Equal Time - In Defense of "Useless Items"

[Knestis]

So we don't clutter up Ron's thread about what people want to remove, how about equal time to present the case against that kind of initiative?

Warning: Some of the following may be construed as intolerent but is put out in the interest of reasonable discourse.

In no particular order...

** The suggestion that removing stuff is "free" ignores the very real cost of time. Taking out my AC was NOT free - it cost two long evenings of hours for two guys, two pizzas, and - in this case - different belts and pulleys. While the degree of cost is much less with other items, it isn't "free" until it takes NO time at all. Leaving things ON takes NO time at all.

** The argument that we will make a lot of non-compliant cars legal by not requiring all of those useless parts is, while perhaps accurate, a dangerous precedent. It is NOT a stretch to suggest that the same language could be wrapped around illegal gearbox ratios, cams, or compression ratios. A large majority of college students believe that "everyone" plagiarizes web content for reports. Does that make it right?

** The belief that real race cars don't have those parts is perhaps the most dangerous rationale for additional allowances. "Real race cars" don't have any OE parts, cost huge pots of dough, and are expensive to run and maintain. I've had enough of them to know that I don't WANT a real race car: I want an IT car. This position gets summed up in the shorthand, "go run Production" - which is not a bad suggestion for someone for whom this is a big personal motivator, even if it does get slapped down with reactionary comments about chasing people away.

** Using the argument that IT cars are no longer dual-purpose cars is perpetuating a self-fulfilling prophecy. (Is that a mixed metaphor?) Rationalizing a purposeful decision to liberalize the rules based on the presence of de facto allowances largely the result of unintended consequences seems terribly dangerous to me.

** The most popular argument - "I just can't find one" - must fairly be translated into either (a) "I just don't want to find one," or (B) "I just can't afford to find one." I don't care WHAT you are racing: There is one of every part you could possible want out there. If you have to spend $100 to buy it and it cuts into your tire budget, that is a reality for a minority of entrants, for which the rules for an entire category should not be held hostage.

** Rationalizing the removal of parts on safey grounds has always been popular - that's where headliners and passenger seats went. Again - this can be logically applied to everything from Lexan windscreens (I've seen big things go THROUGH stock windshields) to bigger brakes. Any argument that can logically be applied incrementally until we "lighten and reinforce" the entire car away, to be built from scratch, should NOT be accepted as valid. (That is a reference, by the way, to the old TransAm [then GT1] rule that made it OK to make the transition to "real race car" suspension parts 25 years ago.)

** That they just have to be replaced once wrecked? Of course they do. Nobody WANTS to break anything but we all go into this deal with our eyes wide open to that possibility - I hope - and it seems fair to assume that we've considered those costs in advance.

I realize a couple of things, here. First, I am officially a old fart. I'm OK with that. Second, I'm probably pissing into the wind on this front.

Rules creep is glacial - slow and completely irresistable. It will always happen because those genies pretty much can't ever get put back in their bottles. Well meaning people make little changes, each of which makes perfect sense in isolation but the sum of them can be pretty huge - and every one has unintended consequences.

I'm more than a little worried that, by pulling a big stick out of the IT rules logjam, the hard work and successes of the ITCS will be seen as an invitation to go hog wild.

K

[This message has been edited by Knestis (edited February 21, 2005).]

[JeffYoung]

Been trying to stay away from this board and actually work on the race car, but do want to chime in here. Kirk, for argument's sake and because I appreciate your perspective as someone who was around with IT from the creation, would you say that the following is generally a true statement:

The core IT sacred cows that differentiate it from Production have not been subject to rules creep (wild cams/engines, non-stock gearboxes and stock body panels). Around those "core values," rules creep has made IT cars, slowly over time, become more and more like pure race cars.

I'm interested to hear what you think of that because for me, a latecomer to IT, it is my view of what IT "is" vis a vis Production and honestly, I like it. The really big ticket stuff -- crazy engines, special transmissions and bodywork -- stays in Production. IT racers are allowed to make their cars turn, but everything else is stock with allowances for the rigors and stress of racing.

I'm ok with that as the fundamental philosophy behind IT today, and see most of what has happened in the last few years to be well within the limits defined by that principle.

Trying to make an old fart joke here, but it just ain't working........by the way, how did Pablo, and his dad, handle the 3 hours solo?

[Knestis]

Originally posted by JeffYoung:
The core IT sacred cows that differentiate it from Production have not been subject to rules creep (wild cams/engines, non-stock gearboxes and stock body panels)...

As far as it goes, that much is true. The gearbox, engine mechanicals, and bodywork of IT cars have been consistent.


<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Around those "core values," rules creep has made IT cars, slowly over time, become more and more like pure race cars.</font>

Also true but to be fair, rules creep (which I think of as incremental changes to the written regulations) hasn't been to blame for most of the difference we see. Lower costs for higher technology parts, more availability in the marketplace, evolving expectations of prep levels, and increasingly liberal interpretations of rules all play a part.

The enduro was pretty entertaining. I'm a little sore today but it was surprisingly not a huge problem to go 3.5 hours with one 4 minute stop. I had a drink bottle (a good thing - when it's cold in VA, it's dry) and the Golf is easy to drive with power steering and a good seating position.

It sounds minor but I had a "little" problem with my belt adjustment from the roll off so I was wrestling to get things worked out the first few times I got to the front straight. After that, it was smooth sailing...

...with the exception of more than a few REALLY awful drivers in high-horsepower cars. There was also a Porsche GT3 entered that turned - no shit - a 2:00 lap during the race. Got to see him a few times.

K

[Catch22]

The core IT sacred cows that differentiate it from Production have not been subject to rules creep (wild cams/engines, non-stock gearboxes and stock body panels).

Thats what I've been trying to say.
As long as you keep these "core values" in IT, no other amount of inevitable rules creep will make it become Production or "Production Lite."
These are the big ticket items in Prod. These 3 items alone can be the difference between an otherwise identical $10000 ITC build and a $20000 G Production build, and frankly I think a pole of current IT drivers would reveal that 90% of them want to go nowhere near this stuff.

Thats where some of us newbies and "middle aged farts" (and I'm one of those) disconnect with some of you older guys. We hear "Passenger Side Door Glass" and we wonder why the hell we have to keep that on the car.
But we hear "Houseman Dog Box" and "14:1 compression" and we run from it like an oncoming plague.

Someone asked in the other thread where the line is drawn... The 4 core values (motor, tranny, bodywork,and suspension geometry, since that hasn't changed either and is another BIG difference between IT and Prod) are the answer.


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

[lateapex911]

In general, I concur with most, if not all yout points, K...

I am sensitive to the plight that owners of rare or older cars can find themselves in, but I do see the "Don't move next to an airport, then complain it's louder than you thought it would be" logic...

I think the one other item, which is not listed as a reason to back up the requests, is the possible unintended changes in potential performance from car to car, and the theoretical, or perhaps real, changes in actual performance.

My take is that the first "test" that I put a suggestion thru in my mind is..."If this were to be passed, would it affect ALL cars in the category equally?"




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

[Knestis]

I grant that a real clarity has been achieved here by defining the "Big Four" attributes of IT-ness. I confess that it actually gives me some comfort and provides perspective on the scale of the other issues that we kick around. This is helpful.

Giving full points there, I won't resort to armageddon hyperbole but riddle me this: If for the 2006 season, the IT and LProd rules were identical, except where they touched on those for areas - bodywork, suspension geometry, engine, and gearbox - do you really believe that there wouldn't be requests to the CRB for allowances in those areas for 2007?

It doesn't take 90% of the people in a category to want something, for it to get changed. It only takes one person asking the right question, of the right board members, at the right time.

A friend of mine used to say, "Once you're #@%$ed, you can't get un-#@%$ed." The $6000 gearset is a unplanned pregnancy resulting from a request of just this type which, if I understand correctly, is a relatively new addition to the Production rules. If the membership had been asked if it wanted the right to spend three months of the average worker's salary on gears, would 90% of them said, "Yeah, why not?"

K

[Catch22]

do you really believe that there wouldn't be requests to the CRB for allowances in those areas for 2007?

As far as I'm concerned, it doesn't matter if these things are *requested*.
This is where we just have to trust the CRB to do the right thing and NOT start letting IT drift towards being just more prod classes. And lets face it, if you start letting "The Big Four" be allowed in IT, then there is no reason to even HAVE both the IT and Prod classes. Might as well just eliminate IT and classify every car in Production.

So Kirk, the answer is "Let them ask for whatever they want and hopefully the CRB will have the common sense to immediately deny it."

Again, I'll say what I said in the other thread. I just dont see how allowing removal of passenger side glass and washer bottles will lead to tube framed IT cars, even IF someone requests it.
We simply must have more faith than that in the people that make our rules. They'll make mistakes, but they'd have to be sleeping at the wheel to make mistakes as big as Kirk is suggesting are possible.

As far as the IT rules mimicking the LP Prod rules, minus the "big four." Makes sense to me. The only stipulation I'd make is that those items "may" be removed instead of "must" be removed for the few remaining folks (like Kirk) who still drive their cars to the track.

[Catch22]

And just to put some perspective on "The Big Four" in terms of real monetary cost... I spent the weekend at the CMP National crewing for a buddy of mine and his GP Limited Prep '87 Honda CRX. We had lots of conversations about the cost and effort on the car since GP is something I've considered doing.

The car is a very competitive limited prep car (on the pole for the race, under the existing GP track record). The car has custom molded front fenders, modified OE rear fenders, a houseman gearbox, and a trick Sunbelt motor with a custom cam (the Big 3 for limited prep). To this point (and there's still some things he can do to it) he estimates the car has nearly $25K in it. In comparison, had he stopped short of the Big Three and just built the thing as an ITB car his investment would have been around $13K.

Thats pretty much HALF... H A L F !
And thats Limited Prep. The suspension on the car is IT legal.

Again. THATS where you draw the line.

PS - Maybe we should make it "the big 5"
We forgot DOT tires. We definately want to keep that.

[VWPartsGuy]

I'm a flip-flopper on this one. The racer in me says get rid of that junk, the old-timer in me says they should be dual-purpose race cars. The Big 4 core values are reassuring but I am just enough of an old-timer (my dad raced Hprod with his MG-TD street car and my brother and I turned a 70's era HP Sprite into an 80's era Prod car) to know that the Prod rules used to read just like the IT rules. So it behoves all of us to keep a foot on the CRB's chest and control rules creep. I wrote the Board when there was talk of turning SS into T1,2,3,4. Prod used to be showroom stock, heck SS used to be showroon stock. Who was it that said "Those who don't learn from history are doomed to repeat it."?

------------------
Thomas Benham

[evanwebb]

I am totally psyched that we are having an actual civil debate on a point of philosophy regarding the direction of the class, and discussing in a constructive way what to do (or not do.) This is great!

I think the clarification of "Big Five" is the best summary I have ever heard of what IT is about. How about we get some other letters going to the CRB? That would be such an excellent foundation upon which to base a re-write of the IT rules (gonna happen anyway...)

[Banzai240]

Originally posted by Catch22:
The suspension on the car is IT legal.



You guys need to go read the LP rules a little more carefully... the suspensions in LP are NOT IT legal in many ways... LP has it's own set of suspension rules that vary from IT in several respects...



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

[DavidM]

Being a total newb (I hope to run my first race this weekend), I think my idea of IT was that the things that make the car go, stop, and turn as well as the body would be severely restricted, but that things outside of this core group would be left open. I certainly have no desire for a high compression engine with radical headwork, free gearboxes, or any other major modifications to things that affect the speed of the car. I would, however, like the freedom to remove the water bottle, turn signal stalk, or other extraneous items if I so desire.

I think the brake system should also be added to the list of core areas. There could be some major modifications done there if not regulated.

There seem to be some people on this discussion that have been around for a while. So I was wondering if somebody could give me a history lesson on how differentials became free and how the aftermarket engine management system in the stock box rule came about. These would seem to be major modifications to a core area, which I would think would be outside the philosophy of IT.

David

[JohnRW]

Originally posted by Knestis:
...with the exception of more than a few REALLY awful drivers in high-horsepower cars. There was also a Porsche GT3 entered that turned - no shit - a 2:00 lap during the race. Got to see him a few times.

K


I would personally fund the purchase of enough gasoline to burn the entire world's supply of 'replica' Cobra race cars. This weekend at VIR did nothing to change my opinion of them...

[JeffYoung]

A good thread. Two other sacred cows maybe: DOT tires only and IF IT DOESN'T SAY YOU CAN, YOU CAN'T?

A 30 second a lap difference at VIR is in my view not safe. But that is NASA for you I guess. Of course, I saw that little Honda and that blue Acura a lot at the 13 Hour too. Glad you had a good run. You will be there in March I assume?

[Catch22]

the suspensions in LP are NOT IT legal in many ways

I know that. What I meant was that the suspension on *this particular car* is IT legal. So there is still plenty of potential Prod money to spend.
The braking system on this car is IT legal as well. Even MORE potential Prod money to spend, even in Limited Prep.

Are we up to "The Big 6" in core values now?
- Motor
- Transmission
- Body skin
- Tires
- Brakes
- Suspension

I wouldn't touch any of these things in the current IT rules. They are the buffer zone between IT and Prod and where all the extra money is spent.

Passenger door glass???
I can go take mine out right now. It'll take about 15 minutes and a monetary cost of zero.
What do I gain?
Nothing, but I lose a big piece of potentially broken glass that I'm required to NOT use in a race.

PS - An IT car was black flagged this past weekend and brought in for leaving his passenger side window UP (it was raining).
Yeah, lets keep that glass in there. We obviously need it.

[lateapex911]

David-

I haven't been around since the begining, but I will hazard a guess on the diff. I bet it was done to ease the classing issue, and make it easier to have large groups of cars able to race each other.

An example is my car...a 1st gen RX-7. Only the GSL models came with ltd slip diffs, (optionalon the GS too maybe?), but the vast amout of cars out ther were non ltd slip models. It makes sense to allow them because the pool of available cars becomes greater, and therefor, cheaper. Also, if yu allow them, that is one less "factor" you need to consider when classing cars. In other words you can pretty much forget about car A being slower than car B because it lacks a diff. So it's simpler to class. (One less "adder")

The ECU rule was a reaction to the growing concern that ECUs were being modified in large numbers, and policing them was way beyond the reasonable capability of most regions. So, it was thought to just change the rule to match the reality.

A note here, is that GRJ, in another thread recommends the exclusion of turn signal stalks based on two factors. One, it's actually an instrument and is therefor legal to remove anyway, and two, everybody he knows has done it anyway, so it might just as well be legal.

So the ECU rule stands as an example of something to consider when the bar is lowered to meet perceived "reality."

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

[JeffYoung]

Jake, what about free gearing in the rear end though? Same thing? Some models of the same car came with competitive gearing but others didn't?

This is a HUGE "free" rule in the ITCS. I agree with it, but I bet it nets people more seconds than any other in the book. I picked up 2 seconds at VIR -- TWO, that's a ton -- with a gear change.

[Knestis]

When we were writing our OWN IT rules in NW Region - two years before the "national regional" rules were published - we put in the diff and FD rules because quite a number of models that offered them as options or production variants.

I don't KNOW but I'm confident that had something to do with National's inclusion of the same thing. Remember too - many, if not most, of the very first crop of ex-SS IT cars were RWD.

K

[John Herman]

I think we are still at the Big 5, as I consider all the allowances to the suspension above and beyond a stock car, coil-overs, adjustable shocks, any sway bars, traction bars, etc.. And, as technology has advanced over the past years (or unadvanced depending if you got caught up in the remote resovoir shocks)the suspension bits and pieces have been revised in several areas. However, I am relatively happy the way the suspension rules are currently written. The Big 5 are still "stock" with a few exceptions such as engine rebuilds to "stock", final drives, race DOT tires, and racing pads.

[Banzai240]

...

[This message has been edited by Banzai240 (edited February 22, 2005).]

[Geo]

Do Hoosiers really last longer than a set of slicks or cost any less?



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

[Banzai240]

Originally posted by Geo:
Do Hoosiers really last longer than a set of slicks or cost any less?



On these heavy IT cars... I'd think YES...

Additionally, the slicks don't come in all the sizes required for IT sized tire/wheel combinations...

I can't believe we are even discussing slicks on this board or for this class...



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

[Geo]

Originally posted by Banzai240:
I can't believe we are even discussing slicks on this board or for this class...


I'm not making any sort of pitch for it. I'm just curious why some folks wanted a lot of changes and yet insisted upon DOT tires.

Honestly I can't believe half the things we're discussing.


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

[Banzai240]

Originally posted by Geo:
Honestly I can't believe half the things we're discussing.





http://Forum.ImprovedTouring.com/it/wink.gif http://Forum.ImprovedTouring.com/it/biggrin.gif


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

[Catch22]

Do Hoosiers really last longer than a set of slicks or cost any less?

The purchase price of Hoosier DOT radials as opposed to Hoosier slicks is very close.
But wear becomes an issue. From what I've seen, even the hardest compound slick doesn't last as long as the DOT tire, and there is a REALLY soft compound that is stinking fast but only good for a couple of races at best. If your competition has deep enough pockets for THAT... Well...

Its great that we're discussing these things.
GREAT!!!

[grjones1]

Originally posted by lateapex911:
David-

A note here, is that GRJ, in another thread recommends the exclusion of turn signal stalks based on two factors. ... two, everybody he knows has done it anyway, so it might just as well be legal.."


That is not what I said. I said in so many words so many times, many people racing IT read the rule the same way I do, so there must be some validity in our interpretation of the rule. If you are going to paraphrase me or quote me, do it accurately, Jake.
GRJ

[lateapex911]

And this one is hard to define, but KISS should be a constant consideration. Attracting first time races is much easier with simple, stable rules, and cars that are simple and easy to build.

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

[Russ Myers]

Personally, I think we could save even more money by outlawing "R" compound tires. DOT tread wear of 220, minimum.

Russ

[lateapex911]

You know Russ, I was thinking that that was what George was saying, but his second post threw me off.

I agree wholeheartedly. One of, if not THE single biggest buget item every year after the car is built is tires. Outlawing tires like the Hoosier, but allowing tires like the Toyos, which actually get slightly better with age, would easily cut a HUGE budget item at least in half.

That said, I am not sure if a rule could be written that would be effective. But if it could, I would support it with all my might.

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

[This message has been edited by lateapex911 (edited February 22, 2005).]

[Geo]

Don't be so shocked Jake. DOT tires have become stickier and stickier and last a race or two in some cases. I've wondered for a while just how much difference there is between DOT tires and slicks in terms of price and how long they last.

Making a rule based upon tread grade is a non-starter because the grade is different between brands.



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

[Catch22]

Great idea, except that they are both R compound tires. How do you manage that rule?
Mandate a Toyo spec tire for all of IT???
I think not. Toyo can't even reliably keep Spec Miata supplied. Not to mention that they don't even make 2 of the most popular IT sizes (225/45/13 and 225/45/15).

No, the tire rules are fine as they are. If you want to run Toyos, run them. Kumho... Fine. Falken Azenis... Have at it.
I run Hoosiers. They come in the right size for my application, they have great trackside support in my division, and I scored 7 free tires last year on contingencies.
Toyos would have actually cost me ALOT more to run. No freebies.

[SamITC85]

Life expectancy on tires all depends on how you use them and how much you want to spend. I knew IT drivers in the Northeast who would buy a new set of tires every weekend. The same goes for slicks, but you can make both last longer if you don't mind loosing some performance. I will do the same thing with slicks that I did with my DOT tires. 2 new tires on the front(FWD VW) and use them for two race weekends and then move them to the back and put 2 new ones on the front.

------------------
Sam Rolfe
TBR Motorsports
#85 ITC VW Rabbit being converted to LPHP
#85 GP Scirocco

[apr67]

How does the Street Mod tire rule in autocross work? It seems sucsessful at this point.

I'd love to see tire costs reduced, but I can't come up with any good ways to do it. A rule such as "Only one set of tires may be used all weekend" (for example) sounds good because it would keep out the super sticky Hoosier Autocross tire (can you say qualifying tire). But I often run crappy tires for enduro qualifying, since the second won't make a hill of beans difference in an hour long race.

I know lots of IT guys who swap tires around on the weekend. Using a tire that has 'just enough' for the next session.

[lateapex911]

Originally posted by SamITC85:
I knew IT drivers in the Northeast who would buy a new set of tires every weekend. The same goes for slicks, but you can make both last longer if you don't mind loosing some performance.

"If you don't mind loosing some performance"....

Well, that's just it! Depending on who you talk to, getting two weekends out of set of Hoosiers is nearly impossible, if you want to be at the tires best. Trouble is, somebody will spend the bucks to be there all the time. Result? It costs more to be competitive.

I have thought long and hard about this, and no matter how I approach it, there always seems to be a downside.

Outlaw tires below a certain treadwear rating? Well, Ok, but if I understand it, that number is pretty much meaningless, and how can we confirm the number the manufacturer provides is legit?

Limit the actual use of the tires? I wish...but we aren't F1! Just the manpower that would take from the region is daunting, not to mention all the back and forth shlepping I'd have to do.

Going with a "spec" tire for a nationwide class this large and with so many needs for sizes is just out of the question.

Other than specing a minimum duromenter reading, to be checked by HQ, I can't think of any other solution. Unfortunately, even that one has many holes, and would never work in the real world.

So, for the rest of use who don't win tire bucks, it off to work we go!


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

[grjones1]

In no particular order...

** The suggestion that removing stuff is "free" ignores the very real cost of time. Taking out my AC was NOT free - it cost two long evenings of hours for two guys, two pizzas, and - in this case - different belts and pulleys. While the degree of cost is much less with other items, it isn't "free" until it takes NO time at all. Leaving things ON takes NO time at all.

][/B]
K,
"Time" is exactly what is spent when trying to fix a component which is buried behind a mess of useless parts that remain because of a concept built on paranoia (shall we refer to it as the "Production Boogeyman"?) and then having to reinstall those useless parts. I think this may be a fundamental flaw in your proposition.

Removing useless parts and leaving them removed does nothing but save time in the long run.

Production wasn't ruined by an accretion of little well thought out rule changes and discoveries. It was made unaffordable by rulesmakers who had no concern for people with limited budgets and no interest in keeping the category within the range of average incomes or for that matter average mechanical skills.

A little thought, much the same as the reasonable rebuttals to my bumper removal idea (much as I hate to admit it), and close scrutiny of how a specific change might lead to outrageous costs is all that is needed. Not some mindless kneejerk reaction to any change, "because any change will lead to what happened to Production." If necessary and with the communications wizardry we have available to us these days, put a viable change recommendation out for participant vote and let the drivers decide if a specific change is viable. I think we would find that the guys who spend the money (the drivers)would keep things pretty conservative.

GRJ

[This message has been edited by grjones1 (edited February 24, 2005).]

[Knestis]

I'm not quite sure how we wandered off to the topic of tires but at the end of the day, Jake is right: There is NO solution to the cost issue.

We need to disabuse ourselves once and for all of the notion that rules can legislate budgets. It just won't happen and people who want to go faster will spend money to do so. Tires is one very good way to do that.

K

[This message has been edited by Knestis (edited February 24, 2005).]

[grjones1]

We need to disabuse ourselves once and for all of the notion that rules can legislate budgets. It just won't happen and people who want to go faster will spend money to do so.
K
B]

I'm not sure if I'm being ignored so I'll go away, or this last of yours was designed to answer both.

Anyway, forgive my presumption - you can legislate whether or not spending a great deal of money will make you go faster, by keeping out the expensive items (like external reservoir shocks, race cams, flowed heads, lexan windows, etc.) And correct what damage is already done with the ECU mods and changes to fuel injection.
(It still amazes me that those of us with carburetors get no modifications (of course other than a choice of three or so) and those with fuel injection cannot only play with their control module but can play with air intake mechanicals - curious.) Anyway, limiting modifications limits the amount of money one can spend and does help "legislate budgets." Yea, the rich guys will always have fresher tires and motors and pretty paint jobs, but if expensive stuff is not allowed what else can they spend their money on to go fast? I trully beleive IT can remain the most egalitarian category, and still allow minor advantageous changes.

GRJ

[Banzai240]

Originally posted by grjones1:

(It still amazes me that those of us with carburetors get no modifications (of course other than a choice of three or so) and those with fuel injection cannot only play with their control module but can play with air intake mechanicals - curious.) GRJ

You are going to have to explain this one further... exactly what "air intake mechanicals" can 'we' FI guys "play with"???

Last time I checked, we are required to retain the entire factory system, and are only allowed to do ECU mods and Fuel-Pressure regs... Air intakes must remain stock up to the "air metering device", which is pretty much analogous to the carb guys getting to use any air cleaner assembly...


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

[This message has been edited by Banzai240 (edited February 24, 2005).]

[grjones1]

Originally posted by Banzai240:
You are going to have to explain this one further... exactly what "air intake mechanicals" can 'we' FI guys "play with"???

Last time I checked, we are required to retain the entire factory system, and are only allowed to do ECU mods and Fuel-Pressure regs... Air intakes must remain stock up to the "air metering device", which is pretty much analogous to the carb guys getting to use any air cleaner assembly...


I believe the "air metering device" is what I was refering to, but your point is well taken. And of course we can vary mixture by changing jets, problem of course is we cant't carry a technician around under the hood to vary mixtures as conditions (e.g.,barometric pressure) change as do your metering devices (sensors)do or adjust the timing of mixture and flow events. But that's OK, can't bemoan progress.

GRJ

[Knestis]

I've sure seen a lot of stock car and drag racers changing jets at the track, having read their plugs (a la Jack Roush in half of the pics we see of him) and consulted their portable weather instruments (temp, relative humidity, and atmospheric pressure).

K

[grjones1]

Originally posted by Knestis:
I've sure seen a lot of stock car and drag racers changing jets at the track, having read their plugs (a la Jack Roush in half of the pics we see of him) and consulted their portable weather instruments (temp, relative humidity, and atmospheric pressure).

K
K,
I haven't seen too many NASCAR or IHRA racers changing jets in the middle of a race, Nor have you!?

BTW, congrats on your enduro. I'm impressed with that 2:31.

GRJ



[This message has been edited by grjones1 (edited February 24, 2005).]

[planet6racing]

Oh goodness. Do we have to have this 3 year old argument again?

What happened to IT racing being fun?

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

[grjones1]

Originally posted by planet6racing:
Oh goodness. Do we have to have this 3 year old argument again?

What happened to IT racing being fun?


Nor do I wish to continue the old argument, Bill, keep your FI and play with your ECU, just let me take out my passenger door glass and remove old "instruments".
Thanks,
GRJ



[This message has been edited by grjones1 (edited February 24, 2005).]

[dickita15]

Originally posted by Knestis:
We need to disabuse ourselves once and for all of the notion that rules can legislate budgets. It just won't happen and people who want to go faster will spend money to do so. K


Kirk
If we take that attitude as gospel our costs will grow even faster. rules can help keep costs from growing faster and can reduce the return big spenders get for thier buck.
dick

p.s. Mr Jones. You are doing a good job. your debating skills are better when you are not angry.

[Knestis]

Thanks, GRJ. We actually turned a high 2:30 in practice Saturday morning but couldn't duplicate it after we took the muffler off.

I was talking specifically about tires, Dick. I've raced in open, sponsored, and spec tire series and at the end of the day, we are pretty much as fast as our tire budget is big - relatively speaking.

Where other aspects of preparation are concerned, while you ARE correct that it is possible to decrease the time gained for a given outlay of dough by limiting key technologies, only the degree of gain changes - not the effect of spending.

K

[grjones1]

We actually turned a high 2:30 in practice Saturday morning but couldn't duplicate it after we took the muffler off.

K[/B]
Amazing what a little back pressure will do.

http://ITForum.ImprovedTouring.com/smile.gifGRJ