weights are selected from. Just as in Production we don't have a clue which magic formula is used to class new cars.

IMHJ MY FRIENDS, FOR WE THE MEMBERS TO HAVE ZERO KNOWLEDGE ABOUT THESE MAGIC FORMULAS IS WRONG.

Example of wrong is: I would love to race my 1st gen RX-7 (in production specs) in H or G Production. Lets not get into the specs or minimal cars to race with stuff. I have asked plenty of questions of those in the know including the existing Production drivers & all I get is BULL $HIT reasons why the car will be to fast or dont fit.

Put the magic formula on paper just like the rules are written on paper, allow us to fill in the blanks & go racing. If there is a screw up now & then change the assigned class. If someone had their life savings & retirement plan money involved in building the car that would be their issue.

RANT OF................ http://Forum.ImprovedTouring.com/it/smile.gif

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

Bill Miller
02-10-2005, 11:09 AM
David,

Here's a not so magical formula:

More available information = less control



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

Joe Harlan
02-10-2005, 12:05 PM
I have written many formula's for car classification over the years and I have seen others that were written. The problem with any formula is they cannot be applied to all cars and have a proper outcome. It still takes a little common sense (scary) I think the biggest problem with printing something flatout is that it will be used as a hammer to beat the crb over the head with. Sometimes a round car just won't fit a square class even if a formula says it should.
I believe that sometimes when a mistake is made pointing it out will help get it corrected. There are way to many times that rather than just pointing it out the mistake gets used like a hammer again to beat someone over the head with, At that point the system shuts down and nothing gets done.

Andy Bettencourt
02-10-2005, 12:09 PM
Bill,

Don't know what to tell you on this one. I will put in on our next agenda. The weight doesn't make sense to me, but I am just one guy. This is the kinda thing I will fight to 'correct' but, as always, the CRB has the last say.

I respect Jeremy a great deal and need to hear more from him.

AB

------------------
Andy Bettencourt
New England Region, R188967

www.flatout-motorsports.com (http://www.flatout-motorsports.com)

Banzai240
02-10-2005, 12:52 PM
Just for the record... My notes from the November con-call read as follows:



6) IT 04-047 Reclassify VW GTI to ITA
NOTES: Move to ITA at a weight of 2475lbs.



Keeping in mind that this is the first I've read about this, I'd have to say it was a typo... They wouldn't just ADD 400lbs to our recommendation without talking to us first...



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

Bill Miller
02-10-2005, 03:25 PM
6) IT 04-047 Reclassify VW GTI to ITA
NOTES: Move to ITA at a weight of 2475lbs.


Which is what was posted in FasTrack. My question is about the Jetta, and why it's 405# more.

/edit/ Darin, I just relayed what John told me. He looked in the file, and said that the additional weight was a concious decision.

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

[This message has been edited by Bill Miller (edited February 10, 2005).]

Banzai240
02-10-2005, 04:49 PM
Originally posted by Bill Miller:
Which is what was posted in FasTrack. My question is about the Jetta, and why it's 405# more.

/edit/ Darin, I just relayed what John told me. He looked in the file, and said that the additional weight was a concious decision.



What I was told is that the CRB/Tech Dept. saw that the Jetta was "the same" and added it to the list on their own... we didn't know about it to my recollection...

I believe the weight is a mistake and it actually looks like they may have used the VR6 specs for the Jetta instead of the GTI specs... We are working on getting this straightened out now.




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

ITANorm
02-10-2005, 06:19 PM
Great . . another car with more power, stock, than we can get out of a legal IT motor. At least it weighs a whopping 105# more than we do.

------------------
Norm - #55 ITA, '86 MR2. [email protected]
http://home.alltel.net/jberry/img107.jpg
Website: home.alltel.net/jberry (http://home.alltel.net/jberry)

grjones1
02-10-2005, 07:07 PM
I want FF heads allowed for little Fords because federal heads are gittin' scarce, oh well.

Russ[/B]

Russ,
I'll probably be lambasted for this, but FF heads for the Fiesta are legal now - with the afternmarket equivalent OEM rule in place. (As long as you install the standard valves and get one before it was ported beyond 1".

And Scott, you'll be amazed I agree with you (I argued for the same last year, and was as usual brow beaten) - the door glass should go simply for safety and the washer tank, who cares? as others have said, use it for the catch tank, but its removal should be allowed.

And Kirk, I believe turn signal stalks are removable within the instrument alteration rules. Unless of course you wish to argue my reading of the rules. (Sarcasm mine)

G. Robert


[This message has been edited by grjones1 (edited February 10, 2005).]

Knestis
02-10-2005, 08:30 PM
<font face=\"Verdana, Arial\" size=\"2\">...turn signal stalks are removable within the instrument alteration rules. ...</font>

What the heck - I'll bite: So is a "turn signal stalk"...

A) "An indicator or readout which, when active, contains information about some aspect of car operation for driver reference"

B) "Mechanical or electronic readouts of automotive parameters"

C) None of the above

Go for it! http://Forum.ImprovedTouring.com/it/smile.gif

K

[This message has been edited by Knestis (edited February 10, 2005).]

Bill Miller
02-10-2005, 10:23 PM
Originally posted by Banzai240:
What I was told is that the CRB/Tech Dept. saw that the Jetta was "the same" and added it to the list on their own... we didn't know about it to my recollection...

I believe the weight is a mistake and it actually looks like they may have used the VR6 specs for the Jetta instead of the GTI specs... We are working on getting this straightened out now.




I guess Darin. Although, I don't understand how if it's "the same", why wouldn't the weight be the same? The fact that they would add that much weight to it, and it wouldn't throw a red flag that it was taking that much weight, doesn't do a whole lot for my comfort level w/ the people making the decisions.

But, I guess the important thing is that it gets fixed.


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

grjones1
02-10-2005, 10:52 PM
Originally posted by Knestis:
What the heck - I'll bite: So is a "turn signal stalk"...

A) "An indicator or readout which, when active, contains information about some aspect of car operation for driver reference"

B) "Mechanical or electronic readouts of automotive parameters"

C) None of the above

Go for it! http://Forum.ImprovedTouring.com/it/smile.gif

K

[This message has been edited by Knestis (edited February 10, 2005).]

K,
"Instruments" I know as defined in the GCR Glossary are as you described, but the use of "gauges and instruments" in the ITCS stongly implies that the defintion of "instrument" as a switch as well as a gauge was the intent of this rule. [Why if "instrument is simply defined as a gauge would the writers say "gauges and gauges"(I beleieve we have argued this before.)]

But a more defining point would be that alterations are permitted by the installation of safety equipment, and if one installs a releaseable steering wheel (a safety item) more than likely his turn signal stalks would interfere with that installation and need to be removed.

Another point is that the yoke (on a Fiesta for example) that carries the steering wheel locking mechanism, also may carry the light stalk controls and "must be removed" in order to remove the locking mechanism.

And I promise I can deliver testimonials from a miinimum of twenty IT drivers in the DC Region at least that their interpretation of the interior alteration rules allows for removal of the turn signal operating mechanisms. Mainly because one tends to smack the levers and activate his turn signals during competition which distraction may be seen to be a safety issue.

And of course a turn signal switch when activated does "contain(s) information about some aspect of car operation for driver reference" because the switch indicates which signal is actvated by its up or down position.

But of course most of this is based on that dreaded "common sense" argument, which as we all know may be totally disregarded in discussing these issues.

G. Robert

Knestis
02-11-2005, 12:11 AM
I haven't gotten into one of these in a LONG time but the car is packed and ready for the Tarheel HPDE this weekend, and this is like a big ol' lob, too close to the net to pass up...


<font face=\"Verdana, Arial\" size=\"2\">\"Instruments\" I know as defined in the GCR Glossary are as you described, but the use of \"gauges and instruments\" in the ITCS stongly implies that the defintion of \"instrument\" as a switch as well as a gauge was the intent of this rule. [Why if \"instrument is simply defined as a gauge would the writers say \"gauges and gauges\"(I beleieve we have argued this before.)</font>

It makes not a whit of difference what the ITCS 'implies' - the definition is clearly stated. You could just as easily - and accurately - have said...

...but the use of "gauges and instruments" in the ITCS stongly implies that the defintion of "instrument" as a carrot as well as a gauge was the intent of this rule.

If we've argued this before, you've been wrong before.


<font face=\"Verdana, Arial\" size=\"2\">But a more defining point would be that alterations are permitted by the installation of safety equipment, and if one installs a releaseable steering wheel (a safety item) more than likely his turn signal stalks would interfere with that installation and need to be removed.</font>

Rollcage, yes. Other "safety equipment?" Show me. Even if it does, I did it, it doesn't, they don't.


<font face=\"Verdana, Arial\" size=\"2\">Another point is that the yoke (on a Fiesta for example) that carries the steering wheel locking mechanism, also may carry the light stalk controls and \"must be removed\" in order to remove the locking mechanism.</font>

I had to remove a lot of stuff to get to the steering lock on my car - including the signal AND wiper stalks. I was clever enough to remember how it all went on and put it back. I would expect others to be able to do the same or I'd worry that they shouldn't be working on a car that I'm on the race track with.


<font face=\"Verdana, Arial\" size=\"2\">And I promise I can deliver testimonials from a miinimum of twenty IT drivers in the DC Region at least that their interpretation of the interior alteration rules allows for removal of the turn signal operating mechanisms. Mainly because one tends to smack the levers and activate his turn signals during competition which distraction may be seen to be a safety issue.</font>

Do these 20 drivers know that you are telling people that they are such wankers that they flail around in the cockpit enough to turn on the signals? That you think they are ADD enough to be scared off the road by the blinking light on the dashboard? Besides - who CARES? I could get affidavits from 20 of my neighbors here in NC that their interpretation of the US Constitution that black people shouldn't be allowed to vote or own property. That, thank the powers, does not make it right.


<font face=\"Verdana, Arial\" size=\"2\">And of course a turn signal switch when activated does \"contain(s) information about some aspect of car operation for driver reference\" because the switch indicates which signal is actvated by its up or down position.</font>

Ever heard the saying, "too clever by half?" This is perfect! Two points for creativity but it doesn't help your argument.


<font face=\"Verdana, Arial\" size=\"2\">But of course most of this is based on that dreaded \"common sense\" argument, which as we all know may be totally disregarded in discussing these issues.</font>

Someone - ANYONE - please agree that any of the above mutilated rationale fall anywhere near being "common sense" and I will gracefully cede the electronic field in defeat.

That was pretty funny stuff, Man. Very, very good. http://Forum.ImprovedTouring.com/it/biggrin.gif

K

[This message has been edited by Knestis (edited February 10, 2005).]

Geo
02-11-2005, 12:56 AM
Originally posted by grjones1:
And I promise I can deliver testimonials from a miinimum of twenty IT drivers in the DC Region at least that their interpretation of the interior alteration rules allows for removal of the turn signal operating mechanisms.

"All the other kids are doing it" was not a valid defense in Jr. High and it's not here either. Sorry.


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

Geo
02-11-2005, 12:59 AM
Originally posted by Knestis:
Do these 20 drivers know that you are telling people that they are such wankers that they flail around in the cockpit enough to turn on the signals? That you think they are ADD enough to be scared off the road by the blinking light on the dashboard? Besides - who CARES? I could get affidavits from 20 of my neighbors here in NC that their interpretation of the US Constitution that black people shouldn't be allowed to vote or own property. That, thank the powers, does not make it right.

Three cheers for the right and learned gentleman from North Carolina!


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

dickita15
02-11-2005, 08:08 AM
And here gentelmen is the frustration that some people have with IT rules as they have evolved. Now I am as big a SCCA nerd as most anyone, but this is frustrating that we have to spend time worrying about turn stalks and washer bottles. I do worry about it because I would rather have a legal car that not. Some one say that a particular rule is stupid and no one will protest so they should not worry about it. But I imagine a world where I am not stuck with the chore of expending resources to restore unnesesary parts to remain legal. I do not think that makes me in favor of rules creep.
dick patullo

zooracer
02-11-2005, 10:09 AM
well, here we go.
Unfortunately I dont have lots of time to be typing on forums, so I'll keep it short as always
Modern cars...Well I like to think of these as models built after the mid eighties. You know, cars you will actually see driving down the road on your way to work today.
Classify them competitively...Well I thought this was self explanatory, especially when it is being discussed elsewhere on this forum.
ITA 88-91 Civic DX should be moved to a more competitive class. (modern car, competitive class). Why?
Well for starters it is a very, very common car with the youngsters of today (you know, the future of SCCA?). You will see this car all day long on the road, and parts are super easy to find, as are aftermarket.
This is a 92hp car that is not being moved with the first gen SI's to ITB, which is also a 90hp car (and nearly 200# lighter then the DX). When is the last time you saw an 87 SI on the road?
Now, this was all covered in this very thread (I hate pouring over old arguements...)
How about the 91 toyota celica GT? At 150 or so HP in IT trim and classed in ITS? The integra GSR is in the very same class with what, 170 HP stock! And barely 100# lighter? And I think it can be argued that the cars are pretty close in all other regards (both are good handling FWD'ers). Soooooo, lets move it to ITA, even if we need to put a little weight on it for the move. Notice how no one is running these? Curious...
There are countless others, but I have already run long. In order to make it so a larger variety of MODERN cars can be COMPETITIVE, there needs to be someone with some common sense classing these cars. Also, the SCCA cant be afraid to adjust weights according to competitiveness, just like the pro's do (world challenge).
matt

Geo
02-11-2005, 11:01 AM
Actually, the GSR is already reasonably competitive in some areas in ITS, the E36 (another modern car) not withstanding (nothing is competitive with it at the moment). At 170 bhp stock it belongs in ITS.



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

zooracer
02-11-2005, 11:04 AM
yes, I was comparing the gsr to the celica, saying that the celica should not be in the same class as the gsr because of the major horsepower difference. I agree that the gsr should be in ITS.
I came off kinda strong on here, but can assure I'm a nice guy if met in person. Easy to get carried away on here...
matt

Joe Harlan
02-11-2005, 12:02 PM
<font face=\"Verdana, Arial\" size=\"2\">There are countless others, but I have already run long. In order to make it so a larger variety of MODERN cars can be COMPETITIVE, there needs to be someone with some common sense classing these cars. </font>

Matt, We do have some good people on the ITAC and they are currently doing a good job. What we need is more people writing proper letters supported by facts to classify these newer cars in a competitive fashion. I personally don't want to see the little time these guys have wasted on fixing all of the previous mistakes for cars that aren't and won't be raced. There are lots of good cars that can and will be classed when they are requested I just don't see that it is the job of the ITAC to go hunt them down.

Geo
02-11-2005, 12:11 PM
Originally posted by zooracer:
yes, I was comparing the gsr to the celica, saying that the celica should not be in the same class as the gsr because of the major horsepower difference. I agree that the gsr should be in ITS.
I came off kinda strong on here, but can assure I'm a nice guy if met in person. Easy to get carried away on here...
matt

Matt, I don't think you came on strong. You may have a good point about the Celica. That's why I asked the question.

I have zero reason to doubt you're a nice guy. Don't sweat any of this. Sometimes I'll ask probing questions because I want to understand what's being said. Then, other times I open my mouth and before I know it my foot is stuck in there just as I'm starting to shoot myself in the foot. 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

grjones1
02-11-2005, 12:22 PM
Originally posted by Knestis:
I haven't gotten into one of these in a LONG time but the car is packed and ready for the Tarheel HPDE this weekend, and this is like a big ol' lob, too close to the net to pass up...

Someone - ANYONE - please agree that any of the above mutilated rationale fall anywhere near being "common sense" and I will gracefully cede the electronic field in defeat.

That was pretty funny stuff, Man. Very, very good. http://Forum.ImprovedTouring.com/it/biggrin.gif

K

[This message has been edited by Knestis (edited February 10, 2005).]

My tennis also needs exercise. Ah same ol' K, - when someone presents an alternative view in disagreement with his "almighty omniscience," the opinion is "mutilated rationale" and then George leaps in to support his friend. I love it! Please someone explain how removing passenger side glass will lead to full race cams. If that is not a phenomenal leap in logic, I'll turn in my MA (if K "cedes the electronic field in defeat."

Anyway, let's dispute the points. By "imply" I mean to confirm the intention of the rule. And anywhere in automobilia and elsewhere especially in the electronics field, "instruments" are defined as tools, (including switches) as well as gauges. A prob is an instrument as well as a voltmeter. So you see the glossary's rather limited definition must be seen as just that. And if a switch can be seen to meet even that definition (i.e., by indicating "some aspect of car operation for driver reference") then switches are instruments as all the English language world knows. (in fact K, if you look at your VW service manual, you'll find dashboard switches fall under the heading of "Instruments."

Some cars require removal of the stalks in order to install a removable steering wheel. If yours doesn't, fine, but yours is not everyone's. Same with the steering wheel locking mechanism. On the Fiesta, the yoke is one piece with the lock and the base for the turn signal stalks- must be removed.

And of course with the "stock" wiring harness in place, it's not just the dashboard turn signal indicator blinking its the exterior turn lights distracting other drivers. You failed to recognize that. And I don't think finger tips accidentally flicking stalks is what one can call "flailing around in the cockpit."

And George and K, if 20 out of 21 drivers read a rule the same way, it is simply an indication that the rule is communicating a certain message. It is not to say that because everyone is doing it, it is right.
You guys are so ready to disprove anyone's opinion that differs from your own that you often fail to consider the points being made.

I'm glad you find my comments amusing. I too often find your rationales hysterical.

G. Robert

[This message has been edited by grjones1 (edited February 11, 2005).]

[This message has been edited by grjones1 (edited February 11, 2005).]
Spelling and additions.
G

[This message has been edited by grjones1 (edited February 11, 2005).]

Greg Amy
02-11-2005, 12:35 PM
BWAH-HAH-HAH-HAH!!! Wahhhhh-hooo!!! Yuk, yuk, yuk, yuk, yuk!!! Chuckle, chuckle, chuckle...

This is too precious.

Knestis
02-11-2005, 12:49 PM
I'm glad we're all laughing about this. Seriously.

It sounds to me like you (GRJ) are advocating for changes to the glossary definitions, which is a very different thing than simply adopting others that support a desired interpretation. That is logically sound.

Where the lock is concerned, there were ways that I could have killed mine that would have required leaving otherwise-stock parts off, and one way - a more complex way - that I could have done it leaving them intact. I assumed that those bits needed to stay, so I did it the hard, "right" way.

All web hyperbole aside, I simply get worried when we institutionalize sloppy interpretations, we let the proverbial camel's nose under the flap of our shared tent. Are wiper bottles or signal stalks the end of the IT world as we know it? Obviously not.

But if we don't draw the line where it is defined by the text of the rules, where DO we?

And as long as the line keeps moving, we are in very real danger of losing control of the state of our category, particularly now that it has been taken out of stasis by the hard work of the current ITAC.

K

EDIT - I don't claim omnicience or anything even close to it. That's why I lean so heavily to the actual text of the rules.

[This message has been edited by Knestis (edited February 11, 2005).]

grjones1
02-11-2005, 01:24 PM
Originally posted by Knestis:
I'm glad we're all laughing about this. Seriously.

It sounds to me like you (GRJ) are advocating for changes to the glossary definitions, which is a very different thing than simply adopting others that support a desired interpretation. That is logically sound.

Where the lock is concerned, there were ways that I could have killed mine that would have required leaving otherwise-stock parts off, and one way - a more complex way - that I could have done it leaving them intact. I assumed that those bits needed to stay, so I did it the hard, "right" way.

All web hyperbole aside, I simply get worried when we institutionalize sloppy interpretations, we let the proverbial camel's nose under the flap of our shared tent. Are wiper bottles or signal stalks the end of the IT world as we know it? Obviously not.

But if we don't draw the line where it is defined by the text of the rules, where DO we?

And as long as the line keeps moving, we are in very real danger of losing control of the state of our category, particularly now that it has been taken out of stasis by the hard work of the current ITAC.

K

EDIT - I don't claim omnicience or anything even close to it. That's why I lean so heavily to the actual text of the rules.

[This message has been edited by Knestis (edited February 11, 2005).]

K,
I earnestly believe that you and I differ so often because you view IT as an adjunct to Showroom Stock and I see it as the first step to real race cars. But that's another matter. And interpreting rules is part of the game.

I do enjoy your metaphors however ("we let the proverbial camel's nose under the flap of our shared tent.")

I must say again I also enjoyed meeting you at VIR and would prefer a more friendly adversarial relationship. Sorry if the feelings aren't mutual.

G. Robert



[This message has been edited by grjones1 (edited February 11, 2005).]

Joe Harlan
02-11-2005, 01:38 PM
Sorry G. but I could bring 100 guys/bals that would say you have stretched this reading beyond the elastic limits of even the most liberal reading of the rule book. Your supporting evidence is not well founded and your fees shall be retained by this board to treat everyone on the ITAC to a cup of cheap coffee..... http://Forum.ImprovedTouring.com/it/smile.gif Try finding a good headlamp switch for a 240z....But all of my cars have them installed and in the way...

grjones1
02-11-2005, 02:15 PM
Originally posted by Joe Harlan:
Sorry G. but I could bring 100 guys/bals that would say you have stretched this reading beyond the elastic limits of even the most liberal reading of the rule book. Your supporting evidence is not well founded and your fees shall be retained by this board to treat everyone on the ITAC to a cup of cheap coffee..... http://Forum.ImprovedTouring.com/it/smile.gif Try finding a good headlamp switch for a 240z....But all of my cars have them installed and in the way...

Joe,
With all respect to the ITAC, I don't think we have 100 guys in IT (at least in C) but as I said I can find 20 with their switches and stalks removed. (And I am fully aware that doesn't make it legal, only that they are interpreting the written rule the same way I am.) And as far as stretching interpretations, I find it no more stretching the rules than you all have done with your roll cages. (Please don't counter this. I've heard the arguments.)

But I'll tape my stalks back on to keep from wasting time with a ridiculous protest. Thanks for your thoughts and enjoy the coffee.

G. Robert



[This message has been edited by grjones1 (edited February 11, 2005).]

Joe Harlan
02-11-2005, 02:37 PM
Haha, You need to look at who you are talking to. My stance on rollcages is a lot tighter than you think. 20 people don't make it right.

grjones1
02-11-2005, 03:02 PM
Originally posted by Joe Harlan:
Haha, You need to look at who you are talking to. My stance on rollcages is a lot tighter than you think. 20 people don't make it right.

Would 100 automotive engineers who consider a switch an "instrument" make it right?

I am thouroughly convinced that when the writers of "Gauges and instruments may be added, replaced, or removed," they intended "instruments" to include switches and controls, because that is what "instrument" means to any reasonable speaker of English. The GCR glossary definition of instrument was written long after the IT rules and the mistake in semantics was never corrected, as so often happens. This interpretation is not tortured. It is a clear report of fact.

As much as I appreciate your efforts, I doubt this group would admit being wrong if I collected the evidence with 100 sworn affadavits.
G. Robert



[This message has been edited by grjones1 (edited February 11, 2005).]

Knestis
02-11-2005, 03:24 PM
Originally posted by grjones1:
... Sorry if the feelings aren't mutual.

I don't know where you get the idea that they aren't. Maybe you are better at typing http://Forum.ImprovedTouring.com/it/smile.gif than reading http://Forum.ImprovedTouring.com/it/smile.gif ...

K

grjones1
02-11-2005, 03:35 PM
Originally posted by Knestis:
I don't know where you get the idea that they aren't. Maybe you are better at typing http://Forum.ImprovedTouring.com/it/smile.gif than reading http://Forum.ImprovedTouring.com/it/smile.gif ...

K


I was just looking for reassurance.
G

Tom Donnelly
02-11-2005, 03:57 PM
Both my 240z's have turn signal stalks. It doesn't say you can remove them so I didn't. They are bent out of the way and it could be argued that that is a modifcation but they are out of the way when I'm "flailing around".

Just my point of view.

Tom Donnelly
ITS 240z

Joe Harlan
02-11-2005, 04:29 PM
No 100 engineers would be the last group I would listen to...You said it yourself "SWITCH" Please read yer GCR.

While it would be a Chicken S**T protest if I knew it was done on purpose I would gladly write the check to get it clarified.

grjones1
02-11-2005, 04:49 PM
Originally posted by Joe Harlan:
No 100 engineers would be the last group I would listen to...You said it yourself "SWITCH" Please read yer GCR.

While it would be a Chicken S**T protest if I knew it was done on purpose I would gladly write the check to get it clarified.


Joe,
This is what really bothers me. If you won't listen to engineers concerning automotive parlance and such, who do you listen to?

"Switch" is not defined in the GCR. But I discovered something else of interest: "Instrument Panel" is shown to be "...a mounting area for various gauges and controls." Is it not significant that something called an INSTRUMENT Panel contains both gauges and controls - i.e., all inclusive by definition.
Does this not suggest anything to you?

Please admit that "instrument" means controls (switches) as well as gauges and that whoever defined "instrument" in the glossary may have inadvertantly overlooked that fact, so I can award you reasonableness.

G

[This message has been edited by grjones1 (edited February 11, 2005).]

[This message has been edited by grjones1 (edited February 11, 2005).]

ITANorm
02-11-2005, 05:15 PM
Interestingly enough, here's a theoretical dilemma:

With the seatback anchored (per the rules), and a fixed steering wheel in place, it is extremely difficult to get out of some cars. On some of those same cars, it IS impossible (through any means I've found) to mount the release mechanism for the wheel if the turn signal saddle assembly remains in place. Since it is a cast unit that bolts to the steering column - it has to go (and before you suggest relocation, that is as illegal as removal, under the same set of rules).

So - if someone reasonably removes the signal stalk assembly in order to facilitate his being able to get out of the car in an emergency, it becomes a safety issue. I realize that only "required" safety items trigger the loophole - but when the requirement becomes a common-sense one as opposed to a GCR mandated one, I'll chhose to live with common-sense as opposed to dying by the GCR.

And then the conpiracy theorist in me wonders whether some of this isn't a tactical maneuver by the CRB / BoD to force cars from the plentiful IT ranks into the maundering Prod. ranks. Hmmmm . . ..

DavidM
02-11-2005, 05:26 PM
Turn signal stalks!?!?!?!?! Holy crap! I can't believe I just spent 10 minutes reading a debate on !@#$%^&* turn signal stalks! Who cares! Unless there's some car out there with the magic "go fast" turn signal stalk, it doesn't make a bit of difference to the speed of a car whether or not it has the turn signal stalk.

I personally would never protest anyone because they didn't have the turn signal stalk, or they removed their passenger side window glass, or they took out the heater core, or any of the other nonrelevant to speed things discussed. The guy didn't beat me because he didn't have a washer bottle. He beat me because he was faster than me. Now, an illegal ECU or compression is a different story.

How bout the rules address things that make a car go and stop faster as well as safety. Leave everything else up to the discretion of the driver/builder. You want to keep your turn signal stalk, go right ahead. Or you can remove it if you want. I have yet to figure out how removing the washer bottle and heater core (as examples) move IT down the evil path towards prod, yet open diffs don't? Open (as in you can do what you want) diffs was one of the big shocks I had when I started looking at IT racing. I'm sure there's some reason, but open diffs seem a long ways away from stock to me. Engine management systems in the stock box seem pretty far from stock as well.

Perhaps the rules should specifically address the stuff that really matters and the trivial things can be handled however you want. That way the rules guys can focus on things like minimum weights and car classification instead of whether or not you can remove the water bottle.

Just my $.02.

David

Joe Harlan
02-11-2005, 05:34 PM
WTF? I can't believe how stupid this crap gets. I have been in the automotive industry for 25years.......way to freakin long A switch is not meant to be an instrument and I will gladly prove it in the COA...100 engineers that have no practical experience means nothing other than than went to school to learn what I learned in the field...Who's got better information?

grjones1
02-11-2005, 05:36 PM
Originally posted by DavidM:
Turn signal stalks!?!?!?!?! Holy crap! I can't believe I just spent 10 minutes reading a debate on !@#$%^&* turn signal stalks! Who cares! Unless there's some car out there with the magic "go fast" turn signal stalk, it doesn't make a bit of difference to the speed of a car whether or not it has the turn signal stalk.

I personally would never protest anyone because they didn't have the turn signal stalk, or they removed their passenger side window glass, or they took out the heater core, or any of the other nonrelevant to speed things discussed. The guy didn't beat me because he didn't have a washer bottle. He beat me because he was faster than me. Now, an illegal ECU or compression is a different story.

How bout the rules address things that make a car go and stop faster as well as safety. Leave everything else up to the discretion of the driver/builder. You want to keep your turn signal stalk, go right ahead. Or you can remove it if you want. I have yet to figure out how removing the washer bottle and heater core (as examples) move IT down the evil path towards prod, yet open diffs don't? Open (as in you can do what you want) diffs was one of the big shocks I had when I started looking at IT racing. I'm sure there's some reason, but open diffs seem a long ways away from stock to me. Engine management systems in the stock box seem pretty far from stock as well.

Perhaps the rules should specifically address the stuff that really matters and the trivial things can be handled however you want. That way the rules guys can focus on things like minimum weights and car classification instead of whether or not you can remove the water bottle.

Just my $.02.

David

grjones1
02-11-2005, 05:38 PM
Just my $.02.

David[/B]

Well said, David.

GRJ

Knestis
02-11-2005, 05:41 PM
With respect, David - it's not about the specific part being used as the example du jour.

It's about how, if we don't follow the rules as written, we have to sort the "stuff that really matters" from the "trivial things."

What if something is trivial in my region but it matters when I go to the ARRC, or to a particular tech inspector or steward who doesn't like my face?

If you get beat by 2 seconds over a 20-minute race, how trivial does an advantage have to be to make that happen?

Is something LESS trivial if in fact I beat you, than it is if I don't? How do we work that dynamic out among a bunch of people who race one-another over the course of a season?

Do you really want to run under a sanction that is as inconsistent as the one described here?

K

grjones1
02-11-2005, 05:49 PM
<font face=\"Verdana, Arial\" size=\"2\">B]</font>
Well Joe, now I'm really concerned. If you have never heard of a "switch" being referred to as an "instrument," then you have not read too many service manuals. Again I refer you to the VW, and many other, manuals and I can give you the names of many service technicians (not engineers) who will report same.
Im really not trying to make you angry, but your lapse in terminology is much the same as that which gets us into these picayune squabbles. And of course the possibilty that there is a great deal out there that neither of us knows. The difference, I think, is that some of us can admit it.

GRJ



[This message has been edited by grjones1 (edited February 11, 2005).]

Mike Guenther
02-11-2005, 06:12 PM
Well, I hate to jump into this hornets nest of discontent. http://Forum.ImprovedTouring.com/it/smile.gif
But as a 25 + year member of ISA, as in Instrument Society of America, let me put this to rest. A switch IS an instrument. It does send a signal that indicates something. It can be manual or automatic. It can indicate position or be used to make something else indicate position. It can indicate level, pressure, temperature, flow, or exceeding the setpoint of some variable. A switch is an instrument per The Instrumentation, Systems and Automattion Society. Back to the soap opera.

Edit to add :
For more info go to www.isa.org (http://www.isa.org) and for more switches than you can shake a stalk at try http://www.isadirectory.org/online/master.cfmthen click on 'products' and type in "switch" in the search window.

[This message has been edited by Mike Guenther (edited February 12, 2005).]

[This message has been edited by Mike Guenther (edited February 12, 2005).]

grjones1
02-11-2005, 06:28 PM
Originally posted by Mike Guenther:
Well, I hate to jump into this hornets nest of discontent. http://Forum.ImprovedTouring.com/it/smile.gif
But as a 25 + year member of ISA, as in Instrument Society of America, let me put this to rest. A switch IS an instrument. It does send a signal that indicates something. It can be manual or automatic. It can indicate position or be used to make something else indicate position. It can indicate level, pressure, temperature, flow, or exceeding the setpoint of some variable. A switch is an instrument per The Instrumentation, Systems and Automattion Society. Back to the soap opera.

Thank you, Mike. These are the days of our lives.

GRJ

Joe Harlan
02-11-2005, 06:38 PM
Ok Cool I loose, Bet I win the protest.... http://Forum.ImprovedTouring.com/it/smile.gif Wanna take that bet?

grjones1
02-11-2005, 06:52 PM
Originally posted by Joe Harlan:
Ok Cool I loose, Bet I win the protest.... http://Forum.ImprovedTouring.com/it/smile.gif Wanna take that bet?

And once again, logic, fair play, and common sense take a flying leap.

I can't be sure, but I might have a fair shot at winning the bet in the DC Region, eventhough you are a member of the ITAC. Don't let your position go too far to your head. http://Forum.ImprovedTouring.com/it/smile.gif

GRJ



[This message has been edited by grjones1 (edited February 11, 2005).]

Geo
02-11-2005, 07:11 PM
If it will make anyone happy, when my car is finished I'd be happy to remove the steering column stalks and coordinate a protest and appeal.

I happen to think Joe is right, but I'd be just as happy if he is not (not personal, just that I'd be happy to be able to remove the stalks).


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

Geo
02-11-2005, 07:14 PM
Originally posted by grjones1:
I can't be sure, but I might have a fair shot at winning the bet in the DC Region, eventhough you are a member of the ITAC. Don't let your position go too far to your head. http://Forum.ImprovedTouring.com/it/smile.gif

GRJ, Joe is not a member of the ITAC. Even if he was, I don't think the position would ever go to his head. While I don't always agree with him, I've always thought he is fair, reasonable, and consistent.

BTW, winning a protest in DCR doesn't mean anything. It's the appeal that does ultimately.


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

Joe Harlan
02-11-2005, 07:40 PM
haha...Me a member of the ITAC...You couldn't give me the job for pay let alone being a volunteer. Sportsmanship is playing inside a reasonable set of rules and proving you can out drive your fellow competitior. Sportsmanship is not looking for every misplaceded comma or poorly structured sentence to try to beat a hole through a rule. If 95% of the IT group still has a turn signal switch then I would bet money that your view is not correct. As far as winning in your division goes more power to ya, I'll win in the COA where it counts.

grjones1
02-11-2005, 07:40 PM
Originally posted by Geo:
BTW,



I stand corrected, George. ( I still have trouble knowing to whom I am speaking.) And I mean't no disrespect for the members other than even when some are shown to be not so correct in their assessments, they do at times appear to be more authoritative than informed.

I would, for example, hope that you would find a DC Region protest decision to be very important. (And please don't allow anything I say to reflect on the region. I'm just a participant.)

GRJ

grjones1
02-11-2005, 07:47 PM
Originally posted by Joe Harlan:
Sportsmanship is playing inside a reasonable set of rules and proving you can out drive your fellow competitior.
I concur, and I believe I do the same. The operative term here is "reasonable set of rules." Which unfortunately must be determined by looking at those commas and discovering what sometimes contradictory evidence must ultimately prove.

I don't believe, at least in my venue, 95% still have stalks, and I don't believe "Instruments and gauges may be altered, replaced, or removed," is a poorly constructed sentence. I beleive it means exactly what it says. It's the glossary definition of "instruments" that is flawed.

But now I'm beating a belabored horse.
Thanks for your indulgence.


GRJ

[This message has been edited by grjones1 (edited February 11, 2005).]

[This message has been edited by grjones1 (edited February 11, 2005).]

gran racing
02-11-2005, 08:17 PM
Ah, the winter months when there is little racing. Don't ya just love it.

There has to be some better topics we can spend our energy on. Hmmm...

------------------
Dave Gran
NER ITB #13
'87 Honda Prelude si

Geo
02-11-2005, 09:55 PM
Originally posted by grjones1:
I would, for example, hope that you would find a DC Region protest decision to be very important. (And please don't allow anything I say to reflect on the region. I'm just a participant.)

GRJ, no disrespect to you or your region, but the regional protest would only be to set up the more meaningful appeal.

And as I said, when my is done, I'd be happy to be the Guinea Pig.


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

grjones1
02-11-2005, 10:00 PM
Originally posted by gran racing:
Ah, the winter months when there is little racing. Don't ya just love it.

There has to be some better topics we can spend our energy on. Hmmm...


Yea Dave, like whether to buy a trailer or register a car!??? http://Forum.ImprovedTouring.com/it/smile.gif

GRJ

lateapex911
02-11-2005, 10:03 PM
Cccaa...aan't dooo it.... Getting suuuccckkked innnnn..........

oh no.....must resist...

OK, so the whole basis of the "turn sgnal stalk removal is legal" arguement is that when they wrote the rule, that's what you (GRJ) THINK they meant, but you think that, (although an automovive engineer might differ), that somewhere down the road, over the years, someone ELSE, wrote the definition, and you THINk that THEY didn't do their homework, because THEIR definition doesn't fit YOUR definition???

Priceless!

Here's a hint...Write a letter, get the rule, or the definition changed, or get the things back on the car if you want your car to be legal. Lest the phrase "What's good for the goose is good for the gander" be uttered to you when you have issues with your competitor being under weight or running the wrong carb, or the wrong cam, or.....

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

grjones1
02-11-2005, 10:21 PM
OK, so the whole basis of the "turn sgnal stalk removal is legal" arguement is that when they wrote the rule, that's what you (GRJ) THINK they meant, but you think that, (although an automovive engineer might differ), that somewhere down the road, over the years, someone ELSE, wrote the definition, and you THINk that THEY didn't do their homework, because THEIR definition doesn't fit YOUR definition???

Priceless!

Here's a hint...Write a letter, get the rule, or the definition changed, or get the things back on the car if you want your car to be legal. Lest the phrase "What's good for the goose is good for the gander" be uttered to you when you have issues with your competitor being under weight or running the wrong carb, or the wrong cam, or.....

[/B]

Gee whiz, Jake, read the thread! I think the definition of "instrument" is not what "I think," it's pretty well established and the writer of the glossary whoever and whenever got it wrong.

And I don't "think" "Gauges and instruments may be added, replaced or removed," means what it says - that's what it says!

Let me ask you this: How many of you who disagree with my reading have installed push button starter switches or toggle switch ignition switches? Because if you have and you think that this rule doesn't mean what it says then you are illegal. Toggle switches and push buttons are not "gauges," they are switches. Nothing allows you those trappings but this statement. And you can't apply it in one instance and not the other.
GRJ

Knestis
02-11-2005, 10:39 PM
Originally posted by grjones1:
... Toggle switches and push buttons are not "gauges," they are switches. ...

Exactly! We agree. So are signal stalks. http://Forum.ImprovedTouring.com/it/biggrin.gif

K

Joe Harlan
02-11-2005, 10:41 PM
All of my stuff still starts with the factory ignition key.

lateapex911
02-11-2005, 10:45 PM
Originally posted by grjones1:
Gee whiz, Jake, read the thread! I think the definition of "instrument" is not what "I think," it's pretty well established and the writer of the glossary whoever and whenever got it wrong.

GRJ



And that statement is my proof ot the "GRJ law", which is ..."I am the center of the universe"

(Has it occured to you, that the definition in the glossary is as they intend it to be, regardless of your more "common, or well known engineering" definition?)



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

grjones1
02-11-2005, 11:07 PM
Originally posted by Knestis:
Exactly! We agree. So are signal stalks. http://Forum.ImprovedTouring.com/it/biggrin.gif

K

Exactly, K. Signal stalks are switches just like toggle fuel pump, ignition, etc. switches. And again I ask what rule are you using to install those switches. And if you are using the rule, which I beleive you must that you can add, replace or remove gauges and instruments then you must allow removal of turn signal stalks.
Because the rule applies in both directions. You are admitting that indeed stalks are switches and in turn are instruments and can be removed as the rule says.

Please tell me you follow this.

GRJ

grjones1
02-11-2005, 11:14 PM
Originally posted by lateapex911:
And that statement is my proof ot the "GRJ law", which is ..."I am the center of the universe"


Jake,
I've made up my mind to no longer grow angry at your insipid remarks. I will as they say "consider the source" and hope everyone else does.
GRJ

grjones1
02-11-2005, 11:23 PM
Originally posted by lateapex911:

(Has it occured to you, that the definition in the glossary is as they intend it to be, regardless of your more "common, or well known engineering" definition?)

Yes it has Jake and I've been waiting for someone to make this argument: that the writer wanted to limit the definition (perhaps he thought he was "the center of the universe" and could redefine accepted terms for his own use.
But, no, I think he or she probably just left off the part that instruments are also switches and it got printed that way. That's more logical than one purposely outdating intended rules. But I may be wrong, Jake, how about you, can you be wrong?
GRJ

[This message has been edited by grjones1 (edited February 11, 2005).]

Greg Amy
02-11-2005, 11:50 PM
Why is it that every time I read a debate on this forum where GRJ is in the center, I feel all icky like I do when I step out of the Summit Point paddock outhouse...?

grjones1
02-12-2005, 12:03 AM
Originally posted by GregAmy:
Why is it that every time I read a debate on this forum where GRJ is in the center, I feel all icky like I do when I step out of the Summit Point paddock outhouse...?

And why is it I can't engage in a reasonable debate without suffering personal insults?
GRJ

grjones1
02-12-2005, 12:07 AM
Originally posted by GregAmy:
Why is it that every time I read a debate on this forum where GRJ is in the center, I feel all icky like I do when I step out of the Summit Point paddock outhouse...?
And tell me Greg do you not get the same feeling when you step out of the Lime Rock outhouses or do you clean them?
GRJ

gran racing
02-12-2005, 12:11 AM
GRJ - hey, that's not a bad idea. Or maybe one on how to keep what I already have and keep using that in the future? http://Forum.ImprovedTouring.com/it/biggrin.gif

------------------
Dave Gran
NER ITB #13
'87 Honda Prelude si

Geo
02-12-2005, 01:07 AM
GRJ, as I've said many times (though some might disagree of course), intent is not valid in determining legality. The written word is what matters. Intent only matters when crafting a rule. It's up to the rules writers to write the rule as they mean it to be. But once it's written, intent is a non-issue.


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

grjones1
02-12-2005, 01:48 AM
Originally posted by Geo:
GRJ, as I've said many times (though some might disagree of course), intent is not valid in determining legality. The written word is what matters. Intent only matters when crafting a rule. It's up to the rules writers to write the rule as they mean it to be. But once it's written, intent is a non-issue.

George,
The last time I used "intent" was in reference to changing a rule that was meant (intended) to allow removal and replacement of controls and gauges.
I don't know how more clear the written word can be (intent be damned)than when it says "Gauges and instruments may be replaced, added, or removed." Especially when people are using the rule to add switches as well as gauges. (I notice that only one person has stated he uses his stock ignition switch.)
I understand fully that the definition of "instrument" in the glossary takes precedence now and gives your argument credence, but as I've tried to suggest, that circumstance is a johnny come lately that probably is a mistake and we're suffering inadvertant turn signals flashing because of it. Many of the guys I've been racing with did away with their stalks 10-15 years ago because of the quoted rule and we all accepted it. Only since formation of the ITAC (as far as I know) has the insistance on retaining the stalks occurred. And that comes from Midwest and West Coast guys and now a few relative newbies to me from the North and Southeast. That's all. I'm not trying to insult anyone here, I'm just trying to put forth my ideas on a current rules situation. To tell you the truth, I still have my stalks on the car, simply because I had read that many people thought it was illegal to remove them and I didn't think it was worth the hassle.

I'll just add again that I see no reason for keeping the stalks or the driver's side glass, and I'm one who will suffer most from rules creep as I already have.

G. Robert

Joe Harlan
02-12-2005, 02:33 AM
<font face=\"Verdana, Arial\" size=\"2\">I still have my stalks on the car, simply because I had read that many people thought it was illegal to remove them and I didn't think it was worth the hassle.</font>

Haha I love it come here and bust balls and then admit you don't even believe enough in your own reading? And BTW I maintain a lot of IT cars and they all have their ignition switches in place and so does the competition. It must be a west coast thing...lmao

Ron Earp
02-12-2005, 09:01 AM
Just a casual walk around the pits at a SE regional event shows a fair number of cars with no stalks and no stock ignition switch. Make it right? I don't know, just know both of my own cars are the same way (no, I didn't count those in to make a fair number).

Emperical data collected and sampled from the source, i.e. the running field, might be different from area to area I imagine. It seems that is what some of your are suggesting in the posts above.

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

Dave Zaslow
02-12-2005, 09:22 AM
I love you people http://Forum.ImprovedTouring.com/it/smile.gif. This is sooooo amusing. Five pages of posts on what started out as someones desire to modify the present rules for future implementation. A proposal based on that persons perceptions and desires; who asked us to chime in with our opinions.

Rules, as presently written, are what we must live by until such time as they are revised, rewritten, or replaced. The IT rules, for the most part, are clear in intent and presentation. The process of requesting changes to those rules, or a wholesale rewrite of the rules, is also clear. The ITAC, whom we entrust with the oversight of the class, seems to have reasonable people with a broad outlook.

All that being said, I cannot help myself. At the top of page 4 Kirk Knestis said it all regarding turn signal stalks.

Here is the rule as written:

b. Gauges and instruments may be added, replaced, or removed. They may be installed in the original instrument(s) location using a mounting plate(s), or any other location using a secure method of attachment. Other than modifications made to mount instruments and provide for roll cage installation, the remainder of the dash "board" or panel shall remain intact.

Here are the definitions from the GCR's glossary:

Gauges - Mechanical or electronic readouts of automotive parameters.

Instrument - An indicator or readout which, when active, contains information about some aspect of car operation for driver reference.

And my car starts at the twist of its key.

Now lets debate if standard anti-theft systems should be able to be removed if all models on the spec line have them.

Yours,

Dave Z

grjones1
02-12-2005, 12:18 PM
Originally posted by Joe Harlan:
Haha I love it come here and bust balls and then admit you don't even believe enough in your own reading? And BTW I maintain a lot of IT cars and they all have their ignition switches in place and so does the competition. It must be a west coast thing...lmao

No, I believe in my own reading, Joe. I just have more to do on a race weekend than spending my time embroiled in mamby-pamby protests.

And whatever you do, don't misplace your ignition keys.
GRJ

Knestis
02-12-2005, 09:26 PM
GRJ
Exactly, K. Signal stalks are switches just like toggle fuel pump, ignition, etc. switches. And again I ask what rule are you using to install those switches. And if you are using the rule, which I beleive you must that you can add, replace or remove gauges and instruments then you must allow removal of turn signal stalks.

I'll be as clear as possible - my car starts with the stock ignition key and has all of the switches for the required parts and even for the AC, which has been legally removed.


<font face=\"Verdana, Arial\" size=\"2\">You are admitting that indeed stalks are switches and in turn are instruments and can be removed as the rule says.</font>

Again - clarity: Stalks are switches, I left both of them in; switches are switches, I left all of the stock ones in; an switches STILL aren't instruments as far as the SCCA GCR is concerned. And that's all that is germane to the issue at hand.

Now, in the interest of full disclosure, I must confess that I have switches mounted in a plastic panel for my enduro driving lights. They are illegal as hell and if anyone were to protest them, I'd have absolutely no recourse. http://Forum.ImprovedTouring.com/it/smile.gif

K

[This message has been edited by Knestis (edited February 12, 2005).]

Andy Bettencourt
02-12-2005, 11:04 PM
Let me ask you this: How many of you who disagree with my reading have installed push button starter switches or toggle switch ignition switches? Because if you have and you think that this rule doesn't mean what it says then you are illegal. Toggle switches and push buttons are not "gauges," they are switches. Nothing allows you those trappings but this statement. And you can't apply it in one instance and not the other.
GRJ

ITCS: D.1.e

"Any ignition system which utilizes the original distributor for spark timing and distribution is permitted."

I think this specifically allows push button starters and aux ignition switches as they are most certainly part of an 'ignition system'.

AB

------------------
Andy Bettencourt
New England Region, R188967
www.flatout-motorsports.com (http://www.flatout-motorsports.com)

[This message has been edited by Andy Bettencourt (edited February 12, 2005).]

Bill Miller
02-13-2005, 11:41 AM
Originally posted by Andy Bettencourt:
[quote][b]Let me ask you this: How many of you who disagree with my reading have installed push button starter switches or toggle switch ignition switches? Because if you have and you think that this rule doesn't mean what it says then you are illegal. Toggle switches and push buttons are not "gauges," they are switches. Nothing allows you those trappings but this statement. And you can't apply it in one instance and not the other.
GRJ


ITCS: D.1.e

"Any ignition system which utilizes the original distributor for spark timing and distribution is permitted."

I think this specifically allows push button starters and aux ignition switches as they are most certainly part of an 'ignition system'.

AB



Not so fast there Andy.

The GCR Glossary defines Ignition System as:

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">A system which converts on-board storage battery supply voltage into a timed sequence of high voltage pulses suitable for igniting engine combustion mixtures in a controlled manner.</font>

It goes on to define Starter(Self Starter) as:

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">An electrical device which is used to initiate normal engine operation by converting electrical energy into mechanical rotation of the engine.</font>

Trying to justify the use of a push-button starter under the ignition system rule, is strained and tortured at best.

What it is, is a switch that energizes the igntion system, and actuates the starter. Try this test. Will the car run properly w/o it? Yes, the wires can be jumped, and in fact, no starter is needed at all, as you can bump-start the car. Now, try and take components of the ignition system away and see if the car will run properly. Take away the cap, rotors, wires, coil, etc. and the car won't run right.


/edit/ fix quotes
------------------
MARRS #25 ITB Rabbit GTI (sold) | MARRS #25 HProd Rabbit
SCCA 279608

[This message has been edited by Bill Miller (edited February 13, 2005).]

grjones1
02-13-2005, 11:53 AM
[quote]
Now, in the interest of full disclosure, I must confess that I have switches mounted in a plastic panel for my enduro driving lights. They are illegal as hell and if anyone were to protest them, I'd have absolutely no recourse. http://Forum.ImprovedTouring.com/it/smile.gif

K

I deleted because I again read K's response too quickly.
But you are not the only one to add and remove switches K - but I'll bet most are doing so because they read the rule the same way I do.
G http://Forum.ImprovedTouring.com/it/smile.gif



[This message has been edited by grjones1 (edited February 13, 2005).]

grjones1
02-13-2005, 12:02 PM
Originally posted by Andy Bettencourt:

Let me ask you this: How many of you who disagree with my reading have installed push button starter switches or toggle switch ignition switches? Because if you have and you think that this rule doesn't mean what it says then you are illegal. Toggle switches and push buttons are not "gauges," they are switches. Nothing allows you those trappings but this statement. And you can't apply it in one instance and not the other.
GRJ

ITCS: D.1.e

"Any ignition system which utilizes the original distributor for spark timing and distribution is permitted."

I think this specifically allows push button starters and aux ignition switches as they are most certainly part of an 'ignition system'.

AB


Good Andy, but does this allow me to "remove" my old ignition switch?

And does this mean anytime the word "system" is used in context with a permitted modification, I can alter any component related to that system. Because if it is, you have just opened pandora's box.

GRJ



[This message has been edited by grjones1 (edited February 13, 2005).]

ShelbyRacer
02-13-2005, 12:26 PM
Originally posted by grjones1:
Good Andy, but does this allow me to "remove" my old ignition switch?

GRJ

[/B]

No, it can't be removed. It doesn't say you can take it out, so it has to stay, it just doesn't have to be used for anything. Think of it like headlights. Even though many may not use them, they gotta be there.

Now, if you can prove that the steering lock cannot be defeated without removing the cylinder, you might have a case, since "steering lock mechanisms shall be removed." Just make darn good and sure the stock wiring all stays there...

Most IT cars I've seen with push button starters and remote switches still have the key mechanism still there.

The above is my interpretation, which has changed significantly since joining this forum (I now look for more latitude than I once did).

BTW- GRJ- I see your point about the "instrumentation" thing, but it is defined in the Glossary of the GCR. While that may not be the definition that is more widely accepted, the rules were written to that definition, so that is what we must follow. As a person who just wrote a whole rulebook, I can tell you that I "defined" certain terms specifically because there was no better way to do it. I can provide examples if you'd like, along with rationale for it, but I'd rather no hijack this thread any more than it has been.

Oh BTW- where are we all going and why are we in this handbasket??

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



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

grjones1
02-13-2005, 12:52 PM
Originally posted by ShelbyRacer:
BTW-

Oh BTW- where are we all going and why are we in this handbasket??

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



I appreciate your comments, Matt; however, I'll bet again that "most" people who have added switches have removed their old switches. And I haven't researched it yet, but I earnestly believe that the ITCS rule in question as written precedes the glossary definition. (i.e., the ITCS rule was written first. and I know the glossary takes final authority. It's just that the glossary has messed up the intent (shudder, sorry, George, "the original meaning") of the IT rule.)

And now that Andy has clarified the use of system, I know I can increase the size of my exhaust valves because A"Any exhaust header and exhaust system may be used." And certainly exhaust valves are part of the "exhaust system." (I know I'm being a smart arse.)

GRJ


[This message has been edited by grjones1 (edited February 13, 2005).]

[This message has been edited by grjones1 (edited February 13, 2005).]

Joe Harlan
02-13-2005, 01:37 PM
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">It's just that the glossary has messed up the intent (shudder) of the IT rule.) </font>

And you know the intent how? Again the allowance of a electric fuel pump would allow a switch to run it. An open ignition system would allow a switch to run it. I would struggle that a push button starterwould fall under the ignition system. But no where does it say you can remove the original system. I would be careful staing that most have done these mods because I am willing to bet that's not the case.

Andy Bettencourt
02-13-2005, 01:52 PM
Good point-counter point on the ignition system.

But my question is simple...if you can remove any 'instrument' by your definition, then you are saying it's legal to gut the whole dash of all of its switches?

I just don't live in the grey like that.

And just because you have to remove something to facilitate an install, doesn't mean you don't have to put it back when you are done if it fits back together.

This is why our cars have ALL the switches they came with...not even a whiff of illegality. It isn't worth it.

AB

------------------
Andy Bettencourt
New England Region, R188967

www.flatout-motorsports.com (http://www.flatout-motorsports.com)

grjones1
02-13-2005, 02:08 PM
Originally posted by Andy Bettencourt:
Good point-counter point on the ignition system.

But my question is simple...if you can remove any 'instrument' by your definition, then you are saying it's legal to gut the whole dash of all of its switches?

IAB


As a matter of fact, Andy, I do think the rules as written, allow the "gutting" of the dash board. Mainly because installation of an underdash horizontal bar often requires it. And the idea of adding switches that replace old switches and retaining the old switches flies in the face of "common sense" which as I have said evidently has unfortunately no place in the formulation of these rules.

As Scott said way back there, passenger door glass and turn signal stalks serve no purpose, get rid of them.

Respectfully,
GRJ

Joe Harlan
02-13-2005, 02:22 PM
Originally posted by grjones1:

As a matter of fact, Andy, I do think the rules as written, allow the "gutting" of the dash board. Mainly because installation of an underdash horizontal bar often requires it.

Respectfully,
GRJ



I gotta tell ya as a guy that builds cages for a living this is BS 100% This is an effort to stretch the rules well beyond breaking. Not a big deal cause you have already stated that you don't believe in your reading enough to do these mods. PS an exhaust valve is fully covered in the engine section of the rulebook and would never be considered a part of the exhaust system.

grjones1
02-13-2005, 02:25 PM
I would be careful staing that most have done these mods because I am willing to bet that's not the case.[/B][/QUOTE]

Joe, that may be true on the West Coast. I don't believe it is in the Mid-Atlantic area. Again, I may be wrong, but many of my competitors agree. And no one wishing to remain in the good opinion of his counterparts would protest the replacement or removal of switches.

And tell me Joe. Have you ever put a cage in a Fiesta? Because if you have the forward horizontal must be placed where all of the old controls were placed or it would be so low as to smack the shins of the driver at every bounce. I respect your 25 years of experience, but again there are circumstances you and I both do not always fully comprehend.

GRJ



[This message has been edited by grjones1 (edited February 13, 2005).]

grjones1
02-13-2005, 02:33 PM
PS an exhaust valve is fully covered in the engine section of the rulebook and would never be considered a part of the exhaust system.

[/B]
Nor as pretty much commented on would a push switch and toggle be considered as part of an "ignition system" as put in context. Which was germane to the discussion.
GRJ

Joe Harlan
02-13-2005, 02:53 PM
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Have you ever put a cage in a Fiesta? </font>

Why yes I have and it was the first cage I ever built that got tested. Car destroyed cage in perfect shape. You would only have to remove that stuff if you wanted to. You need to have a full imagination when solving those problems but if I remember (about 8 years ago) I bent the tube for the cross bar and fed it back to the front legs allowing full use of everything. Just because the guys in your division don't have stuff doesn't mean it is legal and if your so sure it is then why do you still run the stuff. It all boils down to wanting to stay inside the rules. The rules are fairly black and white for IT and it is my desire to get along and not protest people that alllows them to creep. The system relies on me to protest to keep the rules fair for everyone. If you want to remove all of those things then send a letter which is the way to change things.

grjones1
02-13-2005, 03:15 PM
Originally posted by Joe Harlan:
I bent the tube for the cross bar and fed it back to the front legs allowing full use of everything. Just because the guys in your division don't have stuff doesn't mean it is legal and if your so sure it is then why do you still run the stuff.

Joe,
I am not an engineer (obviously) but bending a cross brace is not my understanding of how to efficiently maintain the integrity (strength) of that brace (its reason for existence). But I again respect your consideration for your interpretation of the rules. And if my guys don't "have stuff, it's because of how they interpret the rules as they have a right to do.

I explained why I retained my stalks. Sorry that bothers you.

GRJ


[This message has been edited by grjones1 (edited February 13, 2005).]

Joe Harlan
02-13-2005, 03:30 PM
interpret the rules as they have a right to do.


Wrong! Please read your GCR....Try rule number 1.2.4 to start and then you will see where your thinking is incorrect.

If the bent tube is installed correctly you loose no integrity(provided it is welded correctly) There is no rule governing the cross bar other than it must be there.

[This message has been edited by Joe Harlan (edited February 13, 2005).]

[This message has been edited by Joe Harlan (edited February 13, 2005).]

grjones1
02-13-2005, 04:28 PM
Originally posted by Joe Harlan:
Wrong! Please read your GCR....Try rule number 1.2.4 to start and then you will see where your thinking is incorrect.

There is no rule governing the cross bar other than it must be there.

).]
Joe,

Precisely. All this says is that interpretations will not be "strained or tortured," which itself is quite subjective. But your references has given another, more interesting, rule: that the ITCS has precedence over the GCR, which means that the GCR Glosary should be subordinate to the ITCS, which suggests that the ITCS use of "instrument" may not have to be subordinate to the Glossary definition." Wow! Thanks!

And I can't believe ITCS 9.C. reads as it does because the rulesmakers did not want to allow the removal of items to facilitate installation of safety items such as the dash area cross brace.
Thank you.
GRJ

Joe Harlan
02-13-2005, 05:00 PM
GRJ, as many others have come to the conclusion that you are a waste of time and bandwidth I think I will sign off here. You are looking for a loophole that's not there yet you continue to push it. Anyone willing to file a proper protest on this issue will recieve my support in doing so to get a proper answer. The definition of gauge or instrument in the GCR is the only one that counts....You can type all you like after this as I won't respond your reply cause you don't even have enough sack to do the things you say are legal.

grjones1
02-13-2005, 06:36 PM
Why Joe, because I won't give in to tunnelvisioned, myopic interpretations? Believe me Joe I have "enough sack" to do anything, even put up with people who refuse to seriously consider other people's opinions and who continue to ignore facts.

GRJ



[This message has been edited by grjones1 (edited February 13, 2005).]

Greg Amy
02-13-2005, 10:08 PM
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">...I have "enough sack" to...put up with people who refuse to seriously consider other people's opinions and who continue to ignore facts.</font>

Wow! Did anyone else besides me hear "The Twilight Zone" jingle while reading that...?

Joe Harlan
02-13-2005, 10:21 PM
http://Forum.ImprovedTouring.com/it/smile.gif http://Forum.ImprovedTouring.com/it/smile.gif

ddewhurst
02-13-2005, 11:19 PM
***There is no rule governing the cross bar other than it MUST be there.***

Joe, ya need to be careful when talking about rules. I'm always lurking. http://Forum.ImprovedTouring.com/it/wink.gif

GCR, Showroom stock:

"One(1)bar is RECOMENED in a horizontal plane between forward cage braces in the dash area."

Joe, recomended, recomended, recomended, ya know as in ya MAY if ya want & not ya SHALL because the rule says so.

I agree with the corn shock, it needs to stay in place.

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

Joe Harlan
02-13-2005, 11:33 PM
Ok Dave, I stepped on my johnson....Recommended is correct but if your gonna have me build a cage it is required or I won't take the job. This is also true for nascar style doorbars and fuelcells. Funny cause touring requied the bar.

lateapex911
02-14-2005, 12:04 AM
Originally posted by GregAmy:
Wow! Did anyone else besides me hear "The Twilight Zone" jingle while reading that...?



Actually, my old friend Greg, I didn't...but what I DID hear was the sound of fingers on the chalk board, the popping of strings on a guitar, the sound of an anvil dropped on a grand piano, and the sound of the rulebook being tossed in a tree shredder, because evidently the glossary means very little to some who feel they know better.....



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

gsbaker
02-14-2005, 08:40 AM
Originally posted by Geo:
...It's up to the rules writers to write the rule as they mean it to be....

As my drafting professor once said, "If a drawing can be interpreted more than one way, it is wrong."

------------------
Gregg Baker, P.E.
Isaac, LLC
http://www.isaacdirect.com

grjones1
02-14-2005, 10:06 AM
because evidently the glossary means very little to some who feel they know better.....
[/B]

No, Jake, it's only that by the GCR's own words the Specifications take precedence over the Glossary (part of the GCR). (Unless the item is not addressed by the Specification...") And in this case the item is addressed because the writer said "Gauges and instruments", meaning that "instruments" carries a meaning beyond "gauges" that the Glossary fails to recognize.
GRJ


[This message has been edited by grjones1 (edited February 14, 2005).]

[This message has been edited by grjones1 (edited February 14, 2005).]

grjones1
02-14-2005, 10:19 AM
[/B][/QUOTE]
Amy,
You are making it apparent that The Twilight Zone is where you spend most of your time.
GRJ


[This message has been edited by grjones1 (edited February 14, 2005).]

Fastfred92
02-14-2005, 12:39 PM
*** WOW ***
Do you guys actually protest things like turn signal stalks when you get beat ???

planet6racing
02-14-2005, 01:28 PM
Fred:

This is all part of the IT.com silly season. Everyone has all this extra energy that should be put into the cars to make them better (or into getting into shape), but the arguments here take less energy and give you something to do at work.

Every year it is a new topic. 3 years ago it was wiper fluid containers, 2 years ago it was the ECU, last year it was the HVAC, this year it is the turn signal stalks.

I think next year should be the vent on the right side of the dashboard in an MGA... http://Forum.ImprovedTouring.com/it/smile.gif

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

Racerlinn
02-14-2005, 01:35 PM
Originally posted by planet6racing:

I think next year should be the vent on the right side of the dashboard in an MGA... http://Forum.ImprovedTouring.com/it/smile.gif


How about the pros and cons of a new GCR procedure for properly attaching your quick release steering wheel before starting a race?
(sorry Bill, couldn't resist, love that video)

------------------
Steve Linn
'92 ITA Sentra SE-R
www.indyscca.org (http://www.indyscca.org)
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v366/Racerlinn/SideSER2.jpg

Joe Harlan
02-14-2005, 02:11 PM
*** WOW ***
Do you guys actually protest things like turn signal stalks when you get beat ???

I don't think anyone would use an issue like this to win a race. I can tell you I would give the competitor a chance to make the car meet the rules first. If somebody chooses to ignore the rule then a protest would be in order. It shouldn't matter if its a stalk,water bottle or a camshaft. should it?

gsbaker
02-14-2005, 02:55 PM
Originally posted by planet6racing:
...This is all part of the IT.com silly season. Everyone has all this extra energy...

Good. Send some this way.

G

gsbaker
02-14-2005, 03:00 PM
Originally posted by Racerlinn:
How about the pros and cons of a new GCR procedure for properly attaching your quick release steering wheel before starting a race? (sorry Bill, couldn't resist, love that video)

Having seen this event happen live--from outside the car, thankfully--and given Bill's experience, technical qualifications and documentation skills, I suggest the following sequence of event:

1) Bill writes the spec for properly attaching the QR steering wheel.

2) The world says, "Yes sir!"

------------------
Gregg Baker, P.E.
Isaac, LLC
http://www.isaacdirect.com

Fastfred92
02-14-2005, 03:14 PM
Originally posted by Joe Harlan:
I don't think anyone would use an issue like this to win a race. I can tell you I would give the competitor a chance to make the car meet the rules first. If somebody chooses to ignore the rule then a protest would be in order. It shouldn't matter if its a stalk,water bottle or a camshaft. should it? No I guess in the perfect world it should not matter but I see alot of discussion about things on this forum that seem, well trivial. I have been racing for 20 years and I know I have been beat by illegal cams, comp ratios, etc. etc. ( afterall I have raced showroom stock ) but I dont think I have ever been beat by turn signal stalks, washer bottles or lack of, or as in another current topic tubular gussets. Perhaps we should consider "performance enhancement" in our protest in a effort to eliminate frivolous protest???

Joe Harlan
02-14-2005, 03:28 PM
Fred we don't disagree here but since you have raced SS you have to agree that all of the things we are talking about count. Change the rules if we all want this stuff gone. Short of that then everybody should be playing by the same set.

Andy Bettencourt
02-14-2005, 03:42 PM
Originally posted by Fastfred92:
Perhaps we should consider "performance enhancement" in our protest in a effort to eliminate frivolous protest???



Excellent point...however...make sure you then define how many "washer bottle" type items you can remove becasue they will combine into an item that matters...WEIGHT. You know what I mean?

Like I posted before, you will have to specifically mention, BY NAME, what these little pieces of menutia you are allowed to remove because everyone has there own definition of frivolous.

AB

------------------
Andy Bettencourt
New England Region, R188967

www.flatout-motorsports.com (http://www.flatout-motorsports.com)

grjones1
02-14-2005, 03:48 PM
Originally posted by Joe Harlan:
Fred we don't disagree here but since you have raced SS you have to agree that all of the things we are talking about count. Change the rules if we all want this stuff gone. Short of that then everybody should be playing by the same set.

I know I'm going to get smacked for beating a putrified horse, but, Joe, the same authoritative set of rules says "Gauges and instruments may be added, replaced, or removed." What do you think that means? Please be reasonable.
GRJ

Banzai240
02-14-2005, 04:32 PM
Originally posted by grjones1:
"Gauges and instruments may be added, replaced, or removed." What do you think that means?

Does that mean I can put a Trombone in the grill?? Would make a nice airscoop... http://Forum.ImprovedTouring.com/it/tongue.gif



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